NCIP defends revised rules on securing IP consent
The government’s indigenous rights body defended the revised “free and prior informed consent” (FPIC) guidelines as a step toward stronger accountability. But a human rights watchdog warned that the new rules prioritize faster approval of commercial projects over genuine consultation, undermining indigenous peoples’ (IPs) rights.
The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) said adequate consultation was conducted with stakeholders, including IP groups, a claim disputed by Amnesty International Philippines.
In a statement posted on Facebook on Wednesday, the NCIP said the new rules, approved in May, are a result of more than a decade of thorough review, consultations and dialogues with stakeholders, including NCIP field offices, indigenous communities, civil society organizations, private sector and other government bodies across the country.
The NCIP pushed for these changes “in response to studies and challenges encountered in implementing the 2012 FPIC Guidelines, with the aim of further strengthening the protection of Indigenous People’s rights under the Ipra (Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act),” said the statement signed by its chair Nancy Catamco.
Catamco said key reforms introduced by the changes were: strengthened transparency and accountability through the FPIC Transparency Server; stricter disclosure requirements for project applicants; recognition of the precautionary principle for projects that pose significant environmental and cultural risks; advanced human rights monitoring; clearer rules against conflict of interest; and continuing obligation to comply with FPIC throughout the project implementation period.
No IP input
Human rights organization Amnesty International Philippines, however, said the new “policy was developed without the input of the IP communities” and that the “consultation process was railroaded, and lacked direct, localized discussion with the communities whose ancestral domains are at stake.”
It also said IP leaders believe the guidelines hasten approvals for private commercial projects, reducing meaningful negotiation into a “merely superficial checklist.”
“The new NCIP guidelines, instead of strengthening indigenous practices, fast-tracks decision-making periods for the benefit of project proponents, disregarding the more thorough deliberation usually required by IP groups,” said Wilnor Papa, Amnesty advocacy and mobilization manager.
Papa said, “the NCIP should undertake a nationwide consultation that ensures the full participation of indigenous peoples and their support groups.”
“The process must be made public, transparent, and thorough with the aim of creating a strong FPIC policy that respects, protects and fulfills the rights of IPs,” he added.
He emphasized the need for indigenous communities to make decisions according to their own customs and traditions, particularly on issues involving the management of their territories and resources.
Under the new guidelines, IP assemblies must be convened within 10 days after being notified about the new project. They are also given only 30 days for “consensus-building” with regard to large-scale projects and a shorter timeline for smaller projects.
‘Cannot be rushed’
The revisions are an update on the implementing rules of Republic Act No. 8371, or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997, governing projects that may affect indigenous communities, including dam construction, mining and logging operations.
“The new Guidelines impose fixed day-counts on stages of the FPIC process that, by their nature, cannot be rushed. Timelines laid directly over decision-making processes that the Guidelines itself provides should follow customary law and community-specific governance,” said Amnesty.
It pointed out that the key issue was not how quickly FPIC is secured, but whether IP retain a meaningful opportunity to decide on matters affecting their lives and exercise their right to self-determination.
Independent monitoring body
Amnesty said that under the new framework, the NCIP can only investigate, monitor and recommend action against project proponents who violate the process, while enforcement remains with the regulatory agency that approved the project.
“Oversight without independent enforcement is not oversight. It is documentation,” it said.
Papa also said the FPIC should “highlight the need for a clear benefit-sharing agreements; provisions for effective redress mechanisms to prevent exploitation; and a clear guideline for the creation of an independent monitoring body to ensure accountability and prevent abuses.”
