A/HRC/15/35 non-transparent. Moreover, these appointees do not necessarily reflect the position of their communities, may have limited knowledge of the subject matter and are often inaccessible to the community they purport to represent. Since the government often pays the salary of appointees, they may be afraid to alienate their employer by criticizing government policy. F. Implementing free, prior and informed consent for development projects 88. Increasingly, indigenous peoples worldwide are struggling to maintain control over their lands and resources in the face of growing encroachment on their territories by both small- and large-scale development projects. Conflicts regarding the protection and use of natural resources at stake in many such projects are increasing, and both the human and environmental impact of these projects continues to affect indigenous communities. These projects often involve a diverse range of actors, including States and private companies, and sometimes international financial institutions and non-governmental organizations. Many decisions connected to these development projects drastically affect the rights of indigenous peoples, yet are taken without their free, prior and informed consent. 89. The legal framework for free, prior and informed consent is set out above, and its normative character has been explored by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people.64 Substantively, the right of consultation as generally established by the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples requires “effective” participation, not pro forma consultations, the goal of which is to obtain the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples. 90. Despite the clear standard that free, prior and informed consent provides, consultation processes have been carried out in this pro forma way, and have been manipulated as public relations tools to endorse proposals regarding development projects, by demonstrating so-called support from the community, citing irrelevant comments and downplaying dissenting voices.65 91. In order to avoid such manipulation, some communities have established clear protocols to ensure that any consultation with them is based on the standard of free, prior and informed consent. Such an approach has been successful in some circumstances,66 and indigenous communities need access to capacity-building to be able to continue to develop culturally appropriate protocols and procedures for consultation that are relevant to their communities. 92. States may sometimes impose statutory obligations on third parties involved in a project to provide notice to indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples have been frustrated, however, by the volume of requests they receive from government agencies, the absence of adequate funding, and the lack of an effective mechanism for managing the referrals process.67 While indigenous peoples should be included in administrative procedures, legislative “notice” provisions for third parties may not necessarily meet the standard of consulting with indigenous people in a manner consistent with the international standard of free, prior and informed consent. 64 65 66 67 A/HRC/12/34, paras. 36–57. Submission by Les Malezer (Australia). Many community protocols for research and management of resources have been developed by indigenous communities, such as those in Sabah (Malaysia), the Raika in India, and communities in Australia and New Zealand. Submission by First Nations Summit (Canada). 21