Performance Standard 7
Indigenous Peoples
Stakeholder Feedback
Frequently Asked Questions
What is “collective attachment”?
How does “collective attachment” factor into the
applicability of PS 7?
How is “traditional land ownership” and
“customary usage” defined? How are these
terms used to determine whether a group is
considered an Indigenous People for the
purpose of PS 7?
IFC Response
External stakeholders who have participated in IFC consultations
have asked for a definition of collective attachment and the loss
thereof. This question will be addressed in further revisions of both
the PS and the GN. In the PS, a clarification note will be added to
the language as follows (refer bold): Applies to groups or
communities of Indigenous Peoples (IP) who maintain a collective
attachment, i.e., whose identity as a group or community is linked,
to distinct habitats or ancestral territories and the natural
resources therein.
PS 7 applies to groups or communities of Indigenous Peoples who
maintain a collective attachment to distinct habitats or ancestral
territories and the natural resources therein. It may also apply to
groups or communities that have lost collective attachment to
distinct habitats or ancestral territories in the project area,
occurring within the concerned group members’ lifetime, because
of forced severance, conflict, government resettlement programs,
dispossession of their lands, natural disasters, or incorporation of
such territories into an urban area.
This may include:
• communities of Indigenous Peoples who are resident upon
the lands affected by the project as well as those who are
nomadic or transhumant and whose attachment to
ancestral territories may be periodic or seasonal in nature;
• communities of Indigenous Peoples who no longer live on
the lands affected by the project, but who still retain ties to
those lands through traditional ownership and/or
customary usage, including seasonal or cyclical use. This
may include individual and/or groups of Indigenous
Peoples resident in urban settings who retain ties to lands
affected by a project;
• communities of Indigenous Peoples who have lost
collective attachment to lands and territories in the project
area of influence as a result of forced severance, conflict,
involuntary resettlement programs by governments,
dispossession from their lands, natural calamities or
incorporation into an urban area, if they are expected to be
adversely affected by the project;
• groups of Indigenous Peoples who reside in mixed
settlements, such that the affected Indigenous People only
form one part of the more broadly defined community; and
• communities of Indigenous Peoples with collective
attachment to ancestral lands in urban areas.
The term ‘traditional ownership and customary usage’ aims to
capture the many and varied mechanisms through which IPs may
express a collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats
or ancestral territories. ‘Traditional ownership’ refers to instances
where the IP group or community may have established and
verifiable claims to territories although no formal title exists.
‘Customary usage’ is intended to refer to instances where IP
groups or communities may customarily use lands and resources
without having an established and verifiable claim to them.

Does PS 7 align with existing international
human rights frameworks?
How does the IFC determine whether a group or
community should be considered “indigenous”?
Land and natural resources (i.e., collective attachment to
geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories) are an
integral component of one of the four characteristics to be used to
determine whether a particular group is considered as Indigenous
People for the purpose of PS 7. In PS 7, neither the lack of formal
recognition of IP claims-to and use-of lands and natural resources,
nor the lack of formal title, precludes the requirement for projects
to assess and, where relevant, address collective attachment to
geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories.
Many external stakeholders recommended that IFC’s PS 7 should
be aligned with ILO169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous People (2007), both of which are international
instruments concerned with the State’s responsibilities regarding
recognition, rights, protection and development of Indigenous
People. This recommendation most frequently related to the use of
the ‘consent criterion’ (see below) which is a key aspect of both
instruments.
IFC revision of PS 7 is cognizant of these international
instruments. GN 7 references these instruments and notes that
while their adoption and implementation is the responsibility of the
states, it is increasingly expected that private sector companies
conduct their affairs in a way that would uphold these rights and
not interfere with states’ obligations under these instruments. It is
in recognition of this emerging business environment that IFC
expects that private sector projects financed by IFC foster full
respect for the dignity, human rights, aspirations, cultures and
customary livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples.
In PS 7, the term “Indigenous Peoples” refers to a distinct social
and cultural group possessing the following characteristics in
varying degrees:
• self-identification as members of a distinct indigenous
cultural group and recognition of this identity by
others;
• collective attachment to geographically distinct
habitats or ancestral territories in the project area and
to the natural resources in these habitats and
territories;
• customary cultural, economic, social, or political
institutions that are separate from those of the
dominant society or culture; and
• an indigenous language, often different from the
official language of the country or region in which they
reside.
The GN indicates that each characteristic is evaluated
independently, and no characteristic weighs more than the others.
Further, the GN notes that clients will need to exercise judgment in
determining whether a group or communities should be
considered indigenous for the purpose of PS 7. In making this
determination, the client may undertake a number of activities,
including ethnographic and archival research, participatory
approaches with the affected communities of Indigenous Peoples,
assessment of the traditional institutions, and investigation of the
applicable national laws and regulations, including customary
laws, and laws reflecting host country obligations under

How is “vulnerability” of an affected group or
community determined?
Does the requirement for ‘Benefit-Sharing’
associated with commercialization of cultural
resources apply to project use of land and
natural resources?
Is IFC going to adopt the term “Free Prior and
Informed Consent” (FPIC) within PS 7?
international law. The client should retain qualified social scientists
to carry out this work.
External stakeholders have encouraged IFC to give greater weight
to the self-identification criterion. Others have sought to add
criteria, specifically the prior recognition of IP status by other
institutions.
All of the specified criteria are deemed to be important in making a
determination as to whether a group should be considered
indigenous or not.
With regard to prior recognition of IP status as a criterion, it is
intended that the client and IFC will take this factor into account
through their social assessment, including ethnographic and
archival research, participatory approaches with the affected
communities of Indigenous Peoples, assessment of the traditional
institutions, and investigation of the applicable national laws and
regulations, including customary laws, and laws reflecting host
country obligations under international law
The revised PS 7 introduces the concept of vulnerability of the
affected group or community, or sub-groups within a community.
The determination of vulnerability is one aspect of the overall
social assessment process. The GN for PS 7 indicates that the
assessment of vulnerability will include consideration of
Indigenous Peoples’ (i) economic, social, and legal status; (ii) their
institutions, custom, culture, and/or language; (iii) their
dependence on unique natural resources; and (iv) their
relationship to dominant groups and the mainstream economy.
Note that the assessment of the vulnerability of the affected group
or community is intended to occur in a broader context than the
assessment of the vulnerability of individuals within the group or
community.
The 2006 PS 7 specifies the requirement for fair and equitable
sharing of benefits associated with the commercialization of
cultural resources, knowledge, innovation, or practice, consistent
with their customs and traditions. External stakeholders who have
participated in IFC consultations have recommended that benefit-
sharing should also be considered with regard to project use of
land and natural resources subject to traditional ownership and
customary usage. This recommendation is under consideration in
the current revision. Specifically, the following text has been put
forward for consideration: Where the client intends to utilize
natural resources that are central to the identity and livelihood of
Indigenous People and their usage thereof exacerbates livelihood
risk, the Project will explore mechanisms to ensure fair and
equitable sharing of benefits associated with Project usage of the
resources.
IFC has proposed adopting FPIC in the Version 2 draft of PS7.
The final decision on this point is subject to Board approval. The
draft language requires FPIC in special circumstances: where
projects impact upon when the project is located within traditional
or customary lands used by IPs; when natural resources located
within traditional or customary lands will be commercially
developed; and when a project makes commercial use of IP
cultural resources.
 While the term Free, Prior and Informed Consent is in common
use today, the definition of consent, its application and
operationalization remain unclear. IFC has sought to clarify this in
paragraph 15 of PS7, which states that FPIC “ .. will be
established through good faith negotiation between the client and
culturally appropriate institutions representing communities of
Indigenous Peoples. The client will document (i) the mutually
accepted process between the client and Indigenous Peoples, and
(ii) evidence of agreement between the parties as the outcome of
the negotiations”.

How will Consultation and Informed
Participation, BCS and FPIC be determined?
IFC is currently developing a methodological note to guide the
assessment of consultation and informed consultation, Broad
Community Support (BCS) and Free, Prior and Informed Consent
(FPIC). It will form the basis for on-going assessment of
consultation and informed participation, BCS and FPIC
determinations and support increased disclosure of these
determinations.

Note: IFC’s responses to questions and comments are based on the current draft (Version 2) of IFC’s Sustainability
Framework. They are subject to change as the Framework is further revised. No text in the Framework or in these
interim comments and responses is final until approved by IFC’s Management and Board.