40 affect “communities in the direct vicinities”.132 Nonetheless, the Court considers that the actual scope of the guarantees concerning consultation and sharing of the benefits of development or investment projects requires further clarification. E.2.a) Right to consultation, and where applicable, a duty to obtain consent 133. First, the Court has stated that in ensuring the effective participation of members of the Saramaka people in development or investment plans within their territory, the State has a duty to actively consult with said community according to their customs and traditions (supra para. 129). This duty requires the State to both accept and disseminate information, and entails constant communication between the parties. These consultations must be in good faith, through culturally appropriate procedures and with the objective of reaching an agreement. Furthermore, the Saramakas must be consulted, in accordance with their own traditions, at the early stages of a development or investment plan, not only when the need arises to obtain approval from the community, if such is the case. Early notice provides time for internal discussion within communities and for proper feedback to the State. The State must also ensure that members of the Saramaka people are aware of possible risks, including environmental and health risks, in order that the proposed development or investment plan is accepted knowingly and voluntarily. Finally, consultation should take account of the Saramaka people’s traditional methods of decision-making.133 134. Additionally, the Court considers that, regarding large-scale development or investment projects that would have a major impact within Saramaka territory, the State has a duty, not only to consult with the Saramakas, but also to obtain their free, prior, and informed consent, according to their customs and traditions. The Court considers that the difference between “consultation” and “consent” in this context requires further analysis. 135. In this sense, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people has similarly observed that: [w]herever [large-scale projects] occur in areas occupied by indigenous peoples it is likely that their communities will undergo profound social and economic changes that are frequently not well understood, much less foreseen, by the authorities in charge of promoting them. […] The principal human rights effects of these projects for indigenous peoples relate to loss of traditional territories and land, eviction, migration and eventual resettlement, depletion of resources necessary for physical and cultural survival, destruction and pollution of the traditional environment, social and community disorganization, long-term negative health and nutritional impacts as well as, in some cases, harassment and violence.134 132 Testimony of District Commissioner Rudy Strijk during the public hearing at the Court held on May 9 and 10, 2007. 133 Similarly, in Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District v. Belize, the Inter-American Commission observed that States must undertake effective and fully informed consultations with indigenous communities with regard to acts or decisions that may affect their traditional territories. In said case, the Commission determined that a process of “fully informed consent” requires “at a minimum, that all of the members of the community are fully and accurately informed of the nature and consequences of the process and provided with an effective opportunity to participate individually or as collectives”. Cf. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report 40/04, Merits. Case 12.052. Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District, supra note 84, para. 142. Cf. also, Equator Principles, Principle 5. 134 U.N., Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, supra note 97, p. 2.