Ce membre a participé aux discussions suivantes
I'd also raise a point with regards to FPIC, and its potential applicability beyond indigenous communities. Though it was originally formulated with regards to indigenous peoples, FPIC is nowadays considered an applicable principle to all types of communities potentially affected by land transactions. In fact, FPIC is nowadays considered an expression of the realization of different human rights (adequate housing, culture, etc.)
In addition, the VGGT Technical Guide on FPIC emphasizes that, as an expression of the right to self determination, “FPIC can be fairly interpreted as applying to all self-identified peoples who maintain customary relationships with their lands and natural resources, implying it is enjoyed widely in rural Africa and Asia” (for instance).
In this regard, shold the guide make reference for consultations with other non IP communities tofollow the FPIC standards and allow a “right to say no”?
With regards to the section on the rights and obligations of the parties (chapter 3), food security and realization of the RTF is the CFS RAI principle 1, yet it is not mentioned among the social/economic issues. Is this something that should be included, and that need to be considered when negotiating an investment in agriculture?
For the state the obligation is more obvious, but does the investor also have a responsibility to safeguard FS in the host state, e.g. through a due diligence not to invest in crops that would potentially present a challenge for FS such as biofuels or export crops? What is the balance here?
Public health (e.g. pest control) and phytosanitary standard concerns are also not mentioned, but could also be contemplated under a contract (CFS RAI 8)?
Another consideration I would add, is a reflection on the role for the laws of the investor’s state in incentivizing/requiring responsible investments - as this is not explored in the guide or mentioned as an area of concern for those performing due diligence.
The VGGT (12.15) says that when states invest or promote investments abroad, they should ensure that their conduct is consistent with the protection of tenure rights, food security, etc.
So should also a paragraph be inserted to expand a bit more on this issue?
Some suggested sources where this is discussed:
A concern of mine (as a lawyer worried about precision of language) is with regards the term "responsible investments". I would suggest to provide a definition of it, and also to maintain consistency as sometimes “responsible investment” is used, others “responsible and sustainable” - both subjective terms for which no definition is provided.
Here's a suggestion that could be adapted as needed: Responsible agriculture investment can be defined as the “creation of productive assets and capital formation, which may comprise physical, human or intangible capital, oriented to support the realisation of food security, nutrition and sustainable development”. It requires “respecting, protecting and promoting human rights, including the progressive realisation of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security”, and “entails respect for gender equality, age, and non-discrimination and requires reliable, coherent and transparent laws and regulations” (CFS RAI Preamble). The VGGT further adds that responsible investments should “do no harm, safeguard against dispossession of legitimate tenure right holders and environmental damage (VGGT 12.4). In addition, the VGGT notes that while States “should promote responsible investments in land, fisheries and forests (12.1) and “provide safeguards to protect legitimate tenure rights, human rights, livelihoods, food security and the environment” (12.6), investors also have a “responsibility to respect national law and recognize and respect tenure rights of others and the rule of law” (12.12)".
Would also be interesting to hear the insights of other members of this Forum about this term, how it is perceived and what it entails, and how would national policy makers view it.
This is a valuable resource in an area where not sufficient guidance is available, I believe it will be a helpful instrument for the stakeholders involved.
One suggestion would be to make the document a bit more 'digestible' for readers, as it is quite long and complex. As suggested by some below, a summary with quick guidance by topic focusing on the different stakeholders (e.g. investor, grantor, legitimate right holder, etc) could be developed, building on the checklist already prepared at the end of the draft, and potentially including potential 'model clauses', (though the latter is a complicated undertaking).