A/HRC/6/15 page 6 9. Goal-oriented public policies are also required to guarantee the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. The Special Rapporteur has observed in recent years that it is primarily in the area of economic, social and cultural rights that a large gap exists between the declared aims of Governments and the everyday experience of indigenous peoples, a gap that has been widening instead of disappearing. The “implementation gap” affecting indigenous peoples’ rights is not just a legal gap reflected in the failure of case law to keep abreast of legislative advances in individual countries.3 There is also an “implementation gap” between national and international recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights and State policies and programmes affecting indigenous peoples, which frequently fail to take account of or contravene indigenous rights. 10. To address the historical marginalization and discrimination experienced by indigenous peoples, a number of strategies have been implemented to promote their progress and development. These strategies may be summarized in terms of the following categories: (a) Modernization and integration: When the predominant view in States was that indigenous communities were “ backward” or “primitive”, the most common strategy advocated by the authorities consisted in introducing “modern” technology and production methods in order to bring about socio-economic change which would resolve what was long referred to as the “indigenous problem”. Relying on public and missionary schools, religious conversion and the imposition of a national language and a uniform school curriculum, many States promoted the cultural assimilation of indigenous children in the expectation that after one or two generations there would no longer be an indigenous population in their countries. This approach has generally had an adverse impact on indigenous peoples, resulting in higher poverty ratios, but it continues to be applied in many countries; (b) Economic growth: For the past half century the notion of economic growth has won unqualified support on the basis of the theory that if the global economy grows, national economies will follow suit and sooner or later indigenous communities (just like other sections of the population classified as “poor”) will reap the desired benefits. This model is frequently associated with giant infrastructural, mining, agro-industrial, tourism and other projects in indigenous territories, which have largely - barring some exceptions - proved disastrous for the peoples concerned. While they may offer opportunities for advancement to some individuals or enterprises (which may, in turn, be indigenous), they have generally had a detrimental impact on the well-being of the affected indigenous peoples and have contributed to an increase in poverty and social inequality. The economic growth strategy has recently been coupled with the idea of sustainable development, primarily to meet environmental concerns, with indigenous peoples being excluded from this concept inasmuch as they are baselessly held responsible for the destruction of the environment in which they live. The most striking examples of this phenomenon, of which the Special Rapporteur has informed the Human Rights Council,4 are 3 See the Special Rapporteur’s report on the implementation of legislation and case law pertaining to indigenous peoples’ rights (E/CN.4/2006/78). 4 A/HRC/4/32, paras. 25 to 41.