A/HRC/21/47 82. In this connection, the State’s protective role in the context of extractive industries entails ensuring a regulatory framework that fully recognizes indigenous peoples’ rights over lands and natural resources and other rights that may be affected by extractive operations; that mandates respect for those rights both in all relevant State administrative decision-making and in corporate behaviour; and that provides effective sanctions and remedies when those rights are infringed either by Governments or by corporate actors. 83. For their part, business enterprises have a responsibility to respect human rights, including the rights of indigenous peoples. The corporate responsibility to respect human rights exists independently of States’ ability or willingness to fulfil their own human rights obligations, and it exists over and above compliance with national laws and regulations protecting human rights. Businesses must carry out due diligence to ensure that their activities do not infringe or contribute to the infringement of the rights of indigenous peoples that are internationally recognized, regardless of the reach of domestic laws. 84. A focus on the rights implicated in the context of a specific extractive or development project is an indispensible starting point for devising appropriate consultation and consent procedures, in the exercise of the State duty to protect and corporate responsibility to respect human rights. The particular indigenous peoples or communities that are to be consulted are those that hold the potentially affected rights, the consultation procedures are to be devised to identify and address the potential impacts on the rights, and consent is to be sought for those impacts under terms that are protective and respectful of the rights. 85. Where the rights implicated are essential to the survival of indigenous groups and foreseen impacts on the rights are significant, indigenous consent to those impacts is required, beyond simply being an objective of consultations. It is generally understood that indigenous peoples’ rights over lands and resources in accordance with customary tenure are necessary to their survival. Accordingly, indigenous consent is presumptively a requirement for those aspects of any extractive project taking place within the officially recognized or customary land use areas of indigenous peoples, or that otherwise affect resources that are important to their survival. 86. Lastly, there is a fundamental problem with the current model of natural resource extraction in which the plans are developed by the corporation, with perhaps some involvement by the State, but with little or no involvement of the affected indigenous community or people, and in which the corporation is in control of the extractive operation and is the primary beneficiary of it. 87. The Special Rapporteur is convinced that new and different models and business practices for natural resource extraction need to be examined, models that are more conducive to indigenous peoples’ self-determination and their right to pursue their own priorities for development. In his future work on extractive industries, the Special Rapporteur plans to examine various models of natural resource extraction in which indigenous peoples have greater control and benefits than is typically the case under the standard corporate model, drawing on a review of the experiences of indigenous peoples in various locations. 20