Indigenous and community land screening, with an FPIC consent flag
Indigenous and community land screening asks whose land a plot is on, and under what tenure: titled and documented, acknowledged by the state but undocumented, under a formal claim, or held by custom. ERWAY Legality Assessment answers for each plot from land-tenure records, marks the identity of the holders — Indigenous Peoples or a local community — and sets a consent flag where free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) is the condition for going further.
Tenure status and identity together give the tier. Recognised, documented Indigenous land is tier 2 and prohibited without the community's documented consent; recognised but undocumented Indigenous land, a submitted claim or customary tenure is tier 2 or 3, restricted. Community lands under the same statuses are tier 3, restricted or 'Verification needed'. Indicative country-wide layers are shown as information only and never produce a finding. The project counts its plots needing community consent, so a sourcing manager or a carbon project developer sees the number before the first meeting.
The source and its caveat
The records cover lands traditionally owned, used or claimed by Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Coverage is uneven between countries, and an absence of records is not an absence of rights — a point the product states on the source card and on the country panel. That panel gives the country's tenure-security context — constitutional recognition, registration progress, record coverage — and states plainly that it describes the country, not the plot.
The consent flag
A plot with a non-indicator finding whose holders are Indigenous is counted under 'needs community consent'. The flag does not say consent has been sought or given — consultation and consent are processes the product cannot see. It says that a document, a permit or a consent is needed before the plot can be treated as available, and it puts the plot at the top of the reviewer's list. The EUDR Article 3(b) page shows the same flag in the due diligence context.
Map and export
Point-located lands are drawn as small circles; polygon lands as their outline; the overlapping part of the plot darker. The export carries the tenure status, the identity and the consent flag per overlap, alongside the findings from the other sources, so the tenure question travels with the plot into the credit file, the safeguards report or the supplier contract.