Build a portfolio of experiments on the challenge of free, prior and informed consultation with indigenous communities.

Our challenge is to design a portfolio of experiments with the potential to generate systemic changes in the way public consultations with indigenous peoples are organized in order to achieve compliance with the precepts established in ILO Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. An international treaty that established an international consensus on the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples within the nation-states where they live and the responsibilities of governments to protect these rights. It is based on respect for indigenous peoples' cultures and ways of life and recognizes their right to land and natural resources and to define their own priorities for development.

In our previous learning cycle, we set out to find out what are the problems faced by actors involved in consultative processes in practice? The main sources of learning were consultations carried out in the energy sector, one of the sectors with the greatest progress in this area and which has positioned itself as an industry at the forefront by incorporating in its administrative procedures the implementation of consultations with indigenous peoples and communities prior to the implementation of projects in their communities. We conducted an extensive documentary review and a series of in-depth interviews with representatives of the three main actors involved in consultations: indigenous peoples, companies and responsible authorities, in a sample of four consultations in the energy sector. We also analyzed the particular case of the mining sector, where there are early signs of an urgent need to change the way the sector relates to indigenous communities in order to do so in a more responsible manner. To address this challenge, we inquired into the experience of the informants about the consultation, through a narrative that has as a common thread the emotions they experienced before different events of the process. This allowed us to identify situations that are problematic and/or that trigger conflicts based on what is important to people. Beyond establishing objective criteria on what does or does not constitute a violation of the right, our interest in this exercise is to recognize the situations that help the consultation exercise to build trust and collaboration agreements. The objective of the problematization was to reach a systemic understanding of the challenge involved in the full exercise of this right in practice. The problems identified are interrelated and often share common causes. Compiling this collection of problems allows us to visualize entry points for the design of interventions and provides a basis for the design of a portfolio of interventions with the potential to trigger systemic changes. A total of 16 problems were identified.

Compiling this collection of problems allows us to visualize entry points for the design of interventions and provides a basis for the design of a portfolio of interventions with the potential to trigger systemic changes. In total, the following 16 problems were identified: 1. Difficulties in identifying representative authorities of the communities and the people who are subject to the right to consultation. Clearly identifying those to be consulted, providing them with information and having interlocutors that adequately represent them is a challenge whose complexity increases with the size and degree of dispersion of the indigenous community in the territory. 2. Lack of knowledge on the part of the population of the right to consultation, which prevents them from exercising it fully. Generally, people are not familiar with the right and even people from the same community understand it differently.  3. Lack of knowledge of subnational authorities about their role and the scope of their participation in the consultation. In practice, the authorities assume different roles in terms of their attributions, objectives and the scope of their participation. 4. Non-compliance with the prior nature of the consultation. Neglect and lack of attention to the implementation of actions prior to the consultation violate the prior nature of the consultation. 5. The consultation sessions are conducted in an unpedagogical environment. The manner in which the sessions are conducted does not always foster learning, full participation and trust building. 6. Length of the consultation process extending over years. Consultations can last for several years, affecting family life, causing emotional exhaustion, confrontational scenarios and the breakdown of the social fabric in the community. 7. Limited or no participation of women. Most of the participants in the consultation are men and women are not seen as relevant actors in the process.  8. Pressure to accelerate and obtain consent. Consultations take place in an environment where different types of pressure to accelerate the process and obtain consent are present. 9. Smear and discrediting campaigns within the community. Consultations are accompanied by an intense process of social polarization, where the greatest effects occur within the community.  10. Unregulated presence of external actors. The projects under consultation generate interests of external actors whose presence is not regulated.  11. Violence and presence of armed groups. The interests created around the projects favor the presence of armed groups, threats, acts of violence and intimidation that threaten the freedom and security of the participants. 12. Non-transparent behaviors that limit the creation of trust. Conduct that is perceived by the population as a sign of collusion, such as social events sponsored by the companies where only groups in favor of the project and the responsible authority are invited. 13. Absence of independent observers and a guarantor body to monitor the process.  Sometimes, consultations are carried out in the absence of a guarantor body and/or an independent observer to monitor their proper implementation and follow up on the established agreements. 14. Asymmetries in power relations between parties. Indigenous communities face several of the consultation processes from a disadvantaged position as a result of poverty, exclusion and historical discrimination. 15. Agreements are not translated into legally binding documents and/or there are no mechanisms to follow up on agreements. Agreements that are reached tend to be verbal agreements and are not translated into binding legal instruments with follow-up mechanisms to ensure compliance.   16. The communities' trust in the authorities and in the consultation process is already eroded. Communities that have experienced consultation processes have a negative balance and do not recommend it to other communities.

In Mexico, we compiled a collection of 16 issues around the challenge of organizing consultations with indigenous communities to help visualize entry points for the design of a portfolio of interventions with the potential to trigger systemic changes.

What are the problems faced by stakeholders involved in consultative processes in practice?

To address this challenge, we inquired into the experience of the informants about the consultation, through a narrative that has as a common thread the emotions they experienced before different events of the process. This allowed us to identify situations that are problematic and/or that trigger conflicts based on what is important to people. Beyond establishing objective criteria on what does or does not constitute a violation of the right, our interest in this exercise is to recognize the situations that help the consultation exercise to build trust and collaboration agreements.

Most of our data comes from in depth interviews 

This could grow into a UNDP project that safeguards this knowledge and is later transferred into the Mexican government. That way the country can have an entity in charge of helping organize public consultations.