Total Resources: 71
This article discusses the Community Referenda as a consultation strategy to achieve FPIC, in which each community member votes on a potential development project. The development and purpose of FPIC in International law is discussed in the context of mining projects in Latin America that have resulted in conflict. Community Referenda are seen as a democratic form of consultation in which the perspectives of stakeholders can be taken into account.
This article looks at how FPIC was developed in international law by examining Indigenous peoples’ participation internationally. Two case studies – Lubicon Cree in Northern Alberta, Canada and Mayan communities in Guatemala – are examined to show unique contextual factors related to FPIC and Indigenous peoples’ rights.
This article discusses corporate social responsibility regarding issues of accountability and differing understandings of CSR. The article then explains how background context surrounding different players can create a power dynamic that shapes how CSR documents are understood.
This article describes the limitations of state conducted Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) in the context of hydroelectric dams. The social and cultural impacts are not considered by Brazilian governments who frequently address consultation as a formality. The article advocates for greater consideration of EIA’s in decision-making processes.
This paper discusses the use of Impact Benefit Agreements (IBAs) negotiated between industry and Indigenous communities, and Environmental Assessments (EA) that are legislated by the Canadian Government. The author argues that IBAs and EA have the potential to encourage the consultation and partnership of Indigenous people in the development process, with positive impacts on the development project. The Tahltan Nation’s use of IBAs and EA in the Galore Creek Project is examined as a case study.
This paper discusses the conflicts surrounding the use of Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs) negotiated between Indigenous communities and development companies. They suggest that these agreements exist outside of the legal framework of Environmental Assessment (EA) which generates conflict with environmental regulation. They also examine the conflict that can emerge when IBAs continue to negatively impact Indigenous peoples by not distributing mining benefits equitably between parties.