A/HRC/61/49/Add.1 81. The UNESCO nomination text provides more information about the scope of free, prior and informed consent for the purposes of the process. It notes that, whereas international standards stipulate that free, prior and informed consent encompasses the right to say no and possibly withhold consent, the approach adopted was also aimed at ensuring equitable agreement-building with communities through a process that entailed the addressing of their questions and concerns, including with regard to protected-area legacies of resettlement, land tenure insecurity, resource rights and impacts on their livelihoods; recognition of their values, rights and aspirations; the inclusion of mechanisms for local engagement and support; and agreement to identified solutions.20 The Special Rapporteur notes that one aspect does not negate the other: the free, prior and informed consent process must be used to strive for an agreement in good faith. However, if this is not possible, then indeed, the community has the clear right to say no in matters that affect them directly. This right has to be respected by all and not become diluted. 82. The free, prior and informed consent process was aimed at strengthening the pre-existing co-management institutions and mechanisms. Exchanges with villages had revealed that those institutions and mechanisms were not yet sufficiently strong enough guarantee an effective free, prior and informed consent process for the world heritage nomination, with very low levels of understanding among residents regarding existing protected-area processes, implications for local livelihoods, existing zoning arrangements, new park measures and possible implications of the world heritage designation. Many other issues and challenges were identified through the consultations, including the following: questions about access and tenure, forest use and farmland issues remained unanswered for village residents; there was a significant gender deficit in, and often an absence of hunter-gatherer and shifting cultivation communities from, decision-making and representative bodies; and difficulties were faced in reaching communities in the southern area and sedentarized hunter-gatherer communities. Overall, the authorities lacked an overview of the issues faced by, and the perspectives of, communities. In response, the approach was to create a reiterative process of identifying community concerns and recommendations, strengthening inputs to the protected area and world heritage processes, adopting solutions with provincial authorities and enhancing agreement-building around concrete tangible outcomes responding to community rights and needs. 21 83. At the time of the visit, as of July 2024, only 5 recommendations of the free, prior and informed consent plan had been implemented; 12 were in the process of being implemented and 4 had not yet been implemented. While the objective was to have all recommendations implemented for all villages by November 2025, the Special Rapporteur is unsure as to whether the objective had been achieved within that timeline. As stressed in the nomination text, the journey does not stop with the nomination. In the text, the Government noted that while there were national and provincial level commitments and calls to make the nomination process beneficial for communities, much would depend on whether and how the national park authorities received the necessary support to undertake concrete steps to revise management aspects, regulations and zoning arrangements in order to demonstrate real progress.22 One key aspect requiring specific follow-up relates to the consolidation of landand forest-use rights in by-laws and Park regulations. Another is ensuring the maintenance of the co-management approach to the Park in the long term, despite the responsibilities undertaken by the State in connection with the property’s recognition as a world heritage site. The co-management approach must not only ensure the participation of local communities in implementation, but also in the conception and evaluation of the various phases of the project. 84. Implementing free, prior and informed consent in the Lao context is challenging. The approach developed for the nomination of Hin Nam No National Park should be held as an example to be replicated more widely in the country. However, the Special Rapporteur reiterates that, while free, prior and informed consent indeed implies processes of agreementbuilding, it also implies, for those affected, the capacity to say no, including the capacity to say no to a nomination process. 20 21 22 16 Ibid., p. 202. Ibid., p. 204. Ibid., p. 208. GE.26-01463