for indigenous peoples, as well as the consent of the local government.
Tony LaVina, a senior fellow at World Resources Institute and former
official in the Philippines government, noted that "the law was
industry-driven and there was no objection from industry on the concept
of prior consent by indigenous peoples law." In 1996, the Mining and
Forestry Rules were revised to incorporate FPIC requirements and
provide details on how FPIC must be implemented. In 1997, the
Indigenous Peoples Right Act was passed by the Congress, enshrining the
principle of FPIC and providing the administrative system that
currently oversees its implementation for indigenous peoples (the
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples).
As a result of all this legislation, FPIC is now required in the
Philippines for all activities affecting the land and lives of
indigenous peoples. For other local communities, FPIC must be obtained
for all projects that require environmental impact assessments, and its
importance is further recognized through the concept [*540] of
"social acceptability."
LaVina summarizes the principal factors that led to this legislation
being passed in the Philippines:
. Acceptance of Human Rights Norms: The 1987 constitution of the
Philip pines incorporated recognition of human rights norms, strong
provisions on indigenous peoples' rights, due process, transparency and
public participation. The government continued to be influenced by
international law on indigenous peoples' rights and environmental
governance, particularly Principle 10 of the Rio Delaration.
. Peace and National Security Concerns: The Philippine government
saw FPIC as an instrumental tool to avoid conflict. (The potential
significance of FPIC as such a tool was emphasized by mapping of
conflict areas during the 1996 peace negotiations with Moro National
Liberation Front and National Democratic Front, which showed a
convergence between big projects which were socially unacceptable and
the presence of insurgent groups.)
. Economic Incentives: The Philippines had experienced
unanticipated costs for delay and legal/political repercussions of
large socially unacceptable projects, and wanted to put in place a
mechanism which would gauge social acceptability of projects before
project initiation, in order to prevent these unnecessary costs.
Copyright (c) 2007 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review
Georgetown International Environmental Law Review
Spring, 2007
19 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 475
LENGTH: 31258 words
ARTICLE: Partnerships for Success in Protected Areas: The Public
Interest and Local Community and Rights to Prior Informed Consent (PIC)
NAME: ANNE PERRAULT, * KIRK HERBERTSON, + and OWEN J. LYNCH ++
