44 F.1.a) Effective participation 147. In this case, regarding the logging concessions granted within Saramaka territory, the State did not guarantee the effective participation of the Saramakas in advance, through their traditional decision-making processes, nor did it share the benefits with the members of said people. According to District Commissioner Strijk, who testified before this Tribunal, it was “not necessary” to consult with or obtain the consent of the Saramakas in relation to the logging concessions in question because there were no reported traditional Saramaka sites in the area.150 In the words of District Commissioner Strijk, “if there are sacred sites, cemeteries, and agricultural plots, then we have consultation, if there are no sacred sites, [cemeteries,] and agricultural plots, then consultation doesn’t take place”.151 This procedure evidently fails to guarantee the effective participation of the Saramaka people, through their own customs and traditions, in the process of evaluating the issuance of logging concessions within their territory. As mentioned above, the question for the State is not whether to consult with the Saramaka people, but whether the State must also obtain their consent (supra paras. 133-137). F.1.b) Prior environmental and social impact assessments 148. The State further argued that the “concessions which were provided to third parties did not affect [Saramaka] traditional interests”. The evidence before the Tribunal suggests not only that the level of consultation referred to by the State was not enough to guarantee the Saramakas’ effective participation in the decision-making process, but also that the State did not complete environmental and social impact assessments prior to issuing said concessions,152 and that at least some of the concessions granted did affect natural resources necessary for the economic and cultural survival of the Saramaka people. The Court once again observes that when a logging concession is granted, a variety of nontimber forest products, which are used by the members of the Saramaka people for subsistence and commercial purposes, are also affected. 149. In this regard, a map produced by expert witness Dr. Peter Poole and submitted to the Court depicts Saramaka occupation and use of lands and resources in the concessions granted within Saramaka territory to non-Saramaka members.153 This evidence shows that members of the Saramaka people were extensively using the areas granted to the logging companies as hunting and fishing grounds, as well as a source of a variety of forest products.154 150. Head Captain Wazen Eduards,155 Captain Cesar Adjako,156 Ms. Silvi Adjako,157 and Mr. Hugo Jabini,158 for example, all testified that the activities of the logging companies within traditional Saramaka territory were highly destructive and caused massive damage to a substantial area of the Saramaka people’s forest and the ecological and cultural functions 150 Testimony of District Commissioner Rudy Strijk, supra note 132 (transcription of public hearing, pp. 26 and 30). 151 Testimony of District Commissioner Rudy Strijk, supra note 132 (transcription of public hearing, p. 30). Cf. Testimony of Rene Somopawiro, supra note 110 (transcription of public hearing, p. 47). 153 Cf. Map II, submitted by Peter Poole to the Inter- American Commission during the public hearing held on March 5, 2006 (case file of appendices to the application and Appendix 1, appendix 15, folio 172). 154 Cf. Affidavit of Dr. Peter Poole, supra note 69 (folio 1965). 155 Cf. Testimony of Head Captain and Fiscali Wazen Eduards, supra note 61 (transcription of public hearing, pp. 4-5). 156 Cf. Testimony of Captain Cesar Adjako, supra note 68 (transcription of public hearing, p. 16). 157 Cf. Affidavit of Silvi Adjako, supra note 98 (folio 1924). 158 Cf. Affidavit of S. Hugo Jabini of April 3, 2007 (case file of affidavits and observations, appendix 6, folios 1937-38). 152