A/HRC/27/52/Add.3 regard, it was agreed only that “Perupetro will provide periodic information (every four months) on the activities carried out as part of the hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation projects”. Furthermore, the agreements reached do not appear to offer adequate protection for the substantive rights of the indigenous communities affected, especially during future hydrocarbon exploitation in the block. 55. According to the Government, there are plans for seven consultation processes relating to hydrocarbon projects in 2014, which offers many opportunities for improving the process and achieving better results. It should be pointed out that the Government has conducted consultation processes beyond the context of extractive projects, relating to the national policy on intercultural health, the development of the Sierra del Divisor national park, the implementing regulations for the Act on languages, those for the Act on forestry and forest fauna, and several other administrative measures at regional level. VII. Compensation and profit-sharing 56. Where extractive projects are carried out within their territories, indigenous peoples should accrue compensation and direct financial benefits for allowing access to their territories and for any agreed-upon adverse project effects, as well as because of the significant social capital they contribute under the totality of historical and contemporary circumstances (A/HRC/24/41, paragraph 76). However, while in Peru legislation does not provide for indigenous peoples’ direct participation in royalties or taxes derived from extractive projects carried out within their territories, it does set out that, as any other land owner, indigenous peoples must be compensated for the surface use of their territories and for damages or curtailments to their rights as a result of the projects.46 57. For example, the indigenous communities affected by the Camisea natural gas extraction project have received compensation and damages for the use of and impact on their territories from the company Pluspetrol. The Segakiato community has used this compensation partly to form, with the assistance of Pluspetrol, a river transport company producing significant financial gains. In addition, Pluspetrol is paying damages for the impacts of the Camisea project inside the reserve for the Kugapakori, Nahua and Nanti peoples and others living in a situation of voluntary isolation or initial contact (see chapter VIII below). However, until recently, this compensation could not be paid to the reserve dwellers, since entry to the reserve for that reason was not included among the “exceptions” to the rule of the inviolability of the reserve.47 58. Beyond the payment of compensation and damages, in Peru there are certain measures for sharing the profits of extraction projects, although none of these apply specifically to indigenous peoples. Under current legislation, local and regional governments have the right to receive a proportion of the profits from the extractive operations, the so-called royalty (“canon”), which must be used to finance social investment projects. 59. The State also runs a “social fund” project for the investment of resources derived from private investment activities in sustainable development programmes in areas directly affected by extractive projects.48 The social funds are administered by legal entities made up of representatives from the communities affected and the company. According to the Government, currently eight of these associations have managed projects to a total value of 46 47 48 GE.14-07246 See the Organic Hydrocarbons Act, No. 26221, arts. 82 and 83; DS 032-2004-EM, arts. 297 and 302. No. 011-2013-VMI-MC, adopting Directive No. 003-2013-VMI/MC, art. 7.2. Legislative Decree No. 996. 15