This question monitors whether indigenous women enjoy rights and freedoms on an equal footing with indigenous men, and non-indigenous women, respectively. Art. 44 of UNDRIP stipulates that all the rights and freedoms contained in the UNDRIP are equally guaranteed to indigenous men and women.
Data source: National SDG monitoring data - the question is only relevant if (some) SDG data is disaggregated by ethnicity / indigenous identifier and by sex. To determine whether indigenous women are lagging behind, compare data for indigenous women with data on indigenous peoples as such (men and women), as well as with data on women in general.
Please answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ for ‘Indigenous men’ and ‘Non-indigenous women’ respectively – ‘Yes’ meaning the data shows that indigenous women are lagging behind. Provide additional information and references in the comment box if the answer is ‘Yes’.

This question monitors whether the State has taken special measures to advance effective equality of indigenous women (promoting their role in decision-making).
The outcome document of the 2014 World Conference on Indigenous Peoples (para. 17) states that: "We commit ourselves to supporting the empowerment of indigenous women and to formulating and implementing, in collaboration with indigenous peoples, in particular indigenous women and their organizations, policies and programmes designed to promote capacity-building and strengthen their leadership. We support measures that will ensure the full and effective participation of indigenous women in decision-making processes at all levels and in all areas and eliminate barriers to their participation in political, economic, social and cultural life."
Data source: Ministry of Social Welfare, Ministry of Women and Children’s Affairs, or other ministry mandated to oversee public services and initiatives targeted at promoting gender equality.
Please answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, and provide additional information and references in the comment box if the answer is ‘Yes’.

This question assesses the structural recognition of human rights.
Data sources:
For core international human rights treaties, information on the status of ratification by country is available through the OHCHR indicators database: http://indicators.ohchr.org/
For ILO conventions, information on the status of ratification by country is available through the ILO Normlex database: www.ilo.org/normlex
For the American Convention on Human Rights, information on the status of ratification by country is available at the Organization of American States: http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights_sign.htm
For the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, information on the status of ratification is available at the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights: http://www.achpr.org/instruments/achpr/ratification/
Please mark ‘Yes’ if the listed conventions are ratified, and ‘No’ if they are not.

This question assesses whether indigenous peoples enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms, as a collective or as individuals.
Data sources:
Recommendations from Universal Periodic Review, by country and topic: http://www.upr-info.org/database/ ;
Database of Treaty Body recommendations, by treaty and country: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en
Archive of decisions by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, by country: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/cf/Jurisprudencia2/index.cfm?lang=en
State reports and concluding observations for the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, by country: http://www.achpr.org/states/reports-and-concluding-observations/
Country reports issued by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/IPeoples/SRIndigenousPeoples/Pages/CountryReports.aspx
Comments by ILO Supervisory Bodies, by country and topic, can be accessed through the ILO Normlex database: http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:20010:0::NO
Human rights organizations or indigenous organizations may also have references to important recommendations on indigenous peoples from international treaty bodies and monitoring mechanisms, so check their annual reports and other relevant publications too.
Please mark ‘Yes’ if the listed monitoring mechanisms and bodies have issued recommendations on indigenous peoples’ rights – and ‘No’ if they have not. If yes, use the comment box to provide references to the recommendations.

This question is a follow-up to Question 14: If recommendations on indigenous peoples’ rights have been issued by international human rights monitoring mechanisms, please assess the progress in implementing the recommendations from each of the listed bodies:
Response options:
‘None = no legal or administrative measures have been proposed
‘Poor’ = legal or administrative measures have been proposed, but not adopted
‘Ongoing’ = legal or administrative measures have been adopted, but implementation cannot be assessed yet
‘Partially accomplished’ = legal or administrative measures have been adopted, and implementation has started but remains incomplete
‘Fully accomplished’ = the issue has been addressed comprehensively through adoption of legislation, or design of government programmes targeting the issue at stake – this new legislation and / or programmes are being implemented, and the problematic situation has improved.

This question assesses whether indigenous peoples enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms, as a collective or as individuals.
Please assess whether laws and policies within the thematic areas outlined violate key provisions of indigenous peoples’ rights – such as the collective right to self-determination; to lands territories and resources; to culture and identity, etc.; as well as their general enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms without discrimination.
Data source: National legislation
Answer by ticking ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ for each of the themes listed, and provide references in the comment box as relevant. It may be worthwhile returning to this question after answering the rest of the questionnaire, as you will have a better overview of national legislation vis-à-vis indigenous peoples’ rights after answering the full questionnaire, or even just parts of it.

The question is based on a process indicator, assessing whether States have taken appropriate measures to achieve the ends of the UNDRIP. Furthermore, in the outcome document of the 2014 World Conference on Indigenous Peoples (para. 8), States have committed to "cooperating with indigenous peoples, through their own representative institutions, to develop and implement national action plans, strategies or other measures, where relevant, to achieve the ends of the Declaration."
Answer by ticking ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, and if yes, please provide details on the specific name of the action plan, it’s date of adoption, etc.

This question monitors whether states have taken appropriate measures to achieve the ends of the Declaration, as provided for in Art. 38 of UNDRIP.
The outcome document of the 2014 World Conference on Indigenous Peoples underscores this commitment (para. 7), and states that: "We commit ourselves to taking, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples, appropriate measures at the national level, including legislative, policy and administrative measures, to achieve the ends of the Declaration and to promote awareness of it among all sectors of society, including members of legislatures, the judiciary and the civil service."
Data source: Ministry of Justice, educational institutions responsible for educating civil service personnel.
Please answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, and provide additional information and references in the comment box if the answer is ‘Yes’.

To identify the amount of women in the community that have felt discriminated against, please ask the community women about any occasions and events where they experienced unwanted and annoying actions (including threats and demands), have been treated differently from others, or have been put in an unpleasant or hostile situation during the past 12 months, due to either their:
·       Indigenous identity = they were discriminated against because they are indigenous
·       Gender = they were discriminated against because they are women
·       Age = they were discriminated against because they are either old or young
·       Income = they were discriminated against because they are poor

To identify the amount of men in the community that have felt discriminated against, please ask the community men about any occasions and events where they experienced unwanted and annoying actions (including threats and demands), have been treated differently from others, or have been put in an unpleasant or hostile situation during the past 12 months, due to either their:
·       Indigenous identity = they were discriminated against because they are indigenous
·       Gender = they were discriminated against because they are men
·       Age = they were discriminated against because they are either old or young
·       Income = = they were discriminated against because they are poor

Indigenous peoples and individuals are equal to all other peoples and individuals in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity. The question assesses whether States are taking proper steps to promote and protect the rights of indigenous persons with disabilities (the question is only relevant if the answer to Question 17 was ‘Yes’ – a national action plan has been developed).
In the outcome document of the 2014 World Conference on Indigenous Peoples (para. 9), States have pledged the following: "We commit ourselves to promoting and protecting the rights of indigenous persons with disabilities and to continuing to improve their social and economic conditions, including by developing targeted measures for the aforementioned action plans, strategies or measures, in collaboration with indigenous persons with disabilities. We also commit ourselves to ensuring that national legislative, policy and institutional structures relating to indigenous peoples are inclusive of indigenous persons with disabilities and contribute to the advancement of their rights."
Data sources: National policies, Ministry of Social Welfare or similar ministry mandated to address the needs of people with disabilities (is there any information on government initiatives / programmes targeted at indigenous persons with disabilities?), etc..
Please answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, and provide additional information in the comment box, as relevant.

This question assesses indigenous peoples’ enjoyment of the right to be equal to all other peoples and individuals in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity. Recognition of indigenous identities, and visibility in the form of census data, is a fundamental aspect of enjoying this right.
The indicator is aligned with SDG Indicator 17.18.1 on the proportion of SDG indicators that are fully disaggregated, when relevant to the target, at the national level. Data-disaggregation is key to achieving the 2030 Agenda’s overall ambition of ‘leaving no-one behind’, since it makes it possible to monitor unequal achievements among different population groups. For disaggregated data to serve this purpose for indigenous peoples (who are generally very likely to be the ones left behind, according to numerous studies and global statistics), data disaggregation by an ‘indigenous identifier’ is key.
Collecting disaggregated data on the SDG implementation will typically be the responsibility of the National Statistical Office. Under the Sustainable Development Goals’ monitoring framework, states are required to collect data that is disaggregated "where relevant, by income, sex, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability and geographic location, or other characteristics". Data disaggregation for indigenous peoples is a commitment made in the outcome document of the 2014 World Conference on Indigenous Peoples too (para. 10).
Data source: National SDG monitoring data. At the global level, data on this indicator is compiled by UNFPA and UNSD. The global SDG data repository can therefore serve as an initial starting point to determine where disaggregated data is available for SDG indicators.
Please answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, and provide additional information and references in the comment box if the answer is ‘Yes’.

This question measures disparities in the achievement of the SDGs by indigenous peoples, as compared to other sectors of society.
Data source: National SDG monitoring data – the question is only relevant if (some) SDG data is disaggregated by ethnicity / indigenous identifier. To determine whether indigenous peoples are lagging behind, compare data that is disaggregated by indigenous identity with data on national averages (see guidance for question 20).
Please answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, and provide additional information and references in the comment box if the answer is ‘Yes’.

Non-discrimination is a key principle of human rights law. Article 2 of UNDRIP reaffirms that indigenous peoples enjoy the same right as any other individual to be free from discrimination of any kind, including discrimination based on their indigenous origin and identity, but also other grounds of discrimination. International human rights law outlaws discrimination against population groups on the basis of specific characteristics or 'grounds'. The grounds of discrimination prohibited under international human rights law include ethnicity, sex, age, income, geographic location, disability, religion, migratory or displacement status, civil status, sexual orientation and gender identity. The indicator is aligned with SDG Indicator 10.3.1/16.b.1, wherefore data generated here can feed into national and international SDG monitoring – and indicate whether indigenous people report a higher incidence of discrimination than average populations.
Data source: Surveys and reports by the National Statistical Office or credible human rights organizations, including national human rights institutions. In cases where no survey data is available, relevant qualitative information can be extracted from human rights reporting and put in the comment box in summarized form. At the global level, the OHCHR is responsible for developing a methodology for collection of data on this indicator, and the OHCHR will also be in charge of global compilation of data. For EU Member States, data has been collected by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency.

Indigenous peoples' right to self-determination is recognized in two paragraphs of the preamble, as well as in Article 3 of the UNDRIP: "Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
Data source: The Constitution / national legislation. Is there any recognition of indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination?
Please answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ and provide additional comments, as relevant, in the comment box, including references to the relevant laws / articles in the Constitution if the answer is yes.

This question too assesses the recognition of indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination, in the sense that the right to self-identify as belonging to an indigenous people is an important aspect of self-determination.
Data source: National legislation. Is there any recognition of the existence of indigenous peoples in the country? Some countries have legislation addressing the needs of indigenous peoples, and have identified, in that context, who the indigenous peoples in the given country are.
"Indigenous peoples" is to be understood according to international identification criteria, as defined by ILO Convention No. 169, as these have been applied widely for the purpose of identifying indigenous peoples in international and national political and legal processes, far beyond the group of States that have ratified the Convention:
Self-identification as belonging to a distinct indigenous people is key (subjective criteria), and apart from this, their social, cultural, economic and political institutions and conditions usually distinguish indigenous peoples from other sections of the national community (objective criteria).
These criteria are used internationally for the purpose of identifying indigenous peoples, including in the application of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and have also been the basis on which various UN agencies have developed their own operational definitions of the term indigenous peoples, including the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme. Please answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ and provide additional comments, as relevant, in the comment box, including references to the relevant laws / articles in the Constitution if the answer is yes.

If indigenous institutions and authorities arerecognised by the State, this means that these institutions are given a certain amount of freedom and independence to govern either a geographic area or group of peoples. Usually, if this is the case, local or district government authorities cooperate in some way or the other with your indigenous leaders. If your institutions are recognized by the state, please provide further information about the specific functions that are recognized by the state authorities; how your institutions cooperate with state authorities; what the legal basis of the recognition is, etc.

Please describe how your indigenous authorities/institutions interact with the local and central government. For example, are your village institutions recognised as part of the governance structure of the country? Are your self-governing institutions regularly consulted on local or national development plans? Does your traditional leaders have a seat in local government institutions?

Indicate to what extent your indigenous institutions and authorities create their own development plans, rather than plans made by outside institutions. The important factor is whether the institutions and authorities in control of development initiatives are those selected by and representing the indigenous people/community, or whether development is controlled or imposed by people from outside.
Respondents are given five response options, and will have to assess which option best reflect the situation of their people/community:
• Not at all = all development initiatives are planned by external institutions and authorities
• To a limited extent= external institutions and authorities plan the development initiatives, with limited consultation or participation of the indigenous institutions/authorities
• To some extent= external institutions and authorities plan the development initiatives, but ensure that development initiatives correspond to the needs and priorities of the indigenous peoples/community through consultation or participation of the indigenous institutions/authorities.
• To a considerable extent= indigenous institutions/authorities plan development initiatives in close collaboration with external institutions and authorities, and these initiatives reflect the needs and priorities of the indigenous people/community.
• Fully= Indigenous institutions/authorities are in full control of the planning of development initiatives, in accordance with the needs and priorities defined by their people/community.

Do local government bodies support any initiatives carried out by your indigenous institutions financially?
You are given five response options here, and will have to assess which option best reflect the situation of you people/community:
• Not at all = indigenous institutions/authorities receive no public funds at all.
• To a limited extent= indigenous institutions/authorities receive limited public funds to implement a few of their development plans according to the needs and priorities defined by their people/community.
• To some extent= indigenous institutions/authorities receive some public funds to implement some of their development plans according to the needs and priorities defined by their people/community.
• To a considerable extent= indigenous institutions/authorities receive sufficient public funds to implement most of their development plans according to the needs and priorities defined by their people/community.
• Fully = indigenous institutions/authorities receive sufficient public funds to fully implement development plans according to the needs and priorities defined by their people/community.

Please indicate to what extent your indigenous institutions have decision-making power over Issues concerning lands, territories and resources.
The respondents are given five response options, and will have to assess which option best reflects the situation of their people/community:
• Not at all = all issues concerning lands, territories and natural resources is determined by external institutions and authorities
• To a limited extent= external institutions and authorities determine most issues concerning lands, territories and natural resources, with limited consultation or participation of the indigenous institutions/authorities
• To some extent= external institutions and authorities determine some issues concerning lands, territories and natural resources, but ensure that they correspond to the needs and priorities of the indigenous peoples/community through consultation or participation of the indigenous institutions/authorities.
• To a considerable extent= indigenous institutions/authorities determine most issues concerning lands, territories and natural resources in close collaboration with external institutions and authorities, and they reflect the needs and priorities of the indigenous people/community.
• Fully= Indigenous institutions/authorities are in full control of lands, territories and natural resources, in accordance with the needs and priorities defined by their people/community.

Please indicate to what extent your indigenous institutions manage health programmes or institutions
The respondents are given five response options, and will have to assess which option best reflects the situation of their people/community:
• Not at all = all health programmes or institutions are managed by external institutions and authorities
• To a limited extent= all health programmes or institutions are managed by external institutions and authorities, but with limited consultation or participation of the indigenous institutions/authorities
• To some extent= health programmes or institutions are managed by external institutions and authorities, but with consultation or participation of the indigenous institutions/authorities to ensure they correspond to the needs and priorities of the indigenous peoples/community
• To a considerable extent= most health programmes or institutions are managed by indigenous institutions/authorities in close collaboration with external institutions and authorities, and they reflect the needs and priorities of the indigenous people/community.
• Fully= Indigenous institutions/authorities manage health programmes or institutions, in accordance with the needs and priorities defined by their people/community.

Please indicate to what extent your indigenous institutions manage education programmes or institutions
The respondents are given five response options, and will have to assess which option best reflects the situation of their people/community:
• Not at all = all education programmes or institutions are managed by external institutions and authorities
• To a limited extent= all education programmes or institutions are managed by external institutions and authorities, but with limited consultation or participation of the indigenous institutions/authorities
• To some extent= all or some education programmes or institutions are managed by external institutions and authorities, but with consultation or participation of the indigenous institutions/authorities to ensure they correspond to the needs and priorities of the indigenous peoples/community
• To a considerable extent= most education programmes or institutions are managed by indigenous institutions/authorities in close collaboration with external institutions and authorities, and they reflect the needs and priorities of the indigenous people/community.
• Fully= Indigenous institutions/authorities manage education programmes or institutions, in accordance with the needs and priorities defined by their people/community.

This question monitors whether indigenous peoples’ own, distinct governance institutions are recognized in the state’s institutional set-up. The question is key to assess whether the political-administrative structure provides for and enables self-government in practice.
Data sources: Ministries and government agencies dealing with local governance issues.
Please answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ and provide additional comments, as relevant, in the comment box, including references to which institutions are recognized, by which laws, if the answer is yes.

Article 18 of the UNDRIP stipulates that indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their representative institutions. This question monitors whether the state has put in place the necessary processes to enable that.
What constitutes a representative institution should be determined taking into account the characteristics of the country, the specificities of the indigenous peoples, and the nature of the subject matter at hand. Institutions may be representative at the national, regional or community level. A representative institution needs to be able to clearly identify its constituents and its accountability towards them.
Data sources: Ministries and government agencies dealing with local governance issues; government-driven training initiatives for elected representatives, etc..
Please answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ and provide additional comments, as relevant, in the comment box, including references to the relevant capacity-building initiatives if the answer is yes.

This question monitors the availability of and access to culturally and linguistically appropriate education for indigenous peoples. In particular, it assesses the implementation of Article 14 (1) of UNDRIP, which stipulates that “Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions [...]".
Data source: The Ministry of Education, and its line agencies at de-central levels.
Please answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ for the three given levels of education (primary, secondary and tertiary levels), and provide additional information in the comment box, as relevant.

Respondents should indicate to which degree the community itself is deciding about the structure and leadership of their indigenous institutions.
Respondents are given five response options, and will have to assess which option best reflects the situation of the people/community:
• Not at all = institutions and authorities are established by external actors or authorities, and they also appoint the authorities
• To a limited extent = your community is involved in establishing your institutions, but external actors or authorities have the final say
• To some extent = external actors and authorities are involved in establishing your institutions, but the community has the final say
• To a considerable extent = indigenous institutions and authorities are established and selected by the community, with minimal interference by external actors or authorities
• Fully = indigenous institutions and authorities are established and selected by the community through a self-determined process

Please indicate to what extent your indigenous institutions/authorities determine who are and who are not members of your people or community.
The respondents are given five response options, and will have to assess which option best reflects the situation of their people/community:
• Not at all = formal membership of the people/community is determined exclusively by state authorities or other external actors
• To a limited extent= formal membership of the people/community is determined by state authorities or other external actors, but with limited consultation or participation of the indigenous institutions/authorities
• To some extent= formal membership of the people/community is determined by state authorities or other external actors, but with some consultation or participation of the indigenous institutions/authorities
• To a considerable extent= formal membership of the people/community is determined by the indigenous institutions/authorities in collaboration with external institutions and authorities,
• Fully= formal membership of the people/community is determined exclusively by indigenous institutions/authorities

The right to self-government in internal and local affairs is enshrined in article 4 of UNDRIP. In essence, it means the right of indigenous peoples to govern their own affairs without external influence. It can be exercised within territorial boundaries, or based on a socio-political or ethnic constituency. An example of territorial self-government is Greenland's self-government arrangement, which entered into force in 2009, as per the Act on Greenland Self-Government. The Sami parliaments in Norway, Sweden and Finland are examples of self-government tied to an ethnic constituency.
Data source: National legislation. Are there any laws that provide for internal / local self-government for indigenous peoples?
Please answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ and provide additional comments, as relevant, in the comment box, including references to the relevant laws if the answer is yes.

This is a simple yes/no question to indicate whether your indigenous authorities or institutions have received training or capacity-building by the State on international human rights standards. If they have, please provide additional information, as possible, about the content of the training, who conducted it, etc.

Article 24 of the UNDRIP enshrines indigenous peoples’ right to “promote, develop and maintain their (…) juridical systems or customs, in accordance with international human rights standards”. Implementation of this right requires recognition of the jurisdiction of customary law institutions.
Many indigenous peoples have their own customs and practices, which form their customary law. In order to apply these customs and practices, they operate their own institutional structures such as judicial and administrative bodies or councils. Constitutional recognition of indigenous peoples' legal customs and systems is an important measure of the extent to which the legal regime effectively accommodates indigenous customary law and practices, and enables them to co-exist with the national legal system. In some cases, recognition of customary law may be an independent and separate law particularly highlighting customary rights. In other cases, the recognition could be a small section or even a single but important provision of a general law on land, resources, or another subject.
Data sources: National legislation.
Please answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ and provide additional comments, as relevant, in the comment box, including references to the relevant laws if the answer is yes.

Recognition of indigenous peoples' customary law is tied to its conforming with international human rights standards. According to UNDRIP article 34, indigenous peoples have the right to “promote, develop and maintain their (…) juridical systems or customs, in accordance with international human rights standards.” The question thus monitors whether States have put in place processes to enable indigenous peoples’ customary authorities or institutions to align their practices with international human rights standards.
Data sources: Ministries of justice, or other ministries mandated to oversee indigenous affairs.
Please answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ and provide additional comments, as relevant, in the comment box, including references to the relevant capacity-building initiatives if the answer is yes.

This is a simple yes/no question to indicate whether any of your traditions, customs or ceremonies are considered to be in conflict with human rights standards If you answer yes, please provide additional information as possible.

Here you have to assess to what extent local and central government is obtaining the free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) of your community or people before they make final decisions or move ahead with a given project or initiative. In many cases, governments fail to consult altogether and therefore there is no prospect of obtaining the FPIC of the concerned people or community. In other cases, the government undertakes consultations but proceeds with the proposed project or initiative even if the concerned indigenous people or community does not give their consent. In the best cases the government only moves ahead with a given project and measure after obtaining the FPIC of the people or community.
You are given five response options here, and will have to assess which option best reflects the situation of your people/community:
• Never = Local or central government institutions make decisions without taking into account the interests of your community/people.
• Rarely = In some cases, local or central government institutions obtain the free, prior and informed consent of your community/people.
• Sometimes = In about half of the cases, local or central government institutions obtain the free, prior and informed consent of your community/people
• Mostly = In the majority of cases, local or central government institutions obtain the free, prior and informed consent of your community/people.
• Always = In all cases, local or central government institutions obtain the free, prior and informed consent of your community/people.

You are given five response options here, and will have to assess which option best reflects the situation of your people/community:
• Never = Local or central government institutions do not invite your people/community to participate in impact assessments
• Rarely = Local or central government institutions conduct impact assessments, and in some cases, your people/community was invited to participate.
• Sometimes = In about half of the cases, local or central government institutions conduct impact assessments
• Mostly = In the majority of cases, local or central government institutions conduct impact assessments
• Always = In all cases, local or central government institutions conduct impact assessments

This question monitors the state’s recognition of its duty to consult indigenous peoples prior to the adoption of legislative and administrative measures which are likely to affect them directly, as provided for in article 19 of UNDRIP.
Impact assessments (see question 48) can help to determine whether measures affect indigenous peoples. States have a duty to consult indigenous peoples through their representative institutions (see question 29), and through appropriate measures, which must be formal, and exercised in good faith, and with the objective of obtaining agreement or consent. This question, however, only assesses whether national legislation reflects the state’s duty to consult with indigenous peoples.
Data sources: National legislation.
Please answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ and provide additional comments, as relevant, in the comment box, including references to the relevant laws if the answer is yes.

The State has a duty to consult indigenous peoples wherever their lands and territories are affected by development, exploitation or use of natural resources found therein, according to article 32.2 of UNDRIP. These provisions apply not only to the actual exploitation of resources such as minerals and water, but also to the exploration phase. Indigenous peoples must be informed, consulted and participate from the very outset of a planned intervention, including before concessions or licenses are granted to operators. This question monitors whether national legislation reflects this duty.
Data sources: National legislation.
Please answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ and provide additional comments, as relevant, in the comment box, including references to the relevant laws if the answer is yes.

The requirement for undertaking consultations with indigenous peoples enshrined in articles 19 and 32(2) of UNDRIP implies the establishment of institutionalized mechanisms for regular and broad consultation, as well as consultation mechanisms at other administrative levels, ensuring that consultations can take place at the appropriate level. This question monitors whether operational mechanisms and processes have been put in place for consultations at the local, sub-national/regional/provincial, and national levels respectively.
Data sources: local, sub-national and national public authorities and their governance structures.
Please answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ for each administrative level (national, sub-national and local respectively), and provide information on these procedures or mechanisms, as relevant, in the comment box, if the answer is yes.

Like Question 47, this question assesses whether conservation of natural resources on indigenous peoples’ traditional territories respect indigenous peoples’ right to conserve and protect the environment on their own terms. Here, the indicator is indigenous peoples’ participation in impact assessments trough their representative institutions. Importantly, adequate impact assessments are defined in the indicator as encompassing social, spiritual and cultural aspects, in order to capture the UNDRIP’s recognition of indigenous peoples’ complex relationship with their lands, territories and resources.
Data sources: Impact assessments undertaken prior to the approval of projects on indigenous peoples’ lands (do they exist?); legislation on impact assessments.
Please use the answer options to indicate to what extent indigenous peoples’ representative institutions participate in social, spiritual, cultural and environmental impact assessments…? And add references to additional information in the text box, as relevant.