Demonstrating the Need to Adhere to Free, Prior and Informed Consent

The post by Patricia Covarrubia on the recent Chilean Supreme Court decision points out the importance of consultation with indigenous peoples about activities on their land. Another blog post has discussed the difference between obtaining free, prior and informed consent and simply engaging in consultation, which in contrast to the need for consent carries no binding obligation.

The requirement of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is a key part of several articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including:
Article 10, regarding removal and relocation of indigenous peoples—where “no relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples”

Article 11, concerning redress for the taking of “cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property that was taken without free, prior and informed consent"

Article 19, where it is linked to state requirements to consult AND to obtain free, prior and informed consent before adopting or implementing legislative and administrative measures that affect indigenous peoples

Article 28, in discussing the need for redress for lands taken without the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples

Article 29, in relation to obtaining permission to store or dispose of hazardous materials on indigenous lands; and

Article 32, in relation to the extraction or development of natural resources


The protections of Article 32 and its requirements are particularly applicable to the campaign that the Indigenous Environmental Network has started in partnership with the Athabasca Chipeweyan First Nation. According to this news story, the campaign was launched on May 18 in London. The news story indicates that the campaign is aimed at raising awareness of the harm caused by tar sands extraction and protest plans by Shell to drill in the Arctic this summer.

The news story also refers to a report released by the Indigenous Environmental Network and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation that “profiles Indigenous communities impacted by Shell’s operations in Canada’s Alberta Tar Sands, Aamjiwnaang First Nation’s territory in Ontario, Alaska’s Arctic Ocean and Africa’s Niger Delta.” The report can be found at this link. The campaign and report highlight the importance of adhering to the requirements of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples for their free, prior and informed consent.

The recent release of the “First Peoples Worldwide Guidebook on Standard Setting for Indigenous Peoples" noted by the Native News Work is significant in the insistence of adhering to the provisions of the Declaration, in particular that of free, prior and informed consent. The same story comments that some companies have made efforts to adhere to the Declaration: “... four of the ten largest companies in the world–Exxon Mobile, BP, Conoco Philips, and Suncor–have all announced policies that recognize the Declaration.”

Certainly this is welcomed news and an impressive achievement, but the campaign that has been launched last Friday points out that there is much more to be done so that other companies make a definite positive commitment to the Declaration and its principles, including that of free, prior and informed consent.

Tar Sands Update: Vote in US House of Representatives and Widespread Opposition

Tar Sands Update: Vote in US House of Representatives and Widespread Opposition

Despite the overwhelming response to the online petition against new activity in the US House of Representatives and Senate to back-door permissions for the Keystone XL Pipeline to proceed, the House of Representatives has voted in favour of the pipeline.

Now this is not so straightforward as it seems, as the permission for the pipeline to go forward was grafted onto unrelated pending legislation. The Senate has not given clear signals on whether it will even vote on the measure that would give approval to the pipeline.

It is not only the indigenous community that is in vocal opposition to the approval of the pipeline. Surprisingly, even members of the Tea Party in Texas oppose the pipeline,. In Texas, the Tea Party opposition is in relation to land that would be taken under government powers of eminent domain for the pipeline to be built and concerns for health safety if the pipeline is built as planned.


In Wichita, Kansas, a group called Occupy Koch Town protested against the pipeline, signalling out Koch Industries as being supportive of the pipeline, something that is denied by Koch Industries.

It is clear that there is widespread opposition to the pipeline from a variety of groups that might not always see eye to eye on any other issue. The health and environmental concerns from the pipeline are well documented yet somehow ignored or denied by those who argue to press ahead with the pipeline.