210. In addition, as mentioned, the State has expressed its willingness to continue working to ensure the prior, free and informed consultation of the indigenous and tribal peoples, (supra para. 204). To achieve this, the State indicated that, currently, it was prepared a protocol on free, prior and informed consent, and that it had established the Commission on the Law on Traditional Authorities. The purpose of this law was to recognize the traditional authorities as legitimate representatives of the indigenous peoples, particularly in situations in which the indigenous peoples must be consulted. In this regard, although the Court considers that the State’s undertaking to create a consultation protocol is positive, this has not yet been adopted, and the case file does not reveal whether the protocol would take into account the relevant standards established by this Court in order to truly ensure the effective participation of the indigenous and tribal peoples. 211. In addition, the Court considers that the effective participation of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples should also be ensured by the State in relation to any development or investment plan, as well as any new exploration or exploitation operations that may be started up in the future in the traditional territories of these peoples;246 in particular, within the Wane Kreek Nature Reserve (supra para. 206). 212. In conclusion, from the body of evidence, the Court has verified that the State failed to ensure the effective participation, by means of a consultation process, of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples before undertaking or authorizing the exploitation of the bauxite mine within their traditional territory. ii) Prior social and environmental impact assessment 213. The Court has verified that, in 2005, a private consultant hired by BHP Billiton prepared an environmental sensitivity analysis, which concluded that the Wane 1 and Wane 2 sections had suffered considerable environmental damage as a result of the mining activities. However, Suriname argued that its laws did not require the preparation of environmental impact assessments. The State also indicated that the area affected by the mining activities was being rehabilitated, but the representatives have contested this. 214. In this regard, the Court has established that the State must guarantee that no concession will be granted within the territory of an indigenous community unless and until independent and technically-qualified entities, under the State’s supervision, have made a prior assessment of the social and environmental impact.247 The Court has also determined that environmental impact assessments “help to evaluate the possible damage or impact that a development or investment project may have on the property and community in question. The 246 According to different testimonies and the expert opinion of Stuart Kirsch, (merits file, folio 357), logging concessions granted to non-indigenous third parties exist within the Wane Kreek Nature Reserve. Also according to the Bauxite Institute of Suriname, new exploration activities have been initiated since 2014 in Wane Kreek Hills as a result of the concession granted from 1958 to 2033 (evidence file, folio 3076). The Court has insufficient evidence to establish the date, location, number of concessions, individuals or companies to which logging concessions have been granted or whether exploration activities were, indeed, resumed in 2014. 247 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra, para. 129, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku, supra, para. 205. Cf. Article 14 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, supra: “Impact Assessment and Minimizing Adverse Impacts. 1. Each Contracting Party, as far as possible and as appropriate, shall: (a) Introduce appropriate procedures requiring environmental impact assessment of its proposed projects that are likely to have significant adverse effects on biological diversity with a view to avoiding or minimizing such effects and, where appropriate, allow for public participation in such procedures; (b) Introduce appropriate arrangements to ensure that the environmental consequences of its programmes and policies that are likely to have significant adverse impacts on biological diversity are duly taken into account; […] and Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, supra, Principle 17 which stipulates that: “[e]nvironmental impact assessment, as a national instrument, shall be undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a competent national authority.” 56