FPIC and hunter-gatherers
We will now focus on a particular category of indigenous peoples: hunter-gatherers. While many of our observations apply to indigenous communities more broadly, we will show that the specific characteristics of many hunter-gatherer populations call for even greater caution and care in applying FPIC.
The discussion below is based on our own experiences with the implementation of FPIC processes between two hunter-gatherer populations. First, we look to the Orang Rimba, a group of approximately 3,000 people living in the central part of Sumatra (Jambi Province, Indonesia). Second, we focus on the Agta, a population of about 2,000 people that live in the forests and along the coasts of Northeast Luzon (The Philippines). Both populations subsist on a combination of hunting, fishing, gathering, (barter) trading of forest products, extensive agriculture, and wage labour. They have a long history of domination by neighbouring farming populations and encroachment of their hunting and fishing grounds by extractive industries, infrastructural development, and in the case of the Orang Rimba, plantation agriculture (Minter 2010; Persoon and Ekoningtyas 2017).1. Scope and representation
Two interrelated questions arising at the start of the FPIC processes are: 1) what should be the scope of the procedure (i.e., how large is the population and geographic area that it must cover) and 2) how should representation be organised (who should speak on behalf of that population)? These questions are key in any FPIC procedure, but in the case of hunter-gatherers, additional challenges arise.
Mobility
Although hunter-gatherers vary greatly in their mobility across and between populations (Ikeya 2017; Kelly 1992), many groups and individuals are relatively mobile. They live in small, widely dispersed settlements covering large areas of tropical forests or coastal regions.
Also, the remoteness of areas inhabited by hunter-gatherers offers specific challenges for setting up communication that is crucial for a meaningful FPIC process. Roads are often absent, as are modern communication tools.Involvement
Partly related to this mobility aspect is the question of who is and who is not to be involved in the procedure. Again, this question is not exclusively related to hunter-gatherers, but their resource and land tenure systems further complicate it. For instance, in the absence of explicitly demarcated territorial boundaries, the Agta's land rights are often incorrectly assumed to be highly flexible. However, while individuals commonly hold land and resource rights in multiple locations (usually those locations from which they originate and the location in which they marry), the terms and scope of resource access are locally well defined (Minter 2017). Thus, relatives living at a great distance may have culturally recognised interests and rights in an area that would be affected by a proposed intervention.
Internal representation
Many hunter-gatherer societies have a relatively egalitarian social structure and are thus uncomfortable with the idea of being represented by a particular group member. For outside agencies coming from political structures that rely on political representation mechanisms, this is a practical inconvenience. Therefore, they often resort to introducing such mechanisms on the spot, by selecting representatives either through voting or (more often) through appointment. Such selections create multiple problems: the ‘invented leaders' may lack local legitimacy and recognition, may lack experience with requirements (e.g., accountability and transparency), and may be biased in favour of the outside agency's proposed activity (e.g., mining or logging). Another issue with the imposition of foreign representation structures is that they are usually patriarchal in nature. That is, while leadership may not necessarily be considered a male trait in hunter-gatherer societies, the ‘instant leaders' created for FPIC purposes are most often men.