Profits over indigenous people? Human rights advocates warn vs new FPIC process

Alyssa Arizabal/Rappler

Human rights lawyer Raymond Baguilat says the revised guidelines risk simplifying the process to facilitate business faster 'rather than ensuring that indigenous peoples’ rights are fully respected'

AT A GLANCE

• The revised FPIC guidelines by the NCIP have raised concerns among human rights advocates, who argue they threaten indigenous peoples' rights over their ancestral lands.
• Critics highlight the stricter time frames for community assemblies and the categorization of projects, which may undervalue the impacts on indigenous communities.
• Human rights lawyer Raymond Baguilat emphasizes that the guidelines should prioritize the rights of indigenous peoples rather than facilitate faster business approvals.

This is AI-generated. Read the article for full context. Report any errors.

MANILA, Philippines – The revised guidelines on the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) that indigenous peoples give to projects in their ancestral domains “raise serious concerns” and threaten their rights over land, according to human rights advocates.

The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) updated the previous 2012 guidelines last September.

Among the criticisms is the stricter time frame for community assemblies. The revised guidelines require the assembly to be completed within 10 days for large-scale projects with potential irreversible impacts and within five days for projects with more limited impacts.

This categorization of projects is another source of criticism as it appears to “undervalue” impacts on people and land. Proposed projects have been categorized based on the degree of impact they are expected to inflict on the land. The approval process varies with each category.

According to human rights lawyer Raymond Baguilat, the revised guidelines risk simplifying the process to facilitate business faster “rather than ensuring that indigenous peoples’ rights are fully respected.”

“At its core, FPIC is a safeguard of indigenous peoples’ collective rights, particularly their right to self-determination, self-governance, and ownership of their ancestral domains and resources,” said Baguilat in his statement that was read during a House hearing on Tuesday, November 10.

Baguilat is the head legal officer of the Institute of Human Rights, which has been examining laws that affect indigenous people. The institute conducted consultations that involved more than 160 indigenous cultural communities.

“Ultimately, the most important question that must be settled is whether the guidelines truly serve indigenous peoples and protect their rights, rather than make those rights subordinate to the convenience of project proponents or the demands of investment,” said Baguilat.

NCIP Chairperson Nancy Catamco expressed her gratitude to civil society and watchdogs “for their observations and recommendations” regarding the revised guidelines.

“Aminado tayo na hindi kayang bantayan ng NCIP ang lahat ng nangyayari sa ground,” Catamco said in a post. (We admit that NCIP cannot keep watch of everything that is happening on the ground.)

An old problem

Getting free, prior, informed consent from indigenous communities has long been a thorny issue in the Philippines even before the revisions. Project proponents are required to seek consent from the communities – following the FPIC guidelines – before they can explore, utilize resources, and develop areas within ancestral domains.

Over the years, community representatives and advocacy organizations have repeatedly called out alleged violations of the process and of indigenous rights. Conflicts over land have led to many human rights violations in the past.

The Philippines has consistently ranked among the top deadliest countries for environmental defenders – and these include a number of indigenous people. (READ: The long-running land struggle of the Lumad in South Cotabato)

Lian Buan, Southeast Asia researcher at Human Rights Watch, said subtribes of the Erumanen ne Menuvu in Bukidnon “have experienced their FPIC rights being bypassed or undermined.”

“In one community where there is a banana plantation, the delay in processing their CADT (certificate of ancestral domain title) has allowed the project proponent to skip the official IP process which is a common problem nationwide,” Buan told Rappler.

Having a certificate of ancestral domain title doesn’t completely shield indigenous people from development aggression.

“In another community with a CADT, several members have already been displaced by the construction of the Bukidnon airport in what can only be described as a subverted FPIC process,” Buan added.

The NCIP promotes the revised guidelines for being more clear and transparent to both communities and project proponents. – Rappler.com