A/HRC/30/54 II. Responses from States and from indigenous peoples 7. This section summarizes the responses from States and from indigenous peoples to the questionnaire. It must be borne in mind that responses from States and indigenous peoples may have conflicting views on the benefits of measures adopted to implement the Declaration or the ideal strategies to achieve its implementation. A. National implementation strategies 8. The questionnaire posed the following question to States: “Does the State have an overarching national implementation strategy to attain the goals of the Declaration? If yes, please provide details, including the involvement of State institutions and indigenous peoples. If not, are there any plans to develop one?” 9. This question is linked to the commitment made by States in the outcome document of the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, through their own representative institutions, to develop and implement national action plans, strategies or other measures and, where relevant, to achieve the ends of the Declaration. 10. Most States that responded did not have an overarching national implementation strategy specifically linked to attaining the goals of the Declaration. However, in their responses they discussed how the situation and rights of indigenous peoples are addressed through national development strategies, as well as programmes and policies in specific sectors, such as health and education. 11. Guatemala discussed the “K’atun Nuestra Guatemala 2032” strategy, which was prepared with the participation and consultation of the three different indigenous peoples in Guatemala: the Maya, Garifuna and Xinka. The plan guided the work of the State by focusing on reducing the gaps in access to education, improving overall health and improving access to water and basic sanitation. In addition, Guatemala’s response highlighted that from 2013 onwards, the National Budget Law stipulated that budgetexecuting agencies needed to provide information regarding the beneficiary population of their programmes, including in terms of ethnicity. 12. In Costa Rica, the Vice-Ministry of Political Affairs had a strategy on indigenous peoples based on four axes: a consultation policy; a policy for the recovery of lands, territories and resources; a mechanism for dialogue with the 24 indigenous territories in the country; and inter-institutional coordination. Costa Rica’s response also examined several sector-specific initiatives relating to indigenous peoples in the areas of health, education and employment. 13. Those States that did not have a national strategy nonetheless reported on measures they had taken to ensure that the goals of the Declaration were considered in policy and programme development. Australia, for example, noted that relevant Government agencies liaised closely on relevant issues to ensure the Declaration was taken into account. 14. Japan’s response highlighted the establishment of a high-level Advisory Council for Future Ainu Policy, which referred to relevant provisions of the Declaration. This Council developed basic principles for new Ainu policy. Subsequently, Japan established the Council for Ainu Policy Promotion to discuss comprehensive and effective measures for Ainu people, which reflected the opinions of the Ainu people. 15. Paraguay noted that it had a National Human Rights Plan, which sought, inter alia, to address structural inequalities and discrimination in conformity with the goals of the Declaration. 4