E/CN.4/2003/90/Add.3 page 24 their rights, lives and destinies through procedures determined by them. In delivering development assistance, the consensus of all the members of a given community of indigenous people must be determined according to their customary laws. Indigenous peoples have the right to development in their ancestral domains, as well as the right to their cultural integrity.34 VI. CONCLUSIONS 60. IPRA of 1997 is an important step forward in the official recognition of the rights of the indigenous peoples of the Philippines that provides a normative legal framework for their protection. Further efforts in this direction were undertaken by the establishment, not without delays, of NCIP and Task Force 63 (which is, however, slated to be dissolved). 61. The Special Rapporteur is concerned with the slow pace of implementation of the provisions of IPRA, and he senses a loss of confidence among indigenous organizations in the ability or willingness of government agencies to proceed actively with its effective implementation. This perception applies especially to the crucial issue of claims to ancestral domains and the issuance of land titles to indigenous communities. If this problem is not properly and promptly addressed and the rights of indigenous peoples to land, territory and natural resources are not fully respected, it is likely that further serious social conflict and attendant human rights violations will occur. It is possible to speak here of a human rights “protection gap” for indigenous peoples. 62. The Special Rapporteur is concerned about multiple reports of serious human rights violations involving indigenous peoples, within the framework of a process of militarization of indigenous areas. Such abuses include attacks upon the physical integrity and security of indigenous persons, dispossession and destruction of property, forced evacuation and relocation, threats and harassment, disruption of the cultural and social life of the community, in other words, the violation of civic, economic, social and cultural rights. This situation has several aspects. On the one hand it involves units and military personnel of the Philippine Army who have been accused of perpetrating such human rights abuses, as well as local military irregulars such as CAFGUs and “private” armies of local political and economic elites with the backing of members of the army hierarchy. On the other hand, militarization is related to two concurrent processes: firstly, the powerful interests of mining, logging and agribusiness enterprises, which acquire control over indigenous lands and resources even against the wishes of the indigenous communities and without their free and prior consent as the law establishes. Secondly, militarization takes place in the framework of the counter-insurgency tactics of the Philippine Army in the war against rebel groups, particularly NPA, in which indigenous communities may be caught up as hapless victims. 63. Human rights violations frequently occur as one of the negative effects experienced by Philippine indigenous peoples of various economic development projects, including dams, mining, logging and commercial plantations. Such effects upon the livelihoods and lifestyles of indigenous peoples are aptly described as “development aggression”. They involve damage to the traditional environment, involuntary displacements, threats to health, disruption of the right to food and shelter, imposed changes in economic activity and livelihoods, and cultural and psychological traumas. Such effects are particularly hard