CRC/C/97/D/172/2022 Annex II [English only] Individual opinion by Committee member Ann Skelton (partially concurring) 1. I agree with much of the reasoning included in the Committee’s Views. However, I would not have relied as heavily on the international standard of free, prior and informed consent. I would have centred the reasoning on article 12, namely, the right of children to express their views and have their views be given due weight. I would have found that the granting of the permit violated the authors’ rights under article 12, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (1), 8, 27 and 30, of the Convention. The reasons for this I set out below. 2. In my respectful opinion, greater emphasis should have been placed in the Views on the authors’ argument that elements such as culture, language, identity and livelihood are strongly dependent on traditional reindeer herding and that reindeer herding has great importance for how traditional knowledge is maintained and protected for future generations. This, in turn, raises an interesting point about the special affinity between children and future generations. While children who are alive today should not alone bear the burden of advocating for future generations,1 they have, in recent years, taken up this responsibility, including in communications brought before the Committee under the Optional Protocol on a communications procedure.2 In the Pact for the Future, which was in the final stage of its development at the time of the adoption of the Committee’s Views in the present case, children are recognized as “critical agents of positive change” and it is declared that States will “invest in and promote engagement by young people at national and international levels”.3 3. The Maastricht Principles on the Human Rights of Future Generations locates this special affinity in the recognition that children occupy a “proximate position to future generations”,4 which makes children “closest in time to generations still to come” and thus means that they “occupy a unique position, and have an important role to play, within this transition to long-term, multigenerational thinking. Accordingly, their perspectives and participation in decision-making with respect to long-term and intergenerational risks must be accorded special weight.”5 4. We therefore need to pay particular attention to the obligation of States parties to ensure children’s right to express their views, and have them given due weight, particularly in relation to decisions pertaining to the environment and the preservation of the environment for future generations. Children, who often make up a large percentage of Indigenous populations, should be included in these processes in a meaningful way. In general comment No. 11 (2009) on Indigenous children and their rights under the Convention, the Committee envisaged both individual and collective participation of children and observed that States parties should design special strategies to guarantee that their participation is effective. 6 In general comment No. 26 (2023) on children’s rights and the environment, with a special focus on climate change, the Committee noted that, considering the disproportionate effect of environmental harm on Indigenous children’s rights, States must undertake measures to 1 2 3 4 5 6 18 “To think and act for future generations”, Our Common Agenda policy brief No. 1 (March 2023), p. 4. See Sacchi et al. v. Argentina (CRC/C/88/D/104/2019), Sacchi et al. v. Brazil (CRC/C/88/D/105/2019), Sacchi et al. v. France (CRC/C/88/D/106/2019), Sacchi et al. v. Germany (CRC/C/88/D/107/2019) and Sacchi et al. v. Turkey (CRC/C/88/D/108/2019). General Assembly resolution 79/1, para. 58. Principle 22 (c). Preamble, para. VII. General comment No. 11 (2009) on Indigenous children and their rights under the Convention, para. 39. GE.24-18504