The UN Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises (UNWG) released its report, Guidance on the Right of Indigenous Peoples to Free, Prior and Informed Consent in the Context of Business Activities (June 2026). Submitted to the Human Rights Council's sixty-second session, the report draws on submissions from over 100 stakeholders and more than 40 consultations.
Human Level’s Take:
- Free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) is the collective right of Indigenous Peoples to decide, through their own institutions and decision-making systems, whether and how activities affecting their rights, lands, territories, resources or cultural integrity may proceed. It allows them to withhold or withdraw consent at any time and enables them to negotiate the conditions under which projects will be designed, implemented, monitored and evaluated. The UNWG underscores that this means the absence of FPIC constrains a company’s ability to proceed with activities affecting Indigenous Peoples’ rights.
- Since the UNWG’s previous reports on this topic in 2013 and 2016, formal recognition of FPIC in law, policy and jurisprudence has advanced considerably. However, even where legal protections exist, they can be undermined by weak oversight institutions, limited participation or broadly defined exceptions, leaving FPIC symbolic rather than operationalised. This means that companies are operating without a strong enabling environment, leading to the risk the FPIC is undermined.
- A lack of coordination between different regulatory frameworks is a recurring issue. The report finds that approvals are sometimes granted, and FPIC processes only initiated, after key decisions have already been made. This undermines the possibility of prior consent.
- The report notes "green colonialism" as a concern raised by Indigenous Peoples during consultations, where renewable energy, transition minerals, carbon and conservation projects can repeat extractive patterns without meaningful consent.
- A central theme of the report is that effective implementation depends on companies treating FPIC as an ongoing requirement across the full project lifecycle, rather than a “one-off consultation” completed before a project begins. For companies, this includes seeking renewed consent where a project's scope or impacts change, and engaging with affected Indigenous Peoples when acquiring an existing concession or project for which FPIC was not previously obtained.
- Among these recommendations, the report calls for companies to engage “in good faith” throughout FPIC processes, including providing complete and accessible information in Indigenous languages, as well as establishing accessible, culturally appropriate grievance mechanisms specific to FPIC.
Some key takeaways:
- Formal recognition of FPIC hasn’t closed the implementation gap: FPIC is defined as the right of Indigenous Peoples to decide, through their own institutions and decision-making systems, whether and under what conditions a project affecting their rights, lands, territories, resources or cultural integrity may proceed. The report follows the UNWG’s previous reports on this topic from 2013 and 2016 and finds clear advances in the recognition of FPIC in law, policy and jurisprudence across jurisdictions, though their form and effectiveness vary. Several States, including Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and the Philippines, have adopted legislation or constitutional provisions requiring consultation or consent for projects affecting Indigenous Peoples, and national courts in Norway and Chile have clarified that FPIC is required for significant social, cultural or environmental impacts. Dedicated mechanisms for ongoing dialogue with Indigenous Peoples exist in Mexico, Finland, New Zealand and Canada. However, the report finds that even strong legal protections can be undermined by weak oversight institutions, limited participation and broadly defined exceptions, such as national security or public interest. It also identifies a lack of coherent policy across regulatory frameworks, consistent issues around project approvals being granted before FPIC processes take place, and trade and investment agreements that prioritise investor protections over human rights.
- Recurring patterns show where FPIC processes fail in practice: Drawing on input from Indigenous Peoples, the report's annex identifies recurring problems with company respect for and government protection of FPIC across regions. FPIC is often tokenistic, conducted late, used to legitimise decisions already made, or conflated with consultation, which is different from consent. Indigenous Peoples reportedly face undue influence through practices such as inappropriate benefit-sharing, bribery, fabricated attendance lists, militarisation and criminalisation, whilst decision-making processes are often found to exclude Indigenous women, LGBTI+ persons, older persons, persons with disabilities, youth and children. Many States are found to be selective in recognising Indigenous Peoples or their governance systems, and Indigenous Peoples' own FPIC protocols are often ignored, while grievance mechanisms remain weak, culturally inappropriate or inaccessible. The report also records "green colonialism" as a concern raised in consultations, whereby renewable energy, transition minerals, carbon, conservation and infrastructure projects repeat harmful extractive patterns without meaningful consent. In conflict-affected areas, the report calls for heightened human rights due diligence. It raises two particular concerns in these areas: the stigmatisation of Indigenous Peoples who do not consent to business projects, and the risks associated with military bases or camps operating without consent.
- Recommendations call for FPIC to be embedded across the full project lifecycle: The report recommends that businesses adopt and enforce a policy committing to respect Indigenous Peoples' rights, explicitly including FPIC. It calls for FPIC to be incorporated into human rights due diligence, sought throughout the whole lifecycle of a project, including the supply chain, with renewed consent sought where project scope or impacts change. Good faith engagement is central to this: businesses are expected to provide complete and accessible information in Indigenous languages, respect customary decision-making, and avoid practices that can fragment consent, such as consulting only with selected individuals rather than recognised representative institutions, engaging separately with competing factions, or offering incentives to secure particular groups' support. Recommendations also include establishing accessible, culturally appropriate grievance mechanisms specific to FPIC and engaging with affected Indigenous Peoples when acquiring an existing concession where FPIC was not previously obtained. The annex of the report provides a checklist of indicators for assessing whether an FPIC process is rights-respecting, covering factors such as whether engagement began at the planning stage, whether Indigenous Peoples' own governance structures were recognised, and whether their collective decision, including a decision to withhold consent, was ultimately respected.
