Now that the company has decided that it would like to go ahead, more detailed information is available as a basis for discussions between a company and any communities that may be affected. Key issues include:

Companies who are committed to securing FPIC must consult with and secure consent from affected communities about the design, expected impacts, and mitigation/compensation plans before submitting a project design for governmental approval.

  • Early project design ideas, for consultation and input with communities to advise on areas of environmental, social, or cultural importance. Resources should be allocated to build community capacity to consider these ideas, where needed.
  • How the formal Environmental, Social, and Health Impact Assessment (ESHIA) will be conducted, including how the community may contribute, engage, or be consulted 
  • The anticipated permitting process, including updates as it progresses
  • As the ESHIA is conducted, what impacts are likely, what mitigation measures could be possible, and what are community preferences or priorities in mitigation?
  • If impacts cannot be mitigated, is the community still willing to consider the project? What compensation is appropriate for these impacts? 
  • What shared benefits (potentially contingent on the mineral/oil price) should be included in a formal consent agreement? 
  • How will agreements be managed?
  • How will compensation and benefits be financed and delivered? Monitoring and governance are important to factor in. 
  • What are the ongoing points of information sharing and decision-making, and how will that take place? How will the company report on new discoveries and initiate further consent processes related to prospective changes to project plans?
  • Discussion about grievance mechanisms, how they can be accessed; and whether any adjustments are needed to ensure equitable and inclusive access.
  • How will potential changes to the project – e.g., expansion, new/joint operating partners, or early closure – be consulted and decided upon? How might these changes affect existing agreements for compensation or benefit sharing?

Governments that do not recognize Indigenous land rights or who do not require FPIC might award a permit without the consent of a community. Where there is no national recognition of Indigenous rights, international law and internationally recognized Indigenous rights should be the guiding principles. A company committed to FPIC will still seek formal consent from affected Indigenous communities prior to commencing construction or operations.

In the pre-permitting phase, communities need to receive key information from the company in order to be able to provide information about community values and priorities and to inform project design. This information exchange is critical to building trust between company and community and to inform the community’s decision-making about whether to give consent for the project to move forward.

At this stage, the company has confirmed that there is an asset likely worthy of development and is beginning to consider potential project designs (e.g., where to locate a mill, water access points, etc.). Most governments will require an environmental, social, and health impact assessment (ESHIA) in which the company describes any anticipated impacts and how they will be mitigated or compensated. Communities should have significant input into these assessments and should participate in these decisions, before an ESHIA is submitted for government approval.

It is worth noting that company staff are often under pressure from investors or corporate headquarters to secure a permit quickly. However, conflict at sites that do not have community support can be very costly, and communities have the right to insist on careful, informed deliberation at this stage to ensure the development of a fair and durable agreement within a positive relationship.

Communities need to know:

  • What is known about the asset (deposit) and any key design considerations (to help the community target feedback about critical lands, cultural sites, or other resources to preserve)?
  • When will more be known, and how will the company share that information?
  • As design options are explored, what might be the potential impacts (positive and negative) and what are the tradeoffs across options? What are the options for mitigating potential impacts? For impacts that can’t be mitigated, what kind of compensation will be provided and when?
  • What are the company’s legal consultation and permitting requirements and what will that process entail (including timeline for information gathering, submissions, etc.)?

It may be helpful for the community and company to agree on key elements of engagement on these questions, including:

  • What issues or processes does the community want to be informed about and/or weigh in on? 
  • How will the company ensure that specialized, technical information is provided in an accessible and digestible manner (e.g., in relevant languages, easy-to-access format, and/or for community members who may not have legal or engineering backgrounds)? Is external expertise needed? How are experts or consultants to be selected, and paid for?
  • Are there existing forums or mechanisms – or would it be helpful to establish new forums/mechanisms – where information can regularly be exchanged?
  • Once information is received from the company, what processes need to take place within the community to support inclusive deliberation and decision making? Are there others who need to be consulted?
  • How can the company help to facilitate community decision-making in a way that helps to eliminate barriers (e.g., by providing logistical or resource support such as transportation, childcare, etc.) while providing sufficient time and space for community deliberations?

In addition to having a clear process and protocol for sharing information, it is important to build in time to digest information in order to identify important questions, seek advice where needed, and support eventual decision-making.

In addition to having a clear process and protocol for sharing information, it is important to build in time to digest information in order to identify important questions, seek advice where needed, and support eventual decision-making.

Additionally, internal (within the community) information sharing is important during this phase to fully determine how all parts of the community will be impacted by any decisions, and to ensure that those most affected by any impacts are satisfied with mitigation or compensation measures.

At the conclusion of this phase, the community will be asked for its consent on a final agreement or set of agreements that permit the project to move forward under certain conditions (impact mitigation, compensation, and benefit sharing). Please also see Agreements.

Company staff are often under pressure to expedite the permitting process, but if speed comes at the cost of community FPIC, the project could face resistance, costly protests, time/resource-intensive grievances, and both local and global reputational damage.

Companies have their own check-lists for all the engineering tasks and governmental approval processes that take place in this phase, and yet they often fail to include timely community engagement in these plans. While being candid about levels of certainty, it is also important to give communities the necessary time and opportunity to engage and weigh in on some of the most basic elements of operational design. Early and inclusive consultation about core site components can help inform a design that avoids significant social, cultural, or environmental impacts.

In addition to being a key procedural requirement, a good Environmental, Social, and Health Impact Assessment is critical for securing and maintaining FPIC. Among other things, this should include

  • Sex-disaggregated baseline data and gender impact analysis
  • Assessment of possible human rights impacts
  • Vulnerable persons or groups
  • Assessment of possible social impacts associated with the likely influx of people and resources and activities in communities, including violence and conflict at home as traditional roles of women and men shift in response to economic opportunities
  • Assessment of potential impacts to culture and cultural heritage

It is important to note that communities’ baseline knowledge around highly technical processes and tools common to industry, such as ESHIA, is often limited. In addition to ensuring that there is ample time for communities to build their understanding of these types of tools, financial and logistical resources may be needed to support communities in accessing anthropological, ecological, and legal advice, as well as other types of technical support.

One often overlooked but critical part of capacity building may simply be helping communities to know their rights and how to exercise them, understand how to utilize grievance mechanisms, and become familiar with other access to remedy – such as governmental mechanisms.

One often overlooked but critical part of capacity building may simply be helping communities to know their rights and how to exercise them, understand how to utilize grievance mechanisms, and become familiar with other access to remedy – such as governmental mechanisms. Companies may be reluctant to lead in such capacity building, as this is outside of core expertise; third parties can be hired to facilitate these trainings.

Companies should also be aware of their own knowledge gaps and should take the time needed to understand community culture, worldview, traditions, decision making processes, and more.

In this phase, ways that companies can build a relationship of mutual confidence are:

  • Regular and predictable information sharing, including information about uncertainties/possibilities (and confidence levels) and processes which may not involve the community
  • Make space in their own processes to involve communities (e.g., through Indigenous-led impact assessments)
  • Discuss and agree with communities as to the best formats/forums for sharing and receiving information, as well as for dialogue/Q&A, and formal decision-making
  • Inquire as to how the company can constructively facilitate – without applying pressure -the community in deliberations and decisions (e.g., providing transportation to meetings, offsetting lost hours by providing meals, ensuring women can participate by providing childcare, etc.)
  • Share timelines for when more will be known and commit to sharing updates
  • Agree on how and when that information can be shared, how and when the community can be involved in discussion and input, and how a final decision will be made.
  • Help to troubleshoot challenges (e.g., if a community needs expert advice in order to understand information or reach a decision, potentially making resources available for them to hire an expert)

Getting clear through the principles of FPIC – Free, Prior and Informed Consent – has helped many Indigenous communities get deeper into conversation, awareness, and decision making around development within their Territories and is essential in understanding the possible impacts and benefits of development. It is a step in the right direction in understanding and honoring the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and a movement toward certainty.

— Cindy M. Charleyboy, Tsilhqot’in and Secwepemc peoples of North America; Project Coordinator, First Nations Women Advocating Responsible Mining

Pre-Permitting Resources

Agreements

By setting out the respective roles and responsibilities of companies and communities, agreements are a central part of FPIC implementation. Agreements can set out a mutually agreed basis for realistic...

Agreements and Community Outcomes

What constitutes a “good” agreement for Indigenous peoples dealing with extractive industries? Why are some agreements so much better than others? And how can outcomes be improved for Indigenous peoples...

Inclusivity and Gender in FPIC

Inclusivity can positively impact all elements of an extractive project – reinforcing a respectful and equitable work environment, supporting the ability of all community members to communicate their concerns and...

Why Agreements Matter

This document contains a “How to guide” outlining key elements of agreements, good practices for inclusive engagement in agreement-making, and practical guidance for planning for successful implementation and monitoring.

Negotiations in the Indigenous World

Dr. Ciaran O’Faircheallaigh’s research reviews agreement outcomes based on analysis of 45 negotiations between Aboriginal peoples and mining companies across Australia. It also includes detailed case studies of four negotiations...

Community Protocols

Community protocols articulate the decision-making processes of an indigenous community clarify the protocol for how a company or government should approach a request for consent. Natural Justice worked with regional...

Pre-Permitting Resources

Agreements

By setting out the respective roles and responsibilities of companies and communities, agreements are a central part of FPIC implementation. Agreements can set out a mutually agreed basis for realistic expectations, and processes for communication and project modifications.

Because large projects change over time, and are complex in scope, several agreements may be appropriate over time. For example, in the pre-feasibility phase of a project, impacts and profitability will be unknown, so a short-term land access and communication protocol would make sense. Detailed plans for closure may not be concluded until a project is mature. When a project affects several communities, multiple agreements may be required. And parties may prefer to have “layered agreements” so that some elements (e.g., communications processes) can be adjusted easily without renegotiating other parts of the agreement. Every project and every community is unique; at the same time, good agreements should cover the following considerations:

Agreements between companies and communities should set out implementation and management plans, timelines, contingencies/ accountability mechanisms for addressing unmet obligations, and protocols for managing conflicts and grievances.

  1. Communications and Decision Making Processes. Companies and communities will be able to interact more effectively when both identify and understand their respective decision-making processes, authorities, and governance structures. It is important for all parties to have details such as the process, frequency, or triggers for ongoing information sharing; decision making protocols, roles, and timelines – including any election or review of representation; the process for flagging, discussing, and addressing conflicts; the potential milestones or issues for which FPIC will be sought; and the process and frequency for re-evaluating and/or revising any of these protocols. Separating the agreement on relationship management from discussions about impacts and benefits provides a stable framework for addressing unforeseen circumstances, project modifications, shifts within company, shifts in the community, or context.
  2. Impacts & Compensation. Communities and companies should reach a shared understanding of the environmental, social, and cultural impacts of a project and how impacts will be managed. This part of the agreement should be informed by baseline environmental, cultural, and social assessments, as well as the formal ESHIA. It should account for changes in community access to lands and other natural resources over the course of the project. It should also describe how impacts will monitored and re-assessed over time to account for cumulative impacts and evolving social and cultural realities, values, and capacities. This is also where company commitments to the community can be recorded in terms of how the company will avoid, mitigate, monitor, manage, and compensate for those impacts. The process for assigning value and distributing compensation for impacts should be discussed (e.g., the value of grassland to a company is different than to a pastoralist; and value is not always monetary for communities). From the standpoint of accountability and flexibility, it is important that agreements specify what happens if companies do not meet these commitments.
  3. Shared Benefits. Community benefits are different from impact compensation, and it can be useful to distinguish between company compensation for negative impacts, and agreed benefits the company will deliver to the community. When the level of benefits may be contingent on commercial factors like commodity price, this can be included in the agreement. These discussions offer an opportunity for the company and community to develop a common vision and realistic expectations for impacts, future development, and benefits. Agreements may also look at the role of “trust funds” and how they can be governed to reflect diverse needs within the community and to avoid political manipulation.

The process for developing agreements is just as important as finalizing them. Ensuring that communities have sufficient time and resources (including possible external counsel) to fully consider and deliberate about conditions within a prospective agreement is essential to securing free, prior, and informed consent.

Agreements between companies and communities should set out implementation and management plans, timelines, contingencies/accountability mechanisms for addressing unmet obligations, and protocols for managing conflicts and grievances. Allocation of adequate company resources is important for implementation success. In addition to operational and capital budgets that correspond to mitigation, compensation, and community benefits, it can also be important to allocate resources for legal counsel, independent monitors or advisors, or funding/capacity for community members to play identified roles.

The process for developing agreements is just as important as finalizing them. Ensuring that communities have sufficient time and resources (including possible external counsel) to fully consider and deliberate about conditions within a prospective agreement is essential to securing free, prior, and informed consent. Please see the Inclusivity and Gender in FPIC resource for additional guidance on the importance of thoughtful, inclusive engagement leading toward agreements. The Agreements and Community Outcomes resource also outlines several considerations for ensuring that agreements lead to positive outcomes for the community.

Further Resources:
Gender and Inclusivity
Agreements and Community Outcomes
Why Agreements Matter, 2016. Ali, S., Brereton, D., Cornish, G., Harvey, B., Kemp, D., Everingham, J. and Parmenter, J. This document contains a “How to guide” outlining key elements of agreements, good practices for inclusive engagement in agreement-making, and practical guidance for planning for successful implementation and monitoring.

Agreements and Community Outcomes

What constitutes a “good” agreement for Indigenous peoples dealing with extractive industries? Why are some agreements so much better than others? And how can outcomes be improved for Indigenous peoples in negotiated agreements?

Dr. Ciaran O’Faircheallaigh has conducted research analyzing over forty agreements between extractives companies and Aboriginal communities in Australia to identify the processes and content that most contribute to successful outcomes for communities. Additional detail on the methodology and scale can be found in the Research Methodology sidebar.

Dr. O’Faircheallaigh’s findings included the following:

  • The relative strength of agreements is not dependent on company policy, industry sector, or company size. Strong and weak agreements were found within the same company and within the same sector, and some of the strongest agreements are with medium-sized companies.
  • Some agreements can leave Indigenous peoples worse off than having no agreement. For example, while the national law recognizes the legal right of citizens to participate in an environmental legislation process, one Australian agreement prohibits the community from lodging any objections, claims, or appeals to any government authority under any kind of legislation, including environmental legislation – essentially removing their rights as citizens. 
  • A common misperception is that strengths in some areas of an agreement are likely to reflect tradeoffs in other areas. However, agreements were generally found to be strong across the board of issue sets, or weak across the board. For example, if financial benefits were minimal, environmental provisions were also likely to be poor. 
  • Legal regime is important but not definitive. For example, under Australia’s Native Title Act (NTA), which governs the majority of Australia, if an agreement is not reached within 6 months, a decision about concession award is made by a government tribunal (which nearly always approve the concession), and the community will not receive any royalty. This de facto lack of a veto, paired with the likelihood of impacts without compensation, means that communities under the NTA face tremendous pressure to sign an agreement before the 6 month timeframe expires. While some strong agreements were still reached in NTA territories, there were also many weak agreements in those areas; in contrast, there were no weak agreements in the Northern Territory, where a community veto is possible under law.
  • Community capacity matters; where strong agreements occurred despite unfavorable policy regimes, communities were able to access strong regional political networks with financial and technical resources to support negotiations, make ‘credible threats’ of direct political action, and build on regional legal strategies and precedents for strong agreements. (See graphic.)
  • The strongest agreements deliver benefits for industry – highly rated agreements, where industry focuses on good process, capacity building, investments, and complying with cultural heritage legislation, can enhance relationships with and garner support from Aboriginal peoples, reduce environmental risks, and enable compliance with cultural heritage legislation. 
  • Land councils in Australia draw from deep-seated cultural foundations that have taken thousands of years to evolve. The Kimberley Land Council has a system of cultural and economic exchange that involves all groups in the Kimberley, has been in existence for millennia, and is used in transmission of cultural artifacts and organization of regional ceremonies. Through this platform, the Land Council is able to bring together a region and support local agreement-making through strong capacity building.
Image credit: Ciaran O’Faircheallaigh.
Although communities in Western Australia and Queensland fall under the Native Title Act, which essentially eliminates the possibility of a veto, strong agreements were still possible when communities had access to political networks who could offer legal and financial resources, strategies, and precedents to support negotiations.

Research Methodology

The analysis draws from nearly fifty agreements from Australia and Canada, reports on community consultation and negotiation processes, and Dr. O’Faircheallaigh’s direct experiences in leading consultations. A numeric scale of -1 to +6 was developed for each of the following elements of agreements:

  • Cultural heritage protection;
  • Participation in environmental management;
  • Revenue sharing/royalties;
  • Aboriginal employment and training;
  • Business development opportunities;
  • Land use, land access, and recognition of land rights; and
  • Agreement implementation.

This scale is not cumulative. Agreements were ranked at the highest point of the scale on which they fall. For example, the area of environmental management was ranked as follows:

  • (-1) Provisions that limit existing rights
  • (0) No provisions
  • (1) Mining company commits to Aboriginal parties to comply with environmental legislation
  • (2) Company undertakes to consult with affected Aboriginal people
  • (3) Aboriginal parties have a right to access, and independently evaluate, information on environmental systems and issues
  • (4) Aboriginal parties may suggest ways of enhancing environmental management systems, and project operator must address their suggestions
  • (5) Joint decision-making on some or all environmental management issues
  • (6) Aboriginal parties have the capacity to act unilaterally to deal with environmental concerns or problems associated with a project

Dr. O’Faircheallaigh offers some recommendations for building more robust agreements with improved outcomes for communities. These included the following:

  • Community controlled impact assessments can help to streamline the eventual negotiation process by building a platform for internal discussions by the community or communities. This process can reveal and begin to resolve tensions within and among communities.
  • Although tensions may exist between regional and indigenous communities, strong regional networks can offer strategic capacity and access to expertise that benefits local communities. The development of robust local representative structures should also be prioritized.
  • At a broader scale, there is a need to reform the laws, structures, and institutions that undermine indigenous negotiation positions and also tend to result in weak agreements. 

Potential further resources include:

  • Negotiations in the Indigenous World, 2015. Ciaran O’Faircheallaigh. Dr. O’Faircheallaigh’s research reviews agreement outcomes based on analysis of 45 negotiations between Aboriginal peoples and mining companies across Australia. It also includes detailed case studies of four negotiations in Australia and Canada. 

Inclusivity and Gender in FPIC

Inclusivity can positively impact all elements of an extractive project – reinforcing a respectful and equitable work environment, supporting the ability of all community members to communicate their concerns and interests, and promoting a respectful relationship between company employees (or contractors) and the community.

It is important that companies proactively and accessibly engage with different groups of women and men, including young people – not just community leaders – in order to avoid issues of “elite capture,” gender disparities, or unintended impacts on unrepresented or underrepresented groups within a community.

What Considerations are Important?

Sometimes company efforts to respect and promote traditional culture in a community make it hard to advance inclusivity. However, sometimes major projects carry risks of negative impacts or marginalization of those who are already disenfranchised. If a company does not recognize internal community concerns or conflicts, they may escalate into social protest. It is particularly important to be aware of the existing elements of power reflected in how (and for whom) local land rights are recognized, how (and by whom) household finances and resources are managed or owned, and how impacts and benefits associated with industrial development may be refracted throughout the community.

Companies must realize that their very presence will have some cultural impacts. Industrial projects bring environmental, social, and economic changes, impacts, and opportunities. But unless the social context and dynamics are well understood, “opportunities” for some may actually exacerbate pre-existing inequities or vulnerabilities within communities.

Photo credit: Debbie Espinosa courtesy of Landesa

At the same time, promoting inclusion does not necessarily need to begin with an explicit conversation about why companies or governments should “change how things are done here.” Companies can encourage inclusive behaviors by modeling it in their own workplaces and processes, by recognizing all parts of the community as neighbors, and by actively seeking to engage with and generate benefits for all.

Companies and governments know they should not negatively impact human rights. Rather than aiming for an impractical target of “no impact,” companies must commit to a baseline of doing no harm, and a goal of doing good. A company committing to “do no harm” should translate this objective into its community engagement planning.

What are the Risks of Ignoring Inclusivity?

Equity can positively impact all elements of an extractive project – reinforcing a respectful and equitable work environment, supporting the ability of all community members to communicate their concerns and interests, and promoting a respectful relationship between company employees (or contractors) and the community.

Inclusion – of women, youth, and minority or marginalized groups – remains an important concern, especially in communities where they may not obviously participate in decision making.

Incorporating inclusivity considerations throughout internal and external corporate practices can be a challenge for numerous reasons. However, a failure to fully incorporate – or “mainstream” these considerations within corporate practice can bring significant risks. A failure to protect against sexual harassment and abuse – both within the company and by employees or contractors operating in the community – also compromises the safety of the community and the workforce. Similarly, any agreement that reflects disenfranchisement by women (or youth, or the elderly, or other marginalized groups within a community) is a potential vulnerability for companies. If a significant population group within a community is dissatisfied, a company will encounter challenges, protests, and other obstacles to productive operations. Such dissatisfaction is prime for visible damage to a company’s reputation.

According to Dr. Ciaran O’Faircheallaigh’s quantitative research on negotiation conditions, content, and community outcomes from 40+ company-community agreements in Australia, good outcomes for women appear to be correlated with good outcomes for the full community.

Gender

While most countries have laws that that guarantee gender equality, in practice, women are often disadvantaged. When an understanding of the ways in which women or marginalized communities are or may be impacted is included in social impact analysis, projects are in a stronger position to ensure that everyone’s human rights are reflected in FPIC processes.

“Gender” can sometimes be an easy concession in a negotiation, and projects like vegetable gardens or weaving projects can be mistaken for sufficiently addressing these considerations. The extractive sector workforce is still largely male, and corporate cultures often largely view gender or intra-community dynamics as a “social” issue within the purview of Human or Communities Relations Departments.

In addition to understanding potential dynamics related to gender or inclusivity within communities, companies can examine their own role in gender impacts and opportunities to improve practices, both in their own workforce and in community engagement and including through the development and adherence to solid policies on inclusivity and respectful behaviors. 

Unintended impacts to women’s physical and economic livelihoods due to failure to consider gender can create further vulnerabilities. However, according to Dr. Ciaran O’Faircheallaigh’s quantitative research on negotiation conditions, content, and community outcomes from 40+ company-community agreements in Australia, good outcomes for women appear to be correlated with good outcomes for the full community. Companies should therefore seek to bring a gender- and vulnerability-sensitive lens to social impact assessments, consultation practices, and agreements.

Some considerations include:

  • Differing relationships to land: while men and women may both have responsibilities around food production, men may be more likely to produce cash crops where women are responsible for subsistence farming and family nutrition. The latter may be undervalued – both by companies and by male representatives in the community – when deals are made to support community relocation. Women often must access land through patriarchal systems in which a husband is the formal land owner; she may receive little or no compensation for land sales but will still have responsibility for providing family nutrition. Use of community land for subsistence farming is common, but this is rarely factored into the award of concessions or compensation packages. Even where employment opportunities are offered as a means of compensation, low-pay positions are unlikely to offset the increased burden of food provision.
  • Women are often disproportionally affected by family disruption. 
  • Gender, racial, or other inequalities may exist across a range of areas: access to information, compensation, livelihood restoration, community decision making, and assets and finance.
  • Across all societies, an increase in gender-based violence is correlated with family stress, changes in power structures, and increased access to cash.
  • Women and marginalized communities often have less access to remedy.
  • Some well-intended efforts have unintended consequences. For instance, gender neutral language can often allow for indirect exclusion of women. Similarly, quotas or rules for quorum without requirements for meaningful participation by women or marginalized groups can preserve a status quo in which those groups are underrepresented.
  • Impacts and agency can differ from culture to culture and even site to site; companies should not see women as homogenous “victims.”
  • Gender-based traditions exist in various cultures, and there is a need to both understand the respective rights and responsibilities of the genders within a household and to take these into consideration during any change, disruption, resettlement, or other event. Specifically, it is important to understand through careful analysis whether customs actively promote inequality (or if they are simply innocuous cultural differences), and the appropriateness of brokering changes in local practices (sensitively, only where it’s truly needed, and with forethought about potential unintended consequences). Working within a pre-existing cultural context can be a tricky proposition, particularly when Western companies enter cultural spaces with differing traditions and perspectives (e.g., where the role of women is lacking or limited). Though companies and NGOs do not want to be seen as attacking regional cultures, they may wish to create opportunities for women to play new roles or lead decision-making, or to expand the potential roles that men can play. Companies can help communities to embrace inclusion over the long-term by demonstrating the benefit of gaining input from a range of perspectives, not by setting dictates for local culture.

What are good practices?

It is important that companies proactively and accessibly engage with different groups of women and men, including young people – not just community leaders, particularly in relation to:

  • Information dissemination
  • Consulting settings and mechanisms
  • Agreement-making mechanisms
  • Benefit arrangements

Some good practices for companies applying an inclusivity lens to community engagement include:

Photo credit: Debbie Espinosa, courtesy of Landesa
  • Hosting women-only, youth-only, or similar kinds of meetings for groups that may be marginalized to ensure that these voices can be heard.
  • Hosting community events in such a way as to enable participation from groups that may be marginalized (e.g., enabling women’s participation by holding meetings at times that do not compete with family responsibilities, providing child care, etc.). Community consultation meetings could also have a standing agenda item for women’s, youth, or other groups’ concerns to be raised.
  • Creating mechanisms and measures that specifically address women’s concerns, e.g. using electronic banking tools or mobile phone-based money transfer and banking services to pay women directly; and prioritizing access to essential resources, such as land for subsistence farming, water, and other household activities for which women may be primarily responsible. 
  • Establishing and socializing engagement mechanisms (as well as grievance mechanisms), and ensuring they are accessible – in a practical way – to women in a community. This can include hiring more women for community liaison teams, gender-sensitive trainings for community liaison teams, and placing community liaison offices in convenient places for women to access them.
  • Targeted informational campaigns to women, men, youth, elderly, or other minority communities to seek and affirm buy-in from all quarters.
  • Gathering sex-disaggregated data can contribute to better understanding of impacts and benefits and support better decision-making and agreements.
  • In the course of environmental, social, and health impact assessments, a land-mapping exercise with women and men, as well as a “responsibility mapping” at a household level, can be a useful tool for understanding issues associated with women’s land rights, land use, economic responsibilities and potential vulnerabilities linked to land; as well as potential considerations for gender-sensitive planning.
  • Companies should be explicit about how projects will differently impact women and men (and subgroups like youth, elderly, etc.)– and pay attention to how power structures around engagement, benefits, land rights, and financial management may influence women’s abilities to provide useful information, share concerns, and understand project effects. Women need to be both properly informed and be involved in decision-making processes. 
  • In many situations, it can be important to socialize men and others in leadership positions to the co-benefit they will receive from ensuring that other group’s needs are also met through methods like rights and responsibilities awareness and informational campaigns; for example, the family as a whole will benefit from an increase in its earning capacity.
  • While there can be challenges around creating opportunities for women, youth, and others to play new roles, there may similarly be opportunities to offset community concerns by also creating new opportunities for those currently in leadership.
  • A good company philosophy is “those who are most impacted by operations should be the ones that most benefit”. 

Why Agreements Matter

This document contains a “How to guide” outlining key elements of agreements, good practices for inclusive engagement in agreement-making, and practical guidance for planning for successful implementation and monitoring.

Negotiations in the Indigenous World

Dr. Ciaran O’Faircheallaigh’s research reviews agreement outcomes based on analysis of 45 negotiations between Aboriginal peoples and mining companies across Australia. It also includes detailed case studies of four negotiations in Australia and Canada.

Community Protocols

Community protocols articulate the decision-making processes of an indigenous community clarify the protocol for how a company or government should approach a request for consent. Natural Justice worked with regional partners to support the development of community protocols for communities in in Argentina, India, Zimbabwe and Kenya. These protocols can support communities to constructively engage with industries in a way that safeguards community rights and creates accountability for their partners.