Comments on: Moving from Consultation to Consent?

By: Sustainability Conference in Seoul | PRIZMA

Sustainability Conference in Seoul | PRIZMA — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 22:43:13 +0000

[...] In Bill’s presentation on the Performance Standards and the Equator Principles he defined the role and responsibilities of the IFC and its clients in implementing the recently revised Standards. In doing so he paid particular attention to PS 6 on Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource Management and PS 7 on Indigenous Peoples, both of which have been substantially strengthened in the recent revision. The new requirements for biodiversity offsets and Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) prompted a number of questions from the participants. (See also previous blog entries that on FPIC here and here). [...]

By: Updated IFC Performance Standards and Changes to Equator Principles | Prizma

Thu, 26 May 2011 19:37:19 +0000

[...] Performance Standards. Changes revolve around resource efficiency, greenhouse-gas, adopting ‘Free, Prior, and Informed Consent’, and broader disclosure [...]

By: IFC Performance Standards Revisions Entering Final Lap | Prizma

IFC Performance Standards Revisions Entering Final Lap | Prizma — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 23:52:58 +0000

[...] Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) for Indigenous Peoples, when applicable. (See also one of my earlier blogs about FPI-Consultation and [...]

By: Are Sustainability Reports Designed for Local Communities? | Prizma

Are Sustainability Reports Designed for Local Communities? | Prizma — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:55:47 +0000

[...] concepts such as ‘Free Prior Informed Consultation/Consent’ or FPIC (see also my previous blog here). However, the presenter also recognized that GRI reports do not provide readily accessible [...]

By: CAO Contributes to IFC Performance Standards Review | Prizma

CAO Contributes to IFC Performance Standards Review | Prizma — Tue, 18 May 2010 15:55:51 +0000

[...] is critical of IFC’s implementation of its Broad Community Support commitment (seel also an earlier blog) and describes IFC’s approach as highly restrictive and not transparent. Also, the Note highlights [...]

By: Silvio Barone

Silvio Barone — Wed, 05 May 2010 23:39:04 +0000

Dear Mehrdad, just saw this link today and remebered.
Best wishes, Silvio

http://www.wri.org/stories/2010/05/momentum-builds-gaining-consent-indigenous-peoples

By: Mehrdad Nazari

Mehrdad Nazari — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 21:52:10 +0000

Thanks for your note Deborah. The owner-investors in extractives often have a much longer term view- but granted, this may not be true shareholder trading their shares daily on TSX… Would you think that that industry concerns about, for example, competitors who could find ways to misuse a ‘veto opportunity’ to be a reasonable concern? How about a community (indigenous or otherwise) and its leadership, which could be in favor of a development but can be ‘held hostage’ (if you allow me to exaggerate) by a couple of individuals who have their own agenda which may be completely unrelated to the development and positive/negative impacts? Best, Mehrdad

By: Deborah Huisken

Deborah Huisken — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:32:59 +0000

I was struck by the sentence above “Similarly, the extractive industry is concerned about their perception of veto power embodied by the world ‘Consent’ and how this might be used (or misused) to dilute their legal titles and undermine their investments.”

Surely that is the whole point, that indigenous peoples and other concerned stakeholders have veto power over these “investments”, which in fact belong to more than just the companies wanting to profit from them. They are, in fact, part of our world-wide heritage, and must be marshaled wisely, for both their short- and long-term value. Most companies have far too much of a short-term view… (e.g. quarterly)…