Almost 20 years ago, Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)—a loaded buzzword in the land governance sector these days—was specifically mentioned in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). FPIC was framed as a right to grant, withhold, or withdraw consent to a project that may affect a community or their land, without coercion and with sufficient tools to make these decisions—such as background information, adequate time for discussion in their language, using culturally appropriate methods, and more. Importantly, FPIC is a process in and of itself, not merely a ticked box in a social safeguard process or the result of due diligence; it does not guarantee consent, nor does it end once a project or investment has started.
Meaningful FPIC Implementation and Its Challenges: In theory, after 20 years of grappling with these principles, we should understand what they signify and, more importantly, how to implement them meaningfully and truly. In practice, despite the nearly two decades of policy discussions and project-level commitments, the implementation of FPIC remains dysfunctional to say the least; it is irregular, inequitable, and in some cases, entirely absent. Communities, development partners, investors, donors, and governments alike continue to struggle with what it truly means to respect or participate in FPIC—not just as a procedural safeguard, but as a fundamental right that must be meaningfully upheld throughout the entire lifespan of a project or investment.
These challenges, strategies, and solutions were the focus of the first of two learning exchanges on customary tenure recognition in the region, held from November 26 to 28 in Siem Reap, Cambodia. Supported by MRLG and organised by RECOFTC and MRLG, this exchange is a key pillar of MRLG’s Regional Workstream on Customary Tenure Recognition. The exchanges aim to share the wealth of knowledge and experiences across the region and strategies to better recognise tenure rights.
The Mekong region is amid transformational change, due in part to the rapid development of markets for land and natural resources. State forests cover a significant 45% of land area in the region, yet these areas have been facing threats from the expansion of commercial agriculture (such as cassava, etc.), timber harvesting, and infrastructure development. The heartbeat of these forests is the communities that reside within them; they are home to more than 70 million indigenous and non-indigenous people who rely on these forests for their livelihoods and wellbeing. Yet these communities often have limited or no legal recognition of their land rights and therefore often cannot participate meaningfully in development decisions that directly impact their lives.
With 37 participants from Cambodia, Vietnam, Lao PDR, Myanmar, and regionally from national MRLG workstreams, civil society, academia, and government, discussions often returned to a recurring theme : FPIC is often reduced to a box-ticking exercise. Consultations are rushed, conducted in language or jargon that is unfamiliar to local communities, and often fail to provide them with clear project details or potential impacts. Many participants reflected in examples that, despite communities raising these issues, projects proceeded without meaningful engagement.
FPIC should not and cannot be a one-time occurrence; rather, it must be an iterative, ongoing process throughout the entire project cycle, especially in longer-term projects such as forestry concessions. However, accountability and monitoring mechanisms remain weak or absent, leaving communities vulnerable to land grabbing and other threats. One specific example from Cambodia highlighted that despite the 2001 Land Law that recognises communal land rights for Indigenous communities, some Indigenous communities have struggled against various types of encroachment and crop (mostly cassava) plantations. Another example from Ratanakiri is a recent desicommunity biodiversity corridor in an Indigenous territory, which was implemented without any consultation, demonstrating the continued lack of FPIC in practice.
Tools and Methodologies for Strengthening FPIC: Organisations like the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Cambodia and other members of the National Cambodia Alliance on Customary Tenure have developed important tools for improving FPIC processes. WCS developed a Resource Use Mapping (RUM) methodology, initially developed under MRLG Phase 2, that is being used to improve zonation in wildlife sanctuaries to incorporate customary tenure claims and practices. A one-day field visit brought participants to a community where WCS is currently implementing RUM. This tool has been successful in officially rezoning a wildlife sanctuary and is also integral to FPIC implementation in current carbon projects. When discussing with the local community during the field visit, while still in the early RUM process, they seemed to voice keen support for the RUM process and its participatory approach. Similarly, the Highlander Association (HA), an indigenous organisation in Ratanakiri, shared how participatory documentation of customary tenure can be used as evidence in legal procedures and policy advocacy. Regionally, the FPIC Handbook, an annex to the ASEAN CT Guidelines, which was recently endorsed by ASEAN, was of great interest to participants who share that it can be utilised as a key resource for ensuring rights-based implementation and refining FPIC processes.
Integrating gender perspectives in FPIC was central to the exchange, being both mainstreamed and discussed by panelists sharing challenges and opportunities to better incorporate women in land governance processes, particularly FPIC. The exchange also addressed carbon investments and linkages with customary tenure, introducing participants to the concept of “social integrity” in carbon markets and the challenges of responsible investments. Results from other MRLG learning exchanges on social integrity and forest carbon were also shared and discussed.
From Global Commitments to Practice: This exchange came at a critical juncture, as important global discussions such as COP29, and the most recent COP16 in Rome, emphasised the critical role of land rights, particularly the intersection of climate resilience and secure land tenure, in achieving global climate and biodiversity targets. Decisions taken, albeit with significant room to improve, have re-emphasized the need for securing tenure and for inclusive and participatory land management frameworks; thus, the recognition of local communities and Indigenous Peoples’ contributions to carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation has never been more prominent. These global commitments reinforce the importance and relevance of our regional efforts to improve recognition of customary tenure recognition as a fundamental element of the climate solution and underscore our shared responsibility to advocate towards translating these promises into solutions.
There is a noticeable trend towards carbon markets and nature-based solutions as climate solutions, ensuring that Indigenous communities and local communities have legally recognised tenure rights and have the ability to meaningfully participate in decision-making is vital. The second learning exchange is scheduled for mid-2025 in Lao PDR and will reflect on the Land and Forest Laws and implementation for customary tenure recognition and build on the discussions from the first exchange—particularly gender equity in decision-making processes, improving community-led methodologies for tenure recognition, and gaining a better understanding of the nexus between the carbon market and tenure.
FPIC and Beyond: Hopefully in two decades from now, we will have true transformational change and be beyond FPIC—a post-FPIC world—where communities have full autonomy over their lands and natural resources and no longer have to fight for the recognition of their rights because they are fully respected and have resources embedded in policy and practice.
Author: Natalie Y. Campbell, Regional Adviser on Customary Tenure and Gender, MRLG
