Revised OECD guidelines, a tool for the defense of indigenous peoples' territories

April 15, 2024. In order to reflect on and share how the updated OECD Guidelines for Business and Human Rights can serve indigenous peoples, indigenous advocates and activists held a side event during the 23rd. Session of the UNPFII in New York.

Joan Carling, Executive Director of IPRI, began by providing context on both the guidelines and the review process. She stressed that the guidelines are important because, although they are not mandatory, they do set standards of operation for companies. These are mining, energy, agribusiness, and a wide range of other companies that impact indigenous peoples through land dispossession, pollution, and attacks and killings of human rights defenders.

Carling pointed out that the process of revising the guidelines involved discussions with indigenous representatives from different parts of the world, as the aim was to explicitly include the recognition, respect and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples, and at a minimum the implementation of Free, Prior and Informed Consent. The OECD did include explicit references, and now it will be necessary to develop the implementation process. For this, she said, having clear standards and a guide will be necessary.

Christine Kaufmann, Chair of the OECD's Working Group on Responsible Business Conduct, noted that the guidelines cover many areas, and focus their efforts where business has the greatest impact. This review, she noted, was a very open process and focused on having an impact in the face of key challenges, such as climate change and biodiversity, the digital transition, and the high number of conflicts in the world.

Eirik Larsen, head of the Sámi Council's human rights department, noted that there is a need to learn more about the guidelines, as they may represent new opportunities particularly concerning FPIC. The Sámi people, he noted, are used to interacting with governments and need to interact more with companies. He also pointed to another possibility for action: the case of Nordic companies and their activities abroad.

In the Philippines, shared Joan Carling, a mining project was imposed without Free, Prior, and Informed Consent. Indigenous peoples approached the investors (based in Norway) and provided evidence of the lack of FPIC. Funds were withdrawn and the company had to stop the project.

Hannah Greep, policy and advocacy officer at OECD Watch, noted that the guidelines now contain more robust standards in areas that were not previously included, such as FPIC and meaningful involvement, stopping retaliation and protecting human rights defenders, as well as climate change. He noted that a complaint should be raised against the company that is not following the guidelines; in some cases, there will be recommendations, compensation or policy change. He recommended using the guidelines in combination with other instruments for a more robust interpretation.

For his part, Prabindra Shakya, founder and director of Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network (CEMSOJ), cautioned that he expects more support for complaints to be filed. He also pointed to the need for more binding norms, more explicitness on FPIC, and criminal liability if defenders are attacked.