Protecting the rights of Indigenous people

How the ASC Farm Standard can enhance the protection of the rights of Indigenous People in seafood farming

The International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples is celebrated on August 9. This day is intended to raise awareness about the rights of Indigenous peoples and their protection and originates from the date of the first meeting of the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in 1982. 

Seafood farming has not always been conducted with due respect for Indigenous peoples’ rights and in some places, seafood farming, especially in marine areas, such as salmon farming, is seen as a violation of traditional territories, hence a threat to customary activities. Others see it as an important creator of jobs and a vital source of income, including for Indigenous people. Based on awareness of these issues and feedback received during public consultations, ASC has started a project to explore whether and how the concept of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) can be robustly incorporated into the ASC Farm Standard. FPIC requires States and companies to obtain the informed and freely granted consent of Indigenous peoples before starting projects on land or marine territories that Indigenous peoples traditionally own and use, through a meaningful process of consultation or dialogue (see ToR of the project). 

The project began with a research project by Paloma Soriano, an MSc student from Wageningen University and Research (WUR), with the title “Exploring the Potential for Including FPIC in the ASC Farm Standard: Certification’s Role in Interactions Between Commercial Aquaculture and Indigenous and Local Communities”.  In this blog we interviewed Paloma about her findings. Below, you can read ASC’s response to the findings of the report, and more information on ASC’s FPIC project.

What motivated you to research this topic?

I was motivated to research this topic because Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) at its core, is about equality, especially in situations where powerful actors, such as corporations or the State, dominate. These situations may create longstanding power imbalances and lead to environmental and social damage to Indigenous and local communities. I was excited to conduct this research to understand the impacts that aquaculture operations can have on communities. I believe that engaging with local communities and respecting their territorial or customary traditions and rights is essential for a company to be responsible and sustainable. I am intrigued by how ASC, as a certification organisation, may play a role in supporting aquaculture businesses in considering and implementing FPIC.

How did you go about your research? 

I conducted case studies on salmon farming in Canada and Chile and shrimp farming in Vietnam and interviewed a range of actors from different stakeholder groups, such as producers, producer associations, academia, NGOs, government, and partners of Indigenous communities. I asked them questions about their experience with interactions between Indigenous people and aquaculture and asked their opinion on a possible role for ASC to improve this. I then compared the responses of different stakeholder and from the different countries. 

What were your main findings about the interactions between Indigenous people and aquaculture companies? 

The interactions between Indigenous people and aquaculture companies turned out to be quite diverse both within and across case studies. For salmon farming in Canada and Chile, there was clear polarisation between people in favour of or against aquaculture, and respondents described a lack of trust between stakeholder groups and even within Indigenous groups. This lack of trust also extended to the reliability of science, especially related to the environmental impacts of farming salmon on wild salmon populations. My biggest takeaway was that interactions between Indigenous people and aquaculture are heavily determined by the quality of the relationships, how they are maintained and nurtured over time.  

What surprised you most about these findings? 

I was most surprised by the high level of polarisation on the topic. I had heard that for some aquaculture has historically had a bad reputation, but I was not aware of how strong negative feelings are in some communities surrounding aquaculture operations, still today.  

Additionally, I was surprised to learn that some salmon aquaculture farms in Chile are operating in protected areas, some of which considered indigenous ancestral territory. This can be explained by the fact that certain areas were designated as protected after the establishment of farms. Respondents and other sources (Mongabay Environmental News, 2023), explained complexities relating to national parks prohibiting salmon farms while reserves and other types of protected areas allow salmon operations.   

On a more positive note, it was inspiring to learn about instances in British Columbia where FPIC was implemented and how models of benefit sharing exist between indigenous communities and farms. Examples of farms consulting with First Nations successfully include farms closing operations when First Nations denied consent (news article). Another example illustrates collaboration between the Kitasoo/Xai’xais First Nation, who processes and packages the salmon farmed in their territory by Mowi, which is now sold at Walmart Canada (news article).   

What are the main challenges / questions that ASC would need to address to include FPIC in the Farm Standard? 

Because the topic is so polarised, collaboration between opposing groups will be challenging. To understand the different sides and help overcome polarisation in the long term, ASC needs to engage with a diverse group of stakeholders. This includes those that oppose aquaculture who will be harder to reach and less likely to engage. Indigenous people are likely not a group that ASC normally engages with in public consultations. The respondents interviewed described how communication methods like emails and surveys will not work to reach communities. Additionally, the time and resources to engage with ASC may also be limited or not a priority for Indigenous communities. Associated with this challenge to collaborate, will be building a deep understanding of specific social contexts required to implement an FPIC process. 

Another challenge is that policy and regulatory frameworks for FPIC differ between countries as I saw from the case studies. For example, there is a more conducive policy framework in British Columbia in Canada than in Chile, where they are facing implementation difficulties, while in Vietnam they may not acknowledge any issues related to Indigenous rights. This means that ASC will need to better understand whether the policy and regulatory frameworks in the different countries where there are ASC certified farms are enabling FPIC processes. This may have implications for how any standard requirements are implemented and verified in different countries. 

What would you recommend ASC do next? 

I have three main recommendations for ASC’s next steps. The first recommendation focuses on the capacities needed to implement and audit FPIC processes. To make sure new standard requirements are implementable, ASC should invest in programs to enhance awareness and understanding of FPIC among industry stakeholders, local communities, as well as auditors. It is particularly important that this includes an understanding that FPIC is a continuous process. Secondly, ASC will need to develop clear guidelines for auditing FPIC processes, that include guidance on how auditors should engage with diverse stakeholders. Finally, ASC should consider actively advocating for the recognition and implementation of international commitments and national laws that support FPIC and Indigenous rights. This may involve working with government bodies, NGOs, and other stakeholders to promote regulatory updates and alignment with international standards.