A/HRC/30/53 destroy, damage or alter cultural heritage, at least not without the free, prior and informed consent of concerned communities, and to take measures to preserve/safeguard cultural heritage from destruction or damage by third parties (A/HRC/17/38, para. 80 (b) and (c)). 47. Indigenous peoples in Canada are actively involved in the protection of their cultural heritage and have been supported by formal legislation in this area. For example, the Province of British Columbia enacted the Heritage Conservation Act of 1996, which was created in order “to encourage and facilitate the protection and conservation of heritage property in British Columbia.” This includes ensuring that indigenous peoples are consulted on the status of cultural heritage sites and objects within their traditional lands and territories. Another positive example is the recent nomination of Pimachiowin Aki as a World Heritage site, a joint effort of two Canadian provinces and the First Nations affected.21 48. The Australian National Committee of the International Council on Monuments and Sites adopted the Burra Charter for Places of Cultural Significance (2013) as a best practice cultural heritage conservation and management guide. The conservation principles set out in the Burra Charter form the basis for management of all places of cultural significance in Australia. The Charter establishes appropriate decision-making procedures and ensures the participation of cultural groups affected by the decisions.22 49. The 2012 Free, Prior and Informed Consent Guidelines of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines mentions sacred grounds, burial sites and cultural and heritage sites as areas excluded for any activity except for exclusive purposes where they are identified. However, it seems that its implementation remains a huge challenge, owing to the manipulation of the process by interested parties.23 50. The indigenous peoples of the States of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) participated in the creation of a draft CARICOM regional framework, which seeks to establish a regional instrument for the protection of genetic resources, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, while ensuring the free, prior and informed consent of the rightful owners/holders/beneficiaries on mutually agreed terms and with fair and equitable benefit-sharing.24 51. While there are some good practices emerging at the national level, there are still many instances where indigenous peoples have not been allowed to participate in decisionmaking processes that affect their cultural heritage. 25 In 2011, for example, the Western Ghats (India) and the Sangha Trinational (Congo/Cameroon/Central African Republic) were inscribed as natural World Heritage sites, despite the fact that in both situations, serious objections were raised about the lack of any meaningful participation of indigenous peoples living in the respective areas. In both cases, there was a blatant lack of respect for the free, prior and informed consent of the concerned communities, as the affected 21 22 23 24 25 See the submission from the International Work Group on Indigenous Affairs and the Forest Peoples Programme. See the submission from Australia. See the submission from the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact. See the submission from the Aldet Centre-Saint Lucia. S. Disko and H. Tugendhat (eds.), World Heritage Sites and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights (International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, Forest Peoples Programme and Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation, document No. 129, 2014). 13