INDIGENOUS PEOPLES • Employment and work; • Land rights, including natural resources and the environment; • Social security and health, including traditional health practices; • Vocational training and traditional activities. Action required by governments • To develop coordinated and systematic action to protect these peoples and respect their integrity; • To provide the resources for their development. Convention No. 169 is one of the most comprehensive instruments in the field of international law, touching on all aspects of indigenous peoples’ lives such as bilingual education, customary law, the environment, land rights, spiritual values, etc. It is also significant as it conceptualizes or sets out, for the first time, the right to self-identification, and the right to consultation and participation. This has helped these issues gain recognition as key elements in international law relating to indigenous peoples. Consultation and participation, including in the field of development, are fundamental precepts of the Convention. Convention No. 169 stipulates that indigenous peoples should be involved in every step of any development process which may impact upon them, and that they should control and manage their own processes of development. Further, prior impact assessment studies must be conducted to guide development interventions in indigenous areas (Article 7). Convention No. 169 also reiterates that indigenous peoples should participate in the use, management and control of the environment and natural resources in indigenous lands (Article 15). In the event of the displacement of indigenous peoples the Convention lays down clear procedural guidelines for their relocation, to include the holding of public inquiries. This is foreseen as an emergency measure (e.g. earthquakes, floods, etc.), and is to be carried out only with their free and informed consent. However, as many development projects take place on the lands of indigenous peoples, this provision (Article 16) has been criticized as being liable to be used to facilitate the dislocation of indigenous peoples from their traditional lands. Convention No. 169 goes on to clarify that where such relocation is necessary, the peoples affected must be compensated for their loss, and where restitution is not possible, then the indigenous peoples should be provided with lands which are equal in quality and in status to those which have been lost. 22 Convention No. 169 has been ratified (as at January 2002) by: Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Ecuador, Fiji, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Paraguay and Peru. The Convention is a valuable negotiating tool for indigenous peoples and organizations working on their behalf. Its impact and influence goes beyond the countries which have ratified it and it has been used to develop guidelines for indigenous peoples – for example in Cambodia, where the Government is in the final stages of adopting guidelines for highland peoples’ development.44 Supervision and impact The ILO supervisory bodies, namely the Committee of Experts, have been monitoring the application of Convention No. 169 in ratifying countries. Land rights have taken precedence over all other issues, and the Committee of Experts’ comments on the Convention have nearly always focused on this topic. In addition, a number of complaints45 have been brought by trade unions on behalf of indigenous peoples, regarding violations of Convention No. 169. Although they have also included complaints regarding non-observance of key concepts of the Convention, such as consultation and participation, as with Colombia (see below), they have all focused on the non-implementation of the Convention’s land rights provisions (Articles 13–19) including: Bolivia, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Mexico and Peru. For example, regarding Colombia, the Committee of Experts noted in its 2001 report: ‘With reference to the situation of the Emberá Katio community in the Alto Sinú region faced with the construction of a hydroelectric dam (the Urrá project), the Committee notes that several questions regarding this situation, particularly in respect of the alleged failure to consult with the populations concerned, and the irremediable damage cased to their environment, are being examined in the context of two representations made under article 24 of the Constitution, which are deemed receivable by the Governing Body.’ 46 Again, with reference to Costa Rica, Paraguay and Peru, the Committee of Expert’s comments for 2001 centred on the land rights provisions. Regarding Peru, the Committee observed that the Central Confederation of Workers of Peru (CUT) had submitted comments alleging non-observance of the Convention by the Peruvian government: THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION: A HANDBOOK FOR MINORITIES AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES