…[The] substantial increase in the number and intensity of social conflicts…are a reflection of latent tensions between...two divergent views of development...These types of social conflicts are increasingly common and become particularly heated when natural resource extraction and infrastructure projects are undertaken without adequate prior consultation with the indigenous or tribal communities that could be affected, or without the free, prior, and informed consent of those communities where required...The study illustrates the normative and practical barriers to exercising the right to prior consultation and consent in each of these four countries. It is intended to encourage broad debate over the content, scope, and current situation of this right. The report stresses the urgent need to develop mechanisms to ensure that indigenous and tribal peoples...can act as architects of their own advancement as the true—and in many cases, ancestral—owners of the lands they inhabit…The report…recall[s] that the concept of indigenous peoples is broad and inclusive…The obligation to seek the consent of the affected communities often triggers heated controversy. For indigenous peoples, obtaining free, prior, and informed consent is an indispensable part of the consultation process and an expression of their right to self determination...In their view, the right to consultation also implies the right to veto. States, on the other hand, wish to ensure that norms governing the right to consultation explicitly provide that communities have no right to veto the decisions made by the authorities...[refers to Mitsubishi, Atlantic Richfield Company, Bishimetals (part of Mitsubishi), Repsol YPF]