Guyana’s REDD+ model features the placement of almost all of the country’s rainforest under long-term protection in return for monetary incentives that will be used to move the country along a low carbon development trajectory. It is a model of forestry preservation and sustainable development that the Government of Guyana is developing in partnership with the Government of Norway. This model of development is part of the global climate change mitigation scheme, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation plus (REDD+). REDD+ is a series of initiatives focused on/in developing countries seeking to diminish carbon dioxide emissions caused by deforestation and degradation, processes recognized as being one of the leading causes of climate change. It aims to dramatically reduce these emissions by creating an incentive mechanism that will pay developing countries to halt destructive processes that lead to deforestation and degradation. Guyana’s REDD+ model has significant implications for Amerindians who occupy the forested regions of Guyana, where most REDD+ related activities are scheduled to take place. Although this model is developing in a context where the legal and political regime governing Amerindians is weak, the treatment of Amerindians in REDD+ development leaves much to be desired in terms of both recognition and protection of important human rights. This Thesis reviews Guyana’s pioneering REDD+ model to show that it is failing to safeguard Amerindian rights recognized under international human rights law. Within the framework of the law, it argues that Guyana’s actions are contrary to its international obligations regarding indigenous peoples. Appropriate measures that should be adopted by Guyana to safeguard Amerindian rights are explored and proposed in this thesis. Possible measures that can be adopted by Norway, the World Bank, and the international community to motivate Guyana to undertake reforms are also examined.

In this dissertation I explore how the international law principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) can enhance public participation, to promote environmental justice for communities affected by environmental decision-making in the mining sector in South Africa. Public participation required in terms of the mining sector environmental regulatory framework in South Africa is underscored by a requirement to ‘consult’. In chapter one, I describe how the requirement to consult differs from a requirement to secure consent in terms of FPIC. I describe public participation (i.e. consultation) requirements related to applications for rights, permits, licences and authorisations that must be in place prior to commencement of mining operations. I argue that where the level of public participation requires mere consultation, it can easily amount to a regulatory tick-box exercise given that the views of mining-affected communities can be manipulated or overlooked, with mining developments proceeding despite devastating effects on communities. In chapter two I describe how FPIC has become part of the regulatory framework governing mining activities through the court’s purposive interpretation of the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act 31 of 1996 (IPILRA) in Baleni and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Others and Maledu and Others v Itereleng Bakgatla Mineral Resources (Pty) Limited and Another. In chapter three, I engage with scholarly literature on FPIC to analyse why and how environmental justice should and can be enhanced by embedding FPIC into legislative public participation requirements. I argue that FPIC, which now forms part of South Africa’s law through the IPILRA, should be a prominent feature in public participation processes for mining-affected communities generally, and not only for informal land right holders. / Mini Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2021. / Public Law / LLM / Unrestricted

No

It has been 15 years since the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognized the Free, Prior and Informed consent Principle, yet it has not been able to function to its fullest potential. This Thesis aims to carry out a Qualitative Comparative Analysis of the following three countries of Australia, Canada, and the United States. With the hypothesis, that the underlying factors behind this failure can be attributed to Settler-Colonialism and Global Capitalism. To carry out this study Theoretical Frameworks based on Settler-Colonial studies and a critique of the Stakeholder theory named Critical Stakeholder Analysis (CSA) will be employed. Using the existing body of research in this area of inquiry as a point of departure, this thesis attributes the failure to implement the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent principle to its fullest potential on asymmetrical power dynamics, settler-colonial structures, and profitability.

No description available.

Discussion around the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) re-intensified in the 1990s as a response to the increasing power of large corporations, the regulatory vacuum left by neoliberal market deregulation and the changing nature of the state in the context of globalization. This dissertation analyzes the constitution of CSR, grounded in political economy and situated in the context of globalization, and identifies CSR as a constitutive element of global governance. Claims made about the potential business contribution to social and economic development in developing regions are largely unsubstantiated and little is known about the impact of CSR on the people it is supposed to benefit. Mainstream literature strips CSR from its context and assumes that practice can be standardized and the results quantified. The qualitative case study analyzes the contextual practice and impact of CSR activities by EnCana Corporation, Canada’s largest independent oil and gas company, on Indigenous peoples and settler communities in Ecuador, and on the Dene Tha’ First Nation in Canada. Analysis of EnCana’s definition and implementation of CSR reveals a conflicting narrative, attempting to reconcile competitive capitalism with broad moralistic principles and ethics. Corporate culture prioritized the business case and the assumption that triple bottom line goals are compatible and mutually reinforcing. Findings from the case study demonstrate that corporate ideology remained constant across the company’s operations in the two countries, allowing adaptation of its CSR practices only within a certain range of possibilities. The case study provides evidence that EnCana Corporation had to adapt its CSR practice in response to specific articulations of local social-economic and political contexts. Specifically, CSR practices responded first, to national development goals and state capacity; and second, to Indigenous and communal resources and strategies. The findings further suggest that CSR practice creates fragile dependencies, subjecting social, ecological and social justice objectives to economic imperatives. Two important processes contribute to the creation of fragile dependencies. First, at the business-society interface, citizens are conceptualized as stakeholders; second, participation in decision-making becomes institutionalized as a limited form of consultation, often delegated to project proponents, without sufficient involvement of the state.

Over the last decades the struggle for indigenous rights has accomplished great achievements within international law. In relation to development projects and resource extraction on indigenous lands, the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) has gained increased recognition and is today expressed as an important instrument to realize indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination. Nevertheless, empirical evidence have identified power asymmetries as one of the major obstacles for effective and meaningful FPIC implementation. This study investigates how power asymmetries emerge and affect the right to self-determination through the four FPIC requirements. Based on field research and by applying a relational approach, the study investigates a case of mining activities in northwestern Argentina where indigenous communities currently experience an increased interest in lithium deposits on their lands from transnational corporations. The study shows how relations characterized by dependency and clientelism create a situation where actors hold unequal power positions which permeate all FPIC requirements severely undermining the principle’s potential to fulfill its purpose. Lastly, based on the findings the study argues substantial underpinnings in terms of necessary preconditions are needed if FPIC are to be able to ensure self-determination.

Ce mémoire cherche à dépasser la notion traditionnelle de la souveraineté afin de résoudre l’apparente incommensurabilité entre les revendications d’autorités territoriales des États et des peuples autochtones. À travers le cas d’étude des processus de consultation héritiers de la norme du consentement préalable, libre et éclairé (CPLE), il est démontré que l’énonciation de la norme dans le régime international des droits humains empêche le libre refus des peuples autochtones. La prédominance des intérêts étatiques au sein du système international limite une compréhension substantive de la notion de consentement à travers la crainte du « veto » autochtone, limite qui est reproduite à travers la mise en oeuvre de la norme. La déconstruction du concept du CPLE ancrée dans le contexte du colonialisme d’établissement permet d’ouvrir le champ des possibles vers une nouvelle compréhension de la norme qui soit informée par les conceptions de l’autodétermination autochtone. Au terme de cette étude, il est postulé que la résolution du conflit de significations ne peut s’effectuer qu’au sein d’une vision pluraliste de l’autorité territoriale où le libre refus des peuples autochtones est systématiquement respecté. Ainsi, cette recherche propose de se tourner vers la littérature autochtone afin d’informer le sens donné à la notion d’autodétermination. / This dissertation seeks to go beyond the traditional notion of sovereignty to resolve the apparent incommensurability between states and indigenous peoples’ claims of territorial authority. Through the case study of the consultation processes inherited from the norm of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), it is shown that the enunciation of the norm in the international human rights regime prohibits the free refusal of indigenous peoples. The predominance of state interests within the international system circumscribes a substantive understanding of the notion of consent through the fear of the indigenous “veto”, a limit reproduced through the implementation of the norm. The deconstruction of the concept of FPIC rooted in the context of settler colonialism opens up possibilities for a new understanding of the norm which can clear the way towards a new understanding guided and driven by indigenous peoples’ conceptions of self-determination. At the end of this study, it is postulated that the resolution of the conflict of meanings can only take place within a pluralist vision of territorial authority where the free refusal of indigenous peoples is systematically upheld. Thus, this research proposes to turn to indigenous literature to inform the meaning given to the notion of self-determination.

Cette recherche doctorale est centrée sur les principales difficultés et potentialités de l’application des protocoles de consultation et de consentement autonomes adoptés par les peuples et communautés autochtones, afro-descendants et traditionnels comme lignes directrices pour mettre en œuvre le consentement libre, préalable et éclairé (CLPE). Ces peuples et communautés ont élaboré leurs protocoles sur la base de leur droit à l’autodétermination et sur la base de lois internationales, nationales et pluralistes établissant la manière dont ils souhaitent être consultés et les conditions requises pour donner ou refuser leur consentement. La recherche a examiné comment les peuples et les communautés ont assuré le cadre du CLPE dans leurs protocoles, comment la loi a permis l’application des protocoles et comment les protocoles ont été effectivement appliqués comme lignes directrices dans les processus de consultation et de consentement. Cette recherche a été menée à travers (i) une analyse documentaire des protocoles autonomes élaborés par de nombreux peuples et communautés au Brésil, au Canada et dans d’autres pays d’Amérique ; (ii) une analyse documentaire de la manière dont le système international des droits de l’homme a permis la reconnaissance des protocoles ; et (iii) une étude de l’application des protocoles au Brésil, avec un accent particulier sur les protocoles autochtones dans la région amazonienne, à travers des entretiens ouverts, une analyse documentaire et une recherche secondaire exploratoire. La recherche documentaire sur les protocoles, combinée à l’étude sur le système international des droits de l’homme et le Brésil, a permis de réfléchir aux principales difficultés et potentialités de l’application des protocoles. Les résultats révèlent que les principales difficultés liées à la reconnaissance et à l’application des protocoles concernent les défis juridico-politiques de la mise en œuvre du CLPE et la manière dont les protocoles sont liés aux cadres légaux des États, dans le sens où les vues centrées sur l’État peuvent ignorer ou limiter l’application du cadre des protocoles. À l’inverse, cette recherche doctorale démontre que, dans une perspective d’autodétermination, les peuples et les communautés ont le droit de déterminer les cadres et les lignes directrices pour les consulter et obtenir leur consentement. Par conséquent, les protocoles expriment leur cadre autonome de consentement. Cette recherche démontre que les protocoles ont le potentiel de mettre en œuvre le CLPE par leur application, en respectant les droits, les institutions, les lois pluralistes et les cosmopolitiques des peuples/communautés qui les ont rédigés. / This doctoral research investigates the major difficulties and potentialities of applying autonomous consultation and consent protocols elaborated by Indigenous, Afro-descendant, and traditional peoples and communities as guidelines to implement free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). These peoples and communities have elaborated their protocols grounded on their right to selfdetermination and based on international, national, and their own pluralistic laws to establish how they want to be consulted and their requirements for providing or withholding consent. This research examines how peoples and communities have asserted FPIC frameworks in their protocols, how the law has made room for the protocols’ application, and how the protocols have been effectively applied as guidelines in consultation and consent processes. These objectives were pursued through (i) a documentary analysis of autonomous protocols elaborated by diverse peoples and communities in Brazil, Canada, and other countries in the Americas; (ii) a documentary analysis of how the international human rights system has made room for recognition of the protocols; and (iii) a study on the application of the protocols in Brazil, with particular focus on Indigenous protocols in the Amazon region, using open-ended interviews, documentary analysis, and exploratory secondary research. The documentary research on the protocols and the international human rights system and the focused study on application in Brazil provided findings that allow for important reflections on the foremost difficulties and potentialities of applying the protocols. The results reveal that the main difficulties in acknowledging and applying the protocols concern the legal-political challenges of implementing FPIC and how the protocols relate to state legal frameworks, in the sense that state-centric views may disregard or restrain the application of the frameworks established in the protocols. Conversely, the research demonstrates that, from a self-determining perspective, peoples and communities have the right to determine frameworks and guidelines for consulting with them and seeking their consent, and shows that the protocols express their autonomous framework for consent. Finally, the research proves that the protocols’ application has the potential to implement FPIC respecting the rights, institutions, pluralistic laws, and cosmopolitics of the peoples/communities who authored them.

Ce mémoire vise à mieux comprendre les débats politiques concernant la participation des peuples autochtones à la prise de décision en matière de développement du territoire et des ressources dans le contexte de l’évaluation d’impact au Canada. Si l’évaluation d’impact est perçue comme un mécanisme au sein duquel se matérialisent les droits autochtones (dont l’obligation de consulter de la Couronne), les principaux acteurs de ces processus (gouvernement fédéral, promoteurs des projets et groupes autochtones) ne semblent pas s’entendre sur la signification et la portée des normes en matière de participation autochtone, en particulier sur le consentement préalable, libre et éclairé (CPLE). Par une analyse du discours de ces intervenants dans le cadre des travaux parlementaires menant à l’adoption de la Loi sur l’évaluation d’impact (2019), cette recherche révèle trois conceptions principales de la place des Autochtones dans les processus de prise de décision de l’évaluation d’impact : procédurale, partenariale et fondée sur l’autodétermination. Ce mémoire met aussi en évidence d’importantes différences en ce qui concerne les attentes face au modèle de participation et plus spécifiquement sur l’interprétation du CPLE. Ces différences reposent en grande partie sur la façon dont ceux-ci conçoivent l’autorité décisionnelle en matière de gouvernance territoriale au Canada. Pour les intervenants gouvernementaux et autochtones, les conceptions en matière de participation et d’autorité décisionnelle s’appuient sur des fondements juridiques. En revanche, pour l’industrie, la justification de la participation des Autochtones est davantage de nature économique et liée à son impact sur l’approbation des projets. / This thesis aims to better understand the political debates regarding Indigenous peoples’ participation in land and resource decision-making in the context of impact assessment in Canada. While impact assessment is viewed as a mechanism through which Indigenous rights (including the Crown's duty to consult) are realized, the actors in these processes (federal government authorities, project promoters and indigenous groups) do not seem to agree on the meaning and scope of Indigenous participation norms, notably regarding free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). Through discourse analysis of these actors within the framework of the parliamentary work leading to the adoption of the Impact Assessment Act (2019), this research reveals three main conceptions of the place of Indigenous peoples in impact assessment decision-making processes: procedural, partnership and based on self-determination. This thesis also highlights important differences in terms of expectations regarding the type of participation and more specifically on FPIC interpretations. These differences are largely based on how they conceive decision-making authority in matters of territorial governance in Canada. For the government and the Indigenous actors, notions of participation and decision-making authority are based on legal foundations. In contrast, for the industry, the rationale behind Indigenous participation is rather economic and linked to its impact on project approval.