Content uploaded by Rosario Carmona
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rosario Carmona on Jul 11, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
A new paradigm of climate
partnership with Indigenous
Peoples
IWGIA Briefing Paper, June 2022
An analysis of the recognition of Indigenous
Peoples in the IPCC report on mitigation
Credit: Espen Wæhle / IWGIA
2
On 4 April 2022, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) released a report on Mitigation
of Climate Change – the contribution of the Working
Group III (WGIII) to the Sixth Assessment Report
(AR6).1 The report concludes that humanity has the
means and technologies to accelerate climate action
but that we must act now. According to the evidence,
clean electricity and agriculture/forestry/land use
are the main sectors that can enable us to accelerate
emission reductions. Acknowledging that these sectors
have potential impact on Indigenous Peoples’ lands,
territories, and resources, this briefing paper analyses
the IPCC report’s findings with regard to the recognition
of Indigenous Peoples’ rights, their situations and their
role in the mitigation of climate change.
It should be noted that throughout the IPCC report, in
most cases when referenced, Indigenous Peoples are
rather superficially listed together with other vulnerable
groups, such as women and poor populations. The
following analysis focuses primarily on Indigenous
Peoples in their own right and does not distinguish
between when they are mentioned on their own or listed
among the other groups that are considered to be the
most vulnerable to climate change.
The first section of this briefing note summarizes
the findings of the report under five headings, that
is the IPCC report’s recognition of i) how Indigenous
Peoples promote and lead climate action; ii) how
they are impacted by environmental degradation
and climate change; iii) how mitigation action poses
risks to Indigenous Peoples; iv) how their inclusion in
mitigation action provides mutual benefits, and based on
recognition of this; v) what the way forward should be.
The second section presents remarks on the IPCC report
itself and recommendations for governments as well as
for the next IPCC reporting cycle.
1. Summary of IPCC WGIII report
references and findings related to
Indigenous Peoples
i) How Indigenous Peoples promote and
lead climate action
In its new report on mitigation, Working Group III of
the IPCC has strengthened its social approach and
included civil society more comprehensively than in past
assessment cycles. The report recognises the relevance
of human rights and Indigenous Peoples’ rights,
highlighted in the preamble of the Paris Agreement,
and states that the obligations that this agreement
references are to be understood as recognition of the
self-determination of Indigenous Peoples.
The report notes that civil society is demanding climate
action. Among its demands is the justifiable transition to
a low-carbon society. These calls for action, which stem
from the multiple impacts of climate change that are
currently being felt in the local sphere, are articulated in
a global climate movement. The polycentric character
of this movement – while positioning many challenges
– allows it to generate influence at different levels of
climate governance.
Failing to distinguish Indigenous Peoples as separate
from civil society, the report further explains that this
polycentric movement has been shaped through the
alliances and contributions of multiple actors, with
Indigenous Peoples and their contributions to climate
justice being crucial. Along with other environmental
activists and movements, Indigenous leaders have
drawn attention to the relationship between economic
and environmental inequalities. In particular, Indigenous
Peoples have made it clear that climate change poses
a major threat to their rights and existence. Their
demands are linked to their denunciation of ongoing
colonial social/environmental injustices, land claims, and
deep spiritual/cultural commitment to environmental
protection. Indigenous Peoples have also collected
evidence to support their claims. For example, the
IPCC highlights the contributions of the Indigenous
Environmental Network, a coalition of Indigenous
environmental justice activists.
The IPCC reports of evidence indicating that Indigenous
Peoples’ influence on mitigation is growing. Despite
structural barriers that limit their power, Indigenous
Peoples have become increasingly engaged in climate
action through the filing of complaints against projects
that, in the words of the report, “have implications”
to climate change, such as fossil fuel extraction and
transportation in their traditional lands. They have also
been strategic in responding to mitigation projects in
their territories. Their agency has led them to influence
international negotiations. Also noteworthy is the
emergence of Indigenous youth collective action,
organised in movements such as Pacific Climate
Warriors and Te Ara Whatu from Aotearoa, New Zealand,
and the Seed Mob in Australia.
ii) How environmental degradation and
climate change impact Indigenous Peoples
The IPCC WGIII report highlights the link between equity
and mitigation. As in its recent Working Group II report on
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, the IPCC’s report
on mitigation recognises the intersectional impacts of
climate change. Indigenous Peoples worldwide, pushed into
economic vulnerability and marginalisation, are among the
1 The first two Working Group reports focused on “The Physical Science Basis” and “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability”, respectively.
3
most affected groups. Unequal climate vulnerability reflects
existing social inequalities and reinforces them, limiting
Indigenous Peoples’ range of action.
The report goes on to explain that all over the world,
Indigenous Peoples suffer from environmental and
climate injustices due to their proximity to “sacrifice
zones”2, areas most affected by extreme weather events,
and/or unequal access to energy. Indigenous Peoples are
also directly affected by forest exploitation. The demand,
extraction and consumption of wood products are
increasing, and this trend is expected to continue in the
coming decades. In addition, illegal and unsustainable
logging continues to be practised worldwide, generating
multiple economic, environmental and social issues,
increasing land conflicts and the disempowerment
of Indigenous Peoples. The report also mentions the
impacts of modern food systems, which have reinforced
the unequal distribution of power around food chains,
leading to the loss of Indigenous farming systems.
Indigenous Peoples continue to be at the mercy of
environmental legislation that affects their lands,
resources, and territories. The case of Brazil is
emblematic in which the past expansion of Indigenous
lands in the Amazon and the strengthening of
environmental laws led to the reduction of deforestation.
However, the disempowerment of environmental
agencies and forest protection laws during the
current administration has allowed the expansion of
deforestation and agriculture in the Amazon in recent
years. As the IPCC report notes, if this continues, an
irreversible tipping point will be reached after which the
recovery of ecosystems, carbon sinks and Indigenous
Peoples’ knowledge will no longer be possible. Hand in
hand with the impacts on communities is the weakening
of mitigation efforts.
The report also highlights new risks to Indigenous Peoples.
For example, increased maritime activity in the Arctic
affects local marine ecosystems and coastal communities
through invasive species, underwater noise and pollution.
More radically, Indigenous Peoples are affected by the
attempts to silence their voices. While denouncing
climate injustice has given Indigenous Peoples a
presence in global climate discussions, evidence in the
report shows that it has also led them to face high levels
of repression and violence.
iii) How mitigation action poses risks to
Indigenous Peoples
While increasing ambition in reducing greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions and transitioning to low-carbon
development are urgent tasks, the report also warns
that this should not be done by ignoring the various
“trade-offs” that responses may generate. Importantly,
the report recognises that solutions guided by so-called
expert knowledge – which usually leads to technical
solutions– have the potential to discount and omit
Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge.
2
A so-called “sacrifice zone” is a geographic area that has been unsustainably damaged by severe
socio-ecological impacts – usually arising from the liabilities of economic development activities.
Credit: Alexander Afansev /IWGIA
4
Further to this, the report recognises that Indigenous
Peoples, in addition to being one of the groups
most affected by climate change, are the most
disproportionately impacted by the burdens associated to
mitigation strategies. For example, carbon sequestration
and GHG reduction linked to the Agriculture, Forestry and
Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector carry risks to conservation,
food and water security, wood supply, livelihoods, land
tenure and land use rights of Indigenous Peoples. These
risks stem primarily from strategies that encourage
competition for land. This is most evident in so-called
“protected areas” – in which the role of mitigation remains
a matter of debate as effectiveness depends on local
conditions. When protected areas limit communities’
access to ecosystems and generate social impacts, they
can be even more costly.
REDD+ projects receive particular mention in the
report. Based on the case of Latin America, the IPCC
notes that the lack of provision of forestry standards,
a disproportionate focus on mitigation, and a lack
of attention to the well-being of people in rural
and agricultural areas means that there is not yet
considerable evidence on adaptation-related co-benefits
of REDD+ in Indigenous Peoples’ communities. In
addition, several territorial conflicts have arisen between
Indigenous communities and other stakeholders
involved in implementation, such as NGOs. Despite the
above, REDD+ has tended to be conceptualised as a
‘win-win-win’ mechanism (relative to climate mitigation,
biodiversity protection and conservation of Indigenous
Peoples’ culture), which must be questioned. REDD+
remains a process under evaluation.
Furthermore, the report underlines that the impacts
of activities associated with resource extraction and
renewable energy development on Indigenous Peoples’
communities are often not sufficiently considered.
Not only are environmental risks overlooked, but so
are the socio-cultural impacts that projects generate
on surrounding communities, as they often reinforce
existing power imbalances. For example, inappropriately
implemented afforestation or biomass crop production
generates adverse socio-economic and environmental
impacts on ecosystems, local livelihoods and Indigenous
Peoples’ rights. This is especially the case when they are
implemented on a large scale and in contexts where land
tenure is not secure.
iv) How recognition of and respect for
Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge provides
multiple benefits
The IPCC report emphasises that diverse actors and
approaches are required to address mitigation. Being
among the groups most affected by climate change,
Indigenous Peoples are more likely to be concerned
about and take policy actions that support mitigation.
Moreover, evidence highlights their growing role in such
measures. At the same time, the report importantly
recognises that the degree States permit Indigenous
Peoples to engage, influences the extent to which they
can contribute towards mitigation of climate change.
Progressive recognition in the report is given to
Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge, technologies and
governance principles, in which Indigenous women
especially play a crucial role. The report highlights
the contributions of Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge
to biodiversity and ecosystem conservation, which
is intertwined with increased climate resilience
and improved quality of life, human well-being,
and sustainable development. Indigenous Peoples’
knowledge is also crucial for
impact assessment, governance,
disaster preparedness and
resilience. IPCC authors note that
this knowledge also contributes to
technological innovation related
to agroecology and proposes
more sustainable solutions.
Indigenous Peoples’ techniques
offer options for managing land,
soils, biodiversity and improving
food security without relying on
foreign agricultural technologies.
In particular, the role of Indigenous
women in the transfer and
application of such knowledge is
highlighted.
Credit: IWGIA
5
Indigenous Peoples’ contributions to mitigation
recognised in the IPCC report cover a broad and holistic
range of areas. Indigenous Peoples are crucial to land-
based mitigation measures and forest governance.
The report draws on the case of the Menominee people
(Wisconsin, USA), who call themselves “guardians
of the forests”, to highlight how the land ethic is part
of Indigenous Peoples’ identity. Their afforestation
practices, conservation and restoration of natural
ecosystems and biodiversity enhance sustainable
forest management. Concerning “protected areas”,
the report notes that community forest management
(CFM) leads to less intensive use of forest resources
while providing carbon benefits by protecting forest
cover. CFM involves the provision of “property rights”
to Indigenous communities in return for their efforts
to protect forests. There is high confidence that the
expansion of such property rights and CFM has reduced
emissions from deforestation in tropical forests over the
past two decades. In particular, the IPCC highlights the
role that Indigenous Peoples have acquired around the
implementation of REDD+ projects and mentions that
they are crucial to the success of such projects.
Indigenous Peoples can also contribute to transformative
change. In line with messages from Inuit contributors
to the IPCC’s Working Group II report, the report on
mitigation contains an interesting section on the role
of values and beliefs in transformative science, where
reconnection with nature is a central topic. To a large
extent, interest in Indigenous Peoples’ cultures has
enabled the expansion of research that challenges
prevailing development and economic growth practices.
Research highlights how changes in individual beliefs
can lead to climate actions that contribute to more
sustainable, equitable and just societies. Such actions
include those part of “Buen Vivir” (good living), the basis
of coexistence in many Indigenous societies. Indigenous
Peoples have always developed climate narratives that
differ from top-down narratives. The findings of the
report make it clear that today, Indigenous Peoples’
climate change narratives are required. They can enable
humanity to make sense of and imagine new futures,
increase critical thinking, and promote agency and new
coalitions, making all of us believe that structural change
is possible.
v) Based on this recognition, what does the
IPCC report propose?
Bridging knowledge gaps
The IPCC calls for more research on Indigenous Peoples’
knowledge. It admits many knowledge gaps, including
a notable lack of understanding of Indigenous Peoples’
knowledge and a superficial understanding of the
contributions their practices can make to innovation and
new technologies. For example, the report notes that the
contribution of Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge to the
“evolvement of buildings” is under-appreciated. There
is a need to understand this contribution better and
to develop appropriate methodological approaches to
engage with Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge.
In addition, the report acknowledges that the role of
Indigenous Peoples in mitigation has not been thoroughly
analysed. More research is needed on the collaboration
between different actors and institutions in mitigation,
including the role of Indigenous Peoples in climate
change policy.
More research is also needed on outcomes and trade-
offs of the various climate change measures in different
Indigenous territories, as well as better understanding of
the institutional, cultural, social and political conditions
necessary to accelerate mitigation. At the same time,
more attention needs to be paid to the issues around
the extraction of minerals needed for the clean energy
transition.
Climate governance
The IPCC report highlights the need to fulfil the
mandate of the Paris Agreement regarding the inclusion
of Indigenous Peoples, and specifically the Local
Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform,3 in
climate governance. Evidence indicates that amplifying
the voices and agency of Indigenous Peoples has positive
implications for climate policy. Ambitious climate action,
therefore, requires the participation of Indigenous
Peoples.
Evidence also demonstrates that more equitable
distribution of power contributes to the strengthening
of governance and decision-making in the context of
mitigation. Effective, equitable and articulated climate
governance, based on the collaboration of diverse actors
and ideas, including Indigenous Peoples, improves
mitigation management. Effective participation in which
Indigenous Peoples enjoy “veto power” builds resilience
and facilitates social transformation and systemic
change.
The report concludes that climate change mitigation
not only requires us to reduce emissions, but also
to better understand and address the adverse local
impacts of climate change on communities and
people, especially Indigenous Peoples. Mitigation
measures must consider the specific contexts in
3
See https://lcipp.unfccc.int/
6
which they will be implemented. Structural factors and
national circumstances affect the scope of climate
governance. Accordingly, climate change mitigation
requires addressing power relations and considering
existing inequalities through applying a climate justice
approach. These considerations pose particular
challenges in contexts, where “trade-offs” affecting
Indigenous Peoples may be more significant. Trade-offs
can be minimised by, among others, strengthening
capacities, social equity considerations and meaningful
participation of Indigenous Peoples.
REDD+ and AFOLU
The report goes on and argues that mitigation policies,
including monitoring, reporting and verification, need
to be strengthened, to involve Indigenous Peoples from
the beginning, and to recognise broader ecosystem
interactions. In particular it is necessary to continue to
strengthen a holistic approach to the implementation
of REDD+ measures that considers Indigenous Peoples’
territorial and spiritual relationships with nature, while
addressing the various inequalities and barriers that
restrict their participation.
Successful land-based mitigation requires governance
that prioritises integrated land-use planning and
management within the framework of the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDG). Depending on the context,
reforestation, improved forest management, soil carbon
sequestration, peatland restoration and blue carbon
management are examples of methods listed in the
report that can enhance biodiversity and ecosystem
functions, as well as employment and local livelihoods.
Evidence shows that with regard to AFOLU,
context-specific mitigation measures are the most
effective. Associated risks can be avoided when
responses consider the needs and perspectives of
the communities involved. In particular mitigation
options that align with the prevailing ideas, values,
and beliefs of each context, are more easily adopted
and implemented. In addition to reducing trade-offs,
these considerations maximise co-benefits. These
experiences can be enriched by lessons from the
collaboration between Indigenous, local and non-
indigenous scientific knowledge systems.
Climate finance
The debate on a just transition to low-carbon
development has gained momentum. This transition
aims at environmental sustainability, decent work, social
inclusion and poverty eradication. To achieve these
goals, climate finance is needed, but primarily, justice
and collaboration to enable equitable benefit sharing,
as well as the protection of Indigenous Peoples’ rights
and community livelihoods. Climate funds, investors and
intermediaries must also adjust to the contexts. IPCC
authors note that this calls for economic instruments
that promote more public-private partnerships and
consider economic and social equity and distributional
impacts, as well as increased provision and direct access
to climate finance for Indigenous Peoples.
2. Analysis and recommendations
regarding Indigenous-related
content in IPCC WGIII report
Although progress has been made, more
efforts are needed in future IPCC reports
While many of the statements in IPCC’s WGIII report
could be perceived as significant steps towards the
recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ roles in climate
action, it is worth noting that references to Indigenous
Peoples throughout the text are remarkably scarce.
Indeed only 67 references appear in text compared to
almost 2,000 references in the IPCC report on Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability.
The treatment and consideration given to these
references is also not as rigorous as warranted for an
IPCC report. The few mentions generalise the situation
of Indigenous Peoples, implying that what is stated in
the report is replicated globally. For example, the report
mentions that CFM implies the provision of “property
rights”, a situation that is not reflected in all contexts
inhabited by Indigenous Peoples – in many contexts,
Indigenous Peoples’ communities struggle to even
have acces to the land and forests. Failing to capture
the diversity across Indigenous communities and the
distinction between Indigenous peoples around the
world is a significant shortcoming.
Furthermore, some content related to Indigenous
Peoples presents seemingly incorrect information. In
Chapter Seven, the report rather oddly mentions that
forests cover more than 80% of the area occupied by
Indigenous Peoples (330 million hectares). The real
figure however is likely to be much lower considering the
vast areas of Indigenous Peoples’ territories and lands
in the Arctic, Africa and elsewhere which do not have
forest cover. This inaccurate assertion is potentially
highly problematic. Associating Indigenous Peoples’
territories primarily with forests results in an omission of
the multiple realities and ecosystems that Indigenous
Peoples inhabit. In this way, the challenges, but also
the multiple contributions by Indigenous Peoples to
other ecosystems and contexts are overlooked. This is
7
particularly surprising and disappointing considering
the breadth of content related to Indigenous Peoples
in non-forest ecosystems such as mountains, tundra,
and desert that are included in other IPCC reports under
this assessment cycle. Not to mention impacts upon
ice covered areas and marine environments that most if
not all coastal Indigenous peoples rely upon. Adding to
this, the IPCC report fails to give a correct demographic
picture i.e., that forest territory has proportionally few
Indigenous inhabitants. For instance, it is estimated that
only between three and seven million of Latin America’s
58 million Indigenous inhabitants live in territories with
forest cover (FAO and FILAC 2021, p. 8).
This factual error, together with the omission of a
demographic picture, could have a major impact on
how the situation of Indigenous Peoples is addressed
in climate policy and by donors of climate finance. As
evident at COP26, pledges of political and financial
support tend to focus primarily or even exclusively on
benefiting Indigenous Peoples living in territories with
forest cover and those in so-called developing countries.
Indeed, the reality is that Indigenous territories globally,
in addition to being larger, are composed of a much
wider diversity of ecosystems across developing
and developed countries, which, according to recent
evidence not considered in the report, also possess
great potential for carbon storage and sequestration.
According to Dinerstein and colleagues (2020), more
than 74% of the land area of Indigenous territories
contains high carbon stocks or the potential to
sequester it – not just forests.
It should be mentioned that the figure presented in
Chapter Seven seems to derive from a report not
referenced by the IPCC, which, referring exclusively
to the Latin America and Caribbean region, states
that “forests cover more than 80 percent of the area
indigenous peoples occupy (330 million hectares)”
(FAO & FILAC, 2021, p. 13). We have reached out to the
Coordinating Lead Authors of Chapter Seven to ask for
clarification, but no response had been received at the
time of publication of this briefing paper.
Despite the recognition of the role Indigenous Peoples
can play in leading transformative change, the report
lacks any substance regarding how this change needs to
be predicated on Indigenous perspectives, worldviews,
and relationships with the environment. It does not delve
into the complexities and nuances of the multi-layered
and intrinsic relationships Indigenous Peoples have
with their lands, territories and resources. It thereby
fails to recognise how the impacts of climate change
are intertwined and compounded by, for instance, the
loss of food sovereignty and biodiversity due to modern,
hegemonic agricultural practices. Without a thorough
understanding of these dynamics and the interrelated
nature of climate impacts, it may remain unclear what
these relationships involve, why this perspective is
crucial, and how this can inform climate action.
Indigenous woman farming in Peru. Credit: Pablo Lasansky / IWGIA.
Credit: Pablo Lasansky / IWGIA
8
An additional gap in the report is the incomplete
presentation of several hazards concerning Indigenous
lands, territories, and resources. For example, the case
of maritime activity mentioned in the report is only
partially presented, leaving out any mention of black
carbon, heavy fuel oil, and the risk of oil spills or other
emergency situations that threaten Arctic communities
and ecosystems.
Likewise, the report is silent on the potential risk of
cultural genocide of Indigenous Peoples and the non-
economic and irreparable losses and damages affecting
them. These include loss of identity, distinct cultures and
knowledge systems, science, skills and livelihoods, and
resilience.
Even more, while acknowledging the threats to Indigenous
Peoples’ rights posed by some mitigation measures that
risk undermining their adaptive capacity, references
to and critical analysis of the mechanisms adopted to
mitigate these impacts, such as the Cancun safeguards,
are absent. The report neither addresses the situation
many communities face in countries where Indigenous
Peoples’ tenure rights are not well recognised, as is the
case in most African countries. As such, the violation of
Indigenous Peoples’ rights through land displacement
is not addressed with the seriousness it deserves.
Because of this, no reflection is presented on how
mitigation projects, specifically REDD+, demand different
approaches depending on the context to reduce the
potential risk of land dispossession and land disputes. If
policy makers and practitioners that engage in evidence-
based decision-making on climate change mitigation rely
on the IPCC as the primary source of evidence, does not
the IPCC have the responsibility, and indeed an obligation,
to provide a comprehensive report that captures all these
missing elements? This question is especially relevant
given the affirmative obligations of the UN Member States
and the profound relationship that Indigenous Peoples
have to their traditional lands, resources, and territories.
The report also fails to recognise the socio-cultural
contribution of Indigenous Peoples in climate change
mitigation. It would have been relevant for the report
to highlight how Indigenous values and worldviews
contribute to protecting the role of nature and the
relevance of their governance systems and customary
laws in climate governance. Although Indigenous Peoples’
contributions are acknowledged, they are presented in a
superficial way and decontextualised from the knowledge
systems from which they originate. The report does not
present any concrete cases of collaborative and equitable
practices – either in institutional measures or through
autonomous experiences – that highlight Indigenous
Peoples’ leadership. Nor are examples of Indigenous
Peoples’ mitigation initiatives, omitting concrete
experiences – for example, the role of Indigenous Peoples
in renewable energy projects. As such, the report does
not include the extensive and growing research on the
multiple benefits associated with Indigenous Peoples’
participation in mitigation measures or Indigenous
Peoples-led initiatives. Evidence shows that institutional
arrangements incorporating Indigenous Peoples´
knowledge and promoting collaborative governance
frameworks are associated with high carbon storage.
Such collaboration also brings multiple social benefits
that strengthen resilience, attributed to Indigenous
Peoples’ livelihoods and their repair, monitoring, and
adaptation capacities.
Although the report mentions the contributions of the
Indigenous movement in the calls for action and climate
justice, it falls short in recognising one of their main
demands. That is, the acknowledgement of Indigenous
Peoples’ distinct and unique position as collective rights
holders compared to these other groups. Indigenous
Peoples tend to be listed in the report as merely another
group within civil society. This is a significant weakness
of the IPCC’s report as the United Nations recognises
the distinct and specific rights of Indigenous Peoples
as affirmed in significant international human rights
instruments. Moreover, there is no mention of how
the Indigenous movement also draws attention to the
indivisibility of climate change and health, education,
language, culture and spirituality.
Furthermore, Indigenous Peoples continue to be
presented as a homogenous sector, as if there were no
cultural and territorial differences, ignoring the fact that
climate change affects them differently and that their
contributions are diverse and situated. In this context,
mentions of specific Indigenous Peoples or organisations
are scarce. The few mentioned come from the Global
North, rendering invisible the challenges, struggles and
contributions sustained by multiple Indigenous actors
and communities in the South, East and the Arctic. Also
omitted is the continued advocacy and contribution
of Indigenous Peoples’ international organisations
on climate action and climate justice, such as the
International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Climate
Change (IIPFCC).
While we agree with the report that more research is
needed to overcome these shortcomings, it is necessary
to mention that the conditions in which this research is
carried out must also be analysed and problematised
to avoid the reproduction of extractive practices that
decontextualise Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge and
often perpetuate their marginalisation and vulnerability.
The report omits the multiple conflicts around, and
serious problems with, research that excludes Indigenous
Peoples and their knowledge holders. Nor does it mention
Indigenous Peoples’ sovereignty over their knowledge
systems. As a significant player influencing the research
9
landscape globally, the IPCC must recognize its role
in shaping research practices and directions and take
measured action to promote ethical and equitable
research approaches and engagement with Indigenous
knowledge.
These limitations and, indeed, the shortcomings of the
IPCC report can be associated with the low participation
of Indigenous authors in the preparation of the report and,
moreover, a lack of information on this engagement. This
is indicative of a weak approach that fails to respect and
uphold the distinct status, rights, and role of Indigenous
Peoples as affirmed by the United Nations Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The report
relativises Indigenous Peoples’ rights violations mainly by
mentioning compensation in the framework of mitigation
projects. The core right and principle of Free, Prior and
Informed Consent is omitted and diluted by a brief and
erroneous reference to “veto power”. These faults are
aggravated by the omission of references to Indigenous
Peoples in the technical summary of the report. In order
to overcome these gaps and ensure Indigenous Peoples
and their knowledge, innovations, and leadership are
allotted the recognition they deserve in climate action,
future IPCC reports and cycles must be coherent and
aligned with the UNDRIP at a minimum. To secure this,
we reiterate the urgency of fair and effective participation
of Indigenous Peoples in the IPCC processes, as bureau
members, authors, expert reviewers, observers, and part
of national delegations – always in accordance with the
rights and interests of the Indigenous Peoples concerned.
Recommendations for governments
Although mitigation has been at the centre of climate
policy for the past three decades, sustained efforts have
not been sufficient to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and have even generated negative impacts, especially
on Indigenous Peoples’ territories. The evidence is
categorical, and therefore the latest IPCC cycle reminds
us that we cannot wait; indeed, we have no choice. We
need to curb greenhouse gas emissions as a matter of
urgency. Indigenous Peoples have denounced ineffective
false solutions that only serve to worsen the problem
and negatively impact those already most affected by
the same power inequalities that led to climate change
in the first place. Above all, Indigenous Peoples have
provided strong evidence of their capacity to conserve,
protect, repair and balance ecosystems. These capacities
are also linked to justice processes that bring multiple
social benefits to the Indigenous and non-Indigenous
territories where they are implemented. At the same time,
Indigenous Peoples have been emphatic in demanding
mitigation actions that, in addition to being addressed
through a justice approach, consider the multiple social
processes with which they are intertwined, such as
health, education and culture.
Indigenous Peoples’ meaningful participation in climate
governance is not only a moral imperative, but also
an opportunity for States to respond effectively and
holistically to the multiple social and ecological pressures
of climate change. For this reason, a new paradigm
of climate partnership with Indigenous Peoples that
harnesses the benefits of different knowledge systems
and ways of knowing is needed. Although the inclusion
of Indigenous Peoples and their knowledge holders
in research is increasing, more significant efforts are
needed to support community-based and Indigenous-led
research. To contribute to this process, we would like to
make recommendations to enable States to strengthen
Indigenous Peoples’ participation and thus achieve
promised and urgently needed climate change mitigation
more fairly and sustainably.
1. Mitigation commitments and strategies must be
based on a genuine commitment to respect Indigenous
Peoples’ rights as per the UNDRIP. Key to this is securing
Indigenous Peoples´ land tenure.
2. States must promote permanent participatory
mechanisms for Indigenous Peoples to influence the
planning of States’ nationally determined contributions
as well as in the monitoring, verification and reporting of
their progress.
3. The participation of Indigenous Peoples at all levels
of decision-making processes should be an essential
requirement of all mitigation strategies. The principle of
Free, Prior and Informed Consent must be adhered to for
mitigation actions implemented in Indigenous Peoples’
territories or in other ways affecting Indigenous Peoples.
4. Ecosystem conservation and reparation for carbon
sequestration must always respect the rights, uses and
livelihood systems of the Indigenous communities that
inhabit such ecosystems.
5. Climate funds and contributors must generate
mechanisms for Indigenous Peoples universally, from
all socio-cultural regions of the world to present and
implement their proposals autonomously.
6. Mitigation actions must go hand in hand with social
justice processes that address the structural causes that
have led to the marginalisation of Indigenous Peoples,
the exploitation of their territories and indeed the climate
crisis. Moreover, they must support actions that aim
to strengthen other relevant social processes, such as
health, education and culture.
10
7. Climate research must be based on meaningful,
ethical, and equitable processes of collaboration and
co-production of knowledge between different knowledge
systems, including Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge
systems, always in full respect for Indigenous Peoples’
rights.
8. Consistent with the UNDRIP and Article 31 specifically,
governments should take steps to ensure that research
practices and activities take measured action to
promote ethical and equitable research approaches and
engagement with Indigenous knowledge within the IPCC
and elsewhere.
References
Dinerstein, E., Joshi, A. R., Vynne, C., Lee, A. T. L., Pharand-
Deschênes, F., França, M., Fernando, S., Birch, T.,
Burkart, K., Asner, G. P., & Olson, D. (2020). A “Global
Safety Net” to reverse biodiversity loss and stabilize
Earth’s climate. Science Advances, 6(36), eabb2824.
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abb2824
FAO, & FILAC. (2021). Forest governance by indigenous
and tribal peoples. An opportunity for climate action
in Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO. FAO. https://
doi.org/10.4060/cb2953en
A publication by International Work Group for Indigenous
Affairs (IWGIA), Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC), Nepal
Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN), and
Pastoralists Indigenous NGO’s Forum (PINGO’s Forum).
Authors: Rosario Carmona; Joanna Petrasek MacDonald
and Dalee Sambo Dorough, Inuit Circumpolar Council
(ICC); Tunga Bhadra Rai, Nepal Federation of Indigenous
Nationalities (NEFIN); Gideon Abraham Sanago,
Pastoralists Indigenous NGO’s Forum (PINGO’s Forum);
and Stefan Thorsell, International Work Group for
Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA).
International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) is
a non-governmental human rights organisation
promoting, protecting and defending the rights of
Indigenous Peoples for more than 50 years. We support
Indigenous Peoples’ advocacy at the international climate
negotiations at the UNFCCC.
Contact: iwgia@iwgia.org
