Taking these findings from the case studies into account, the report recommends that each stakeholder take specific, affirmative steps to ensure that the free, prior, and informed consent of project-affected parties is secured before and during project operations, recognizing the operational uncertainties surrounding "community consent."

Most important, it recommends that project sponsors and financiers incorporate community involvement and consent procedures and requirements into their project and investment decision making, planning, and operations at the very beginning, and that host governments incorporate such procedures and requirements into their permitting processes.

We recognize that achieving FPIC can be challenging. Implementation questions -- such as who should be empowered to represent the community, through what processes is approval given, how to overcome difficult enabling environments, and how FPIC should be verified -- can defy easy answers and may vary significantly with the particulars of the local context.

The four case studies suggest six principles that may assist project proponents in crafting and implementing consent procedures that will mitigate the business risks associated with projects that do not adequately involve the community:

• Information. Affected communities should be provided sufficient information in local languages regarding the proposed project. Project proponents should work with communities to understand the types of information the communities need to make informed decisions, and must allow sufficient time for communities to review and discuss information provided to them.

• Inclusiveness. All interested community members should be allowed and encouraged to take part in the FPIC process, including stakeholders affected by indirect or cumulative impacts.

• Dialogue. Dialogue within an FPIC process should be formalized, continue throughout the lifetime of a project, and include government and local stakeholder representatives.

• Legal recognition. FPIC should be formally recognized through binding negotiated agreements. There should be a sufficient period of time for community decision making prior to project commencement.

• Monitoring and evaluation. Opportunities for appropriate and independent community monitoring should be put in place. Monitoring and evaluation should be supported by independent grievance processes to ensure that community concerns are addressed throughout a project's lifetime.

• Corporate buy-in. Project proponents should view FPIC as an inherent and necessary cost of project development. Where appropriate, developers should find constructive ways to channel funds to communities to maintain the integrity of the process and the independence of the community's role.

Community involvement and consent work best in a setting where the host country government recognizes these concerns as a matter of law or policy. Project proponents should work with governments to gain their endorsement and involvement in the FPIC process. To fully protect their legal rights and interests, proponents should develop with communities further procedures based on local conditions.