Most of us would agree that consent is really important, but I'm afraid 'consent' can too easily be fabricated, especially with illiterate people.  In our research for rural development with indigenous communities in East India we took the approach that members of the community were equal participants in the research, and their opinions carried equal weight to the researchers when forming the research questions, designing treatments and their implementation, and interpreting the findings. The community were co-researchers, rather than the subject of the research, and in this sense 'consent' was superfluous.  But to implement a truly participatory project likes this requires a high level of commitment to the principle of equality, and to communicating the likely implications of any actions taken so that 'informed consent' is genuinely embedded in every step. The paper attached outlines the participatory approach we took in the research and introduces the out-scaling of results to the wider community.

I don't have any direct experience with your question.  But, in the situations I have encountered, it seems like the things that most frequently make people angry and the things that make them the angriest are the same:  Being ignored, being denied information, and being lied to.  

I worked for a very large company that had industrial facilities.  This company did a lot of things right.  One key thing that they did was have a very well developed plan for communication with the community.  They also stressed to their management and employees that their facilities were there "at the grace of the community." 

I also want to point you to a resource that, although not directly on point, may be valuable in terms of how people respond to what, and why.  It also has numerous tips about communication.  That resource is Dr. Peter Sandman's webpage.  Dr. Sandman is incredibly generous giving away his knowledge.  I have studied his material and been in a position to use it and advise clients on how to do things based on his teachings.  It can truly work like magic.  

Sounds like a fascinating subject.  Wish I knew more to help.  Good luck.

Below are a couple links to articles of Dr. Sandman's that you might find interesting.  I think the first one in particular might be most germane to your subject (and don't miss the third point (about the pacemaker company); it made an impression on me anyway.

http://www.psandman.com/col/credit.htm

http://www.psandman.com/col/attention.htm

http://www.psandman.com/col/advisory.htm

http://www.psandman.com/col/fracking.htm

YES! It is extremely very important. Why would one want to do it otherwise, anyway?

I don't know whether you are looking at a certain country, or talking in general, but I think it depends on the framework that each country adopts regarding the Social Impact Assessment. Talking about India, SIA was not mandatory until a couple of years ago, till Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into picture. Note that a good chunk of the nation falls under forest cover, is home to indigenous tribes. These are also potential sites for mining activities and other related heavy industries. Hence tribal rehabilitation and relocation is a very pertinent issue that keeps showing up in Indian context.

So, according to the new act, a project proponent has to conduct public hearings, that are open to the local public. These public hearings are advertised in national and vernacular newspapers and are carried out in the presence of state authorities by the project proponent, wherein, people seek information, clarifications, express views and concerns about the project and its impact on their lives, which are duly noted. A videography of this hearing is made and submitted, along with the project's feasibility report, EIA report, and layout plan, to the appraisal committee for the appraisal.

So evidently, unconducive response from local population and project affected people does impact the clearance of the project. A good example, and a very recent one, would be Mahan coal block in Madhya Pradesh. The forest was declared as a no-go for miners after widespread local protests. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/mp-asks-essar-to-shut-down-singrauli-plant/article5624050.ece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_intellectual_property

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioprospecting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

Indigenous people consent is a complex topic as it should be measured and legitimated in some way. For instance, the community leaders might agree with a particular project when the majority of the community is eskeptical...but leaders are the community representatives... In Ecuador the issue of people constent was switched somehow towards the right to be informed. With this "subtle" change many complex projects have been developed.

Currently, theory on corporate social responsibility deals with obtaining the "rigth to operate" from the community and that is the key point. Based on my experience in hydroelectric projects in Ecuador, my advise is that as far as a particular project involves communities (job creation, health, education, etc.) the consent of people will move from the legal field toward the legitimate field.

Indigenous people are important assets for any project success. In order to be a efficient and realistic executor of environmental or natural resource conservation project for exploiting it for getting more rewards, indigenous people will help. If the motivation and proper rapport building is done project success is garrented. Therefore, in impact assessment, involvement of local people is not only necessary but essential. 

If you are in South Africa I would say yes for sure.  The African Charter sets the first international legal obligation.  FAO of UN has also produced Voluntary Guidelines for Responsible Governance of Tenure, which provide a soft law in this regard.

I think we can agree it is important.  But is it required by law?  Not always.  In some jurisdictions in Australia there is a requirement to consult with the indigenous community, for instance, with respect to Aboriginal heritage (eg, see Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Act).  I know that in NSW there is a requirement to assess Aboriginal heritage values in an EIS, and a Land and Environment Court decision which overturned an approval on the basis that the values had not been taken into consideration (I can provide a citation if you're interested).

In terms of voluntary approaches, I did some work with the Mineral Policy Institute regarding "prior and informed consent" requirements for mining interests in PNG.  They produced a policy some years ago that they were seeking to have adopted by corporate interests.  Prior and informed consent is a step higher than "consultation", where a corporate interest seeks the "right to mine" referred to by Juan Espinoza above.  

I believe that there has been some work done on this by mining companies in Western Australia but don't have direct experience with this.

There is of course potentially an issue identifying who is the relevant indigenous community for particular land.  This is a complex but interesting area.

As an example, in the urbanism design one of the most important step is to built a frame in wich people involved in the process can make comments and improvments to the project. I think it could be of general application for all environmental matter

Going back to the 1987 Our Common Future report - which, many would argue, provides the mainstream definition of sustainable development - there are several references to indigenous people. For example: "Tribal and indigenous peoples will need special attention as the forces of economic development disrupt their traditional life-styles - life-styles that can offer modern societies many lessons in the management of resources in complex forest, mountain, and dryland ecosystems" (Overview, $46). Thus, it is easy to argue that Indigenous Peoples' say is important in Sustainability Impact Assessment.

No doubt, indigenous people must have a say. They have local/regional experience and have lived in the region concerned for a long time. I am a strong advocate of bottom-up actions and grassroots movement, doubtlessly influenced by my own experience of Swiss direct democracy: the people as the sovereign that influences and controls state actions.

Good social impact assessment has direct link with the people. This I mean indigenous people, not the elites. And for a good result, the assessment should go beyond the legal boundaries of that society, where such exists. It is this extra inroads into the impacts that will give the true idea of the result. It's the people that provides the link between a project and the society.

The study of Egan is very important. It argues that the property rights of indigenous people are hotly debated in legal, policy, and academic circles across the world. 

This article is entitled Minding the gaps: Property, geography, and Indigenous peoples in Canada

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718512002035

and will help your research. 

Christina

Dear FC

It depends on the context and how formal the consent.

Certainly there needs to be an understanding and agreement with the IP's you are working with. They need to agree to the work you wish to do among them and you should report back to them at the end of your work.

If the IP's are an indigenous minority formal written consent may have to be approved by the elite or the nation state. This may have unintended consequences for the IP's. There are dangers that endogenous customary practices and care of Sacred Natural Sites (for example) are co-opted and formalised by the state

Much better to come to some informal arrangement

Dr John Studley

Ethno-forester

The importance of the consent of the indigenous towns about the studies of environmental and social impact is debated , what has a vital meaning, because it is to evaluate how prejudicial they could be the actions on the habitat in that they live. Are the prepared indigenous towns however, to analyze the efficiency of an evaluation of impact of any type?. They would always have to appeal at third and then it would be subject to the manipulation of their true interests. While there is not a true culture of the indigenous towns in this respect, the objectives won't be achieved that pursue these evaluations.

Dear FC Prinsoloo,

If you are looking for case studies on this topic, I can reccomend you the following articles from the Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal review (reporting experiences from Canada and Australia). You might already know them; if not, it's worth having a look:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3152/146155109X413046#abstract

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3152/147154603781766374#abstract

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14615517.2014.929782#abstract

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3152/146155109X438715#abstract

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3152/146155111X12913679730395#abstract

Hope this helps, regards

Carlo

Hello,

It is evident that indigenous peoples should be involved in any environmental assessment, but I believe that the obstacles lie both with people's willingness to become involved and the capacity of "leaders" to encourage their involvement. It is also important to look at what the senior non-indigenous governments' roles are with respect to indigenous peoples.

Even dealing with non-indigenous peoples, governments in developed countries also undoubtedly have real difficulties involving non-indigenous people, and even when there are procedures in place to encourage their participation, the reality is often not conducive to their participation.

We must remember that even with procedures and processes put in place to facilitate citizen participation, real participation is often far from the observed reality because real participation really requires effective communication and MOBILIZATION of the people concerned. Without effective communication (not just through the media) and mobilization, it is no wonder that frequently participation is very partial if it exists at all.

Perhaps the answer lies in the ability to develop processes that lead to the co-construction of different projects from close to the beginning of a project and not simply trying to get citizens both indigenous and non-indigenous to react to a project that has been developed without any such involvement and looks almost like a foregone conclusion. This also raises questions about how planning development (including specific projects and initiatives) are conceived of from  the beginning and how this relates to the planning and management of development.

Chris Bryant

A small example of how indigenous people 's consent was considered in starting a bauxite plant in India

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/battle-niyamgiri

To achieve the tenets of sustainable and equitable development the knowledge, experience and livelihoods of local people should be central to all environmental management and development projects. See attached article

To me the operative phrase is 'to what extent ?".  There can be no dispute on the fact that prior consent is critical in social and environmental assessments, especially if the initiative is to be located in a landscape where there is a significant presence of indigenous communities.  In India it is stipulated by law.  The issues that continue to confound however are the following: 1.  who do we consider indigenous (especially in countries such as India), 2. who do we engage with, the community at large or their representatives 3. what forms of engagement could we /do we use for objective representation 4. how do we handle outright rejection of the assessment itself 5. How much and what is to be included, and who takes the decision 6. How do we feed the results back    

This is an extremely important point, thank you so much for this response.

I believe that what we are talking about has to do with not just Environmental and Social Impact Assessment but also how people, indigenous or non-indigenous, are involved in the planning of development through a process of mobilization and participation of people. I believe that forms of strategic planning for development FOR and BY the people is critical both in getting people involved as well as having their input into the identification and definition of appropriate projects and initiatives. This is not fanciful! It actually happens in various countries. When real participation takes place, it is amazing how innovative ordinary people can be! They are simply planning the development of their own community or territory. The big challenges is twofold: 1. to have so-called leadership at the level of the community be prepared to involve citizens in the process as early as possible in the process; and 2. that the people are willing to take on significant roles and not expect government leaders (at any scale) to simply take decisions for them. Experience shows that when these two conditions are fulfilled the social, environmental (and economic) issues can be reasonably addressed. The key is to be able to use local knowledge through the involvement of local citizens to construct the vision for the future that is achievable and to be innovative at the same time. Controlling development processes and projects using a 'top-down' approach (whether it is 'top down' starting at the community/municipality level, the province or any other type of broader regional government or the central state) is unfortunately a good way to avoid innovative development processes and projects. As the old saying goes: "If you want to control development, lose it (control)" so that innovation and local knowledge can be explored by citizens and appropriate innovative projects can be identified and put into action. By involving citizens more generally I believe that we are more likely to take into account the negative and positive externalities (social environmental and economic) of alternative projects.

Chris Bryant

As a complement to Chris Bryant's answer I'd like to add that indigenous and tribal peoples have a tradition of self-government and self-decision. the African palaver, where it existed, was a sort of direct democracy by local people, and they used their local expertise to face the daily challenges. There was no need to consult a distant central government (or colonial administration). Problems arose only when matters were taken in hand by some central authority.

Hello,

I couldn't agree with you more! Central authorities at whatever scale can be very supportive of local communities and provide assistance for environmental and social assessments but they have frequently done the contrary. This almost perverse action by central authorities is not always (perhaps even most of the time) intentional, and we are constantly confronted by the unintended consequences of political decisions concerning projects including infrastructure projects. 

We are even faced with situations even when there is a public body that undertakes environmental assessments that the assessments are not necessarily "objective" and may be biased. Again, it would help if there was some form of effective citizen mobilization and participation so that all of the legitimate interests linked to a specific project can actually make their perspectives known.

Chris Bryant

The Indigenous Peoples' consent is very important in Social Impact Assessment, Environmental Impact Assessment or Sustainability studies in certain areas where decision making still rests on them. They are not only the fundamental decision makers but also undertake less risky decisions and thus are by and large the guiding force in areas having vast maojity of small and poor farmers.

IP consent is extremely important. They usually have claims and rights over the areas they occupy. Hence, if they are in the project area, most likely the project area is their ancestral domain. The UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights of 2007 prescribes their "free and prior informed consent". In the Philippines this is also in our laws. In addition to legal requirement, IPs are important element in the environment. They have ways of nurturing the ecosystems that make them sustainable for years. Their indigenous knowledge are important to ecotourism and other nature based projects. Lastly, banks funding projects like the 78 Equator banks that own 80% of the world's debt uphold this IP safeguard policy of World Bank and IFC. 

Most of us would agree that consent is really important, but I'm afraid 'consent' can too easily be fabricated, especially with illiterate people.  In our research for rural development with indigenous communities in East India we took the approach that members of the community were equal participants in the research, and their opinions carried equal weight to the researchers when forming the research questions, designing treatments and their implementation, and interpreting the findings. The community were co-researchers, rather than the subject of the research, and in this sense 'consent' was superfluous.  But to implement a truly participatory project likes this requires a high level of commitment to the principle of equality, and to communicating the likely implications of any actions taken so that 'informed consent' is genuinely embedded in every step. The paper attached outlines the participatory approach we took in the research and introduces the out-scaling of results to the wider community.

Essential. Informed  consent shows respect. It is not only the right thing to do, it is an ethical must.

There is a lot of literature regarding the empowerment of local/indigenous people in protected area  management from the early 2000s, and most of them address issues of consent. Here some examples.

Jacobs, M. J. and C. A. Schloeder (2001). Impacts of Conflict on Biodiversity and Protected Areas in Ethiopia. Washington, D.C., Biodiversity Support Program.

 Mehta, J. N. and J. T. Heinen (2001). "Does community-based conservation shape favorable attitudes among locals? an empirical study from nepal." Environ Manage 28(2): 165-177.

Pokorny, B., et al. (2013). "REDD+ for the poor or the poor for REDD+? About the limitations of environmental policies in the Amazon and the potential of achieving environmental goals through pro-poor policies." Ecology and Society 18(2).

Brockington, D. (2002). Fortress Conservation: The preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania. Oxford: James Currey.

Escobar, A. (1998). ‘Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature? Biodiversity, Conservation and the Political Ecology of Social Movements’. Journal of Political Ecology 5: 53-82.

More recent:

Schultz, L., A. Duit and C. Folke (2011). ‘Participation, Adaptive Co-management, and Management Performance in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves’. World Development 39(4): 662–671.

Wallbott, L. (2014). "Indigenous Peoples in UN REDD+ Negotiations: “Importing Power” and Lobbying for Rights through Discursive Interplay Management." Ecology and Society 19(1).

Ogbaharya, D. and A. Tecle (2010). "Community-based natural resources management in Eritrea and Ethiopia: toward a comparative institutional analysis." Journal of Eastern African Studies 4(3): 490-509.

Consent is not consent of course, as already pointed out above. Like participation it must be genuine, not just waving a piece of paper and making people sign - yes, this is also done, still...Or mentioning it in a side line in an interview "are you okay with this?".

I think what it needs is an engagement with the people in concern (in advance), they need to be involved  themselves in the development of the conditions of the consent agreement, and of course many countries already have their own legal requirements in place, especially in Latin America where bio-piracy is a huge issue.

Lots of good responses here. I would have thought that any one affected by an intervention of any kind should be not only asked for consent but should be fully aware of what they are giving consent to.fran's point about ethics is particularly important. It's not too difficult to find examples in Australia where Aboriginal or Torres Strait islanders' views are either ignored or bought in the name of development.

IP consent is required under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples  signed in 2007. It prescribes for all to get free and prior informed consent if the project is on IP land.

Muchas empresas adjudican rubros importantes para mitigar impacto social y ambiental, pero la mayoría del dinero se queda entre los intermediarios sociales de las empresas, y se termina haciendo un trabajo ineficiente o equivocado que acelera las problemáticas sociales, destruyen organizaciones tradicionales indígenas y ayudan con la desaparición de la cultura,

Population is a major player for all projects that affect her more or less. In principle, all studies of environmental impact assessment must contain a special section dedicated to the impact on local people. Through local community involvement in various projects, including the ecological rehabilitation, increases the confidence on investor intentions, but also the success rate of the project.

In Mexico, prior and informed consent is law as  a result of the ratification of the ILO convention (169). However,  (!) this is becoming increasingly a formality that is ignored or transformed into a mere survey or a questionnaire as increasing numbers of these consultations resulted in prohibitions of mining and wind power projects in their territories.  Recently, the National Employers' Chamber of Commerce has called for these consultations to be suspended -- that would make a mockery of the Convention.  In other countries in Latin America, the ILO convention (Peru, Colombia, Argentina, among others) is also becoming a virtual dead letter.

The real issue should be whether you are willing to leave a gaping hole in your research that can undermine any legitimacy of your work.

Why would you not seek to gain Indigenous People's consent?

The challenge is informed consent and engagement in the research design and execution by the indigenous people. Is the researcher able to accept them as equal and knowledgeable collaborators? They KNOW so much about the research context that the researcher may not. Often such knowledge is found out by trial and error leading to frustration and failure...the researcher could have taken time to build relationship, listen, and learn, and saved much in time, resources and frustration.

We have existing project located in an estuarine body of water inhabited by IP. It is required by law to get prior consent from the IP inhabitants before you conduct studies. And we were required to support the Ritual that they are going to carry-out in order to conduct our assessments in what they call "sacred place".

Now we are about to conduct the social and ecological surveys in the "Lake" the IP required us to pay money to support their ritual. In my personal view, paying in cash should be carefully analyzed due to the possibility of abuse in the nobility that IPs have to have a huge stake in decision making within their lands.

Benjamin J. Gonzales, you work for free do you?

One of the things colonisation has made evident is that things have no value if one does not have to pay for it in the coloniser society.

It (the peoples' consent) is an absolute necessity. Denial of the same is an action of plain cheating, something akin to the attitude of the Imperial Colonizers.

Do the Colonizers have ever been kind enough to ask for permission of the people whom they occupy and subjugate to their purpose?  Historically, they never have been! 

I do believe that the indigenous people/societies must, instead of mere consent, be given the  absolute right of self-determination over the ecology, atmosphere, and resources, in the realest sense.

Thanks.

Hi, consent of people is very critical for the success of any project. In fact it is a requirement under stakeholder analysis and in some countries you must have people buy in before a project is accepted.

FC, we are working on participatory smartgrid control and transactive energy management in community shared solar cogeneration systems for isolated rural villages. In this, the community participates in  smart energy system technology and energy exchange and auction transactions in smart village power solutions. The system includes community energy system controls designed to serve the energy needs of small villages and groups of isolated clustered family houses and have the potential for improving livelihoods and sustainability in small rural villages.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305806844_Participatory_smartgrid_control_and_transactive_energy_management_in_community_shared_solar_cogeneration_systems_for_isolated_rural_villages

Hope this will be interesting form a socio-technical perspective.

Gerro

Conference Paper Participatory smartgrid control and transactive energy manag...

Thank you for all the responses.

Important that we do not violate the indigenous sovereignty of communal lands and that we show respect for indigenous resources and the preservation thereof. 

Regards, FC

http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1144&context=ijgls

I agree with most other responses, that  the consent of indigenous people is absolutely necessary for long-run program effectiveness, not to mention the moral imperative. However, this is not to say that it is easily put into practice, or that collusion will not happen.  Efforts for leveling the field for discussion should be done beforehand, whether this is in the form of better presentation of the program, or capacity-building in the community, or both.

Our experience at the preliminary stages of investigation into establishment of community bamboo plantations and primary processing plants in KZN revealed social complexities far greater than anticipated which were compounded by the state of public sector records and legislation. Some form of formalised Social Impact Assessment in addition to the traditional EIA could certainly go a long way to creating greater sustainability for development projects. Not least would have to be proper identification of the IAAPs such that it counters 'rubber-stamping' by those at the top of the chain to the detriment of those lower down on whom impacts would be greatest.

hi

sustainability, sustainable development or Environmental Impact Assessment can considered as contracted ideas which are based on alternative development ideologies that based on western development thought, yet indigenous people who live in the many peripheral areas have their own ideas norms and practices relevant to that and we have to consider about their own practices when consent important in Social Impact Assessment, Environmental Impact Assessment or Sustainability studies

Just use below mention research works relevant to your question

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14615517.2012.660356

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925509000845

https://books.google.lk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=iIPuDiIrBJUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=To+what+extent+is+Indigenous+People%27s%27+consent+important+in+Social+Impact+Assessment,+Environmental+Impact+Assessment+or+Sustainability+studies+%3F&ots=R8o73tlk4M&sig=TgbsvbgQlMGFstWYdPP43kRFCpE&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.lk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=UM-Gyh9l4KUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Indigenous+People%27s%27+consent+important+in+Social+Impact+Assessment,+Sustainability+studies+%3F&ots=GzvQYwgVBy&sig=UOFa0DT7jsBAKwfLORYyyHAKfGw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.lk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=iIPuDiIrBJUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=Indigenous+People%27s%27+consent+important+in+Social+Impact+Assessment,+Sustainability+studies+%3F&ots=R8o73tmi6S&sig=639S2O1V7K44_he24ZUU9DHKd4o&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Absolutely, consulting and mainstreaming IPs not only in the Environmental  and Social Impact Assessment process but throughout the project operation is important . Here are our ground experiences why we say so:

a) It is a legal requirement for most countries. It is part of the 4 bundles of IP rights in the Philippine Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997, considered one of the stringent laws globally. See attached.

b) The Declaration of the Rights of  IPs or DRIP issued by the UN in 2007 requires free and prior informed consent. Many countries signed off to this declaration. See attached.

c) Our renewable energy subsidiary, the Energy Development Corporation (EDC) is operating in an IP area since 1992 within the geothermal concession. We only got the permit to operate in 1992 after we got "free and prior informed consent " in 1991. It was part of the Environmental Impact Assessment process that we adopted well before the IP law in the country of 1997. It proved to be a tool too avoid opposition. We sought their approval to work in their ancestral domain.

After the government permit was granted in 1992, our daily operation has run smoothly todate because we integrate them in our work. We respect and follow their customs and traditions, as applicable. Their rituals have proven  to be very effective over national laws in cases of conflict resolution between company personnel and tribal peoples. We are recording or codifying their customs so the youth will not forget their heritage and for the company's reference to avoid arbitrariness in interpretation. The IP community in the project area is part of the quarterly government monitoring since 1993 in compliance with Agenda 21 of the Earth Summit which prescribed open monitoring. We included them so that the operation is transparent and there will be no claims or complaints on pollution against the project as they themselves monitor it. Also to assist them, we share economic benefits through our socio-economic development programs on health, education and livelihood. Because of these, they cooperate by staying away from the forest keeping them verdant to sustain the water- based geothermal projects.

The key are for the non-IP organization to do an ethnographic study as part of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment so it will deal with the legitimate tribal groups and leadership as well as know their customs and traditions which are helpful in the dialogues and negotiation for entry to their ancestral domains. The second is to identify activities of shared interests with the IPs. A company will spend for things that are material to them.So if there are things equally material to the company and the IPs these will lead to a sustainable program that the company will nurture. For example, for geothermal projects, EDC protects the forest in its site to sustain the water services of the forest to maintain its water-based geothermal project. By protecting the forest, the ancestral domain of the IPs is also protected. The shared interest binds both IPs and the company.

Our experience in the above topic is not only to involved the IPs in any projects, but their consent is a must. In addition, the details of their sacred places, such as locations and different forms of ceremonies and offerings can only be determined from the local IPs. Sacred places and activities are main aspects to be considered in social and developmental studies for IPs. Hence their consent must comes first.

This is a problem we faced at FAO from its very founding.  The great mistake was to assume that once people saw how really good our idea was, they would come around to see things the way the development officers did.  We learned the hard way that what we got was passive resistance that never went away and still lingers from our very earliest projects.  Nor did the litigation, even after three generations: "they stole our land".  Once we got it into our heads that litigation and passive resistance ended up costing a lot more than participation, we were able to help member states put together sustainable projects.  Without real inclusion in the design and implementation of a project, from the point of view of the affected population "the sooner the project fails, the sooner these outsiders will be gone and the sooner we get our land back."  Inclusive participation is not desirable just because it is "good" but rather because it is necessary.

Several years ago I was adopted by Aboriginal people in the Top End to keep me out of jail.  As an alderman on Darwin City Council I had caught a snake at the request of an elder.  It was a test of my resolve to represent her people.  After acting against police officers abusing Kunwinjku in western Arnhem Land elders  named me Lawungkurr after an ancestral woman still respected for her mediation skills.  I was asked to mediate or advise in a range of situations.  When a woman I called sister-in-law was accused of murdering her husband (she was innocent) other elders asked me to go to Arnhem Land to look after her, which I did.  When my relatives learned that I was starting a PhD they asked to be included.  At that stage my study was only about US birdwatchers who travelled internationally as couples.  But my Kunwinjku relatives had met such visitors at my house and as a result asked me to help them start a little tourism project on their country.  The trouble with the proposition was that academics ignored the elders' request to meet with them and a DVD I provided of a key elder giving her approval was 'lost'.  I've now completed my PhD but without the involvement of my relatives.  

Consent of Indigenous people is very much required for social impact assessment and environmental assessment. They are also  part of our society and more over, sacrificing their rights and lives for the benefit of others(un known persons though in the same state or country). Not only that, indigenous people are living generations together in their own territories with lots of love and affection as well joyful lifestyle within without disturbing any others. whereas, we; who consider ourselves most updated and mainstream people have been disturbing them for our benefits and for our better lives. Is any evidence we hear/read/come to know that the displaced/development affected people having or enjoying better living conditions across the globe. The answer is no. Best of my knowledge; no indigenous community might feel happy through leaving his/her own territory(in fact, any community) as they have emotionally, culturally having emotions bondage with their own land. Coming to the question, it would at least help us to assess the actual/accurate damage that we are going to do to them.  Eventually, every thing cannot be measured in terms of money but can be measured in terms of happiness and joyfulness. But no one like to think such a way that is tragedy

I have a case study. If you want, I can give you, but the article is in Spanish. I think is very important this topic. 

ALejandra -- me encanataria conocer tu estudio ---- [email protected]