I think the question is also, who gets to define this and how did they get (or give themselves) that right? why is the definition of who is "in" the box to be consulted, versus who is "out" so important in these types of cases? What, ultimately, is at stake, and what does identity and the power to define others' identities have to do with the power to use resources? http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BCCF9/ ... blications
International institutions, including the United Nations and World Bank, and numerous multinational companies (MNCs) have voiced concern over the adverse impact of resource extraction activities on the livelihood of indigenous communities. Yet the scale and scope of problems confronting indigenous peoples caused by mineral extraction projects endorsed by governments, international agencies and MNCs is monumental. This raises a paradox: Despite the burgeoning number of international charters and national laws asserting the rights of indigenous peoples, they find themselves subjected to discrimination, dispossession and racism. The authors explore this paradox by examining mega resource extraction projects in Australia, Bolivia, Canada, Chad and Cameroon, India, Nigeria, Peru and the Philippines.