Albert K. Barume, “Recognition of Indigenous Peoples,” Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, A/HRC/60/29, 7 August 2025

C. Adverse impact of the conflation of Indigenous Peoples with local communities, including on recognition

55. The term “local communities” has not yet been established as a human rights concept with a clear meaning or associated rights. It remains primarily a domestic law concept, so far defined by few States. It was embedded in multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), including the Convention on Biological Diversity, art. 8 (j), which borrowed it from national practices.

56. However, there is an increasing practice, particularly among actors working on issues pertaining to climate change and biodiversity conservation, of conflating Indigenous Peoples with local communities, including merging the two concepts through the abbreviation “IPLC.” This conflation has led to a fundamental misconception that the rights of Indigenous Peoples and those of local communities are the same, and are grounded in the same international instruments. One recent publication asserted that “IPLC rights” were guaranteed by the Declaration and the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), as if Indigenous Peoples and local communities have become one homogeneous group of rights holders. This assertion is totally incorrect. The term “local communities” (and “IPLC”) is neither referred to nor protected in the Declaration or the ILO Convention. This conflation poses serious risks to the rights of Indigenous Peoples, as previously stated by the three United Nations mechanisms on Indigenous Peoples.

1. Blanket extension of the regime of Indigenous Peoples’ rights to local communities: serious moral and legal concerns

57. A blanket extension of the regime of Indigenous Peoples’ rights to local communities raises serious concerns. The human rights regime concerning Indigenous Peoples, as a remedial framework, cannot be meaningfully applied to individuals or groups who have not experienced the same or similar specific human rights violations or abuses. Remedial human rights regimes are victims-focused. A blanket extension would also risk the cultural integrity of Indigenous Peoples, render invisible the historical injustices that they have suffered and open the door to usurpation.

58. Extending Indigenous Peoples’ rights to local communities could also result in empowering dominant groups against Indigenous Peoples. In several cases, particularly in Asia and Africa, neighboring communities have dispossessed Indigenous Peoples of their ancestral lands, including by using racially discriminatory views against their traditional livelihoods and practices such as hunting, pastoralism or shifting cultivation. Reports have documented cases of local communities in Africa considering neighboring Indigenous Peoples as having backward cultures and as not being capable of enjoying the same ancestral rights over lands and resources as they do.50

59. A submission from a national human rights institution [of Cameroon]…revealed that a community forest scheme that grouped Indigenous Peoples and local communities under the same protective regime did not benefit Indigenous Peoples because of the dominant position of local communities, including in management and decision-making structures.

[There are also positive cases of Indigenous Peoples and local communities partnering in their advocacy, such as for recognition of their respective rights to lands. However, any alliance between Indigenous Peoples and local communities to work together, particularly in the context of biodiversity and climate change, should be based on the recognition of the differentiated legal regimes applicable to the two groups, and openness about the social dynamics, to counter any attempts at domination by one group.]

2. Application of the weaker rights of local communities to Indigenous Peoples: breach of the principle of non-retrogression

[Under the principle of non-retrogression, States are obliged not to retreat on human rights already protected and guaranteed. In Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India argued the following in its judgment of 6 September 2018: “[T]here must not be any regression of rights. In a progressive and an ever-improving society, there is no place for retreat. The society has to march ahead. The doctrine of non-retrogression sets forth that the State should not take measures or steps that deliberately lead to retrogression on the enjoyment of rights either under the Constitution or otherwise.”]

60. Numerous countries, particularly in Africa and Asia, recognize collective customary land rights within their national laws for groups other than Indigenous Peoples. However, these rights are subject to limitations, depend on State discretion and can be overridden in favor of protected areas, private investments or other uses.

61. Multilateral environmental agreements, especially those known as the Rio conventions, and associated protocols and frameworks provide for some additional rights for local communities, but these are not human rights and they are limited to participation, respect and protection of their knowledge, innovations and practices, benefit-sharing and information. Additionally, as framework conventions, the Rio conventions establish broad principles and commitments for States Parties, leaving the details to be filled in by subsequent protocols or national legislation, as illustrated by the wording of article 8 (j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity:

Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate: …          

(j) Subject to its national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of [I]ndigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity….

62. The conflation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities could therefore also mean the application of the weaker rights of local communities to Indigenous Peoples. The legal protection of the rights of Indigenous Peoples would thus be undermined, by subjecting them to domestic legislation, which would thereby amount to retrogression in the enjoyment of rights. Unfortunately, the weakening of the rights of Indigenous Peoples seems to be the objective of States that support the conflation while contesting the relevance of the concept of Indigenous Peoples and their rights in the domestic context. The conflation thus becomes a back-door way of weakening Indigenous Peoples’ rights.

63. States can easily justify the non-implementation of international standards dependent on national laws, citing a lack of resources or non-alignment with political priorities.

64. In contrast, Indigenous Peoples’ rights are wider in scope and grounded in the strongest possible principles of international law, namely the right to self-determination and the prohibition of racial discrimination, both of which are generally accepted as part of customary international law.

[See International Court of Justice, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2006, p. 6. See also International Court of Justice, Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2024, p. 78. This difference is fundamental. For example, unlike the land rights of local communities, Indigenous Peoples’ rights are not dependent on recognition in national legislation. These rights exist and are inherent, irrespective of whether a State recognize and protect them. A State cannot not invoke its domestic laws as a justification for failing to guarantee the rights of Indigenous Peoples.]

65. Unlike local communities, Indigenous Peoples are recognized as nations and therefore enjoy the right to self-determination, by virtue of which they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development (UNDRIP, art. 3). From the right to self-determination flow many other rights, such as the right to lands, territories and resources, culture, language and self-governance. Without their right to self-determination, Indigenous Peoples are unable to enjoy the other rights.

66. Indigenous Peoples’ rights in international law are undoubtedly distinct from, wider in scope than and legally stronger than those of local communities reflected in the Rio conventions and other multilateral environmental agreements. However, the growing use of the conflated term “Indigenous Peoples and local communities” in multilateral environmental agreements can result in a dilution of the distinct rights pertaining to each of these groups.

67. Unlike Indigenous Peoples, local communities lack specific recognition under international human rights law, making their legal status in multilateral environmental agreements more ambiguous and dependent on national contexts. Hence, the conflation of the two groups could breach the principle of non-retrogression in the enjoyment of the rights of Indigenous Peoples, including through the lowering of standards on free, prior and informed consent to consultation and the reclassification of Indigenous lands, territories and resources to generic “community lands.”

68. Several countries have defined, or are in the process of defining, the term “local communities” and their land rights within their domestic legislation. This trend should be left to develop; however, pioneering States should refrain from imposing a conflated national understanding on the international scene. Each State is entitled to tailor the concept of “local communities” and their rights to its national context.

69. Internationally, the term “local communities” was first used in the Rio conventions.

[The category of “local communities” was introduced in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, adopted in 1992, which notes in principle 22 that Indigenous People and their communities and other local communities have a vital role in environmental management and development. Subsequently, the term was included in the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention to Combat Desertification, the Paris Agreement on climate change and the Cancun Agreements. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted in 2022, acknowledges the important roles and contributions of both Indigenous Peoples and local communities as custodians of biodiversity and as partners in its conservation, restoration and sustainable use. However, the term is not yet a human rights concept. It has not undergone a human rights standards-setting process – for example, through the Human Rights Council – to establish its own meaning and attach rights to it. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas uses the term “local communities,” but without giving it a meaning in terms of human rights. According to article 1 (3), that Declaration also applies to Indigenous Peoples and local communities working on the land, transhumant, nomadic and semi-nomadic communities, and the landless engaged in small-scale agricultural production activities. This provision simply means that “peasants and other people working in rural areas”, as referred to in the title of the Declaration, may be found among “Indigenous Peoples” and “local communities”.]

70. In the meantime, the Special Rapporteur strongly recommends an immediate end to the conflation of Indigenous Peoples with local communities. The two regimes should be kept separate and dealt with separately, as shown by good practice emerging from the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa, for which separate engagement platforms have been established for Indigenous Peoples and for local communities.58 Further, when both concepts are used, not in a conflated way but side by side, the Special Rapporteur recommends that a clarifying note (footnote or disclaimer) always be inserted stating that the use of the term “Indigenous Peoples” next to the term “local communities” does not imply that the two groups enjoy the same rights under international law.

Recommendations

103. The term “Indigenous Peoples” is a human rights concept devised to remedy unique historical injustices with the view to reconciling Indigenous Peoples with States and forging between them new partnerships grounded in trust and rights.

104. The term “local communities” is not yet recognized as a human rights concept and remains a concept of domestic law, fundamentally different from the internationally recognized human rights framework for Indigenous Peoples.

105. The conflation of Indigenous Peoples with local communities has contributed to misunderstandings. This practice may undermine the distinct rights of Indigenous Peoples, and is sometimes utilized by States that either do not recognize the existence of Indigenous Peoples within their jurisdiction or attempt to undermine the implementation of their rights as defined in international law.

107. On the use of accurate terminology, States should consistently use the term “Indigenous Peoples”, or alternative national or local terms preferred by these Peoples with the understanding that they are internationally known as Indigenous Peoples. States should avoid substituting these terms with terms such as “local communities” or “ethnic minorities”.

113. States should refrain from conflating Indigenous Peoples with local communities. When both terms are used in documents, a footnote should be included to clarify that the use of the term “Indigenous Peoples” next to the term “local communities” does not imply that the two groups enjoy the same rights under international law.

114. The United Nations system and the international community should: …(b) Avoid conflation of Indigenous Peoples with local communities in practice and in language; when both terms are used in documents, include a footnote or a disclaimer clarifying that the use of the term “Indigenous Peoples” next to the term “local communities” does not imply that the two groups enjoy the same rights under international law.