Building constructive relationships with Indigenous Peoples

Building constructive relationships with Indigenous Peoples
Aim of this slide: Title slide for session on building constructive relationships with Indigenous Peoples. Notes to the presenter: This session is designed for use by community relations practitioners who are either: new to community relations practice and general social performance management; or new to concepts and approaches regarding indigenous people and its implications for business. In order to run this session effectively, you will need the following: A flipchart, flipchart paper and marker pens; Sufficient space to team participants up into small working groups; Access to electronic copies of ICMM’s Good Practice Guide: Indigenous Peoples (Second Edition); This session is designed to take approximately hours, including the exercises; Within this pack, you will find slides that are “hidden” and which are a repeat of the previous slide. Do not delete these! Due to restrictions on the length of the script in the notes section, the explanatory text sometimes has to flow over more than one slide. Hence the repeated slide/image, but the different text in the notes section. Your participants will not see these hidden slides, and you will have the benefit of the full script. Building constructive relationships with Indigenous Peoples Audience B: Detailed training for Community Relations Professionals

Aims and objectives of this session
In this session we’ll explore: Who are Indigenous Peoples? Why are Indigenous Peoples issues relevant to business? What do we need to do in practice with regards to Indigenous Peoples? Where do I find further information? Aim of this slide: To introduce the objectives and scope of this awareness raising session. Key points: The objective of this session is to provide an overview of Indigenous Peoples issues and responsibilities, as they relate to business. The following questions frame the content for this training session: Who are Indigenous Peoples? Why are Indigenous Peoples issues relevant to business? What do we need to do in practice with regards to Indigenous Peoples? Where do I find further information? Note for the presenter: The main source of guidance for the content in this session is the ICMM’s Good Practice Guide. Indigenous Peoples and Mining (2015). Specific references are provided for the sections and tools used in each slide, where relevant.

Who are Indigenous Peoples?

Who are “Indigenous Peoples”?
While the definition of “Indigenous Peoples” is not universally accepted, it is accepted that Indigenous Peoples share some of the following characteristics: Self-identification as indigenous Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies A common experience of colonialism and oppression Occupation of, or a strong link to, specific territories Distinct social, economic and political systems Language, culture and beliefs distinct from dominant sectors of society Resolved to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and distinctive identities. Aim of this slide: To share with participants the broad definition of Indigenous Peoples. The term “Indigenous Peoples” is mainly applied to those who are considered to be the descendants of pre-colonial peoples (i.e. original inhabitants) of countries that were colonised and occupied. Although no single definition can fully capture the diversity of Indigenous Peoples, the UN and other regional intergovernmental organisations have outlined various defining characteristics of IPs (see above definition, and Box 1 of the ICMM Good Practice Guide, Page 15). Some countries officially recognize and use the term Indigenous Peoples. Other related terms include “First Peoples” (e.g. in Latin American countries); “Native American” in the USA; “First Nations” in Canada; “Aboriginal peoples” in Australia. Other countries, by contrast, do not formally recognise the existence of IPs within their boarders (e.g. Malaysia, China, Botswana). In some countries (e.g. Russia), only some groups are recognized as indigenous, despite others also claiming that label. In some countries (e.g. in South Africa), where there has been a marginalisation and disadvantage of the majority, the process of transition of power and resources back to the majority is still under way – as a result, there is resistance around conferring special privileges on a minority group, when the majority are still working towards full empowerment (regardless of whether they meet the criteria laid out in the above definition of IPs). Furthermore, the notion of “indigenous” can also have negative associations (such as ‘primitive’ or ‘uneducated’) – and is not necessarily seen as a positive, empowering term. The use of the term “Indigenous Peoples” is therefore complicated and the definition of “Indigenous Peoples” is not globally accepted. To conclude though - what differentiates Indigenous Peoples from other stakeholders are those unique characteristics – relating to rights, culture and special connections to the land – that require companies to adopt a progressive and inclusive mind-set and approach. Awareness of these characteristics, and an understanding of how they may affect the way companies engage with Indigenous Peoples, is important to ensuring mutually beneficial engagement and outcomes. Reference for Good Practice Guide material used on this slide: Chapter 1, Page 15

Why are Indigenous Peoples issues
relevant to business?

Rationale for special focus and consideration
On-going marginalisation, discrimination and human rights abuses More vulnerable to negative impacts on cultural and natural resources Distinct cultural characteristics and governance systems require specific approaches The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights extends to the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Aim of this slide: To outline the rationale for the specific focus on and consideration of Indigenous Peoples. At the international level there has been a strong drive to define a body of rights that specifically address the situation of Indigenous Peoples. These rights have developed in response to the growing recognition within the international community that Indigenous Peoples have suffered protracted and ongoing marginalization, discrimination and human rights abuses – and as a result, have an element of vulnerability that warrants special consideration. In the context of mining, the following factors have relevance: Indigenous Peoples often have a special relationship to land, territories and resources on which companies want to explore and mine, and have the potential to impact on negatively (e.g. loss of land, possible displacement, impact on natural resources, etc); Indigenous Peoples often have cultural characteristics, governance structures and traditional ways of interacting and decision making that sets them apart from the non-indigenous population and which require companies to utilize forms of engagement that are sensitive to these characteristics (these traditional ways of life also stand to be impacted on by mining activities); Due to their historical marginalisation, Indigenous Peoples are likely to be more vulnerable to negative impacts from developments, particularly those that adversely impact culture and natural resources. (Notes: 1 of 2)

Rationale for special focus and consideration
On-going marginalisation, discrimination and human rights abuses More vulnerable to negative impacts on cultural and natural resources Distinct cultural characteristics and governance systems require specific approaches The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights extends to the rights of Indigenous Peoples. At the international level, the two most important instruments relating to Indigenous Peoples’ rights are the 2007 UNDRIP and ILO’s Convention No 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of 1989 (ILO Convention 169). Key rights spelt out in these instruments include the rights of Indigenous Peoples to: self-determination; lands, territories and resources; maintenance of their cultures, including their cultural heritage, and recognition of their distinct identities, customs and structures; their spiritual traditions and property; and be asked for their free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) in decisions that may affect them, and access to legal redress. The variability of protection afforded to the rights of Indigenous Peoples prompted the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples to stipulate that states have a duty to consult effectively with Indigenous Peoples, and to argue that the responsibility of business to respect human rights “extends to compliance with international standards concerning the rights of Indigenous Peoples”. This respect for the human rights of Indigenous Peoples is supported by the ICMM Sustainable Development (SD) Framework and ICMM Indigenous Peoples and Mining Position Statement - even if there is no formal recognition of these rights by a host country or if there is a divergence between a country’s international commitments and its domestic law. Reference for Good Practice Guide material used on this slide: Chapter 1, Page 10 (Notes: 2 of 2)

The business risks/benefits of an IP-sensitive approach
Corporate-level risks/benefits Site-level risks/benefits Reputation as a responsible/irresponsible company Building trust and respect and increased community support – or the opposite Alignment/non-alignment with UN Principles on Business and Human Rights Improved chances of sustained access and uninterrupted operations – or disrupted operations Management/mismanagement of issues which could pose reputational, financial and legal risks Management/ mismanagement of issues and risks at site level Withholding of consent for the project. Benefits to company-community relationships beyond just Indigenous Peoples. Aim of this slide: To articulate the business risks and benefits of an IP-sensitive (or insensitive) approach. Key points: Corporate-level benefits: At the corporate level, the benefits of an IP-sensitive approach are reputational. It is now widely accepted that companies have a responsibility to respect human rights, including the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Companies that adopt good practice in relation to interactions with Indigenous Peoples are likely to be considered as ‘responsible companies’ which in turn, has reputational benefits. Similarly, a company that fails to respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples would face huge reputational risks, both locally and internationally, with the associated threatened social licence to operate that accompanies such violations. An IP-sensitive approach will also support alignment with the UN Principles on Business and Human Rights (which extends to compliance with international standards relating to the rights of Indigenous Peoples) and with the ICMM SD Framework and ICMM Indigenous Peoples and Mining Position Statement. Although an IP-sensitive approach will have reputational benefits, it also serve an important risk management function (e.g. the ICMM’s IP Good Practice Guide, although designed to protect IPs from mining-related impacts, also protects companies from taking ill-considered decisions and actions with regards to IPs). Strained or failed relationships with Indigenous communities is very likely to result in consent for the project being withheld by the affected IPs – which in turn will force companies to: (a) withdraw from the proposed project – with associated lost revenue; or (b) decide to proceed with the project and face significant opposition and reputational damage locally, nationally and internationally. (See FPIC discussion in coming slides). (Notes: 1 of 2)

The business risks/benefits of an IP-sensitive approach
Corporate-level risks/benefits Site-level risks/benefits Reputation as a responsible/irresponsible company Building trust and respect and increased community support – or the opposite Alignment/non-alignment with UN Principles on Business and Human Rights Improved chances of sustained access and uninterrupted operations – or disrupted operations Management/mismanagement of issues which could pose reputational, financial and legal risks Management/ mismanagement of issues and risks at site level Withholding of consent for the project. Benefits to company-community relationships beyond just Indigenous Peoples. Site-level benefits: The risks and benefits at corporate level apply equally to site level. However, at site level, the benefits of adopting good practice in relation to Indigenous Peoples will be felt even more keenly in the relationship sphere. In a nutshell: approaches that build trust and respect will help to secure community support for an operation. In the absence of community support, risks to business objectives can quickly arise, regardless of when in the project life cycle one is. At exploration, community support can help ensure access to new ground; during construction and operation it can help avoid work stoppages and delayed production; and during closure it can support the establishment of effective partnerships and collaborative efforts necessary for sustainable mine closure. Lack of community support can also hinder the legal permitting processes – whether it is legal access to exploration or mining rights, including environmental authorisations, or whether it concerns opposition or delays to an operation’s mine closure licence. Throughout the project life-cycle - community support (or the lack of it) plays a very powerful role in the ease with which an operation is able to establish and operate. An IP-sensitive approach reflects key elements of best practice social performance management, and therefore has relational and risk management benefits beyond just Indigenous Peoples. The ICMM SD Framework, the Position Statement and the Indigenous Peoples Good Practice Guide have all been designed to manage business risk and support the development of resilient, healthy company-community relations. (Notes: 2 of 2)

What do we need to do in practice?

High level practical steps to be taken
Ensuring a sensitive approach to Indigenous Peoples’ requires the application of a number of practical steps: Engage to protect rights, minimise impacts, maximise benefits Agree on meaningful engagement processes Start engaging early in project planning Build IP capacity to negotiate equitably Understand and respect rights, interests and perspectives Work to obtain consent for project If no IP consent – reconsider involvement Collaborate with authorities to ensure IP best practice Anticipate and plan for disagreement. Aim of this slide: To provide a summary of the high level practical steps to be taken by companies to ensure a sensitive approach to Indigenous Peoples. These steps are based on the six commitments contained within the ICMM’s Position Statement on Indigenous Peoples. Key points: The high level practical steps outlined below can be considered best practice approach to all stakeholders, regardless of their IP status. They are: Engage with potentially impacted Indigenous Peoples with the objectives of protecting their rights, avoiding and/or minimizing negative impacts, and ensuring sustainable benefits and opportunities. Ensure an engagement process that is agreed upon with Indigenous Peoples and relevant government authorities; is consistent with Indigenous Peoples’ decision-making processes; and starts as early as possible during project planning; and facilitates meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples in decision making. Where required, companies should participate in building the capacity of Indigenous communities to participate equitably in good faith negotiations. Actively seek to understand and respect the rights, interests and perspectives of Indigenous Peoples regarding a project and its potential impacts. Work to obtain the consent of indigenous communities for new projects (and changes to existing projects) that are located on lands traditionally owned by or under customary use of Indigenous Peoples. Collaborate with the responsible authorities to achieve outcomes consistent with best practice engagement with Indigenous Peoples. Anticipate and plan for differences of opinion, and possible delays in reaching a negotiated good faith agreement. Agree on reasonable dispute resolution mechanisms at the outset, to be applied where differences of opinion arise (e.g. seeking mediation or advice from mutually acceptable parties). Where agreement and consent cannot be reached, senior management at corporate level to determine whether the company ought to remain involved with a project. Reference for Good Practice Guide material used on this slide: Page 11.

Engaging with Indigenous Peoples
Plan Do Check Adjust Engage Aim of this slide: To introduce the practical steps that need to be taken in relation to Indigenous Peoples, set within the framework of the Plan, Do, Check, Adjust and Engage (PDCA&E) cycle. Key points: When thinking about the practical steps that need to be taken in relation to Indigenous Peoples, it is useful to frame these within a standard management systems approach – the Plan, Do, Check, Adjust and Engage cycle. The steps in the PDCA&E cycle are as follows: Step 1: Plan - Analysing the context, assessing impacts & risks, developing responses; Step 2: Do - Ensure organisational readiness to implement the plan/your responses & then take action; Step 3: Check - Track effectiveness of your actions, monitor them, and then report on your progress; Step 4: Adjust – Integrate your findings (from Step 3) to ensure continuous improvement. The ‘adjust’ step is also sometimes labelled the ACT step, but we are using ADJUST as it more accurately describes the purpose of this step. And then engage with you stakeholders (internally and externally) throughout all of the above steps. Please note that the cycle is typically referred to as the PDCA cycle, but to emphasize the importance of engagement, we refer to it as the PDCA&E cycle. The key material that needs to be trained on with regards to Indigenous Peoples aligns with the PDCA&E cycle. Engaging with Indigenous Peoples

Introducing stakeholder engagement
Good practice engagement aims to ensure: Indigenous Peoples understand their rights and the full range of social and environmental impacts Input from Indigenous Peoples into project planning, project design, baseline studies, impact assessment and impact management Agreement on appropriate decision- making processes and timeframes for the on-going involvement of Indigenous Peoples Commitment to FPIC All voices within the indigenous community are heard Records are kept of processes followed and decisions reached Capacity is built amongst Indigenough Peoples so they can engage and participate in decision-making. Aim of this slide: To introduce stakeholder engagement and principles of good practice, as they apply to Indigenous Peoples in the context of mining. Key points: The term “engagement” refers to the interactions that take place between a company, communities and other stakeholders. It covers a broad set of activities, ranging from the simple provision of information through to active dialogue and partnering. It is a core activity that needs to take place in a sustained manner across the project life cycle – from initial contact prior to exploration through to closure. Meaningful engagement with project-affected people is important, regardless of whether they are Indigenous Peoples or not. However, the distinct cultural characteristics of Indigenous Peoples requires careful consideration of selected engagement approaches. Furthermore, the heightened vulnerability of Indigenous Peoples to project impacts makes their involvement in identifying impacts and proposing measures for their avoidance and/or management even more important. Good practice community engagement, in the context of Indigenous Peoples and mining, aims to ensure that: Indigenous Peoples have an understanding of their rights; Companies understand the rights, aspirations and concerns of Indigenous Peoples, both in their operations and more generally; Indigenous communities are informed about, and comprehend, the full range of social and environmental impacts (short, medium and long term, positive and negative) – that can result from mining (e.g. this may require creating a dictionary of mining-related terminology with the community; facilitating opportunities for IPs to hear the opinions and perspectives of other stakeholders regarding the project [e.g. NGOs, industry experts, academics etc]; or helping to provide access to independent information-gathering experts of their own choice). Companies understand and address any potentially negative impacts, and recognize, respect and use traditional knowledge to inform the design and implementation of mitigation strategies. There is mutual understanding and respect between the company, the indigenous community and other relevant stakeholders regarding their respective roles, responsibilities, rights, and challenges. (Notes: 1 of 2)

Introducing stakeholder engagement
Good practice engagement aims to ensure: Indigenous Peoples understand their rights and the full range of social and environmental impacts Input from Indigenous Peoples into project planning, project design, baseline studies, impact assessment and impact management Agreement on appropriate decision- making processes and timeframes for the on-going involvement of Indigenous Peoples Commitment to FPIC All voices within the indigenous community are heard Records are kept of processes followed and decisions reached Capacity is built amongst Indigenough Peoples so they can engage and participate in decision-making. Agree on appropriate decision-making processes for the on-going involvement of IPs, which are based on a respect for customary decision-making processes and structures – to do so, companies will need to take time to understand the complexities and dynamics of local decision-making processes and structures. Agree on acceptable timeframes to make decisions throughout the lifetime of the project, taking into consideration logistics, local customs, local decision-making processes (and associated time required), commercial requirements, project decision points, and time needed to build trusting relationships. Indigenous aspirations and concerns are taken into account in project planning so that people have ownership of, and participate fully in decisions about, community development programs and initiatives; The company has worked to obtain the broad, ongoing support of the community including, where applicable, their free, prior and informed consent (FPIC); The voices of all in the community are heard, that is, engagement processes are inclusive - ensure that the involvement of Indigenous Peoples is inclusive and captures the diversity of views within and between communities (rather than only community leaders’ views. Agree on the terms and conditions for the provision of any ongoing community support with affected indigenous stakeholders and any associated reciprocal obligations (this is key to managing expectations). Keep a record of processes followed and decisions reached, including the results of any monitoring or reviews, to provide a record for current or future generations who may be affected by the decisions, and to ensure transparency in the decision-making process. Support indigenous communities’ capacity to engage in decision making. As a practitioner, your task is to ensure that these principles inform and are embedded within your approaches to Indigenous Peoples – and stakeholders in general. Good Practice Guide reference for material used on this slide: Page and Tool 1 for guidance on how to apply these principles in practice, as well as Tool 4 (Ensuring engagement is consistent with Indigenous Peoples’ decision-making processes). (Notes: 2 of 2)

Exercise: Exploring levels of stakeholder engagement
Inform Provide balanced and objective information to improve understanding of the issues, alternatives and/or solutions. Consult Obtain feedback from stakeholders on issues, alternatives and/or decisions. Involve Work directly with stakeholders throughout the process to ensure that issues and concerns are consistently understood and considered. Collaborate Partner with stakeholders in each aspect of a decision-making process. Empower Final decision-making is placed in the hands of the stakeholders. Aim of this slide: To consider different levels of stakeholder engagement and what this means in the context of Indigenous Peoples. Key points: As mentioned in the previous slide, engagement covers a broad range of activities. Using the model from the International Association for Public Participation, one can see a range of engagement levels, from inform on the one end (which is a one-way flow of information) to empower on the other end, which is where final decision-making is placed in the hands of one’s stakeholders. If ones engagement is predominantly about informing one’s stakeholders, and occasionally consulting (which offers some two-way discussion), it is likely that your relationship building efforts will not be sufficiently robust, and the relationship is likely to flounder when difficulties arise. For trusting, resilient relationships, one needs to move up the steps towards a greater sharing of information, decision-making, and responsibility. Exercise: Preparation for the exercise: Get 5 blank pieces of A4 paper, and write down the different levels of stakeholder engagement shown on the slide – one per page. Find a space long enough to create a continuum – you’ll need to pin up “Inform” at the one end, and then “Empower” at the other end, and then the three “levels” evenly spaced between these two points. Facilitating the exercise: Asks participants to gather in the space set aside for the exercise. Explain to them that you will be asking a series of questions about their current engagement, the answers to which will require them to move to the relevant place on the continuum (as set up by yourself). (Notes: 1 of 2) Source: International Association for Public Participation, (IAP2), 2004

Exercise: Exploring levels of stakeholder engagement
Inform Provide balanced and objective information to improve understanding of the issues, alternatives and/or solutions. Consult Obtain feedback from stakeholders on issues, alternatives and/or decisions. Involve Work directly with stakeholders throughout the process to ensure that issues and concerns are consistently understood and considered. Collaborate Partner with stakeholders in each aspect of a decision-making process. Empower Final decision-making is placed in the hands of the stakeholders. Question 1: if you consider your engagement with local community residents in general (regardless of whether they are IP), where do you currently sit along this continuum? Question 2: if you consider your engagement with local authorities where do you currently sit along this continuum? Question 3: if you consider your engagement with national authorities, where do you currently sit along this continuum? Question 4: if you consider your engagement with NGOs or community based organisations (CBOs), where do you currently sit along this continuum? Question 5: if you consider your engagement with Indigenous Peoples, where do you currently sit along this continuum? For each question, note where people arrange themselves/move to. Your task as a facilitator is to note patterns of movement, and to use this as the basis for asking questions, and encouraging others to do the same. Examples of what to look out for: Note the outliers, and inquire why they find themselves at a chosen point. Note when a person/people move quite significantly when asked about a different stakeholder group. Why might this be the case? Note those that sit at the “Empowerment” end of the continuum. What enables them to do so? In summary, use the patterns as a basis for asking questions and exploring approaches to engagement. Allow for mins for the exercise. (Notes: 2 of 2) Source: International Association for Public Participation, (IAP2), 2004

Introducing FPIC Free People are able to freely make decisions without coercion, intimidation or manipulation. Prior Sufficient time is allocated for people to be involved in the decision-making process before key project decisions are made and impacts occur. Informed People are fully informed about the project and its potential impacts and benefits, and the various perspectives regarding the project (both positive and negative). Consent There are effective processes for affected Indigenous Peoples to approve or withhold Aim of this slide: To explain the concept of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). Key points: FPIC is a key principle in international law and jurisprudence related to Indigenous Peoples. The principle underpinning FPIC is that an indigenous community has the right to give or withhold its consent to proposed projects that may affect the lands they customarily own, occupy or otherwise use. As per the definition provided on the slide, FPIC represents an approach to engagement and decision-making which is: Free: People are able to freely make decisions without coercion, intimidation or manipulation. Prior: Sufficient time is allocated for people to be involved in the decision-making process before key project decisions are made and impacts occur. Informed: People are fully informed about the project and its potential impacts and benefits, and the various perspectives regarding the project (both positive and negative). Consent: There are effective and culturally appropriate decision-making processes which enable affected Indigenous Peoples to approve or withhold their consent for the proposed project, and that their decisions are respected and upheld. While there is wide agreement on Free, Prior, and Informed as basic best practice engagement (regardless of who your stakeholders are) – the notion of Consent has been fraught with complexities for a variety of reasons (as discussed later). There is also debate amongst various NGOs that the idea of FPIC should be being widened to include non-Indigenous Peoples affected by proposed developments – in essence, that they too should have the right to withhold consent for developments that affect their lives. their consent, consistent with their decision-making processes, and that their decisions are respected and upheld.

Why is FPIC relevant to Indigenous Peoples and mining?
FPIC is increasingly relevant because: It seeks to address historical exclusion and disempowerment of Indigenous Peoples It’s mandated in various international and national legal and policy documents It’s aligned with Indigenous Peoples’ pursuit of the right to self-determination and the rights to lands and territories It supports broader debates around ensuring a fair distribution of mining costs, benefits, risks, responsibilities It is an ethical principle – those affected should be informed and allowed to give or withhold consent. F C  P I ? Aim of this slide: To outline the relevance of FPIC to the mining industry. Key points: FPIC is of particular importance to Indigenous Peoples involved with mining for a number of reasons, including: Historically, Indigenous Peoples have commonly been excluded from decision-making processes, and the result has often been detrimental to their well-being. FPIC therefore seeks to address this historical exclusion and disempowerment. FPIC has been mandated or recommended in a number of international and national legal and policy documents. These include the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007); the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (no 169); the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s Environmental and Social Policy (2008); IFC Performance Standard 7 on Indigenous Peoples; the Philippines’ Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (1997); the Australian Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. Calls for the right to FPIC are closely linked to Indigenous Peoples’ pursuit of the right to self-determination and the rights to lands and territories. The issue of FPIC is linked to (and supports) broader debates around ensuring a fair distribution of the costs, benefits, risks and responsibilities associated with mining activities. FPIC is also linked to an ethical principle that those who could be exposed to harm or risk of harm should be properly informed about these risks and have an opportunity to express a willingness to accept such risks or not. Notions of FPIC also put more power behind what social license to operate (SLTO) means. Whether or not a community gives consent to a company is the ultimate indicator of the strength of a company’s SLTO. In spite of its value, providing for FPIC (and in particular the consent element) can be thwarted by various complexities and challenges. (Notes: 1 of 2)

Why is FPIC relevant to you?
FPIC is increasingly relevant because: It seeks to address historical exclusion and disempowerment of Indigenous Peoples It’s mandated in various international and national legal and policy documents It’s aligned with Indigenous Peoples’ pursuit of the right to self-determination and the rights to lands and territories It supports broader debates around ensuring a fair distribution of mining costs, benefits, risks, responsibilities It is an ethical principle – those affected should be informed and allowed to give or withhold consent. F C  P I ? Although some countries have made an explicit consent provision under national or sub-national laws, in most countries “neither Indigenous Peoples nor any other population group have the right to veto development projects that affect them”. FPIC should thus be regarded as a “principle to be respected to the greatest degree possible in development planning and implementation” (ICMM Position Statement, Commitment 4, Page 3) The ICMM position statement recognizes that where consent is not forthcoming despite the best efforts of all parties, in balancing the rights and interests of Indigenous Peoples with the wider population, government might determine that a project should proceed and specify the conditions that should apply. In such circumstances, ICMM members will determine whether they ought to remain involved with a project. For more information on FPIC, see the ICMM Good Practice Guide (Pages 25-29) and the ICMM Position Statement on Indigenous Peoples (2013). (Notes: 2 of 2)

FPIC: A process and an outcome
Free decisions Sufficient time Fully informed The process Give or withhold consent The outcome The application New projects and changes to existing projects, where projects have significant impacts on Indigenous Peoples Not applied retrospectively Can be extended to non-IPs in contexts where both IPs and non-IPs are significantly impacted upon. Aim of this slide: To outline how FPIC applies to mining operations. Key points: FPIC comprises both a process and an outcome. As a process, it strives to ensure that IPs are: able to freely make decisions without coercion, intimidation or manipulation; given sufficient time to be involved in project decision making before key decisions are made and impacts occur; and fully informed about the project and its potential impacts and benefits. The outcome is that Indigenous Peoples can give or withhold their consent to a project, through a process that strives to be consistent with their traditional decision-making processes while respecting internationally recognized human rights and is based on good faith negotiation. Note: Good faith negotiation is a form of negotiation that seeks to establish where points of disagreement and agreement lie, and what options are available for resolving disagreements in a balanced way. It primarily focuses on establishing a relationship of mutual respect between negotiation parties (like companies and indigenous communities) and removing any negotiating power imbalances. It is important that senior management are involved throughout the good faith negotiations, given the importance of this decision-making process and its outcomes. In the event that consent is not reached, senior management will be required to make decisions on whether the company ought to remain involved in the project. (Notes: 1 of 2) Based on good faith negotiation

FPIC: A process and an outcome
Free decisions Sufficient time Fully informed The process Give or withhold consent The outcome The application New projects and changes to existing projects, where projects have significant impacts on Indigenous Peoples Not applied retrospectively Can be extended to non-IPs in contexts where both IPs and non-IPs are significantly impacted upon. In terms of ICMM position statement on IPs, members are required to apply FPIC to: New projects and changes to existing projects that are likely to have significant impacts on indigenous communities. The position statement will not apply retrospectively. Where both Indigenous Peoples and non-Indigenous Peoples are likely to be significantly impacted, companies may choose to extend FPIC to non-Indigenous Peoples. Note to presenter: If appropriate, refer participants to the Good Practice Guide, Tool 10: Good faith negotiation and Tool 11: Working to obtain consent: a suggested process across corporate engagement. This tool provides guidance to companies on the process of obtaining consent from indigenous communities, or to support such processes when led by the government. It provides a summary of key elements companies could consider during this process and some common challenges that may arise. (Notes: 2 of 2) Based on good faith negotiation

Common challenges with FPIC
FPIC is not always a legal requirement Indigenous Peoples are not always formally recognised Not always clear who does/doesn’t have a claim to be involved in the consent process Sometimes there is a mix of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples, with differential rights Unanimous consent is not always achieved Sometimes consent is not achieved but government approves the project regardless. Aim of this slide: To communicate the challenges associated with implementation of FPIC. As already mentioned, the implementation of FPIC can often be challenging in practice. Some of the most significant of these challenges are captured in the above slide. Consider asking participants to read the slide and then share experiences and/or lessons learnt which they have encountered in relation to the above challenges. Alternatively, you can pose the question “What challenges are we likely to face with FPIC in our context, and how might we address them?”, and allow them to share freely.

Case Study: FPIC processes during exploration phase (1 of 3)
Context: Newmont’s Merian gold mine (Surgold) is located in Suriname, South America No people live within its operating footprint, but it is located on the traditional lands of the Pamaka tribal group Surgold is committed to ICMM’s Indigenous Peoples and Mining Position Statement The project aimed to obtain the FPIC of the Pamaka people to support construction and before any significant change or subsequent phase of the project life cycle. Aim of this case study: To illustrate steps taken by a company in order to secure FPIC. Note: For further information on this case study, see the Good Practice Guide Page 115.

Case Study: FPIC processes during exploration phase (2 of 3)
Surgold’s Actions to secure FPIC: Surgold also engaged with the Government to ensure joint understanding of FPIC and its application in the Surinamese context, while respecting government’s expressed sovereign rights and decisions related to Indigenous Peoples Surgold documented all historic community engagement activities completed since start of exploration activities – and then mapped these against FPIC concepts In order to ensure efficient and transparent communication between Pamaka community and Surgold, the chief selected a diverse* group of community leaders to represent the overall community in negotiations and in coordinating engagement This allowed for identification of gaps that may require other engagement mechanisms or agreements in order to align with FPIC Surgold also worked to develop and facilitate a capacity-building programme with the Pamaka community members/leaders regarding their FPIC rights. The Pamaka Negotiation Committee comprised of representatives from local business, traditional authority, journalists, small-scale mining, legal entities, and so on.

Case Study: FPIC processes during exploration phase(3 of 3)
Outcomes: In August 2013, Surgold and the Pamaka community signed a memorandum of understanding outlining work to be accomplished over the next several years, including: Create and manage a community development fund Define terms of local employment and local procurement Create a participatory monitoring committee Promote safety and environmental stewardship Develop a complaint mechanism. Newmont began construction in August

Exercise: A debate Divide into two groups
One group will be the “proponent” of the motion and the other will be the “opponent” of the motion You will have 15 minutes to prepare your position statement using some of the key challenges/questions on FPIC Each side will have 2 minutes to present their case The motion is: “Community consent should be a legal right for all directly affected communities in extractive projects”. Aim of this slide: To outline the instructions for the exercise to follow. Exercise: The aim of this exercise is to get participants to consider and debate the applicability of “community consent” for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities who are affected by extractive or other projects. It puts to test the ethical principle that those who are affected by a development should have the right to withhold or grant their consent.

Getting engagement right from the start: Making initial contact
Difficulties arise when you: Avoid difficulties by: Enter into an area without permission Agreeing with the community at the outset on how they wish to be engaged Engage with the wrong groups who do not have authority to speak on behalf of the community Understanding and respecting local entry protocols Fail to adequately explain what you’re doing and why Committing to open and transparent communication Do not allow sufficient time for community decision making Conducting an initial risk assessment Disregard or are ignorant of local customs. Ensuring all company representatives are well briefed on local customs Regularly monitoring engagement Striving to be consistent Using knowledgeable local advisors. Aim of this slide: To look at the challenge around making initial contact, and getting it right from the beginning. Key points: Having discussed best practice principles for engagement and FPIC, let’s now turn our attention to the very beginning: making initial contact. The left hand side of the table spells out the conditions under which difficulties can arise when making initial contact. These relate to mistakes around not getting permission to enter an area; engaging with the wrong person; providing inadequate information to stakeholders; rushing community decision-making; and disregarding local customs. The IP Good Practice Guide provides some useful tips around how to avoid making these mistakes, and thus avoiding putting early relationships at risk. These include: getting agreement with the community on how they want to be engaged; making sure that all company representatives understand and respect local customs; and ensuring consistency in how one engages and responds. This practical advice around making initial contact sits very well in the early planning phases of the PDCA&E cycle, as it is about understanding the context from the very outset, and then ensuring that ones actions are appropriate to this context. (Notes: 1 of 2)

Getting engagement right from the start: Making initial contact
Difficulties arise when you: Avoid difficulties by: Enter into an area without permission Agreeing with the community at the outset on how they wish to be engaged Engage with the wrong groups who do not have authority to speak on behalf of the community Understanding and respecting local entry protocols Fail to adequately explain what you’re doing and why Committing to open and transparent communication Do not allow sufficient time for community decision making Conducting an initial risk assessment Disregard or are ignorant of local customs. Ensuring all company representatives are well briefed on local customs Regularly monitoring engagement Striving to be consistent Using knowledgeable local advisors. On the topic of who to engage with: while it is important to acknowledge the role of elders and other traditional community leaders, it should not automatically be assumed that those who occupy formal leadership positions, whether they be traditional or government appointed, represent all interests in the community. Companies need to be sensitive to those sections of the community who are frequently excluded from the decision-making process, such as women and young people. During engagement with indigenous communities, company representatives should make it clear that they are committed to acting in an inclusive and non-discriminatory way. Where traditional decision-making structures exclude women and younger people, it may be necessary to obtain input from these groups by less direct means – for example, and where possible, via community needs surveys and baseline studies, or through informal discussions with small groups. Also, company representatives should endeavour to explain to traditional decision makers that, while they respect existing structures and will work through them wherever possible, it is important for the company to understand how its activities might affect all sectors of the community. Good Practice Guide reference for material used on this slide: Chapter 2, Page (Notes: 2 of 2)

Prepare: Engagement challenges
1. Negative legacies & perceptions 2. Community expectations 3. Language & communication 4. Maintaining focus on engagement 5. Lack of capacity for engagement Aim of this slide: To outline the key engagement challenges often faced with Indigenous Peoples, and other stakeholder groups. Key points: Dealing with negative legacies and perceptions: Indigenous communities that have had past negative experiences with mining (e.g. with other mines, exploration companies, or with government), are likely to view new proposals to mine with suspicion or possibly outright hostility. Managing community expectations: Unrealistic community expectations is one of the most significant challenges faced by community relations personnel. They are very quickly raised, and extremely hard to manage. Unrealistic expectations by local communities can lead to misunderstanding and conflict when anticipated benefits do not materialize. Company representatives should be aware that expectations can be created simply through the process of having a meeting. Language and other communication challenges: Problems during engagement in projects can often be explained by the fact that Indigenous Peoples feel they are not listened to or understood. Indigenous Peoples often have their own languages or dialects and may not speak the national language. A history of disadvantage, particularly among women, such as limited access to education, may also make it difficult for Indigenous Peoples to voice their concerns or have input during engagement processes. Maintaining focus on engagement over time: A common problem, not restricted to indigenous communities, is that the initial effort that is put into community engagement is not maintained over time. This can occur for a variety of reasons, such as management taking its “eye off the ball” once project approvals have been secured, turnover of key company staff, generational change in the community and “consultation fatigue” among community members and representatives. Where there is a loss of focus and momentum, there is a real risk that a company will lose touch with what is happening locally and may not be attuned to – or be slow to detect – changes in the mood of the community. Moreover, relationships that were initially built up between the company and key decision makers in the community may erode. (Notes: 1 of 2)

Prepare: Engagement challenges
1. Negative legacies & perceptions 2. Community expectations 3. Language & communication 4. Maintaining focus on engagement 5. Lack of capacity for engagement Lack of capacity for engagement: Lack of capacity to engage, in terms of skills and resources, poses a significant challenge to fostering good relations between a company and IP (and other) communities. This lack of capacity can apply to company personnel (at corporate and operational level), as well as to IP and other communities. Good Practice Guide reference for material used on this slide: Tool 5: Dealing with the challenges of engagement (Notes: 2 of 2)

Responding to engagement challenges
Negative legacies & perceptions Managing community expectations Language & communication Maintaining focus on engagement Show respect Use trusted intermediary Senior management interaction Acknowledge past mistakes Open about +/- Highlight co. standards Honour historical commitments Listen/note responses and questions. Clear, transparent communication Consistent messaging Regular communication supported by overarching plan Commitments register, in writing. Be aware of language barriers and requirements Suitable engagement team Appropriate engagement materials. Comprehensive Stakeholder Engagement Plan System for tracking compliance Engagement mechanisms as part of Agreements Strategies for managing impact staff turn-over Grievance mechanism. Aim of this slide: To share a range of possible responses to the key engagement challenges. Key points: Dealing with negative legacies and perceptions: If companies encounter negative legacies, they should: be careful to show respect for the culture and customs of local people; use a trusted intermediary, such as an indigenous community organization, a religious group, a civil society group or an NGO, to facilitate initial meetings and the exchange of information; provide people from the community with the opportunity to meet and interact with senior management, and the CEO in particular; be prepared to acknowledge and apologize for past mistakes and seek out opportunities to remedy any legacy of past sociocultural and environmental damage (eg by restoring damaged cultural sites, filling in abandoned drill holes, re-vegetating disturbed areas) be open and honest about the risks and benefits associated with the project highlight that the company has standards, processes and practices that make it accountable for its environmental, social and health performance and informing communities about how they may be involved in these processes find out what historical commitments may have been made (e.g. by an exploration company or joint venture partner) and, wherever practical, honour those commitments listen carefully to how communities respond to information provided to them and to the questions they ask – this will help to highlight areas of potential misunderstanding. (Notes: 1 of 3)

Negative legacies & perceptions Managing community expectations Language & communication Maintaining focus on engagement Show respect Use trusted intermediary Senior management interaction Acknowledge past mistakes Open about +/- Highlight co. standards Honour historical commitments Listen/note responses and questions. Clear, transparent communication Consistent messaging Regular communication supported by overarching plan Commitments register, in writing. Be aware of language barriers and requirements Suitable engagement team Appropriate engagement materials. Comprehensive Stakeholder Engagement Plan System for tracking compliance Engagement mechanisms as part of Agreements Strategies for managing impact staff turn-over Grievance mechanism. Managing community expectations: Some tips for managing community expectations include: Communicate clearly and in a transparent manner, and continue to have a consistent message about the project life cycle and what its various stages may realistically mean, in terms of jobs and other economic opportunities, including reasons why the project may not actually develop. Making promises that may not eventuate, such as promising X number of jobs for Indigenous Peoples, can create further problems down the line. Develop a high-level consultative mechanism to help deal with and manage community expectations on an on-going basis. Communicate regularly, even when there may not be anything substantive to report, to minimize rumours. Move quickly to clarify, so far as possible and to the extent legally practicable, rumours about the project, its timing and the impact it is having (both positive and negative). Formalize commitments and agreements in writing, or at least keep a record of promises made, and document progress towards achieving such commitments. To overcome language and communications challenges, companies should: ensure that the approaches to engagement are culturally appropriate; ensure that company staff who are involved in engagement are cognizant of any language or other communication challenges, including gender-related barriers; ensure that the engagement team includes members who speak the local language/dialect, and includes women; ensure that the engagement team has some education and/or training in local etiquette, customs and protocols for engagement/discussions with particular groups (eg leaders, women, elders, youth, etc); ensure that information about the project is disclosed in a form that Indigenous Peoples will understand – this may involve translating materials into local languages, use of brochures, maps, diagrams and local radio stations for verbal transmission of information; avoid using technical and legalistic text and languages. (Notes: 2 of 3)

Negative legacies & perceptions Managing community expectations Language & communication Maintaining focus on engagement Show respect Use trusted intermediary Senior management interaction Acknowledge past mistakes Open about +/- Highlight co. standards Honour historical commitments Listen/note responses and questions. Clear, transparent communication Consistent messaging Regular communication supported by overarching plan Commitments register, in writing. Be aware of language barriers and requirements Suitable engagement team Appropriate engagement materials. Comprehensive Stakeholder Engagement Plan System for tracking compliance Engagement mechanisms as part of Agreements Strategies for managing impact staff turn-over Grievance mechanism. Maintaining focus on engagement over time: Some actions that companies can take to remain actively engaged with the community over time include: Formalize a comprehensive stakeholder engagement plan/indigenous engagement plan, which is reviewed and updated regularly and which is linked to both the operation’s broader management and planning processes and the community’s own plan for its future. Anglo American SEAT 3 (Tool 2B) provides useful guidance on developing Stakeholder Engagement Plans (SEPs). Establish systems for recording compliance with and following up on commitments (e.g. a ”promise” or commitment register). Embed engagement mechanisms and processes into agreements (see Chapter 4 and Tool 9: Making agreements). Implement strategies to reduce the impact that the loss of key staff might otherwise have on company–community relationships (e.g. through succession planning and by diversifying the network of relationships in the community). Set up effective arrangements for resolving disputes and grievances (see Chapter 5 and Tool 12: Designing and implementing grievance mechanisms). Good Practice Guide reference for material used on this slide: Tool 5: Dealing with the challenges of engagement (Notes: 3 of 3)

Case study: Managing expectations
Context: In 2010 Freeport-McMoRan launched a corporate community grievance management system (CGMS) It is a web-based database for recording, processing and responding to community grievances It also introduced a corporate-wide standard operating procedure (SOP) to all sites to help ensure that the community grievance systems were consistent, well managed and incorporated best practices. Site implementation: As a result, PT Freeport Indonesia formed the Community Grievance Case Team A PTFI site-specific SOP was developed The team receives, records, and manages grievances received from the community The team liaises with other PTFI departments to conduct investigations Outcomes range from an explanation letter to the community to a meeting facilitated by a third party, such as the government or a tribal institution. Aim of case study: Present an example of implementing a grievance mechanism.

Building engagement capacity in companies
Top-level management commitment Qualified & experienced staff Indigenous advisers Ensuring gender sensitivity Cross-cultural training Leading companies recognise the importance of having the right team in place at the corporate and operational level, underpinned by strong management systems. Aim of this slide: To highlight the different types of engagement capacity that needs to be built within companies in order to better engage with Indigenous Peoples communities. To foster good relations with IP (and other) communities, companies should ensure that they have the right team in place at the corporate and operational levels, underpinned by strong management systems. Top-level management commitment: Commitment from top-level management to relationship building with Indigenous Peoples and other local communities is critical to developing community support. This commitment needs to go beyond PR work. To do so, the capacity of senior management needs to include: understanding of the rights, interests and perspectives of Indigenous Peoples; an ability to convey the business case for engaging constructively with Indigenous Peoples to all staff; an ability to lead a company team to respect, understand and work with indigenous communities; and the skills required to help the company change and adapt its approach, as necessary. Qualified and experienced staff: it is essential that companies appoint staff who are experienced and qualified in engaging with indigenous communities and the complexities this may bring … or build the necessary capacity to enable staff to meet the requirements of their role. Key skills include: awareness and understanding of how to interact with Indigenous Peoples experience or familiarization with the context in which they will need to work skills to support specific tasks associated with the employment of Indigenous Peoples, business development support and community development. (Notes: 1 of 2) Company-level ingredients to fostering engagement capacity with Indigenous Peoples 35

Building engagement capacity in companies
Top-level management commitment Qualified & experienced staff Indigenous advisers Ensuring gender sensitivity Cross-cultural training Leading companies recognise the importance of having the right team in place at the corporate and operational level, underpinned by strong management systems. Indigenous advisers: Indigenous advisers can play a vital role in facilitating engagement with, and acting as a liaison point with, local Indigenous Peoples. Companies should seek to include indigenous advisers in their operations wherever possible. If Indigenous Peoples with the requisite skills are not available for these types of positions, identifying and training people for these roles should be a company priority. Given the pressures of the role and the difficulties associated with working for the company while living in the community, companies should provide mentoring and supportive supervision of indigenous advisers. To avoid difficulties associated with hiring one person and not another, companies may want to first establish a relationship with the community and then facilitate a community hiring committee to help choose suitable staff. Gender sensitivity: Gender sensitivity during engagement is important, particularly in traditional indigenous communities where men may be more comfortable engaging with male representatives of a company, and women with female representatives. When engaging with indigenous communities, company staff should seek to find ways of ensuring that women’s voices are heard in engagement and decision-making processes, and endeavour to find culturally appropriate and accepted ways to meaningfully involve excluded gender groups (eg women). Cross-cultural training: this applies to operational personnel and contractors, and can include: a historical understanding of the community, and practical advice that can enhance cross-cultural communication and understanding (e.g. advice on body language). Involving local indigenous men and women in the delivery and teaching of the programme can be a very good way of bringing the training to life and embedding the learning more deeply. For more information on these themes, see Tool 2: Building engagement capacity in companies. (Notes: 2 of 2) Company-level ingredients to fostering engagement capacity with Indigenous Peoples 36

Discussion: Capacity for external engagement
At your project: What capacities need to be developed internally in order to enable you/your company to more effectively engage with your IP stakeholders? What capacities need to be developed amongst your IP stakeholders in order to enable them to engage more effectively with you/your company? Aim of this slide: To introduce a discussion on capacities for external engagement. Activity: Two questions are posed on this slide: one with an external capacity focus and the other with an internal capacity focus. Divide a flipchart paper into two columns and ask for ideas/input from the group regarding the different capacities that need to be developed amongst your external stakeholders and then amongst your internal stakeholders – both of them for the purposes of engagement. In the interests of time, divide the group in half, and allocate question 1 to the one group, and question 2 to the other group. Allow 10 mins for reflections on the question posed, then ask for feedback. As you take answers from the group, write up responses on the flipchart - note any similarities, differences etc.

Case study: Benefits of early engagement and agreements (1 of 2)
Context: In 2003, Barrick and the Wiradjuri Indigenous Peoples successfully established governance arrangements for its Cowal gold mine in Australia Barrick attributes this successful partnership to the relationships it worked to cultivate, which began nearly 10 years earlier. Aim of case study: To showcase the benefits of engaging with Indigenous Peoples early on the project lifecycle. Note: For further information on this case study, see the Good Practice Guide Page 101.

Case study: Benefits of early engagement and agreements (2 of 2)
Barrick’s engagement activities which helped build relationships and support for the mine: Establishing these relationships early on helped Barrick generate support from local communities to submit a formal Native Title Application to the government, a final step to approve the construction of the mine Engaged local indigenous communities to identify stakeholders and to share information and planning ideas The subsequent Native Title Agreement, which established governance arrangements between Barrick and the Wirajhuri for the Cowal mine, took 18 months to negotiate. It included provisions relating to employment, cultural heritage management, training and business development*. Met with conservationists and farmers to ensure ALL interested parties had access to the same information Hosted several stakeholder tours of the proposed mine site in years leading up to construction The Wiradjuri communities were not interested in a transactional royalties-based agreement as they did not believe yearly payments would achieve community development or transformation.

Understanding your context
Plan Do Check Adjust Engage Understanding your context

Understanding your context
Specific context Specific project Specific set of impacts Associated vulnerabilities & opportunities Specific sort of management responses Aim of this slide: To outline the importance of understanding your context, and its relationship to the specific impacts and vulnerabilities that emerge. Key points: Understanding your context is the first step in the planning process (think back to the PDCA&E cycle). Doing so helps to ensure informed and appropriate management responses. Understanding your context is thus the foundation on which all other steps and activities are built. It is important to note that understanding your context is not a once-off activity. The context in which you operate is constantly changing, and so ones understanding of the environment in which you are operating needs to be revisited throughout the life of the operation. Another way of articulating the value of understanding your specific context is as follows: a specific context, in which a specific project is developed, will result in a very specific set of impacts, with associated vulnerabilities, impacts and opportunities. All of these context specific conditions, issues and impacts need to be understood in order to develop specific management responses, that are appropriate to that context. This is not a generic cut and paste exercise!

Baseline information of specific relevance to Indigenous Peoples
Customary property rights, land claims, disconnection from rights Social structures, roles and responsibilities Cultural protocols Governance and decision making Environment and natural resource management strategies Knowledge of local foods and medicines Knowledge of health and education Structure and operation of the local economy, common property rights and reciprocity Intangible cultural heritage. How different are these information requirements for non-Indigenous Peoples communities? Aim of this slide: To provide an overview of the specific baseline information needed when seeking to understand an Indigenous Peoples context. Key points: A baseline study of an indigenous community will likely include the same collected data as a “standard” baseline study (e.g. quantitative and qualitative data on employment, income levels, health, living conditions, etc.), but should also include explicit consideration of the following items: Customary property rights, land claims, disconnection from rights Social structures, roles and responsibilities Cultural protocols, including traditional ways of dealing with conflict and grievance, principles of reciprocity Governance and decision making Environment and natural resource management strategies Knowledge of local foods and medicines Knowledge of health and education The structure and operation of the local economy, common property rights and reciprocity Intangible cultural heritage such as language, stories, art, music, ceremonies, spirituality Tool 8 (Page 72) provides a list of the different types of baseline studies that would be initiated for the collection of this information. As mentioned, baseline studies should not be static one-off exercises, but rather updated regularly, particularly when there is a significant change to the scale and/or scope of a project. Note to the presenter: it may well be worth inquiring as to how different these information requirements are for non-IP communities. Good Practice Guide reference for material used on this slide: Tool 8: Baseline studies and impact assessments

Indigenous Peoples: Good practice research
Identify if the community has guidelines about conducting research Negotiate level of community participation in the design, collection, analysis of the process Seek broad-based support from the indigenous community prior to commencing the research Ensure informed consent Conduct surveys and interviews in the local language Use research methods that facilitate participation Be sensitive about what can/can’t be shared publically Make time for an iterative process. All of this, in some way or another, is about respect! Aim of this slide: To highlight some rules of good practice when carrying out baseline studies. Key points: The following good practice approaches should we adopted when carrying out research within Indigenous (and other) communities: Identify if the community has guidelines about conducting research Negotiate level of community participation in the design, collection, analysis of the process Seek broad-based support from the indigenous community prior to commencing the research Ensure informed consent Conduct surveys and interviews in the local language Use research methods that facilitate participation e.g. focus groups Furthermore, during the process of data collection, one needs to stay sensitive to the following: Some information may not be shared easily in public settings – therefore use different approaches and forums to ensure representation Some information may be very sensitive and your company may need to sign a confidentiality agreement Participants may sit and listen rather than share …. This doesn’t mean they have nothing to say There may be a need to return several times for information - the process is iterative rather than once-off All of these good practice principles are underpinned by the notion of having respect for those whom you seek to understand – this respect is key to the DO NO HARM principle. Good Practice Guide reference for material used on this slide: Tool 8: Baseline studies and impact assessments

Discussion: How do we achieve this?
“The desired end result of a baseline study is an agreed upon repository of information and indicators that provides a solid basis for impact mitigation and community development initiatives.” ICMM: Good Practice Guide. Indigenous Peoples and Mining (First Edition), Page 3 Aim of this slide: To get participants to reflect on how one supports the development of an agreed upon baseline, and the value of doing so. Key to acknowledge is that the notion of an agreed upon baseline is a rather different approach to what is often taken with regards to baseline collection and compilation. To get an agreed upon baseline requires a much more collaborative and engaged approached, and one in which time needs to be built in for the community input, review, discussion – and a coming to agreement on what the baseline is comprised of. Remember, the baseline information shapes actions/interventions – as such, creating a baseline is not a neutral/ apolitical process! Expect debate! Exercise: Divide participants into pairs or groups of 3-4, and get them to consider the following questions: Question 1: reflecting on what you have learnt thus far in this session, what actions and attitudes do you/your team needed to adopt to support the creation of an agreed upon baseline? Question 2: In what way/s does an IP sensitive approach and the creation of an agreed upon baseline support improved relationships with ones IP community? Question 3: What aspects of your corporate/company culture might get in the way of an IP sensitive approach to gathering baseline data? If time is tight, allocate one question per group. Allow for 10 minutes discussion and minutes for feedback.

Exercise: Exploring different understandings of context
Aim of this slide: To get participants to reflect on these images, and what it says to them about understanding the local context. The key insights you want them to gain are: There are different ways of interpreting the same context (is it a man playing a saxophone or is it a woman with her face cast in shadow?) Sometimes we stop looking at the detail, because we assume we know all there is to know (“Of course an elephant only has four legs!”) The important lesson here is to be open to understanding the world afresh, and to stop assuming that your understanding of how things are, is the only version. This is particularly important when doing baseline research and impact assessments, which require you to make sense of what you see and find.

Plan Do Check Adjust Engage Identifying impacts

Potential negative impacts on Indigenous Peoples
Physical or economic displacement/resettlement Reduced ability to carry on traditional livelihoods due to loss of access to land and/or damage or destruction of key resources Destruction of, or damage to, culturally and/or spiritually significant sites and landscapes – both tangible and intangible Social dislocation and erosion of cultural values due to rapid economic and social change Social conflicts over the distribution and value of mining-related benefits (e.g. royalties, jobs) Increased risk of exposure to diseases (e.g. AIDS, tuberculosis) Increase in social problems (e.g. alcoholism, drug use, gambling, prostitution, etc.). Aim of this slide: To provide an outline of potential negative impacts of mining on Indigenous Peoples. Key points: This slide provides examples of the different ways in which Indigenous Peoples can be negatively impacted by mining. For those of you that are familiar with the social impacts of mining, you will note that many of these listed impacts apply broadly across stakeholder groups living in rural or under-developed areas, where the impacts of mining and/or other big infrastructure projects significantly change the social and economic landscape. As already discussed, Indigenous Peoples have historically been discriminated against and dispossessed of their land, and continue to be disadvantaged relative to most other sections of society. This existing vulnerability makes it more difficult for Indigenous communities to absorb and cope with the changes and impacts brought about by the resettlement process. Indigenous Peoples are also likely to be more vulnerable to negative impacts from mining projects, particularly those that adversely impact culture and natural resources. This vulnerability is linked to their dependence on these resources (natural and cultural) for their livelihoods and way of life, both of which can be negatively impacted on by mining. Reference for Good Practice Guide material used on this slide: Table 1, Page 19.

Potential positive impacts on Indigenous Peoples
Improved infrastructure and services (e.g. access to clean water, sanitation, power, roads) Improved support for education and better resources and facilities Enhanced employment and business opportunities Increased income flows through royalty streams and compensation payments Improved living standards due to increased wealth Company support for identification, protection and promotion of cultural heritage Environmental restoration and protection. Aim of this slide: To provide an outline of potential positive impacts of mining on Indigenous Peoples. Key points: Mining projects have the potential to bring positive impacts to Indigenous communities. That said, the positive impacts listed in this slide may not be considered as sufficient “compensation” for the negative impacts experienced. We can speak of the benefits of employment, for example, but is this sufficiently positive in the context of loss of natural and cultural resources? In this sense, what we regard as a positive impact is subjective. It should also be noted that the vulnerability of Indigenous Peoples may also make it harder for them to capitalise on project benefits unless specific targeted measures are implemented. Reference for Good Practice Guide material used on this slide: Table 1, Page 19.

A participatory approach to impact assessment: Best practice principles
Participatory approaches to impact assessment enhance understanding and collaboration Address the impacts/consequences that Indigenous Peoples themselves consider important Carry out the assessment at a pace that supports broad-based and iterative discussion Facilitate pro-active involvement and participation of IP in impact assessments. Aim of this slide: To provide an outline of a participatory approach to impact assessment. Key points: Approaches to baseline studies and impact assessment should be participatory and inclusive. This significantly aids efforts to build broad cross-cultural understanding between the company and Indigenous Peoples, and allows for collaborative identification of impacts and management measures. When assessing potential impacts, it is important that companies address the impacts/consequences that Indigenous Peoples themselves consider important and specific in their cultural context. This includes involving project affected people in the rating of the significance of identified impacts Facilitating a participatory approach to impact assessment requires companies to carry out their assessment processes at a pace that supports broad-based and iterative discussion; using engagement techniques that build capacity of people to participate (e.g. understanding of key terms and mining processes) and which align with traditional methods of engaging (whilst ensuring that all voices are heard). The assessment process also needs to ensure that indigenous local knowledge is considered in a way that is meaningful and is reflected in the understanding and assessment of impacts, and associated management measures. In some jurisdictions, regulatory provisions encourage proactive involvement of indigenous communities in impact assessments (eg the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 encourages the participation of Aboriginal people in environmental assessments), and in some cases Indigenous Peoples are given the opportunity to conduct and manage their own impact assessments. Where regulatory requirements are less demanding, companies should strive to apply these higher standards to encourage ongoing engagement with the indigenous communities in their operational context. To provide further contextual information, companies may undertake a gender impact analysis and conflict assessment. Good Practice Guide reference for material used on this slide: Tool 8: Baseline studies and impact assessments

Understanding how people are affected differently
Indigenous communities aren’t homogenous. The following provide valuable insight into ways that specific groups and people are affected differently: Gender impact analysis Indigenous communities are not homogenous; impacts are not experienced equally Unpacking how men and women are affected differently. Conflict assessments Analyse potential for project to induce conflict between: The company and Indigenous community Within the Indigenous community Between Indigenous groups Between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups. Aim of this slide: To draw participants’ attention to specific impact studies that will enable better understanding of the different ways in which people are affected within an IP community. Key points: As with all communities, Indigenous Peoples communities cannot be considered homogenous. To do so, would be to overlook the different ways in which individuals and groups of people are affected by a mining project. With this in mind, Gender Impact Studies and Conflict Assessments may prove very useful for understanding how IP are differently affected by a particular project. Gender impact analysis: The negative impacts of mining projects often fall disproportionately on women. Despite this, the risks and benefits of mining to Indigenous Peoples are often considered only at a community level, which often fails to distinguish between the impact on women and men. Undertaking a gender-specific impact assessment will require the collection and use of sex-disaggregated data in order to assess how women and men are affected differently by impacts. Tool 8, Page 75, provides a list of questions to ask when assessing the gendered nature of impacts (e.g. Do you understand the different roles of women and men within the indigenous social and cultural context? What resources do indigenous women and men have access to, and control of?) (Notes: 1 of 2)

Understanding how people are affected differently
Indigenous communities aren’t homogenous. The following provide valuable insight into ways that specific groups and people are affected differently: Gender impact analysis Indigenous communities are not homogenous; impacts are not experienced equally Unpacking how men and women are affected differently. Conflict assessments Analyse potential for project to induce conflict between: The company and Indigenous community Within the Indigenous community Between Indigenous groups Between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups. Conflict assessments: Companies should consider undertaking a conflict assessment to assist in planning for, and minimizing, the risks associated with conflict. A conflict assessment involves assessing the potential of a project to contribute to conflict at the local level or beyond, and to identify preventative strategies for reducing the risk of escalation and violent confrontation. In an indigenous context, companies should consider not only the possibility of conflict occurring between indigenous groups and the company, but also tensions being generated between and within indigenous groups, the company and the non-indigenous population. For more information on conflict assessments, see Awareness Raising Pack No 5 (Conflict Assessment and Management) Good Practice Guide reference for material used on this slide: Tool 8: Baseline studies and impact assessments (Notes: 2 of 2)

Case study: Collaboration during a First Nations independent technical review (1 of 2)
Context: In 2010, Teck started preparing for the reopening of its Quintette steelmaking coal mine in British Columbia As part of these preparations, Teck engaged First Nations and other Aboriginal groups in order to include their interests and concerns, and proposed mitigation measures, in the application to the regulatory agencies During this period, a group of Treaty 8 First Nations expressed their desire to cooperatively carry out an independent review of the mine’s application, with external technical support. Aim of case study: To present an example of a collaboration during a First Nations independent technical review, and its outcomes. Note: For further information on this case study, see the Good Practice Guide Page 99.

Case study: Collaboration during a First Nations independent technical review (2 of 2)
Actions and results with regards to the independent review: Teck and its consultants worked directly with the First Nations (and their consultants) to develop appropriate responses and next steps, including through face-to-face meetings and workshops Teck agreed to provide financial support for a consultancy chosen and directly managed by the First Nations These workshops led to the joint development of 47 works plans, most of which were completed prior to Quintette receiving its regulatory authorisations External consultants worked with the First Nations to review the applications and summarise concerns and interests into 15 disciplines, such as vegetation, wildfire, groundwater, human and ecological health, etc. This collaboration gave the First Nations the full technical ability to review the application, which in turn enabled both sides to focus on solutions.

Plan Do Check Adjust Engage Impact mitigation and enhancement

Impact mitigation: Principles of good practice
Avoid, wherever possible If unavoidable, minimise and compensate Go “beyond compliance” Responsibility for impacts across all business activities & relationships Seek input from IPs on management measures Impact management plans with clarity on responsibilities, timing, resources On-going monitoring & evaluation, with meaningful KPIs Make sure internal impacts are managed Aim of this slide: To outline key principles of good practice in relation to impact mitigation. Key points: Where there is impact, there is responsibility to mitigate. Leading companies have internal processes in place to assist operations in improving their management of a project’s impact on the community, environment and human rights. The basic principles underpinning these frameworks also apply to indigenous communities, although how they are applied will be highly dependent on the context. In terms of general best practice principles, the following applies: Wherever possible, avoid impacts in the first place – essentially strive to do no harm. Good planning and design can enable many potential problems to be avoided from the outset – this requires ensuring that IP are involved from the outset of the project and at key decision-making points. Where impacts and associated harm are unavoidable, then make sure that you minimise these impacts through appropriate management measures and compensation; Strive to go “beyond compliance”, particularly where the requirements set by the national laws do not go far enough to ensure “do no harm”; A company’s responsibility to respect human rights (and avoid human rights impacts on Indigenous Peoples) extends into its business activities and through its relationships with 3rd parties connected to these activities, non-State actors and State agents (see UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Pillar 2); Seeking the input, support and participation of, Indigenous Peoples in developing and implementing management responses (see TOOL 8). This will help ensure that management strategies and actions are underpinned and informed by knowledge of the local context. (Notes: 1 of 2)

Impact mitigation: Principles of good practice
Avoid, wherever possible If unavoidable, minimise and compensate Go “beyond compliance” Responsibility for impacts across all business activities & relationships Seek input from IPs on management measures Impact management plans with clarity on responsibilities, timing, resources On-going monitoring & evaluation, with meaningful KPIs Make sure internal impacts are managed Attention to implementation is critically important. Strategies should be underpinned by action plans that specify what needs to be done, when, and by whom, and ensure that adequate resources have been allocated (see next slide). Ongoing monitoring and regular evaluation is required to track progress, identify emerging issues and assess the effectiveness of strategies to enhance benefits and minimize the impact or consequences of a project or project activities. Monitoring and evaluation processes should be relevant to Indigenous Peoples and their concerns and aspirations, and participatory wherever possible. Key Performance Indicators used to track performance against management objectives and targets need to have relevance for the IP community. This means involving them in the development of these indicators. When striving to avoid/manage impacts, one has to make sure that ones own house is in order – e.g. protecting the human rights of your employees; having risk management systems in place which include a sensitivity to human rights issues; making sure that you have enough resources in place to support strong company-community relations etc.). Good Practice Guide reference for material used on this slide: Chapter 3, Page 32. (Notes: 2 of 2)

Impact mitigation and enhancement Key focus areas (1 of 2)
Managing workforce and contractor behaviour Cultural preservation Cross-cultural training Develop and implement cultural heritage plans prior to project activities Agreed codes of conduct Include focus on tangible and intangible aspects. Firm disciplinary action Codes of behaviour embedded in contracts. Aim of this slide: To provide a brief overview of some key themes with regards to impact mitigation. Key points: As discussed in the impact section, there are a variety of ways in which Indigenous Peoples can be negatively by mining activities. This slide looks at two areas of impact that require specific mitigation in an Indigenous People’s context: managing workforce and contractor behaviour, and cultural preservation. Managing workforce and contractor behaviour: A key risk for mining companies working in or near indigenous communities is that its employees or contractors may behave inappropriately towards the indigenous community. Racist language or behaviour, showing a lack of respect for local customs or destroying or damaging cultural heritage sites (even if inadvertently) can cause long-term harm to company–community relations and, in some instances, trigger events that may lead to a project not going ahead, or being shut down. Chapter 3 (Page 34) of the ICMM Good Practice Guide outlines actions that companies can take to ensure that employees and contractors behave appropriately. These actions include: cross-cultural training programs for all employees and contractors; an agreed upon Code of Conduct; taking disciplinary action where required, including dismissal and termination of contracts; and ensuring that contracts with employees, subcontractors, agents and joint venture partners contain appropriate provisions to govern these parties’ behaviour. Cultural preservation: It is good practice for companies to develop and implement a cultural heritage management plan prior to project activities, or prior to significant changes in the project (e.g. expansion of operations). The plan should aim to preserve (and enhance) both tangible and intangible cultural heritage. Tool 8 (Page 66-67) outlines some key points to consider when developing a cultural heritage plan, including a summary of the key components of such a plan. A suggested process for developing a plan can be found in Chapter 2 of the Rio Tinto publication Why cultural heritage matters. (Notes: 1 of 3)

Protect and rehabilitate the environment Addressing discrimination and historical disadvantage This is critical due to intimate connection of IPs with the natural environment Limits on extent to which underlying causes of IP marginalisation can be addressed by mining companies Efforts taken must draw on local IP knowledge Well designed company programmes can help break down marginalisation. Participatory impact management essential. Protect and rehabilitate the environment: Given that Indigenous Peoples often have an intimate connection with the natural environment, efforts to protect against negative environmental impacts resulting from project activities should draw on their knowledge. Companies should where possible, partner with them to identify, plan, mitigate and monitor environmental impacts. They can do this by: including representatives from the indigenous community in environmental assessment panels consulting widely with indigenous communities to understand their environmental concerns about mining and how these can be addressed including Indigenous Peoples or mutually trusted third parties on environmental monitoring committees and involving them in the collection and analysis of monitoring data (eg water samples) involving Indigenous Peoples in environmental rehabilitation activities (eg gathering native plants for rehabilitation, fire management and wildlife management). (Notes: 2 of 3)

Protect and rehabilitate the environment Addressing discrimination and historical disadvantage This is critical due to intimate connection of IPs with the natural environment Limits on extent to which underlying causes of IP marginalisation can be addressed by mining companies Efforts taken must draw on local IP knowledge Well designed company programmes can help break down marginalisation. Participatory impact management essential. Addressing discrimination and historical disadvantage: There are limits to which the underlying causes of the marginalization of Indigenous Peoples can be fully addressed through localized community development programs. In many cases, there will be structural barriers within society that hinder Indigenous Peoples from integrating and enjoying the rights of the majority of the population and which perpetuate socioeconomic disadvantage. These may include discriminatory laws, social stigmatization and poor, or non-existent, service delivery arrangements. The regional, social, economic and cultural transformations brought on by mining projects may well reinforce this sense of discrimination and, if not addressed, can exacerbate the negative impacts of mining on vulnerable groups. Well-designed company programs can help break down the marginalization experienced by Indigenous Peoples. Examples of initiatives that companies have taken include: providing training for employees on diversity and cultural awareness putting in place zero tolerance policies concerning racism and addressing any discriminatory actions partnering with government to target the development of infrastructure and service delivery initiatives to assist geographically marginalized indigenous communities providing scholarships, training and mentoring support at the national and provincial level to assist young Indigenous Peoples develop leadership and advocacy skills. For further examples see ICMM Good Practice Guide, Chapter 3, Page 37. Good Practice Guide reference for material used on this slide: Chapter 3, Page and Tool 6: Impact avoidance and mitigation and Tool 8: Baseline studies and impact assessments. (Notes: 3 of 3)

Impact enhancement: Strengthening the community asset base
A stronger asset base Improved community well being Better company-community relationship Example contributions: Employment and human capital development Creating business opportunities Improving infrastructure and services. Aim of this slide: To provide participants with a brief sense of the guidance provided within the Indigenous Peoples’ guide on the development/enhancement of community assets. Key points: When we think about the effect of mining on Indigenous Peoples, we tend to focus more on management and mitigation of negative impacts/issues, and less on strengthening the community asset base and enhancing positive project outcomes. Tool 7 within the ICMM Good Practice Guide provides an overview of some of the major contributions mining can make to a community’s asset base (the stock of physical, economic, human, social and natural capital), and outlines some of the key areas that companies should focus on sharing benefits. Tool 7 focuses on three core contributions: Employment and human capital development; Creating business opportunities; and Improving infrastructure and services. Strengthening the asset base builds the long-term sustainability of a community, which can have implications for a community’s well-being, with positive knock-on effects for the quality of the relationship between the mining company and the community. It should however be noted that indigenous communities may not desire the kinds of benefits that mining projects may bring, and instead may choose to maintain their traditional lifestyle – and as a result may withhold consent for the proposed project. Good Practice Guide reference for material used on this slide: Tool 7: Strengthening the community asset base

Common flaws when bringing benefit: Some reflections
Insisting on complete control Social projects/benefits as a way of fire-fighting grievances Not applying the same rigour to how benefits are brought about Separating our duty to manage impacts from bringing benefits Enormous expectations and competing needs are not well managed. Aim of this slide: To look at some of the common flaws in how we bring benefits – as highlighted in the International Alert Conflict-Sensitive Business Practice: Guidance for Extractive Industries (2005) Key points: When bringing benefits to local IP (and other) communities, there are a number of common flaws that arise. Five such common flaws are listed below: Insisting on complete control over the design of mitigation strategies in order to avoid the problem of juggling competing demands …. With risks of inappropriate initiatives with little popular support and thus unsustainable. Social projects/benefits as a way of fire-fighting grievances rather than addressing long-term needs. When bringing benefits, companies often don’t apply the same rigour to this process compared with how negative impacts are managed. With project benefits, the tendency is to be less planned and systematic, rather responding to whichever stakeholders shout the loudest. We forget that our duty to manage impacts is separate from bringing benefits or maximising opportunities. You need to do both! What this means is that you can’t use project benefits to justify project impacts. Your responsibility is to avoid and/or manage the impact that is occurring. Over and above this, your company also has a responsibility to maximise the benefits of a project at the local level. This is often stipulated in national legislation. However, you can manage your impacts in such a way that the intervention brings benefit (e.g. resettlement should be managed so that it brings benefits, such as land titles, or improved livelihoods). Also, don’t assume that you can offset a certain kind of impact with benefits from a different capital/asset! (for example, a loss of land [natural capital] cannot be off-set by building roads in the local community [manufactured capital]). The enormous expectations for benefits and vast array of competing needs are often not well managed – this can cause tension and conflict, and has implications for company-community relations. Reference for material used: Bullets 1-3 taken from International Alert: Conflict-Sensitive Business Practice: Guidance for Extractive Industries (2005), Conflict Risk and Impact Assessment tool – Section 5.1.

Case study: Establishing educational programmes
Freeport-McMoRan’s PT Freeport Indonesia operations invest in education: The Nemangkawi Mining Institute, established in 2003, has provided several thousand individuals pre- apprentice, apprenticeship and adult education programs. Enrollment priority is given to individuals from the Amungme and Kamoro communities that reside in proximity to or within the project area. For existing employees: The Institute has been addressing the need for advanced professional development by offering a Master of Business Administration degree programs since Classes are designed around participants’ work schedules. One-month training program for high- potential Papuan employees in Phoenix to improve English, gain leadership skills and understand global operations. For communities: Aim of case study: Present a tangible example of how a company can support education outcomes through its operations and community investment activities. Note: For further information on this case study, see the Good Practice Guide Page 100 and 103.

Plan Do Check Adjust Engage Community agreements

Community agreements: Business and community benefits
Companies Manages key business risks, and support healthy company-community relations. Indigenous Communities Provides a structured mechanism for protecting rights, interests and access to benefits, and elevates to partner status. A community agreement is a negotiated, legally binding agreement between a company and affected communities. Aim of this slide: To define Community Agreements and outline the benefits they offer to both companies and communities (in this case, Indigenous Peoples). Key points: Definition: A Community Agreement is a negotiated, legally binding commercial agreement between a company and affected communities, which sets out mutual obligations and commitments that are both enforceable and auditable. The business case for agreements: For companies, agreements can provide a means of securing long-term access to resources, lowering transaction costs and uncertainty, and reducing exposure to disputes and legal action from indigenous groups. In this sense, agreements can help to manage key business risks. Benefits of agreements for communities: The community level benefits of agreements are not IP-specific. However, for indigenous communities, the main advantages of entering into a negotiated agreement with mining companies are that it provides a structured, usually legally binding, mechanism through which their rights and interests are documented and respected, and they can obtain a satisfactory share of the benefits that mining can bring. Well-designed agreements can provide indigenous groups with some level of assurance and accountability to ensure that the company will manage environmental, cultural and social issues and impacts to high standards. Agreements can also allow IPs to become partners to the project rather than merely stakeholders. As such, agreements help redefine company-community relationships. (Notes: 1 of 2)

Community agreements: Business and community benefits
Companies Manages key business risks, and support healthy company-community relations. Indigenous Communities Provides a structured mechanism for protecting rights, interests and access to benefits, and elevates to partner status. A community agreement is a negotiated, legally binding agreement between a company and affected communities. The Good Practice Guide (Chapter 4) provides the following guidance on making agreements: the factors that make for a successful agreement managing impacts and sharing the benefits of mining through agreements components of agreements implementation of agreements. The chapter is intended to be read in conjunction with TOOL 9: Making Agreements, as well as: Tool 7: Strengthening the community asset base Tool 10: Good faith negotiation Tool 11: Working to obtain consent: a suggested process across corporate engagement Good Practice Guide reference for material used on this slide: Chapter 4 and Tool 9: Making Agreements (Notes: 2 of 2)

Examples of issues to be addressed in community agreements
Community development and upliftment Financial payments and disbursement arrangements Employment & goods/services Impact management Governance arrangements Use of land. Aim of this slide: To outline the types of issues that can potentially be addressed in agreements. Key points: Agreements between the mining companies and the Indigenous community can cover a range of issues or topics, depending on the local context and issues of relevance. Issues that are typically addressed through agreements include: company support (not necessarily financial) in the development and implementation of community projects and initiatives which build the community’s asset base and general well-being; financial payments and disbursement arrangements; employment and contracting (supplying goods and/or services) opportunities; environmental, social, health and cultural (heritage/language) impact management; governance arrangements; any provisions that might be agreed in relation to the local community’s use of certain land. It is important that agreements outline the role and responsibilities of both the company and the indigenous community going forward, any as well as mechanisms for implementing and monitoring the agreement, required project budgets and mechanisms for resolving community concerns or grievances relating to the agreement’s implementation. Consideration should also be given to “locking in” commitments and objectives of agreements with Indigenous Peoples for the life of a mine so that all parties are protected in the event of a change in ownership. Good Practice Guide reference for material used on this slide: Chapter 4 and Tool 9: Making Agreements

Success factors for agreements
Effective agreements depend, first and foremost, on both parties having a thorough understanding of each other’s objectives and needs. Agreements which build and sustain mutually beneficial relationships Agreement perceived as fair and equitable by both parties Clear definition of roles and responsibilities of both parties Focus on long-term outcomes and post-project sustainability Support from throughout the community and company Willingness of all parties to change and improve the agreement as circumstances require Capacity building to ensure effective participation of all parties Governance structures are effective, transparent and accountable and adequately resourced Proper implementation and monitoring of the agreement. Aim of this slide: To outline the key success factors for agreements. Key points: In the broadest terms, successful agreements are those which build and sustain positive, mutually beneficial relationships and partnerships between indigenous groups and companies. Doing so requires building understanding and trust – this takes time and resources. Effective agreements depend, first and foremost, on both parties having a thorough understanding of each other’s objectives and needs. A prerequisite for a successful agreement is to ensure that both parties view the process that led to the agreement as fair and equitable. Be aware that indigenous communities may have different views of importance, and measures of equity and success. If people feel that an agreement has been imposed on them, or they were not properly informed of their rights and obligations under the agreement before signing it, they are much less likely to commit to making it work. Leading practice agreements go beyond a narrow, short-term focus on compensation to address long-term development goals and the issue of post-project sustainability. One hallmark of a good agreement is that it aims to provide intergenerational benefits for indigenous groups that extend long after a mine has closed. The most effective agreements are treated not as static legal documents, but as flexible instruments that provide a framework for governing the ongoing and long-term relationship between a mining project and affected indigenous communities. Such relationships are characterized by the willingness of all parties to change and improve the agreement as circumstances require. These kinds of agreements usually contain commitments from parties to work together to ensure mutual benefit, and change and improve the agreement as needed. The success of an agreement also depends on a company’s ability to properly implement and monitor the agreement. This can be supported by the development of a committee to oversee the agreement’s implementation, and undertake regular meetings and reporting.

Case study: The benefits of an agreement (1 of 2)
Context: The Red Dog Operation is one of the world’s largest zinc mines, located in Northwest Alaska It was created in 1989 through an innovative operating agreement between Teck, the operator, and the Indigenous Iñupiat People who own the land The Iñupia people and their ancestors have inhabited the Nana region for more than 10,000 years and rely heavily on subsistence hunting and fishing which are part of the economic, social and cultural fabric of their communities. Aim of case study: Present an example of negotiating a good agreement with indigenous communities. Note: For further information on this case study, see the Good Practice Guide Page 112.

Case study: The benefits of an agreement (2 of 2)
Mutual benefits: for Teck - certainty for the operations; for the Iñupia - royalties and employment opportunities: The agreement granted Teck exclusive right to build and operate Red Dog in exchange for royalties from production for Nana, as well as training and hiring, cultural preservation, and protection of subsistence resources Over $470 million in royalties has been paid to NANA since 1982 and Red Dog provides 550 high-paying jobs The operating agreement was initiated by a highly proactive local community, through the auspices of a regional economic actor, the Nana corporation In 2013 alone, Red Dog invested $137 million in the local and state economy Over 60% of the total workforce at Red Dog are NANA shareholders. After 25 years’ operation, the Red Dog mine has established an unusually high degree of local ownership with multiple socio-economic benefits

Discussion Consider the following questions:
How might agreements affect community support? What aspects of your company culture support the establishment of agreements? What aspects of your company culture might hinder the establishment of agreements? Aim of this slide: By way of closing this session, pose the above questions to participants. Depending on the amount of time available, either divide them into pairs to discuss and then feedback, or just put the question to the full group for open discussion.

Complaints procedures
Plan Do Check Adjust Engage Complaints procedures

Dealing with complaints and grievances
Key principles necessary to ensure culturally appropriate and well-functioning grievance mechanism Aim of this slide: To introduce the importance of a grievance mechanism in the context of Indigenous Peoples. Note to instructor: The Awareness Raising Pack on Human Rights contains detailed training on complaints procedures, and is therefore not covered in detail here. Key points: The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights requires that companies have in place a grievance mechanism whereby victims of human rights abuses have access to remedy, both judicial and non-judicial (see Pillar 3). To develop a culturally appropriate and well-functioning grievance mechanism, the system and process should be transparent, legitimate, accessible, holistic, predictable, equitable, culturally appropriate and rights-compatible. Box 7 in the slide is a summary of the eight effectiveness criteria for complaints procedures, as outlined in the UN Guiding Principles on Business & Human Rights (Principle 31). Given the vulnerability of Indigenous Peoples to mining impacts, and related human rights infringements (intended and unintended), it is critical that a effective grievance/complaints mechanism is in place. For further guidance on complaints procedures, see Chapter 5: Dealing with grievances, and Tool 12: Designing and implementing grievance mechanisms.

Where can I find more information?

ICMM’s response to Indigenous Peoples
Aim of this slide: To introduce key ICMM principles, positions and guidance in relation to Indigenous Peoples. Note to presenter: The information below is for your information – the detail of this need not be shared with the participants, unless they are interested in hearing more. Key points: The ICMM has responded to the issue of Indigenous Peoples through three key mechanisms: The ICMM SD Framework: Membership of ICMM requires a commitment to 10 Principles, referred to as the Sustainable Development (SD) Framework. Respect for the human rights of Indigenous Peoples is supported in particular by three of the SD principles: Principle 3: Uphold the fundamental human rights and respect cultures, customs and values in dealings with all stakeholders associated with ICMM member companies, including Indigenous Peoples. Principles 6: Seek continual improvement of our environmental performance – this has implications for Indigenous Peoples due to their special relationship to land, territories and natural resources. Principle 9: Contribute to the social, economic and institutional development of the communities (including Indigenous Peoples) in which you operate. These principles apply even if there is no formal recognition of these rights by a host country or if there is a divergence between a country’s international commitments and its domestic law. The ICMM Indigenous Peoples and Mining Position Statement: The position statement sets out ICMM members’ approach to engaging with Indigenous Peoples and to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). The position statement recognises the potential vulnerabilities of IP’s and is based on a commitment to building constructive and respectful relationships between mining companies and Indigenous Peoples. (Notes: 1 of 2) ICMM SD Framework ICMM Indigenous Peoples and Mining Position Statement ICMM Good Practice Guide: Indigenous Peoples and Mining

ICMM’s response to Indigenous Peoples
The ICMM Good Practice Guide: Indigenous Peoples and Mining: the ICMM Good Practice Guide has been designed to raise awareness about sensitivities and requirements specific to Indigenous Peoples, including practical advice on methods and approaches that will best enable companies to deliver on their ICMM commitments and develop successful relationships with Indigenous Peoples. Although the guide focusses on Indigenous Peoples, what constitutes good practice in relation to Indigenous Peoples is the same as for non-Indigenous Peoples. Regardless of where they operate, responsible companies aim to avoid impacting negatively on communities and aim to leave a positive legacy, particularly local social and economic development. The basic principles of good engagement are the same across the board, and many of the methodologies for identifying and realizing development opportunities will apply in the context of dealings with both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples. The Good Practice Guide is also available as an online flipbook: (Notes: 2 of 2) ICMM SD Framework ICMM Indigenous Peoples and Mining Position Statement ICMM Good Practice Guide: Indigenous Peoples and Mining

Other resources For further information on Indigenous Peoples, refer to the following documents: The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2008) Anglo American, Socio-Economic Assessment Toolbox (version 3), Tool 4G: Indigenous Peoples (2012) Rio Tinto, Why agreements matter: a resource guide for integrating agreements into Communities and Social Performance work at Rio Tinto (2016)

International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) 35/38 Portman Square London W1H 6LR United Kingdom Switchboard: +44 (0) Main Fax: +44 (0)

Building constructive relationships with Indigenous Peoples

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Building constructive relationships with Indigenous Peoples"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Building constructive relationships with Indigenous Peoples

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Building constructive relationships with Indigenous Peoples"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback