We use cookies to improve our website. See our privacy notice.

I understand

Les peuples autochtones ont le droit de décider

Le consentement libre et éclairé (CLÉ) est le droit inaliénable des communautés autochtones qui doivent décider de dire “oui” ou “non” aux exploitations minières, forestières, gazières, de l'eau, ou toute autre proposition d'activité extérieure pouvant affecter leurs terres, territoires et/ ou les ressources naturelles.

Le savoir, c'est le pouvoir

Apprendre les standards nationaux et internationaux aide les communautés à défendre leur territoire.

Explorer:

Consultation
Cadres légaux
Gouvernance
Industrie(s)
Consentement libre et éclairé (CLÉ)
Prise de décision
Piwatisiwin
Indigenous Allyship
Reportages

En vedette:

Indigenous Laws and Governance in Indigenous Self-Developed FPIC Protocols
Rapport

2020 - English - Practical

Indigenous Laws and Governance in Indigenous S…

Sheryl Lightfoot

CLIP | Consultation | Gouvernance autochtone | Industrie | Autodétermination | Droit international | Engagement des communautés

Indigenous Laws and Governance in Indigenous Self-Developed FPIC Protocols

This paper investigates a series of case studies on Indigenous self-developed FPIC principles and guidelines. This paper also highlights how these principles relate to the inclusion of women and youth in decision making processes, and what actions Indigenous peoples may take to ensure a community approach to resource development issues.

Rights in Action: Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) for Indigenous Peoples
Vidéo & fichier sonore

2013 - English - Simple

Rights in Action: Free, Prior and Informed Con…

Asia Indigenous Peoples' Pact

CLIP | Droits et cadres légaux | UNDRIP | Accès au territoire | Autodétermination | Consultation | Engagement des communautés | Gestion du territoire | Savoirs traditionnels

Rights in Action: Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) for Indigenous Peoples

Cette animation vidéo pour les communautés explique les concepts et les mécanismes du consentement libre, informé et préalable (CLIP) à travers un récit d'interactions entre les peuples autochtones et ceux qui requièrent leur consentement (CLIP) pour de nouveaux projets de développements. Le CLIP est un processus continu qui implique un respect mu…

FPIC Flashcards
Infographic

2015 - English - Simple

FPIC Flashcards

Oxfam Australia

CLIP | Droits et cadres légaux | Consultation | Prise de décision

FPIC Flashcards

Cette courte séries de cartes revoit les étapes-clé que peuvent prendre les communautés autochtones afin de faire l'exercice de leur droit au consentement libre, informé et préalable (CLIP)

De notre blogue:

Genocide in the Far North: Canada 1950

The following article was originally published in June 2018 in Dr. Hassmann's blog Rights & Rightlessness: Rhoda Hassmann on Human Right. You can find the original publication here. On June 11, 2018, Gloria Galloway published an article in the Globe and Mail (p. A9) entitled “Ahiarmiut ready for apology after several relocations.” According to Galloway, the Ahiarmiut are a small group of Inuit whom the Canadian government relocated about 100 km. from their original home in 1950, on the grounds that they were becoming too dependent on trade with federal employees at a radio tower near their home. They were “dropped on an island without food, shelter or tools.” To survive, they ate bark and whatever else they could get their hands on until winter came. Many died. In 1957, they were relocated again; this time they were given tents at their new location, as well as a “starvation box” that might feed them for a week. Some died again. There were three subsequent relocations. Through their lawyer, Steve Cooper, survivors and their descendants have been asking for compensation, an apology, and a memorial since 2007. According to Galloway, the government has finally agreed to settle, in part to bring ...

Exercising Indigenous Rights Increases Risk of Criminalization, Incarceration, and Death

There is much to celebrate since the 2007 signing of the Declaration of the rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (1). The internationalization of Indigenous rights has certainly not been without consequence. The signing of the Declaration, the development of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2), and an increasing corporate attention to the issues and practice of Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) have confirmed the minimum standards of consultation and consent for proposed development on Indigenous lands. Indigenous communities have gained visibility and political profile both within Nation States and internationally. Indigenous communities globally are increasing their communication and collaboration with one another. The internationalization of Indigenous rights has contributed to increased Indigenous efforts to exercise rights to consultation and to decision making power regarding access to and development of Indigenous lands and resources. To what end? Corporate and state responses have not reflected the hopes of the Declaration. In 2017, 10 years after the signing of the Declaration, there is documented evidence of increased criminalization of, violence against, and deaths of Indigenous leaders, activists and allies. It was reported that in 2016, 281 people were killed while defending Indigenous lands and environmental rights in relation ...

The Promise of Indigenous Youth

This article was originally created in October 2012 in the blog series "The Rise of the Fourth World" published by the Centre for Governance Innovation. Access the original post. Canadian social policies directed towards Aboriginal (First Nation, Metis and Inuit) populations have largely been developed outside of a historical, cultural framework, providing a long standing demonstration of the role of policy as a centralized mechanism of social control. Little attention has been given to the specific cultures of diverse Aboriginal communities in the design and administration of policies which are administered across Canada. Aboriginal peoples have, historically, been collectively addressed in federal policies as “the Indian Problem,” rather than recognized and addressed, as they expected, as sovereign peoples with distinct cultures. Indigenous peoples endured formidable hardships. Their populations were decimated by the introduction of old world diseases such as small pox, typhus and influenza. The demographically weakened and political marginalized Canadian Aboriginal population was further affected by national social policy. The government introduced a series of political and administrative measures designed to undercut Indigenous cultural survival, including the criminalization of spiritual and cultural practices, forced re-location, the implementation of assimilation policies which interfered with local governance, and punitive forms of ...