A/HRC/39/62 A/HRC/18/42). Yet, identifying the legitimate representatives of indigenous peoples can be challenging. States should be mindful of situations where indigenous peoples’ decisionmaking institutions have been undermined by colonialism and where communities have been dispersed, dispossessed of land or relocated, including to urban areas. These situations may require State assistance to rebuild indigenous peoples’ capacity to represent themselves appropriately. It is important for States or third parties to ensure that institutions supporting indigenous peoples and claiming to represent them are so mandated. D. Consent 24. As former Special Rapporteur James Anaya has stated, consent is not a freestanding device of legitimation. The principle of free, prior and informed consent, arising as it does within a human rights framework, does not contemplate consent as simply a “yes” to a predetermined decision (A/HRC/24/41, para. 30). This means that consent can only be received for proposals when it fulfils the three threshold criteria of having been free, prior and informed, and is then evidenced by an explicit statement of agreement. 25. Consent is a key principle that enables indigenous peoples to exercise their right to self-determination, including development that involves control over or otherwise affects their lands, resources and territories. With such an understanding, indigenous peoples are considered to engage with and are entitled to give or withhold consent to proposals that affect them. 26. Indigenous peoples’ decision to give or withhold consent is a result of their assessment of their best interests and that of future generations with regard to a proposal. When they give their consent it provides an important social licence and a favourable environment to any actor operating on and around their lands, territories and resources, as many studies and research have shown, including by the private sector. 23 Indigenous peoples may withhold their consent in a number of situations and for various purposes or reasons: (a) They may withhold consent following an assessment and conclusion that the proposal is not in their best interests. Withholding consent is expected to convince the other party not to take the risk of proceeding with the proposal. Arguments of whether indigenous peoples have a “veto” in this regard appear to largely detract from and undermine the legitimacy of the free, prior and informed consent concept; (b) Indigenous peoples may withhold consent temporarily because of deficiencies in the process. Such deficiencies often consist of non-compliance with the required standards for the consent to be free, prior and informed. Indigenous peoples may seek adjustment or amendment to the proposal, including by suggesting an alternative proposal; (c) Withholding consent can also communicate legitimate distrust in the consultation process or national initiative. This is generally the situation in countries where there is insufficient recognition of indigenous peoples or protection of their rights to lands, resources and territories. Cases of indigenous peoples being harassed, arrested and even being killed for resisting “trap-like” consultation offers are numerous. 27. Withholding consent can be a positive mechanism for democratic and inclusive governance. It can be of critical importance to the ultimate success of a proposal or project. Indigenous peoples’ consent should be given “in accordance with international human rights standards” (Declaration, art. 34) and particular attention should be paid “to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities”, including in the elimination of all forms of discrimination and violence against indigenous children and women (ibid., art. 22). 23 8 Cathal M. Doyle, Indigenous Peoples, Title to Territory, Rights and Resources: The Transformative Role of Free Prior and Informed Consent, Routledge Research in Human Rights Law (London and New York, Routledge, 2014), chap. 5.