B.4 The right to collective property in relation to the mining concession within the Wane Kreek Nature Reserve 199. In this section, the Court will examine the alleged failure to comply with the safeguards of the right to collective property in relation to bauxite exploitation in the Wane Kreek Nature Reserve. 200. As previously noted, in 1958, Suriname granted Suralco a mining concession until 2033, for the extraction of bauxite in the eastern part of the country. In 1997, the company started up its operations to extract bauxite from deposits in an area of approximately 100 to 144 ha, within the Wane Kreek Nature Reserve, known as Wane Kreek 1 and 2 (supra para. 88 and 90). Preparatory work, such as the construction of a highway to reach the mine and transport the mineral, was initiated in the mid-1990s (supra para. 89). There is no dispute about the fact that the Kaliña and Lokono peoples played no part in any of these activities and that the corresponding environmental impact assessment was not made (infra para. 213). However, the Court does not have competence in relation to the award of the mining concession in 1958. Nevertheless, the Court is competent to examine measures taken following the entry into force of its jurisdiction; in particular, the extraction operations carried out as of 1997.236 201. In this regard, the Court has already established in the case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname that, under Article 1(1) of the Convention, in order to ensure that the restrictions imposed on the right to property of the indigenous and tribal peoples owing to the issue of concessions within their territory do not entail a denial of their survival, the State must comply with the following three guarantees: “first, it must ensure the effective participation237 of the members of the [indigenous and tribal peoples], in accordance with their customs and traditions, with regard to any development, investment, exploration or extraction plans (hereinafter “development or investment plan”) implemented within [their territory]. Second, the State must ensure that the members of the [indigenous and tribal peoples] receive a reasonable benefit from the plan implemented within their territory. Third, the State must ensure that no concession will be granted within their territory until independent and technically-qualified entities, under the State’s supervision, have conducted a prior social and environmental impact assessment. These safeguards are intended to preserve, protect and ensure the special relationship that the members of the [indigenous and tribal peoples] have with their territory, which, in turn, ensures their survival [as an indigenous people].”238 In the instant case, the Court will analyze the State’s alleged failure to comply with these safeguards in relation to the start-up of bauxite extraction operations in 1997. 236 Cf. Inter alia, Case of the Kuna Indigenous Community of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous Community of Bayano and their members, supra, para. 30. 237 In the Saramaka case, the Court indicated that “in ensuring the effective participation of members of [the indigenous and tribal peoples] 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. This duty requires the State to receive and provide 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, [these peoples] must be consulted, in accordance with their own traditions, at the early stages of a development or investment plan […]. Early notice provides time for internal discussion within the communities and for proper feedback to the State. The State must also ensure that the members of [the indigenous and tribal peoples] are aware of possible risks, including environmental and health risks, in order that the proposed development or investment plan is accepted knowingly and voluntarily. Lastly, consultation should take account of [their] traditional methods of decision-making.” Case of the Saramaka People, supra, para. 133, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku, supra, para. 178. 238 Case of the Saramaka People, supra, para. 129, and Case of the Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members, supra, para. 215. 53