Sadly, we are working here in a responsive way. If we were really aware and acting according to the legislation, we have to accept free, prior and informed consent. We have to invite everyone to the table and listen to them, and if the answer is no, the answer is no, not on my land.
I will give you an example. Do you want mining activities in your backyard without consent, knowing that it is going to happen? Having the right to say no, you would like it to be respected.
I would say that it's the same happening at home and happening abroad. As the person before me said, we have to be consistent. If we have this idea of not in my backyard but in anybody else's backyard is okay, we are wrong. Let's not react; let's check this work with legislation that works according to the signatures that we gave.
If we agree, we compromise, and we are in favour of respecting indigenous opinions and their livelihoods. We have to accept that maybe they are going to reject the project. Maybe they are thinking of development in a different way; maybe they don't want pollution and violence; maybe they want something different; maybe they want a car but in a different way.
That's my invitation, and that's my message here, to be coherent in the way we work at home and work better at home, by the way, and then work accordingly abroad, respecting the possibilities of a no, of a rejection. Let's not react later, like, “Oops, there was something wrong, let's see what we do.” Let's avoid that. That's the idea.