Implementing free prior and informed consent: the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), the challenges of REDD+ and the case for the precautionary principle

ABSTRACT

Over 21 years after the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (September 2007 – hereafter UNDRIP) was passed, it is useful to examine the functionality and utility of a core principle it contains- the notion of Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) with respect to the twin challenges of environmental destruction and a key ‘mitigation’ policy: REDD+. While UNDRIP, and to a lesser extent, the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 169 (ILO 169) has strengthened the legal status of FPIC, its application has proved to be extremely difficult. This article argues that when considering the potential harm of environmental and REDD+ climate change policies there needs to be a greater emphasis placed on the ‘precautionary principle’ when applying FPIC. Demonstrating why precaution needs to be taken in order to ensure human rights, this article argues that increasing the prominence of the precautionary principle within FPIC can impact significantly on the protection of biodiversity as well as the way in which environmental harm, laws and regulations are understood in relation to their social and cultural impact and shape future responses to the climate change crisis.

KEYWORDS:

• UNDRIP
• FPIC
• indigenous peoples’ rights
• REDD+
• environmental harm

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Malayna Raftopoulos is an assistant professor in Latin American studies at Aalborg University. She is also an associate research fellow at the Institute of Latin American Studies, University of London; the Human Rights Consortium, University of London; and the Centro Latino Americano de Ecología Social, Uruguay. Her research interests focus on environmental politics in Latin America, climate change mitigation strategies, natural resource development and human rights. Her recent publications include the co-edited book, Provincialising Nature: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Politics of Nature in Latin America (ILAS, University of London); and the co-edited book Natural Resource Development and Human Rights in Latin America: State and Non-state Actors in the Promotion and Opposition to Extractivism Activities (HRC, University of London).

Dr Damien Short is Reader in Human Rights and Co-Director of the Human Rights Consortium, School of Advanced Study, University of London. Dr Short has published widely in the fields of indigenous peoples’ rights, genocide studies and environmental justice. His most recent books include the Routledge Handbook of Indigenous Peoples Rights (2016) and Redefining Genocide: Settler Colonialism, Social Death and Ecocide (Zed Books, 2016).

Notes

1. William D. Sunderlin and Stibniati Atmadja, ‘Is REDD+ an Idea Whose Time Has Come or Gone?’, in Realising REDD+: National Strategy and Policy Options, ed. Arild Angelsen (Bogor Barat: CIFOR, 2009), 45–57.

2. Matthew Leggett and Heather Lovell, ‘Community Perceptions of REDD+: A Case Study from Papua New Guinea’, Climate Policy 12, no. 1 (2012): 115–34.

3. Esteve Corbera, ‘Problematizing REDD+ as an Experiment in Payments for Ecosystem Services’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4 (2012): 612–9, 612.

4. Stefano Pagiola, Agustin Arcenas and Gunars Platais, ‘Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date from Latin America’, World Development 33, no. 2 (2005): 237–53; Oscar Venter et al., ‘Harnessing Carbon Payments to Protect Biodiversity’, Science 326, no. 5958 (2009): 1368.

5. David J. Kelly, ‘The Case for Social Safeguards in a Post-2012 Agreement on REDD’, Law Environment and Development Journal 6, no. 1 (2010): 63–80; Annalisa Savaresi, ‘REDD+ and Human Rights: Addressing Synergies between International Regimes’, Ecology and Society 18, no. 3 (2013): 5–13; Malayna Raftopoulos, ‘REDD+ and Human Rights: Addressing the Urgent Need for a Full Community-Based Human Rights Impact Assessment’, International Journal of Human Rights 20, no. 4 (2016): 509–30; Roberto Espinoza Llanos and Conrad Feather, The Reality of REDD+ in Peru: Between Theory and Practice (Lima: Forest Peoples Programme’, 2011), http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2011/11/reality-redd-perubetween-theory-and-practice-website-english-low.res.pdf.

6. David Brown, Frances Seymour, and Leo Peskett, ‘How Do We Achieve REDD Co-benefits and Avoid Doing Harm?’, in Moving Ahead with REDD: Issues, Options and Implications, ed. Arild Angelsen et al., (Bogor Barat: CIFOR, 2008), 107–19, 113.

7. Sophie Chao, FOREST PEOPLES: Numbers across the World (2012), http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2012/05/forest-peoples-numbers-across-world-final_0.pdf.

8. UNDG, United Nations Development Group Guidelines on Indigenous Issues (Geneva: United Nations, 2008), 1–53, 28, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/IPeoples/UNDGGuidelines.pdf.

9. Mauro Barelli, ‘Free, Prior and Informed Consent in the Aftermath of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Rights: Developments and Challenges Ahead’, International Journal of Human Rights 16, no.1 (2012): 1–24, 9.

10. Ibid., 10.

11. Thuy Thu Pham et al., ‘Adapting Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) to Local Contexts in REDD+: Lessons from Three Experiments in Vietnam’, Forests 6 (2015): 2405–23, 2407.

12. Barelli, ‘Free, Prior and Informed Consent’, 21.

13. Ibid., 11.

14. Ibid., 17.

15. Megan Davis, ‘To Bind or Not to Bind: The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Five Years On’, Australian International Law Journal (2012): 19, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUIntLawJl/2012/3.pdf.

16. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (13 September 2007) A/RES/61/295, http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.18_declaration%20rights%20indigenous%20peoples.pdf.

17. Ibid.

18. The Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), https://www.cbd.int/convention/text/default.shtml.

19. Anthony Hall, Forests and Climate Change: The Social Dimensions of REDD in Latin America (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 2013).

20. Kathleen Birrell, Lee Godden, and Maureen Tehan, ‘Climate Change and REDD+: Property as a Prism for Conceiving Indigenous Peoples’ Engagement’, Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 3, no. 2 (2012): 196–216.

21. UNFCCC, Technical Resource Series 3: Towards a Common Understanding of REDD+ under the UNFCCC (Geneva: UN-REDD Programme Secretariat, 2011), http://www.unredd.net/documents/redd-papers-and-publications-90/un-reddpublications-1191/technical-resources-series/15901-towards-a-commonunderstanding-of-redd-under-the-unfccc.html.

22. Hall, Forests and Climate Change.

23. Signe Howell, ‘Divide and Rule: Nature and Society in a Global Forest Programme’, in Anthropology and Nature, ed. Kirsten Hastrup (New York: Routledge, 2015), 147–65, 147.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid., 147.

26. Pablo Reed, ‘REDD+ and the Indigenous Question: A Case Study from Ecuador’, Forests no. 2, (2011): 525–49, 525.

27. COMEST, The Precautionary Principle (Paris: UNESCO, 2005), 1–52, 7, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001395/139578e.pdf.

28. Ibid., 14.

29. Ibid.

30. James Cameron and Julie Abouchar, ‘The Precautionary Principle: A Fundamental Principle of Law and Policy for the Protection of the Global Environment’, Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 14, no. 1 (1991): 1–27, 2.

31. Timothy O’Riordan and Andrew Jordan, ‘The Precautionary Principle in Contemporary Environmental Politics’, Environmental Values 4, no. 3 (1995): 191–212, 192.

32. Ibid.

33. UN, Convention on Biological Diversity (Geneva: United Nations, 1992), 1–30, 3, https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf.

34. UNFCCC, The United Nations Framework for Climate Change (Geneva: United Nations, 1992), 1–25, 4, https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf.

35. John, R. Owen and Deanna Kemp, ‘Free Prior and Informed Consent’, Social Complexity and the Mining Industry: Establishing a Knowledge Base’, Resources Policy 41 (2014): 91–100; Kathryn Thomlinson, ‘Indigenous Rights and Extractive Resource Projects: Negotiations over the Policy and Implementation of FPIC’, The International Journal of Human Rights (2017), doi:10.1080/13642987.2017.1314648.

36. Patrick Anderson, Free, Prior, and Informed Consent in REDD+: Principles and Approaches for Policy and Project Development (Bangkok: RECOFTC and GIZ, 2011), 1–90, 8. http://redd.unfccc.int/uploads/2_74_redd_20130710_recoftc_free_2C_prior_2C_and_informed_consent_in_reddplus.pdf.

37. Pham et al., ‘Adapting Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)’, 2407.

38. Ibid., 2409.

39. UN-REDD, FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia Pacific Region: Lessons Learned, Challenges and Recommendations (2012), 1–39, 7, http://www.vietnamredd.org/Upload/Download/File/FINAL_FPIC_for_REDD_in_the_Asia_Pacific_region_-_Lessons_learned,_challenges_and_recommendations_(August_2012)_5036_4324.pdf.

40. Anderson, ‘Free, Prior, and Informed Consent in REDD+’.

41. Brown, Seymour and Peskett, ‘How Do We Achieve REDD Co-benefits and Avoid Doing Harm?’, 112.

42. Andreas Schebaa and O. Sarobidy Rakotonarivo, ‘Territorialising REDD+: Conflicts Over Market-Based Forest Conservation in Lindi, Tanzania’, Land Use Policy 57 (2016): 625–37, 629.

43. Ibid.

44. Leggett and Lovell, ‘Community Perceptions of REDD+’, 125.

45. Ibid.

46. Espinoza Llanos and Feather, ‘The Reality of REDD+ in Peru’, 43.

47. No REDD in Africa Network, Nigeria: Persecution and Criminalization of Activists, http://www.no-redd-africa.org/index.php/16-redd-players/84-the-worst-redd-type-projectsinafricacontinent-grab-for-carbon-colonialism.

48. Tracey Osborne, Laurel Bellante and Nicolena von Hedemann, Indigenous Peoples and REDD+: A Critical Perspective (Cusco: IPCCA, 2014), 1–94, 34, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/38cf/f57cf41aff8700ec3d7b72dd2af39dbd4b11.pdf.

49. Osborne et al., ‘Indigenous Peoples and REDD+’, 36.

50. Ibid., 51.

51. Ibid.

52. Ibid., 53.

53. Ronnie Hall, ed., REDD: The Realities in Black and White (Amsterdam: Friends of the Earth, 2012), 1–28, 16, http://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/REDD-ingles-final-17-11.pdf.

54. Sam Airey and Torsten Krause, ‘“Georgetown Ain’t Got a Tree. We Got the Trees”—Amerindian Power & Participation in Guyana’s Low Carbon Development Strategy’, Forests 8, no. 51 (2017): 1–24, 9.

55. Samuel Nnah Ndobe and Klaus Mantzel, Deforestation, REDD and Takamanda National Park in Cameroon – A Case Study (UK: Forest Peoples Programme, 2014), 4–43, https://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/private/publication/2014/07/cameroon-final.pdf.

56. Leggett and Lovell, ‘Community Perceptions of REDD+’, 125.

57. Ibid.

58. Rodriguez-Ward and Pilar Paredes del Aguila, ‘Valuation of Environmental Services in the Managed Forests of Seven Indigenous Communities in Ucayali, Peru’, in REDD+ on the Ground: A Case Book of Subnational Initiatives across the Globe, ed. Erin O’Sills (Bogor Indonesia: CIFOR, 2014), 166–87, 181; Cut Augusta Mindry Anandi et al., ‘Ulu Masen REDD+ Initiative, Aceh, Indonesia’, in REDD+ on the Ground: A Case Book of Subnational Initiatives across the Globe, ed. Erin O’Sills (Bogor Indonesia: CIFOR, 2014), 380–400, 394.

59. Cut Augusta Mindry Anandi et al., ‘Ulu Masen REDD+ Initiative’, 394; Signe Howell, ‘No RIGHTS–No REDD’: Some Implications of a Turn Towards Co-Benefits, Forum for Development Studies, 41, no. 2 (2014), 253–72.

60. Espinoza Llanos and Feather, ‘The Reality of REDD+ in Peru’, 50–1.

61. Ibid., 53.

62. Anderson, ‘Free, Prior, and Informed Consent in REDD+’, 17.

63. Ibid.

64. Mucahid Mustafa Bayrak and Lawal Mohammed Marafa, ‘Ten Years of REDD+: A Critical Review of the Impact of REDD+ on Forest-Dependent Communities’, Sustainability 8 (2016): 2–22, 7.

65. Chris Lang, ‘Vía Campesina Declares its Opposition to REDD in the Lacandón Jungle’, 21 September 2012, https://redd-monitor.org/2012/09/21/via-campesina-declares-its-opposition-to-redd-in-the-lacandon-jungle/.

66. Leggett and Lovell, ‘Community Perceptions of REDD+’, 125.

67. Schebaa and Rakotonarivo, ‘Territorialising REDD+’, 629.

68. Pham et al., ‘Adapting Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)’, 2408.

69. Anderson, ‘Free, Prior, and Informed Consent in REDD+’, 8.

70. Ibid., 26.

71. Ibid., 8.

72. Malayna Raftopoulos and Damien Short, ‘A New Benchmark for Green Criminology: The Case for Community-Based Human Rights Impact Assessment of REDD+’, in Greening Criminology in the 21st century: Contemporary Debates and Future Directions in the Study of Environmental Harm ed. Matthew Hall et al., (London and New York: Routledge, 2017), 165–82.