REPRESENTATION (article 24) - BOLIVIA - C169 - 1999

Bolivian Central of Workers (COB)

Closed

Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Bolivia of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Bolivian Central of Workers (COB)

Decision

1. The Governing Body adopted the report of the tripartite committee. Procedure closed.

Complaint Procedure

1. I. Introduction
2. 1. By a communication dated 18 February 1998 (received in the Office on 9 April 1998), the Bolivian Central of Workers (COB), referring to article 24 of the ILO Constitution, made a representation alleging that the Government of Bolivia has not adopted satisfactory measures to secure the observance of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169).
3. 2. The Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), was ratified by Bolivia on 11 December 1991 and is in force for that country.
4. 3. The provisions of the ILO Constitution relating to the submission of representations are as follows:
5. Article 24
6. In the event of any representation being made to the International Labour Office by an industrial association of employers or of workers that any of the Members has failed to secure in any respect the effective observance within its jurisdiction of any Convention to which it is a party, the Governing Body may communicate this representation to the government against which it is made, and may invite that government to make such statement on the subject as it may think fit.
7. Article 25
8. If no statement is received within a reasonable time from the government in question, or if the statement when received is not deemed to be satisfactory by the Governing Body, the latter shall have the right to publish the representation and the statement, if any, made in reply to it.
9. 4. The procedure to be followed in the case of representations is governed by the revised Standing Orders adopted by the Governing Body at its 212th Session (March 1980).
10. 5. In accordance with articles 1 and 2, paragraph 1, of the Standing Orders, the Director-General acknowledged receipt of the representation, informed the Government of Bolivia thereof and brought it before the Officers of the Governing Body.
11. 6. At its 272nd Session (June 1998), on the recommendation of its Officers, the Governing Body decided that the representation was receivable and set up a Committee to examine it, composed of Mr. Antonio Ducreux S. (Government member, Panama), Mr. Francisco D¡az Garaycoa (Employer member, Ecuador) and Ms. Mar¡a Rozas Vel squez (Worker member, Chile).
12. 7. In accordance with article 4, paragraph 1, subparagraphs (a) and (c), of the Standing Orders, the Committee invited the Government to send its observations on the representation and the organization which made the representation to furnish any further information which it wished to bring to the attention of the Committee.
13. 8. In a communication dated 9 September 1998, the Government sent its observations on the allegations.
14. II. Examination of the representation
15. A. Allegations made by the Bolivian Central of Workers (COB)
16. 9. On behalf of the Confederation of Indigenous Peoples of Bolivia (CIDOB) and its affiliates, the Coordinating Body of Ethnic Peoples of Santa Cruz (CPESC), the Central of Indigenous Peoples of Beni (CPIB) and the Indigenous Central of the Amazon Region of Bolivia (CIRABO), the Bolivian Central of Workers (COB) alleges that the Government, through the National Forestry Superintendency, the agency in charge of administering the country's forests, has issued administrative decisions in violation of provisions of the Convention and fundamental provisions of national legislation.
17. 10. These decisions grant 86 new forestry concessions under a system termed "voluntary conversion of contracts", 27 of which overlap with six community lands of origin (the term used in the Bolivian Constitution to designate traditional indigenous territories), which come under an order (resoluci¢n de inmovilizaci¢n) issued by the National Institute of Land Reform (INRA), according to which no new settlements, grants, adjudications or forestry concessions may take place in these areas, pending their being titled as indigenous territories. However, after provisional title had been established and the orders prohibiting any changes in status of the land had been issued, in accordance with the commitment made by the State of Bolivia to national society and the international community by ratifying the Convention, forestry concessions were granted to logging enterprises which overlap with the areas titled and considered as indigenous territories.
18. 11. The COB alleges that the new National Forestry Act approved on 12 July 1996 allowed the possibility for holders of long-term forestry exploitation contracts awarded before the new Act was adopted to convert their former contracts into a new concession ("voluntary conversion") for a period of 40 years which could be extended for another 40 years, by paying a minimal tax. It states that these logging enterprises did not have to meet the requirement of international tender but only had to carry out certain formalities which in many cases had not been fulfilled by the time the conversion decisions had been handed down.
19. 12. The COB alleges that this conversion of forestry exploitation contracts is in direct contradiction with the indigenous territorial claims currently being processed in order to obtain land title. It states that the area of the logging concessions overlapping with indigenous territories amounts to a total of 712,313 hectares. This accounts for 33 per cent of Yaminahua-Machineri territory, 22 per cent of Guarayo territory and 13 per cent of Monte Verde territory, for example. Moreover, the COB points out that the territories in question will be subjected to a process of clearing title which is likely to result in considerable areas being allotted to third parties. The territories will be further reduced by expropriations and concessions for mining and petroleum exploitation.
20. 13. According to the complainants, this situation will give rise to serious social conflicts, since forestry concessions constitute a direct threat to the viability of the indigenous territories they affect because of their considerable social and economic impact.
21. 14. In view of this situation, the indigenous organizations sought to establish a dialogue with the Forestry Superintendency, the agency responsible for supervising compliance with the Forestry Act and issuing the decisions for the conversion of forestry exploitation contracts. Reports were sent and interviews held, in which the Superintendency was warned that the grant of these new concessions on indigenous lands would constitute a flagrant violation of indigenous rights that are fully recognized and protected by the national legislation in force. The Superintendent stated that he was caught between a rock and a hard place, i.e. between the indigenous peoples and the commercial forestry sector. Preference was given to the forestry enterprises and on 1 August 1997 they were granted 86 logging concessions under the "voluntary conversion" system.
22. 15. The complainants allege that these new concessions constitute a threat to the viability of indigenous territories, and the indigenous organizations concerned contested the conversion decisions in an attempt to get the Superintendency to go back on its position and annul the illegal conversions. Contesting the decisions was the first step in the administrative procedure aimed at having the concessions annulled. However, on 12 September 1997 the Forestry Superintendency rejected the appeal brought by the indigenous organizations and upheld the decisions converting the contracts into concessions. On 2 October, the indigenous organizations took the second step in the administrative procedure and lodged an administrative appeal with the System for the Regulation of Renewable Natural Resources (SIRENARE).
23. 16. The complainants state that the violations of the Convention and the rights of indigenous peoples enshrined in the national legislation in force may be seen in the following facts:
24. - the right to consultation laid down in Article 6 of the Convention has been violated, since the Forestry Superintendency did not provide for any machinery for participation or genuine consultation to enable the peoples to express their views and influence decision-making;
25. - Article 14 of the Convention provides for recognition of the rights of ownership and possession of indigenous peoples over the lands which they traditionally occupy and the right to use lands not exclusively occupied by them, but to which they have traditionally had access for their subsistence and traditional activities. Although the forestry concessions in question do enjoy a legally acquired right, it is subsequent to that of the indigenous peoples who have possessed these lands peacefully since time immemorial, and therefore the grant of forestry concessions overlapping with community lands of origin constitutes a violation of Article 14 of the Convention;
26. - the above-mentioned provisions of Act No. 1715 expressly lay down a mandate to perfect indigenous peoples' existing territorial right through an ad hoc "procedure"; however, the conversion decisions failed to respect the legal recognition of indigenous territories laid down by the above-mentioned provisions. Moreover, there was misuse of the term "rights legally acquired by third parties" to be respected in the process of establishing title; these refer only to agrarian ownership rights, while forestry enterprises do not have a right of ownership over the land, but rather of access to it;
27. - the conversion decisions disregard paragraph 1 of the Second Final Provision of Act No. 1715 respecting the National Service of Land Reform, which provides that in community lands of origin where there is an overlap or conflict of rights, the right of the indigenous or original people or community shall prevail over forestry exploitation concessions, contracts or permits. Neither is any reference made to the right of preference, which constitutes a clear and conclusive standard regarding the preference to be given to indigenous territorial rights over any kind of forestry right.
28. 17. In conclusion, the complainants point out that there is no justification for the fact that a state institution, which has been legally established and is called upon to act fairly and in accordance with the laws and regulations in force, impairs the territorial and forestry rights of indigenous communities under pressure from logging companies. This constitutes a direct threat to the viability of indigenous territories, since the existence of forestry concessions in these territories will have a considerable social and economic impact, affecting the natural resources that need to be protected for future generations.
29. B. The Government's reply
30. 18. The Government states that the political Constitution stipulates that the soil and subsoil, with all their natural resources, are under the original ownership of the State, and that the law shall establish the conditions of such ownership and of their concession and adjudication to private individuals.
31. 19. Nonetheless, the State takes account in its legislation of the provisions laid down in Article 15, paragraph 2, of the Convention with regard to establishing or maintaining procedures through which the peoples concerned shall be consulted with a view to ascertaining whether and to what degree their interests would be prejudiced before undertaking or permitting any programmes for the exploration or exploitation of the resources pertaining to their lands and the payment of fair compensation for any damages which they may sustain as a result of these activities.
32. 20. The Government points out further that, pursuant to its Constitution and the commitment it has made by ratifying the Convention, the State of Bolivia would only be obliged to observe and respect the obligations laid down in Article 15, paragraph 2, of the Convention concerning consultation, participation wherever possible in benefits, and receiving compensation. It states that some sectors of the indigenous movement claim recognition of autonomous indigenous territories and absolute ownership of all of the renewable and non-renewable natural resources in the soil and subsoil which exist on the lands of indigenous peoples.
33. 21. The Government goes on to state that provision was made for the first time in the Constitutional Amendment of 1994 for the right to indigenous peoples' lands, collective in nature, termed "community lands of origin". Act No. 1715 of 18 October 1996 respecting the National Service of Land Reform lays down the legal scope of the community lands of origin and provides that this term includes the concept of indigenous territory in accordance with the definition laid down in Part II of the Convention. Moreover, title to community lands of origin grants indigenous and original peoples collective ownership of their land which cannot be reverted, alienated, encumbered, attached or acquired by prescription. Their right to participate in the use and sustainable exploitation of the renewable natural resources existing on their land is also recognized. The distribution and redistribution for individual and family use of community lands of origin and communal lands to which collective title has been established is governed by the rules of the community, according to its standards and customs.
34. 22. As regards forestry resources, the Government states that the Forestry Act, No. 1700 of 12 July 1996 (which was promulgated before the Act respecting the National Service of Land Reform) lays down a new system of forestry regulations, and in view of the two extreme positions referred to above, the Government, in accordance with article 136, paragraph II, of the political Constitution, provided in section 32, paragraphs II and III of the Forestry Act that indigenous peoples are guaranteed exclusive rights to exploitation of forests in duly recognized community lands of origin. Through the Forestry Act the State grants the right to exclusive exploitation of forestry resources to indigenous peoples in their community lands of origin, with the constitutionally enshrined exception of the original ownership of the State over natural resources under article 136 of the Constitution.
35. 23. Any other natural or legal person who is not indigenous must go through a procedure to obtain a forestry concession from the Forestry Superintendency. Indigenous persons, on the other hand, only need a permit, and not a concession, in order to exploit forestry resources, since they have the exclusive right to exploit the forest. They have not been granted ownership of forestry resources, since this would have been unconstitutional, but they have been granted an exclusive right, which goes further than previous consultation or participation wherever possible in the benefits of such activities and fair compensation for any damages, to which the State was committed under Article 15, paragraph 2, of the Convention.
36. 24. The Government emphasizes that it has already granted title to a surface area of 2,775,000 hectares as community lands of origin and that no new forestry concession exists within these lands, since the rights of indigenous peoples have been consolidated through the establishment of title. If third parties illegally cut timber or any other forest product within these community lands, it is immediately confiscated and used entirely for the benefit of the indigenous people which has the right to the community land of origin, as clearly provided in section 96, paragraph I, of Regulatory Decree No. 24453 made under the Forestry Act. In addition to recognizing this right, machinery has been established to secure effective protection of these rights.
37. 25. Once the Act of 18 October 1996 respecting the National Service of Land Reform had been approved, the Confederation of Indigenous Peoples of Bolivia (CIDOB) applied for title to 16 areas of community lands of origin totalling 11,666,508 hectares, which was granted under Act No. 1715. The 16 areas will be subjected to a process of clearing title in order to determine the rights of third parties within the community lands of origin.
38. 26. The Government states that owing to irregularities in the agrarian reform process that began in 1953, agrarian property titles were granted, especially in the Chaco, Oriental and Amazon regions of Bolivia, with the result that land was accumulated by individuals who used it for trafficking and trading in land. Because of this the new Act No. 1715 established a process of clearing title so that these irregularities may be identified, fraudulent titles revoked and/or agricultural properties that were not being used for their economic and social purpose may revert to state ownership. This process is planned to last ten years.
39. 27. The Government goes on to state that, in order to ensure that during this clearing process claims for community lands of origin are not subjected to other claims by third parties, i.e. new settlers or agricultural entrepreneurs, and to prevent new forestry concessions from being granted, Act No. 1715 was adopted, the Third Transitional Provision, paragraph I of which provides that "Concerning the 16 applications for community lands of origin filed before this Act, changes in status shall be prohibited in these areas with respect to new applications and settlement: Provided that the rights legally acquired by third parties shall be respected". The National Institute of Land Reform has issued administrative decisions ordering that no change in status shall take place in the over 11 million hectares of land covered by the 16 claims for community lands of origin. The Government points out further that new forestry concessions cannot be granted either in these lands, but that the same provision prohibiting changes in status clearly states that the rights legally acquired by third parties shall be respected, i.e. that any agrarian, forestry, livestock breeding, or mining right or any other right that was granted before the order was issued shall be strictly respected, since article 33 of the political Constitution of the State provides that the law shall have no retroactive effect.
40. 28. The former General Forestry Act of the Nation (Legislative Decree No. 11686 of 13 August 1974) provided for long, medium and short-term forestry exploitation contracts for forestry enterprises and anyone interested in exploiting forest resources. The long-term contracts were concluded for a 20-year term and could be renewed at the enterprise's request.
41. 29. At the time of promulgation of the new Forestry Act, No. 1700 of 12 July 1996, and Act No. 1715 of 18 October 1996 respecting the National Service of Land Reform, the 27 enterprises which according to the complainants overlap with the 16 claims for community lands of origin had concluded such long-term contracts drawn up in accordance with the earlier legislation and therefore entirely valid in accordance with forestry legislation. Forestry Act, No. 1700 could not invalidate these long-term forestry exploitation contracts owing to the non-retroactive nature of the law and accordingly the transitional provisions establish a voluntary conversion scheme from the former regime to the new forestry regulations up to 31 December 1996 for all the enterprises which at the time of promulgation of the Forestry Act held long-term exploitation contracts. The Government points out that there was a real need for this transitional voluntary conversion scheme, since failing this the country would have had two forestry laws in force, the old one laid down by Legislative Decree No. 11686 of 1974 and the current Forestry Act, No. 1700.
42. 30. The Government emphasizes that it has therefore not granted any new forestry concessions in the 16 land claims presented by indigenous people, to which title will be first cleared and then established, and in which changes in status have been prohibited by decision of the National Institute of Land Reform. The Government states that it could not revoke the forestry rights legally acquired by third parties under the legislation establishing long-term forestry exploitation contracts which were fully valid when the new Forestry Act was promulgated. If it had proceeded to cancel the 86 long-term exploitation contracts, only 27 of which were in the areas in which changes in status were prohibited pending their being titled as community lands of origin, it would have violated the constitutional legal provisions on the right to private, individual and collective property, as long as it fulfils a social purpose, i.e. the guarantee of private property, and would have infringed the principle that the law provides for the future and has no retroactive effect. It would also have violated the provisions of Act No. 1715 respecting the National Service of Land Reform, which prohibited any change in status in the 16 areas claimed as community lands of origin, while respecting the rights legally acquired by third parties.
43. 31. The Government points out that the conversions of the 27 logging enterprises do not seriously affect the interests of indigenous peoples and that with the promulgation of the Forestry Act, No. 1700, the land covered by long-term forestry exploitation contracts was reduced from 22 million hectares to approximately 6 million. This is because the new Act provides for an annual licence fee to be paid by logging enterprises amounting to US$1 per hectare, which has placed a substantial economic burden on the enterprises that had concluded long-term forestry exploitation contracts. In practical terms, this means that 16 million hectares of land conceded to logging enterprises under 20-year contracts, renewable at the enterprise's request, have reverted to state ownership.
44. 32. Of the 16 million hectares that have reverted to state ownership under the new Forestry Act and as a result of the voluntary conversion scheme, 2,176,529.59 hectares are included in the claims for community lands of origin which, once their title has been established, will be consolidated as an exclusive right of indigenous peoples. The lands exploited by the 27 logging enterprises in the 11,666,508.1127 hectares of land in which changes in status were prohibited under the 16 claims for community lands of origin affect a total surface area of 682,401.79 hectares, representing 5.8 per cent of these lands. Therefore, the forestry enterprise conversion process has yielded over 2 million hectares that have reverted to state ownership and will be consolidated for indigenous peoples, who shall have exclusive rights to forestry exploitation, once title has been established as community lands of origin. This surface area exceeds that affected. The Government points out that these figures show clearly that the overlap with 27 logging enterprises does not seriously affect the territories of indigenous peoples, and that on the contrary it has resulted in their benefiting from over 2 million hectares of land.
45. 33. The Government points out that procedural guarantees exist to protect the rights of natural or legal persons who consider themselves to be affected by the administrative decisions of the Forestry Superintendency to grant concessions or conversions, and that they may appeal to the same Superintendency for a revocation of the decision contested (section 43 of the Forestry Act). Decisions handed down by the Forestry Superintendent rejecting the appeals for revocation may likewise be contested by lodging an appeal with the General Superintendency of the System for the Regulation of Renewable Natural Resources (SIRENARE) (section 44 of the Forestry Act); the administrative procedure is then exhausted. Once the administrative channels have been exhausted, an appeal may be lodged through the administrative litigation procedure with the Supreme Court of Justice, which is the last and final instance.
46. 34. The indigenous organizations of Bolivia have lodged an appeal with the General Superintendency of the System for the Regulation of Renewable Natural Resources, which has already taken a decision upholding the administrative decisions of conversion handed down by the Forestry Superintendent and rejecting the challenges brought by the indigenous organizations affiliated to the Confederation of Indigenous Peoples of Bolivia (CIDOB). The indigenous organizations may avail themselves of administrative litigation channels by appealing to the Supreme Court of Justice of Bolivia.
47. 35. The Government concludes that Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention have not been violated, neither have the national laws recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples of Bolivia to their lands and to access to natural resources. It states further that under the political Constitution, the Convention, Forestry Act, No. 1700 and Act No. 1715 respecting the National Service of Land Reform, it has taken account of the opinion and participation of indigenous and original peoples; it has adopted legal and administrative measures guaranteeing the rights of these peoples to use, exploit and conserve the renewable natural resources on their lands, which are exclusively rights of indigenous peoples. The Government emphasizes that it respects its international commitments and its special commitment with regard to the indigenous peoples of Bolivia, and confirms its decision to continue establishing legal, administrative and other machinery enabling a new system of relations between the national State and indigenous peoples to be created, based on equity, respect, participation and recognition of their rights.
48. III. The Committee's conclusions
49. 36. The Committee notes that the allegations presented by the COB on behalf of a number of indigenous organizations refer principally to the adoption of administrative decisions by the National Forestry Superintendency, establishing 27 forestry concessions that overlap with six traditional indigenous territories, without prior consultation. It observes that these lands are subject to a process of clearing title in order to determine the rights of third parties within them, and that according to the complainants this clearing process will result in substantial areas being allocated for third parties, while further areas will be reduced through expropriations and concessions for mining and petroleum exploitation. The Committee notes further that the Government has granted provisional title to 16 areas of land as community lands of origin in order to guarantee adequate protection in future to indigenous peoples.
50. 37. The Committee also notes that the land exploited by the 27 forestry enterprises covers a total surface area of 682,401 hectares out of the 11,666,508 hectares covered by the 16 claims for community lands of origin in which changes in status had been prohibited, i.e. 5.8 per cent of them, and that the lands under long-term forestry concessions have been reduced from 22 to 6 million hectares as a result of the voluntary conversion scheme. The Committee observes that of the 16 million hectares that have reverted to state ownership, over 2 million hectares are included among the lands for which definitive title is expected to be established as community lands of origin and that the Government emphasizes that it has granted no new forestry concessions in the 16 claims presented by indigenous peoples, but that it could not annul the long-term forestry exploitation contracts that were valid when the new Forestry Act was adopted because this would have infringed legal provisions guaranteeing vested rights.
51. 38. However, in view of the fact that these measures to clear title to the land claimed and expropriations and concessions for mining and petroleum exploitation may directly affect the viability and interests of the indigenous peoples concerned, the Committee recalls that Article 15 of the Convention should be read in conjunction with Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention, and that by ratifying the Convention governments undertake to ensure that the indigenous communities concerned are consulted promptly and adequately on the extent and implications of exploration and exploitation activities, whether these are mining, petroleum or forestry activities.
52. 39. In these circumstances, the Committee considers it appropriate to recommend that the Governing Body request the Government to consider the possibility of establishing, in each particular case, especially in the case of large-scale exploitations such as those affecting large tracts of land, environmental, cultural, social and spiritual impact studies, jointly with the peoples concerned, before authorizing exploration and exploitation of natural resources in areas traditionally occupied by indigenous peoples. In addition, the Committee suggests that the Governing Body request the Government to inform the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations on the process of clearing title now under way in the community lands of origin and on whether the appropriate consultation procedures that must take place before undertaking any exploration or exploitation of natural resources have been established or maintained, as provided by the Convention.
53. 40. The Committee also observes that the Government states that national legislation contains provisions on procedures for consulting the peoples concerned, as provided by Article 15 of the Convention, with a view to ascertaining whether their interests would be prejudiced before undertaking any programmes for the exploration or exploitation of the natural resources existing on their lands. The Committee notes further that the Government states that by granting them exclusive rights to exploit forestry resources in duly recognized community lands of origin, it goes much further than prior consultation or participation wherever possible in the benefits or fair compensation for any damages. The Committee would point out the legal principle recognized in Article 6(2) of the Convention, according to which the consultations carried out in application of the Convention shall be undertaken in good faith and in a form that is clear and appropriate to the circumstances, especially when the contracts referred to in this case are of a considerable duration and cover an extensive area. While the Committee understands that the lands with which the forestry concessions overlap have not yet been titled as community lands of origin, it has not received any evidence indicating that such consultations, whether under Article 6(1)(a) or under Article 15(2) of the Convention, have been carried out or whether provision has been made for the peoples concerned to participate wherever possible in the benefits of such activities. The Committee accordingly suggests that the Governing Body request the Government to inform the Committee of Experts on the progress achieved concerning consultations with the peoples concerned, their participation, wherever possible, in the benefits of the concessions, and their receipt of fair compensation for any damages which they may sustain as a result of this exploitation.
54. 41. The Committee also notes that, while the concessions in question affect the claimed community lands of origin, the impact on certain particular indigenous groups is substantial, and it therefore recommends that the Governing Body request the Government to pay special attention in its next report to the specific situation of these communities.
55. 42. Concerning the administrative appeals lodged by the indigenous organizations, the Committee notes further that they still have the right to avail themselves of the administrative litigation procedure by appealing to the Supreme Court of Justice of Bolivia and requests the complainants to inform the Committee of Experts if they avail themselves of this right, and if so, to inform it of the outcome thereof and of that of the appeal filed with the SIRENARE.
56. IV. The Committee's recommendations
57. 43. In adopting this report, the Committee is aware that the application of the Convention in Bolivia is a matter of priority for the Government and that it has been examined closely by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations with regard to certain points. The Committee hopes that the Government will maintain close contact with the Committee of Experts and the Office with a view to resolving the difficulties that may arise in this respect.
58. 44. The Committee recommends that the Governing Body approve this report and, in the light of the conclusions in paragraphs 37 to 42 of the report:
59. (a) that it request the Government, in the reports due under article 22 of the ILO Constitution in relation to this Convention, to supply detailed information to the Committee of Experts on the measures taken or envisaged to give effect to the provisions of the Convention referred to in the foregoing paragraphs;
60. (b) that it request the Government to apply fully the provisions of Article 15 of the Convention and to consider engaging in consultations in each particular case, especially when large tracts of land such as those referred to in this representation are affected, as well as environmental, cultural, social and spiritual impact studies, jointly with the peoples concerned, before authorizing the exploration and exploitation of natural resources in areas traditionally occupied by indigenous peoples;
61. (c) that it request the Government to inform it on the process of clearing title under way in the community lands of origin and on the establishment or maintenance of the appropriate consultation procedures that must be carried out before undertaking any programme for the exploration or exploitation of natural resources, as provided by the Convention;
62. (d) that it request the Government to inform it on the progress made in practice with regard to consultations with the peoples concerned, their participation wherever possible in the benefits of the concessions and their receipt of fair compensation for any damages which they may sustain as a result of this exploitation; and that it request the Government to pay special attention in its report to the specific situation of indigenous communities which would sustain a greater impact from the effects of forestry concessions in their territories;
63. (e) that it request the complainants to inform the Committee of Experts whether they have availed themselves of the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice and, if so, to inform it of the outcome, and concerning the appeal filed with the SIRENARE;
64. (f) that it declare closed the procedure resulting from the representation.