The Implementation of Free, Prior and Informed Consent in Canada: Different mechanisms in the Canadian treaty landscape
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This research is intended to contribute to the current conversation in Canada on the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by providing an overview of what different actors across Canada are currently doing to implement ‘free, prior and informed consent’ (FPIC). Even though the concept of FPIC is found in several places in the UN Declaration, this study looks specifically at its application in relation to natural resource development projects and how it is implemented in Indigenous communities that have varying treaty relationships with their traditional lands. Thematic analysis was the primary method used to answer the research question ‘are there differences in how FPIC is operationalized with Indigenous groups that have modern treaties when compared to areas in Canada where Indigenous peoples have historical numbered treaties or no treaties at all?’ The academic literature specifically related to FPIC and addressing ‘consent’ was coded for themes and analyzed for cases of FPIC implementation in relation to natural resource development. These cases were categorized into types of mechanisms as well as whether they were primarily driven by government, industry or Indigenous peoples. The cases were then placed in a table to look for patterns in the choice of approach. Based on the limited sample of cases found in the literature, there does not appear to be any difference in how Indigenous communities, governments or industry choose to implement the principle of FPIC based on the presence or absence of treaties. There was no identifiable trend between the signing of a treaty and the mechanisms used to operationalize FPIC. The range of cases analyzed demonstrates that mechanisms can be found through a variety of approaches and there is no single mechanism that is optimal. Given the diverse legal traditions of Indigenous peoples in Canada, any attempt to create a standardized approach would be inappropriate. Indigenous consent to development projects should not be a yes or no question being asked by governments to Indigenous peoples but rather a process that builds relationships to help to guide the decision-making process. There is no singular tool for the implementation of FPIC but rather a combination of vehicles that are adapted to the local circumstances. Indigenous consent is ideally a relational process and not a decision made at a single point in time.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».