Using Free, Prior and Informed Consent to build trust with indigenous communities in Nepal
By using the internationally recognised Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) consultation process, the developer of the Upper Trishul-1 project has helped to build trust and ensure the impacts of development can be effectively mitigated.
Overview
The Free, Prior and Informed Consent process is a principle enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It establishes a universal framework of minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of Indigenous Peoples.
The Upper Trishul-1 project (UT-1) is a model of how FPIC can help create an Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP) to mitigate the impacts of development and provide benefits to affected communities.
When completed, the project will impact 78 hectares of government-owned Community Forest Users' land. Twelve families will be physically displaced by the project and 154 families will be economically impacted, while the lives and livelihoods of surrounding communities will also be significantly affected.
To diminish these impacts, affected communities were consulted on the creation of the IPP and will benefit from new infrastructure such as roads, schools and health services. Additionally, Indigenous Peoples were provided with employment preferences and job training.
The Upper Trishul-1 project (UT-1) is a model of how FPIC can help create an Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP) to mitigate the impacts of development and provide benefits to affected communities.
When completed, the project will impact 78 hectares of government-owned Community Forest Users' land. Twelve families will be physically displaced by the project and 154 families will be economically impacted, while the lives and livelihoods of surrounding communities will also be significantly affected.
To diminish these impacts, affected communities were consulted on the creation of the IPP and will benefit from new infrastructure such as roads, schools and health services. Additionally, Indigenous Peoples were provided with employment preferences and job training.
.jpg)
Project background
Prior to the FPIC engagement process being introduced, the development was proceeded by 12 years of fractious process and community opposition. This process was marked by intermittent consultations with local representatives, with the project proponent previously accused of offering inconsistent explanations and promises to Indigenous Peoples.
Following a major earthquake in 2015, further stress was added to the relationship between both parties and a ‘struggle committee’ was formed to oppose the project. The local chapter of NEFIN, the national Indigenous federation, was also in prominent opposition to the project.
To proceed with the project, trust needed to be rebuilt with affected communities in order for a productive dialogue to exist. This could ensure that communities were consulted and consented to future development.
After only six months of using the FPIC engagement process, the relationship between the developer and the local community was repaired, and consent was provided for the development by Indigenous Peoples.
Following a major earthquake in 2015, further stress was added to the relationship between both parties and a ‘struggle committee’ was formed to oppose the project. The local chapter of NEFIN, the national Indigenous federation, was also in prominent opposition to the project.
To proceed with the project, trust needed to be rebuilt with affected communities in order for a productive dialogue to exist. This could ensure that communities were consulted and consented to future development.
After only six months of using the FPIC engagement process, the relationship between the developer and the local community was repaired, and consent was provided for the development by Indigenous Peoples.
Working with Indigenous communities
In 2018, the engagement process with Indigenous Peoples was restarted using the FPIC process. This focused on Indigenous participation and partnership throughout the project lifecycle, including for the IPP preparation and implementation.
This included the IPP being negotiated and prepared in a collaborative process with the communities, the plan being implemented utilising Indigenous participation in governance, monitoring and evaluation and the plan being implemented in a tripartite arrangement, with Indigenous communities, project and local government.
This included the IPP being negotiated and prepared in a collaborative process with the communities, the plan being implemented utilising Indigenous participation in governance, monitoring and evaluation and the plan being implemented in a tripartite arrangement, with Indigenous communities, project and local government.
A new Standard
Read the consultation paper on the development of a global sustainability standard for hydropower.
If adopted, the Hydropower Sustainability Standard would apply a rating, or label, to projects of any size or stage of development.
If adopted, the Hydropower Sustainability Standard would apply a rating, or label, to projects of any size or stage of development.
Community consent
Good faith negotiations
Good faith negotiations were structured to facilitate development with three parties:
- Representatives of Indigenous communities
- Company middle management who had been empowered to negotiate and embrace legacy issues
- Facilitators including national and local staff from NEFIN and a dedicated FPIC specialist/facilitator.
The FPIC engagement process involved 10 villages including 6,000 people. Over 90 per cent of the people are Tamang, one of Nepal's prominent Indigenous Peoples.
Using an inclusive process with social quotas, 85 members from the 10 villages were selected as representatives on the Adivasi Janajati council (AJAC). The Council's role included reviewing documents and voting on acceptability of the proposed FPIC documents. A working group of 20 representatives from AJAC was formed with an even gender split; its purpose was to co-prepare the FPIC documents.
Proceeding with community consent
As of late 2021, the project is in the final stages of financial closure, and preparatory work has begun on access roads, work camp land clearing and intake tunnel construction.
After obtaining consent from affected communities, the project has been able to proceed with financing. It has also benefited from creating a strong organisational framework for implementing the IPP and addressing potential issues that may arise; substantially reducing the project’s social risk.
Affected communities have benefited from having their input into the IPP taken seriously throughout its development, and having the developer agree to their demands framework which commits both parties to the resolution of legacy issues and a certified process to resolve contentious ongoing issues.
The FPIC process was the first valuable conflict-management mechanism in Nepal for interactions between Indigenous Peoples and a development project.
.png)
Benefits to affected communities
The benefits package for affected communities whose lives may have been impacted by development includes new infrastructure such as roads, schools, and health services, as well as employment preferences, job training and other projects that the communities themselves will propose.
Four Program Committees, all to be composed of indigenous representatives, will consider development proposals in the areas of capacity-building, economic development, cultural heritage maintenance, and social support.
Communities have also been promised future preferential access to subsidised project shares which is a legal requirement for development projects in Nepal.
What enabled the FPIC process to be successful?
True good faith negotiations
Unlike the earlier process, FPIC engagement involved good faith negotiations between both the project and Indigenous communities. Both sides were respectful to each other, listened, made key concessions, and followed through on commitments.
Strong facilitation
NEFIN, the national and local indigenous organisation, provided a credible voice for both the project and affected communities as a third-party facilitator.
An independent expert familiar with indigenous issues, project development and development bank processes helped to ensure that there was a good channel of communication between NEFIN and the project developer, and that requirements set by the development bank were met.
Empowering project staff to facilitate engagement
The project developer’s senior management empowered its middle management to engage in negotiations with the affected indigenous communities without having to resort to obtaining guidance and approvals. Similarly, staff on the ground were able to embrace and resolve legacy and outstanding issues, improving communication with indigenous people and repairing trust from previous, less fruitful exercises.
Inclusive community representatives
From the outset of the FPIC process there was a careful community led process to select its representatives to the advisory council and working group which emphasized locally important statuses such as teachers, lamas, shamans as well as marginalized groups such as the very poor, women, the old and young.
Building community capacity
Building the capacity of the community, enabling them to engage effectively in the FPIC process and the IPP implementation was key to a trustworthy and collaborative process.
Other conclusions:
Gender
As in many places, gender can be a sensitive issue. When raised by facilitators in the context of international lenders’ guidelines, women were quick to seize the opportunity to speak their minds and men recognised that the FPIC process sought to empower all of their community, including women.
Equal opportunities
It is important to be aware of class, caste and other ethnic cleavages and political factions to ensure all segments of community have an opportunity for their voices to be heard and influence the process.
Local culture informing process
It is beneficial to embed the culture being interacted with into the process of communication and negotiation for a fair and transparent process. This includes language, appropriate communication materials, consultation and decision processes and timelines, mitigation measures and benefits. Local communities set the tone: the process and outcomes should respect spiritual and social aspects as well as economic, bureaucratic and engineering imperatives.
Resettlement
Early in the process there was a danger that compensation rate grievances for those who were being involuntarily resettled may bog down the FPIC process. The AJAC decided collectively that resettlement related issues would be kept separate due to the IPP being a collective matter. Resettlement was then to rely on individual agreements between households and the project.
Visit IHA’s Indigenous Peoples webpage.
Download IHA's How-to Guide on Indigenous Peoples
About the authors
This case study was written by Eduard Wojczynski, author of the IHA How-to Guide on Hydropower and Indigenous Peoples and Greg Guldin an expert from Cross-Cultural Consulting Services.
