A/HRC/39/62 individual members of an indigenous community. The Declaration provides for both individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples. Where the Declaration deals with both individual and collective rights, it uses language that clearly distinguishes “indigenous peoples” from “individuals”. Understandably, however, none of the provisions of the Declaration dealing with free, prior and informed consent (arts. 10, 11, 19, 28, 29 and 32) make any reference to individuals. To “individualize” these rights would frustrate the purpose they are supposed to achieve. 15 C. Scope of free, prior and informed consent 1. Free, prior and informed consent: rights to consultation, participation and to lands and resources 14. Free, prior and informed consent is a manifestation of indigenous peoples’ right to self-determine their political, social, economic and cultural priorities. It constitutes three interrelated and cumulative rights of indigenous peoples: the right to be consulted; the right to participate; and the right to their lands, territories and resources. Pursuant to the Declaration, free, prior and informed consent cannot be achieved if one of these components is missing. 15. States’ obligations to consult with indigenous peoples should consist of a qualitative process of dialogue and negotiation, with consent as the objective (see A/HRC/18/42, annex, para. 9). The Declaration does not envision a single moment or action but a process of dialogue and negotiation over the course of a project, from planning to implementation and follow-up. Use in the Declaration of the combined terms “consult and cooperate” denotes a right of indigenous peoples to influence the outcome of decision-making processes affecting them, not a mere right to be involved in such processes or merely to have their views heard (see A/HRC/18/42). It also suggests the possibility for indigenous peoples to make a different proposal or suggest a different model, as an alternative to the one proposed by the Government or other actor. 16. Former Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples James Anaya underscored that the Declaration suggests a heightened emphasis on consultations that are in the nature of negotiations towards mutually acceptable arrangements prior to decisions on proposed measures, rather than mechanisms for providing indigenous peoples with information about decisions already made or in the making, without allowing them genuinely to influence the decision-making process (A/HRC/12/34, para. 46). Consultation will also often be the starting point for seeking free, prior and informed consent. 17. The right of indigenous peoples to participate in decision-making is provided for separately in article 18 of the Declaration, a provision grounded in article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees every citizen’s right to “take part in the conduct of public affairs”. The Declaration adapts this general right to participation to the needs and circumstances of indigenous peoples by seeking to achieve two objectives: first, to correct de jure and de facto exclusion of indigenous peoples from public life or decision-making processes owing to many factors, including prejudiced views against them, a low level of education, difficulties in obtaining citizenship or identification documents and non-participation in electoral processes and political institutions; and, second, to revitalize and restore indigenous peoples’ own decisions-making and representative institutions that have either been disregarded or abolished. These institutions should be recognized, revitalized and given opportunities to participate in decision-making. 18. The Human Rights Committee has also elaborated on indigenous peoples’ right to participate in a way that goes beyond consultation, noting that participation in the decisionmaking process must be “effective”.16 The supervisory bodies of the International Labour Organization (ILO) have underlined the interconnection between consultation and 15 16 See Siegfried Weissner, “Rights and Status of Indigenous Peoples: A Global Comparative and International Legal Analysis”, Harvard Human Rights Journal, vol. 12 (1999). See Poma Poma v. Peru (CCPR/C/95/D/1457/2006), para. 7.6. 5