A/HRC/21/47/Add.2 only Government action taken has been to fence off some of these areas to prevent persons or animals from entering them; (c) The problems in the village of Abra Pampa in Jujuy province began with the toxic waste created and the lead contamination caused by the Metal Huasi plant between 1955 and 1987. In 2009 and 2011, the provincial government took action to remove the waste and clean up the area around the defunct plant, which the Special Rapporteur recognizes as a positive step forward, but there are still concerns that proper measures have not been taken to address the health problems suffered by the inhabitants, especially children. The Special Rapporteur also takes note of the initiatives taken by UNDP since February 2010 to implement an environmental remediation plan in Abra Pampa. 44. The Special Rapporteur has neither the technical capacity nor the mandate to undertake a comprehensive study of the pollution levels in these communities. However, the amount of information received on this topic and the situations that he personally observed indicate that serious problems remain and that the national and provincial governments have not been sufficiently conscientious in addressing the pollution problem, especially regarding pollution left behind by projects no longer in operation. (b) Consultation and consent in connection with these projects 45. The right of indigenous peoples to be consulted, with the aim of obtaining their consent, is guaranteed by ILO Convention No. 169, which is part of the Argentine legal order, and by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the Argentine Government supported. However, there is no law or policy at either the federal or the provincial level to regulate a consultation procedure with indigenous peoples. The country’s sector-specific laws, such as the Hydrocarbons Act and the Mining Code,4 also make no reference to consultation with indigenous peoples, although the latter requires the permission of the land “owners” to explore for minerals.5 Similarly, the General Environment Act refers only in general terms to the right of “all persons” to be consulted, while at the same time stating that “the participants’ opinion or objection shall not be binding”.6 46. Due in part to these legal and administrative gaps regarding extraction projects, there is an absence of consultation processes with indigenous peoples that meet international standards. Many cases of reported lack of consultation have been brought to the attention of the Special Rapporteur. At the same time, it is claimed that the consultation processes that have been conducted have been plagued by irregularities. 47. Generally speaking, indigenous peoples do not directly share in the economic benefits of these projects. In some cases, however, the affected communities have managed to negotiate with the companies involved to obtain benefits such as jobs, a drinking water supply, and the building of schools or roads. In any case, the Special Rapporteur points out that it is the responsibility of the State to provide these types of benefits. 48. The Special Rapporteur also received information about cases in which the companies involved and the provincial authorities have encouraged the practice of forming fictitious indigenous “communities” and granting them legal status, so that all arrangements and negotiations can be conducted through them while the traditional authorities go unrecognized. Sometimes, the territories of these “communities” overlap with those of 4 5 6 GE.12-14947 Act No. 1919 (1997). Ibid., art. 26. Act No. 25676 (2002), art. 20. 11