This presentation by Maria Josée Artist was given at a session titled "Ensuring free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) in REDD+" at the Global Landscapes Forum in Lima, Peru, on December 6, 2014. The session aimed to analyze the existing FPIC guidelines for REDD+ projects and the challenges of extending them to aid organizations and private businesses that are interested in REDD+.

1. Practice of FPIC
Case study of Suriname
Vereniging van Inheemse Dorpshoofden in Suriname

2. What if ...
• This institution approach you as IPO and ask
you to do consultation rounds with IP;
• This institutions explain IP should contribute
to content of a project but this project is
already drafted and approved;
• The goal of the project is to strengthen the
capacity of Government to better the
engagement process with IP and make FPIC an
instrument used by the Government;

3. What if ....
• This institution is an environmental
organization;
• This institution will make you partly
responsible of the outcomes of their project;

4. What if ...
• The IPO has no good experiences with this
institution, in particularly some individuals;
• The IPO is worried about the political position
of the institute esp. the relation between
environment and IP territories;
• The IPO stressed that capacity building of
Government by IPO should be part of the
implementation of R-PP.

5. Process of engagement
• Why were IP not approached when Project
was still an idea?
• Why were other (inter) national multilateral
institutions partners from start?
• Why would this institution work on Capacity
Strengthening in Government re IP rights?

6. Mentioned in Resolution PC 14
Suriname need to address,
before entering into a
Readiness Preparation
project Document with
UNDP the “collaboration
with indigenous and tribal
peoples representatives, in
the work plan ..... a process
to identify the need for and
to provide capacity
building in government
institutions with respect to
indigenous and tribal
peoples issues”

7. Internal consultations
Information sharing meetings with chiefs only
after we requested & received project data
• Why would VIDS cooperate?
• What about trust?
• Do we want to invest in R-PP?
Agreement based on FPIC

8. 2nd process phase
Contract signing:
• Institution’s headquarter new only 2 kinds of
contracts, and works only with consultants;
• IPO’s cannot / difficult to operate as
consultant;
• IPO is representing a collective group and has
no authorization to give away collective
owned materials and non-materials
(traditional communication systems)

9. • Long process with lawyers from headquarter;
• VIDS still mentioned as consultant;
• New wordings re ownership of institution: “......
however that any and all Indigenous and Tribal
Peoples’ IP Works and Works incorporating
Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ IP Works will state
that the ownership of, and all rights over
Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ intellectual
property described and/or elaborated on therein
belong to the respective Indigenous and Tribal
Peoples

10. Implemention phase
• Still need for trust building between
institution and VIDS – both ways –
• Limited budget to implement consultations
• Time constraints
• lawyers of institution created now a 3rd
option to sign contract (UNDRIP)

11. (PRE) conditions
• Invest in engagement processes;
• Probably means invest in internal re-organization;
• Eliminate Budget & time limitations;
• Use UNDRIP in implementation & need for
lawyer

12. THANK YOU
ASSOCIATION OF INDIGENOUS VILLAGE
LEADERS IN SURINAME (VIDS)
December 2014
Maria Josee Artist