A/HRC/45/34/Add.3 Business and Human Rights. Indigenous peoples in Thailand however lament that they were excluded from the design of the national action plan, and that their rights especially to their lands and territories, to free, prior and informed consent and to adequate and appropriate compensation are not protected. 53. In its report on the adverse human rights impact of business activities in Thailand,50 the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises described situations that resonated among indigenous peoples in other countries in the region. The Working Group reported on the adverse effects of environmental pollution on human health, on the forced eviction of communities without or with inadequate compensation and on the lack of or the inadequacy of public consultations with communities affected by large-scale development projects, among other topics. 54. During the regional consultation and in allegations received during her mandate, the Special Rapporteur obtained information about infrastructure development and extractive industry projects that have been carried out in indigenous territories in various countries in Asia and that are covered by international investment agreements. These have included mining, oil and gas, and agribusiness projects that have resulted in or may result in serious violations of indigenous peoples’ rights to their lands and territories and to self-determination. The Special Rapporteur recalls her 2016 report on the impact of international investment agreements on the rights of indigenous peoples,51 in which she analysed the global context of such agreements and how they were causing gross violations of indigenous peoples’ rights. In that report, the Special Rapporteur laid down a detailed set of recommendations aimed at ensuring the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights in in relation to decisions on the content of international investment agreements and of related negotiation processes, investment dispute settlements and corporate obligations, as well as measures to mitigate the impact of international investment agreements and long-term reforms that would require a shift in the worldview on such agreements. Those recommendations are undoubtedly highly relevant for States in Asia where projects supported by international investment agreements affect indigenous peoples, their lands and their territories. 55. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur has, together with other United Nations experts, addressed communications to several States in the region, including China, Indonesia, India, Japan, Malaysia, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Pakistan, the Philippines and Thailand, calling upon them to reform investor-State dispute settlement mechanisms so that they conform to international human rights standards, the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the Sustainable Development Goals. 52 In those communications, the experts raised concerns in relation to the lack of consistency, coherence, predictability and correctness of arbitral decisions made by tribunals involved in investor-State dispute settlements; the lack of transparency and diversity in appointing decision makers; the high cost and long duration of investor-State dispute settlement cases; and the limited access to remedy and participation of affected third parties. Recommendations on how to address each concern were included in the communications. F. Suppression of the right to freedom of association and attacks against and criminalization of indigenous human rights defenders 56. Suppression of the right to freedom of association and attacks against and criminalization of indigenous human rights and environmental defenders across the region are closely linked to large-scale development projects and, in certain subregions, to conservation efforts. Threats against indigenous human rights defenders are exacerbated by the intensifying global competition over natural resources and by increasing militarization where State and non-State actors collude to grab indigenous lands for profit. This is occurring in the context of a lack of legal and administrative frameworks for indigenous peoples to seek security of land tenure. Even when such procedures do exist, an impossible burden of proof is often placed on indigenous peoples to prove traditional occupancy and land ownership. 50 51 52 12 A/HRC/41/43/Add.1; https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22915&LangID=E. A/HRC/33/42. CHN 1/2019, IDN 5/2019, IND 7/2019, JPN 1/2019, MYS 1/2019, KOR 1/2019, SGP 2/2019, PAK 1/2019, PHL 2/2019 and THA 4/2019.