Next Article in Journal
The Drivers of Maize Area Expansion in Sub-Saharan Africa. How Policies to Boost Maize Production Overlook the Interests of Smallholder Farmers
Next Article in Special Issue
Social Capital in Community Organizing for Land Protection and Food Security
Previous Article in Journal
Agribusiness Facing Its Limits: The Re-Design of Neoliberalization Strategies in the Exporting Agriculture Sector in Chile
Previous Article in Special Issue
Challenges to Implementing Socially-Sustainable Community Development in Oil Palm and Forestry Operations in Indonesia
Open AccessArticle

The FPIC Principle Meets Land Struggles in Cambodia, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea

Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Acton ACT 2601, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 7 February 2020 / Revised: 21 February 2020 / Accepted: 24 February 2020 / Published: 27 February 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Land, Land Use and Social Issues)
Social and environmental safeguards are now commonplace in policies and procedures that apply to certain kinds of foreign investment in developing countries. Prominent amongst these is the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), which is commonly tied to policies and procedures relating to investments that have an impact on ‘indigenous peoples’. This paper treats international safeguards as a possible manifestation of what Karl Polanyi called the ‘double movement’ in the operation of a capitalist market economy. Our concern here is with the way that the FPIC principle has been applied in struggles over the alienation of land and associated natural resources claimed by indigenous peoples or customary landowners in three developing countries—Cambodia, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. Case studies of recent land struggles in these countries are used to illustrate the existence of a spectrum in which the application of the FPIC principle may contribute more or less to the defence of customary rights. On one hand, it may be little more than a kind of ‘performance’ that simply adds some extra value to a newly created commodity. On the other hand, it may sometimes enable local or indigenous communities and their allies in ‘civil society’ to mount an effective defence of their rights in opposition to the processes of alienation or commodification. The paper finds that all three countries have political regimes and national policy frameworks that are themselves resistant to the imposition of social and environmental safeguards by foreign investors or international financial institutions. However, they differ widely in the extent to which they make institutional space for the FPIC principle to become the site of a genuine double movement of the kind that Polanyi envisaged. View Full-Text
Keywords: free, prior and informed consent; indigenous people; land; environmental and social safeguards; double movement free, prior and informed consent; indigenous people; land; environmental and social safeguards; double movement
MDPI and ACS Style

Filer, C.; Mahanty, S.; Potter, L. The FPIC Principle Meets Land Struggles in Cambodia, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. Land 2020, 9, 67.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop