1. 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 to be presented by a community relations personnel to an audience of staff in non-CR roles, but who have some interaction with external stakeholders.
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.
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 C: Training for staff in non-Community Relations roles, but who have some interaction with external stakeholders

2. 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.

3. Who are Indigenous Peoples?

4. 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), the notion of “indigenous” can also have negative associations (such as ‘primitive’ or ‘uneducated’) – and is not necessarily seen as a positive, empowering term.
In summary, the use of the term “Indigenous Peoples” is complicated and the use of the definition of “Indigenous Peoples” is not globally accepted.
Reference for Good Practice Guide material used on this slide: Chapter 1, Page 15

5. Why are Indigenous Peoples issues relevant to business?
Aim of this slide: To introduce the relevance of Indigenous Peoples to business.
Key points:
The slides in this section of the training (Slides 5 to xx) look at the relevance of Indigenous Peoples under four headings:
Understanding the rationale for the special focus and consideration;
The negative impacts that mining activities can have on Indigenous Peoples;
The positive impacts that mining activities can have on Indigenous Peoples;
The business risks and benefits of an IP-sensitive approach.

6. 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)

7. 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)

8. Exercise: A few questions
Consider:
When and why do you interact with Indigenous Peoples?
During these interactions, what guidance and support do you sometimes feel you need?
In your experience, where do you think that Indigenous Peoples issues potentially pose a risk to the company?
Aim of this slide: To take participants through an exercise where they consider their interactions with Indigenous Peoples – the intention of which is to create a connection between this training session and their own work.
Activity:
This activity entails asking two questions of your participants:
When and why (for what purpose) do you interact with Indigenous Peoples?
During these interactions, what guidance and support do you sometimes feel you need?
In your experience, where do you think that Indigenous Peoples issues potentially pose a risk to the company?
Instructions for the presenter:
Take one of two approaches: either divide the group into pairs, or do a “round”, where each person takes a turn to answer the question posed.
If you are working in pairs, give them 5 minutes to discuss Question 1 between themselves, and then get feedback from each pair. Write up their responses on the flipchart for all to see.
If you are working in rounds, ask one person to volunteer to go first, and then state the direction (clockwise or anti-clockwise) in which the answering will move. Key is to keep the flow in the agreed direction so that people know when their turn is coming. Do not allow people to interrupt the person speaking.
One you have done through the first question, then move onto Question 2 and then Question 3 using the same method/instructions you gave for Question 1.
You might want to go into open discussion after all three questions have been posed. To complete the exercise, provide a brief summary of the main ideas and themes that have emerged during this discussion.
Allow for minutes for the exercise.
Special note to presenter: If participants don’t know each other (albeit unlikely), use this exercise as an opportunity for participants to introduce themselves before answering the questions posed.

9. What do we need to do in practice?

10. 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.

11. Engaging with Indigenous Peoples
Plan Do
Check
Adjust
Engage
Best practice approaches
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

12. 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)

13. 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.
(Notes: 1 of 2)

14. Prepare: Engagement challenges
1. Negative legacies & perceptions
2. Community expectations
3. Language & communication
4. 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.
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

15. Responding to engagement challenges
Negative legacies & perceptions
Managing community expectations
Language & communication
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.
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 2)

16. 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 21

17. 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 processes for affected Indigenous Peoples to approve or withhold their consent, consistent with their decision-making processes, 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.

18. 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 (see slide 18).
(Notes: 1 of 2)

19. 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

20. 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.

21. Understanding your context
Plan Do
Check
Adjust
Engage
Best practice approaches
Understanding your context

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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.

25. Identifying impacts Plan Do Check Adjust Engage
Best practice approaches
Identifying impacts

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. Impact mitigation and enhancement Plan Do Check Adjust Engage
Best practice approaches
Impact mitigation
and enhancement

29. 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)

30. 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 Peoples’ 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)

31. Impact mitigation and enhancement Key focus areas (2 of 2)
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)

32. 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

33. 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.
Good Practice Guide reference for material used on this slide: Chapter 4 and Tool 9: Making Agreements

34. 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, and by doing so, illustrate the relevance of agreements to various departments with the company.
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

35. 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.

36. Dealing with grievances: A key element of check and adjust
Given the vulnerability of Indigenous Peoples to mining impacts, it is critical that an effective grievance/complaints mechanism is in place so that concerns can be raised and addressed. A grievance mechanism plays a key role in raising issues and concerns across the full spectrum of operational impacts …. and is therefore relevant across all departments.
Aim of this slide: To complete the training with a brief reminder of the importance of a grievance mechanism in the context of Indigenous Peoples.
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).
The grievance mechanism plays a key role in raising issues and concerns across the full spectrum of operational impacts, and so is of relevance to all staff.
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.
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 so that concerns can be raised and addressed.
For further guidance on complaints procedures, see Chapter 5: Dealing with grievances, and Tool 12: Designing and implementing grievance mechanisms. ALSO, please note that the Awareness Raising Pack on Human Rights contains detailed training on complaints procedures, and is therefore not covered in detail in this pack.

37. Where can I find more information?
Additional resources
Where can I find more information?

38. 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

39. 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 People (2012)
Rio Tinto, Why agreements matter: a resource guide for integrating agreements into Communities and Social Performance work at Rio Tinto (2016)

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