LogoLogo
Savimbo homepageBuy creditsSpanish
  • Executive summary
  • Front Material
    • Contents
    • Index of figures
    • Index of tables
    • Acronyms and abbreviations
    • Terms and definitions
  • Getting started
  • Introduction
    • The urgency of targeted biodiversity conservation
    • Simplicity, complexity theory, and biodiversity
    • Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and local communities by design
    • Biodiversity methodology benefits
  • Overall description
    • Objectives
    • Scope
    • Limitations
  • Project description
    • Principles
      • Principles of working with IP
    • Eligibility criteria
      • Land ownership and law
    • Additionality
    • Project boundaries
      • Spatial limits of the BCP
      • Temporal limits of the BCP
      • Grouped projects
    • Implementation plan
      • Measurement approaches
      • Indicator species observations
      • Risks and uncertainty
    • Effective participation
      • Community involvement
      • Capacity for action
      • Financial transparency
      • Safeguards checklist
  • Calculation
    • Unit calculations
    • Area calculations
    • Time calculations
    • Integrity calculations
    • Value calculations
  • Baseline assessment
    • Baseline ecosystem categorization
    • Analysis of agents and drivers of biodiversity loss
    • Baseline biodiversity (optional)
    • Baseline risk of biodiversity loss
    • Indicator species selection
    • Indicator species integrity score
  • SDG contributions
  • Monitoring plan
    • Monitoring report
    • Additional monitoring requirements
  • Authors
  • References
  • Appendices
    • Appendix A: Biodiversity methodologies comparison table
    • Appendix B: Sample legal proof of land control
    • Appendix C: Sample baseline ecosystem categorization
    • Appendix D: Species categorization of richness
    • Appendix E: Sample selection of indicator species
    • Appendix F: Sample indicator-species observations
    • Appendix G: Sample open-source code and calculation
    • Appendix H: Indigenous authors
    • Appendix I: Letters of support
      • Fernando Ayerbe, Ornithology
      • Ned Hording, Biodiversity
      • Olber Llanos, Zoologist
      • Mike McColm, Ethnology
      • Peter Thomas, Anthropologist
      • Jesús Argente, Marine biology
      • Sara Andreotti, Marine Biologist
      • Carolina Romero, Lawyer.
      • Daniel Urbano, Herpetologist
      • Ramesh Boonratana PhD, Primatologist
      • Theodore Schmitt, Conservationists
      • Anja Hutschenreiter, Ecologist and Tropical Conservationist
      • Miguel Chindoy, Indigenous leader
    • Appendix J: Sample uses of biodiversity unit
    • Appendix K: How to do FPIC
    • Appendix L: Independent Expert Panel Checklist
    • Appendix M: How to calculate a biodiversity credit by hand
    • Appendix N: How to calculate home ranges
    • Appendix O: How to calculate integrity scores
  • Document history
  • Disclaimer
Powered by GitBook
LogoLogo

Follow us

  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • TikTok
  • LinkedIn

About Savimbo

  • Science
  • Buy credits
  • About us
  • Donate

Indigenous authors

  • Jhony Lopez
  • Fernando Lezama
  • Blog

© 2023 Savimbo Inc. All rights reserved.

On this page

Was this helpful?

  1. Appendices

Appendix K: How to do FPIC

Key elements of effective free, prior, and informed consent

PreviousAppendix J: Sample uses of biodiversity unitNextAppendix L: Independent Expert Panel Checklist

Last updated 1 year ago

Was this helpful?

It is important to note that FPIC will vary significantly for IP and LC depending on local laws, customs, language, and governance structures and therefore must always be individualized. Furthermore, IP and LC have very different laws governing consent. IP have recognition as independent nations and are protected by international law while LC may fall under local governing regulatory authority.

Savimbo strongly recommends that in the case of the ISBM that consent is experiential. That tools, training, tracking salaries, and information are first deployed on the ground for a 3-6 month period with no-obligation, and no-strings-attached so that communities have time and experience to learn what they are consenting too, what data they will be sharing, what the work is like, and how a biodiversity crediting project will run. This is especially important when considering appropriate remuneration for tracking activities which are labor intensive and require specialized knowledge for success. This also de-risks project participation for all parties, builds trust, and saves time and resources for all concerned.

As some communities may not have FPIC protocols clearly defined, this time period is also essential for partners to understand how the community functions, who are its leaders, what are its requirements for true consent, and how are they implemented. In some cases, it may be necessary to hire truly independent experts to help a community define its desired FPIC protocols before they can be implemented. In our direct experience, any leader who claims to be able to sign individually for an entire community is mistaken at best and care should be taken to determine what the community truly is including the opinion of women and elders who may not be present in initial negotiations with outsiders.

Some guides for effective FPIC we recommend include, but are not limited to:

  • Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO)

  • First People's Worldwide FPIC

  • Forest People's Program

  • Sirge Coalition

  • Convention on Biological Diversity

For the ISBM, FPIC must also be well documented and ground-truthed, in other words, validated in an independent on-site inspection. See

FPIC Guide
Due-diligence questionnaire
Good faith negotiation guide
FPIC guide
Mo’ otz Kuxtal Guidelines
Appendix L