Forum global sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition (Forum FSN)

Dear Contributors,

On behalf of the HLPE-FSN Secretariat and Steering Committee, we would like to express our deepest gratitude to everyone who participated in the consultation.

Your contributions and perspectives will help the HLPE-FSN address key challenges faced by policymakers, practitioners, and communities. This report will particularly highlight the deep and enduring connections Indigenous Peoples have with food systems, their traditional practices, and their knowledge systems.

The HLPE-FSN is committed to ensuring that this unique and sophisticated knowledge is recognized and incorporated, bringing meaningful benefits to Indigenous Peoples and the broader global community through the CFS.

Thank you once again for your engagement and dedication to this important process.

Warm regards,

Paola Termine, HLPE-FSN Coordinator ad interim, HLPE-FSN Secretariat

Silvia Meiattini, Communications and outreach specialist, HLPE-FSN Secretariat 

Dear the HLPE-FSN Consultation Team on 'Preserving, strengthening and promoting Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems and traditional practices for sustainable food systems'.

I am submitting this contribution on behalf of 'The Markets and Seeds Access Project (MASAP)' (https://masap-zimzam.com) - a 12-year initiative in Zambia and Zimbabwe that is supported by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and implemented by a consortium of 3 organisations (NIRAS, CTDO and FiBL) together with many intervention partners and service providers. The project aims to improve food and nutrition security and the livelihoods of smallholder farmers, especially women and youth. It supports market actors (intervention partners) in strengthening the seed and commodity value chains of small grains (sorghum and millets) and legumes (cowpeas and groundnuts) in the two countries while addressing pertinent research and policy issues to facilitate greater utilization and consumption of these nutritious and drought tolerant crops.

With best wishes.

Responses to the e-Consultation Questions posed by FAO:

1. Do you agree with the guiding principles indicated above?

The Guiding Principles seem fine, however key considerations should be made on some key factors such as age (youth) and gender (in particular girls and women) which can potentially be exclusion factors. It will be important that these vulnerable groups among the Indigenous Peoples are also well included and that their needs, in as far as current and future food (and the basic components of food systems such as seed) and knowledge systems, are taken into consideration. This will help to foster sustainable food supply in the wake of climatic and socio-economic and other shocks.

2. Should the objectives include mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples food and knowledge systems, and lessons learned from them, for the benefit of all, or solely for the benefit of Indigenous Peoples as rights holders?

The primary focus of the objectives should be the food and knowledge systems, and lessons learned from the Indigenous Peoples for the Indigenous Peoples. It is worth noting that:

a) The Indigenous Peoples Food and Knowledge Systems have potential benefits to non-Indigenous Peoples. For examples, some indigenous fruits, edible insects, underutilized traditional crops such as small grains (millets, sorghum, etc.), and others, are highly valued for their nutrient-dense characteristics and health benefits. Indigenous Peoples are often the Stewards to some key biodiversity. Thus, these foods have the potential to benefit non-Indigenous Peoples while simultaneously adding value to the Indigenous Peoples through, e.g. trade, when well managed and encroachments are minimized to reduce competition, biodiversity loss and environmental damage and pressure.

b) The indigenous knowledge systems and traditions that have been nurtured over time can provide some key insights, lessons and strategies towards sustainable management of ecosystems and natural resources – living in harmony with nature. There is a lot that non-indigenous peoples could learn from the Indigenous Peoples, and vice versa. Some form of exchange on knowledge and practices could benefit both Indigenous Peoples and non-Indigenous Peoples.

c) As some Indigenous Peoples migrate and become integrated into non-Indigenous Peoples settings and spaces, there are certain values, knowledge systems and foods they may wish to retain and pass them onto their future generations -– mechanisms of how to cater for the needs of these Indigenous Peoples who are living out of their originals spaces or landscapes need to be addressed.

d) Transboundary issues such as human and animal health / disease epidemics and sanitation associated with the knowledge and food systems.

3. What are the challenges related to Free, Prior and Informed Consent and Access and Benefit Sharing when widely promoting and/or mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples food and knowledge systems?

Key issues which need to be addressed here could include:

a) Contextual settings:

• Language barriers, adequate and proper technical translations to mirror the Indigenous Peoples languages and understanding.
• Time needed to internalize such FPIC and Access and Benefit sharing arrangements and processes.
• The need to revisit such arrangements after a certain period to draw and integrate or embrace lessons learnt and experiences.
• Long-term impacts and cross-generational changes which may not be clearly or obviously evident at the time of establishing FPIC processes need to be considered. Relevant adjustments would need to be made to address (potential) emerging unintended tradeoffs. 

b) Needs and preferences – there will be a need to analyse and document which Indigenous Peoples practices are (potentially) facing the risk of being lost/eroded. On the other hand which ones potentially could cause some risks to others given the dynamic landscapes and spaces of current and future inhabitants.

c) Power dynamics, especially pertaining social groupings - ensuring that gender is considered and the youth within Indigenous Peoples fully participate in these FPICs and fair A&BS arrangements.

d) Awareness and knowledge by non-Indigenous Peoples and how their actions and / or consumption habits and behaviours can potentially influence the well-being, practices and food systems of Indigenous Peoples in the chain.

4. How can the report ensure the inclusion of marginalized groups, sustainability, and protection against commercialization risks for Indigenous Peoples' food and knowledge systems?

a) This question is rather unclear – the report can include sections dealing with these topics, but there needs to be subsequent action taken based on the report’s recommendations to ensure actual inclusion of marginalized groups. Below are some proposed strategies of what could be included in the report on the listed topics:

• Past, current and projected future risks need to be critically and objectively analysed and documented together with possible well-informed solutions to address these risks in those programmes that may consider commercializing Indigenous People’s Food and Knowledge Systems. Good case studies which have resulted in a ‘win-win’ situation, or that demonstrate minimized tradeoffs, need to be collected, analysed to draw success factors and documented as part of the report.
• Successes on gender and youth-oriented capacity development, based on participatory needs and priorities of the Indigenous Peoples, need to be documented.
• Policies that safeguard Indigenous Peoples biodiversity, including e.g. smallholder farmer’s seed systems, landraces and varieties need to be adequately integrated and applied. This also includes raising the awareness of Indigenous Peoples, at all levels, on these policies or rules/regulations and their (potential) implications on Indigenous Peoples food and knowledge systems. Such an emphasis on awareness can help to foster informed decisions and choices Indigenous Peoples.
• The MASAP project, for example, prioritizes women and youth in its programme on promoting traditional grains and legumes seed and commodity value chains in Zambia and Zimbabwe.

5. How should oral knowledge and traditions be documented and referenced in the development of the report?

a) Comment: Oral knowledge and traditions deserve to be documented and referenced in the development of the report, especially if such information is corroborated by a number of Indigenous Peoples members, or if the knowledge and traditions relate to a widely known practice or unique practice with potential for wide uptake by other Indigenous Peoples. Oral knowledge and traditions relate to systems that have helped propel and perpetuate Indigenous Peoples and their societies. These deserve to be acknowledged and highlighted for current and future purposes.

b) Oral knowledge and traditions be documented and referenced in the form of case studies which recognize Indigenous Peoples food preservation / preparation and utilization as well as food safety nets such as sharing and/or exchanges on seed, food and knowledge – these could also be documented with proper recognition of the rights of the sources of such.

c) The development of this part of the report may require some prior reflections or orientation around Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) by the Report Authors, if need be. In one project - the Knowledge Center for Organic Agriculture and Agroecology in Africa (KCOA - https://kcoa-africa.org/) – Indigenous Knowledge Systems are well recognized, and in order to capture and cite these sources of information appropriately in  knowledge products produced, a number of training sessions were held involving an IPR Expert and those project people who were identifying, collecting, collating, translating/transforming and producing knowledge products. 

d) The report could also include suitable (with consent) videos and other visuals from oral case studies.

6. What dimensions linked to Indigenous Peoples’ agency, e.g., in governance issues, could be addressed?

a) Their protection from unintended tradeoffs from development programmes – thorough feasibility and environmental impacts assessments

b) Rights and fair benefit sharing

c) Respect to the values of Indigenous Peoples.

7. Are there important/relevant policy papers and instruments missing from the foundational documents list?

a) Policies related to Farmer Managed Seed Systems, if available.

8. Could you please indicate relevant references that should be taken into account?

a) Documents relating to programmes on domestication of indigenous fruits by the World Agroforestry Center /ICRAF.

b) Documents relating to production, harvesting, management and commercialization of Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs).

9. What best practices, ethical standards, and strategies for addressing climate change should be highlighted in the report?

a) Enhanced promotion of underutilized field crops and varieties that are more drought resilient, e.g. millets, sorghum, cowpeas, groundnuts, indigenous vegetables, and others. Enhanced management of local / farmer managed seed systems which address the needs of women, the youth and their families should be high among the priorities on climate change.

b) Greater integration of indigenous fruit species into agroforestry programmes, but supported with good management of these indigenous resources.

c) Increased and improved water harvesting practices at different levels and observing and protecting key water sources.

d) Greater integration of indigenous climatic forecast indicators into the early warning systems. 

10. Which best practices or strategies to promote cross-cultural understanding should be highlighted in the report?

a) Strengthening exchanges and cross-learning on seed, knowledge and food systems among women, the youth from different Indigenous Peoples with some cross-fertilization with modern science to cater for the needs of different levels and categories of audiences on evidence.

b) There are some programmes that promote the ‘Art of Intercultural Collaboration’ for professionals. Such programmes could be promoted for professionals from different Indigenous Peoples and potentially down-scaled and tailored to farming and non-farming women and youth, as well as men, from different Indigenous Peoples landscapes.

c) Suitable, practical and ethical incentives for cross-cultural understanding around some topics related to behavioural change and the key drivers for that change, for example towards the consumption of nutritious healthier foods. 

11. Are the previous legal documents such as Prior and Informed Consent, enough in light of this evolution of thinking about Indigenous People’s knowledge, or do they need to be revised?

No response to this question.

Dheeraj Singh, 

Dear HLPE-FSN Secretariat, 

Please find attached my responses to the consultation on the scope of the report on Indigenous Peoples' food and knowledge systems.

Best regards,

Alex ALEXIS, 

LLB, BA, LLM, MA, PhD Candidate

Lecturer/Chargé de cours, Faculté de droit, Université de Montréal

École de droit de la Sorbonne, Université Paris 1, 

Editor/Éditeur, Sorbonne Doctoral Law Review

Le manque d’attention à la question ontologique est souvent à l’origine des malentendus qui surviennent dans les initiatives ou tentatives visant à faire dialoguer les systèmes de connaissances autochtones avec les connaissances scientifiques occidentales.

11. Are the previous legal documents such as Prior and Informed Consent, enough in light of this evolution of thinking about Indigenous People’s knowledge, or do they need to be revised?

En tant que principe, le consentement préalable donné en connaissance de cause demeure juridiquement valide, au sein à la fois de divers ordres juridiques (inter)étatiques et autochtones. Toutefois, des difficultés existent au niveau de l'identification ou de l’attribution de certaines connaissances autochtones à leurs peuples ou communautés d'origine, et l'évolution des technologies numériques représente un défi supplémentaire pour l'application de ce principe. En réponse à ces défis, certains acteurs ont appelé à une révision du principe du consentement préalable donné en connaissance de cause, notamment dans le cadre des débats récents sur les Digital Sequence Information (DSI) au sein de la Convention sur la diversité biologique et dans d’autres forums onusiens (TIRPAA, BBNJ, FAO, OMS, etc.). Un mécanisme multilatéral pour le partage des avantages, incluant un fonds mondial, a ainsi été établi à la Convention sur la diversité biologique. Si ce mécanisme réduit considérablement la portée du consentement préalable donné en connaissance de cause pour l'utilisation des DSI par les États fournisseurs des ressources génétiques originelles, la décision 16/2 adoptée lors de la 16^e Conférence des Parties à la Convention sur la diversité biologique à Cali (COP16, 2024) réitère la nécessité que ce mécanisme multilatéral doit respecter les droits des peuples autochtones. Dans tous les cas, si, pour des raisons pratiques, le principe de consentement préalable donné en connaissance de cause en contexte autochtone devrait être radicalement révisé, cela doit se faire nécessairement de concert et en accord avec les peuples ou communautés autochtones concernés.

1 Le Livre Blanc/Wiphala sur les systèmes alimentaires des Peuples Autochtones, Rome, FAO, 2023, p. 20‑21.

2 Ibid., p. 20.

3 Elisa Morgera, Fair and Equitable Benefit-sharing in International Law, London, Oxford University Press, 2024, 286 p.

4 Le Livre Blanc/Wiphala sur les systèmes alimentaires des Peuples Autochtones, op. cit., p. xii.

5 La Déclaration retient une définition extensive de la catégorie de « paysans », si bien qu’elle peut trouver à s’appliquer, sous réserve des critères définis, aux personnes et communautés autochtones travaillant la terre.

Dirección General

Dirección de Asuntos Internacionales

Foro Global en Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición

Ciudad de México, a 13 de diciembre de 2024

Por este medio, hago referencia al informe sobre “Conservación, fortalecimiento y promoción de los sistemas alimentarios y de conocimientos y las prácticas tradicionales de los pueblos indígenas en favor de los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles” del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria (CSA) de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO), por petición del Grupo de alto Nivel de Expertos en Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (GANESAN).

Al respecto, me permito compartir en anexo los insumos por parte de este Instituto Nacional de los Pueblos Indígenas (INPI) del Gobierno de México.

Sin mas por el momento, aprovecho la ocasión para enviarle un cordial saludo. 

Atentament

Gabriela Andreina Molina Moreno

Directora de Asuntos Internacionales

1. ¿Está de acuerdo con los principios rectores indicados anteriormente?

Es fundamental que todos las consultas contengan un enfoque de derechos humanos, en particular, el consentimiento libre, previo e informado de los poseedores de los conocimientos indígenas, por lo que el Instituto Nacional de los Pueblos Indígenas del Gobierno de México considera conveniente los principios.

2. ¿Deberían los objetivos incluir la integración de los sistemas alimentarios y de conocimientos de los pueblos indígenas, y las enseñanzas adquiridas de los mismos, en beneficio de todos, o únicamente en beneficio de los pueblos indígenas como titulares de derechos?

Los conocimientos de los pueblos indígenas sobre sistemas alimentarios forman parte del acervo cultural de la humanidad, la socialización de dichos conocimientos debe ser para el bienestar de todas y todos, sin embargo, es necesario un reconocimiento a los pueblos indígenas como sus poseedores y practicantes

3. ¿Cuáles son los retos relacionados con el consentimiento libre, previo d informado y el acceso y la distribución de beneficios a la hora de promover y /o integrar ampliamente los sistemas alimentarios y de conocimientos de los pueblos indígenas?

En México, los sistemas alimentarios y de conocimientos de los pueblos indígenas forman parte de sus patrimonios culturales, de los cuales son titulares como sujetos de derecho público, conforme a la actual legislación nacional señalada en la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, en virtud de la última reforma en materia de derechos de pueblos y comunidades indígenas del 30 de septiembre del presente año, y de la Ley Federal de Protección del Patrimonio Cultural de los Pueblos y Comunidades Indígenas y Afromexicanas (LFPPCPCIA).

Conforme a lo anterior, los pueblos y comunidades tienen el derecho a decidir respecto del acceso a dicho patrimonio, conforme a sus sistemas normativos, así como a los principios de bioculturalidad, comunidad, distribución justa y equitativa de beneficios, igualdad de género, igualdad de las culturas y no discriminación, libre determinación y autonomía de los pueblos y comunidades indígenas y afromexicanas, libre expresión de las ideas y manifestaciones de la cultura e identidad, pluralismo jurídico, pluriculturalidad e interculturalidad, y respeto a la diversidad cultural.

No obstante, existen retos como lo son la creación de canales de diálogo respetuosos y horizontales entre dichos pueblos y terceros que pretendan hacer uso consentido de su patrimonio cultural, así como la definición de una Ley General de Consulta a Pueblos y Comunidades Indígenas y Afromexicanas, que establezca de forma puntual los actores y mecanismos para llevar a cabo consultas, así como su financiamiento; de igual manera la consideración respecto a la relación imprescindible que guardan los sistemas alimentarios, los sistemas de conocimientos y las prácticas tradicionales con el derecho a la propiedad tradicional de los pueblos indígenas, en particular al uso, disfrute, aprovechamiento y disposición de sus tierras y territorios. 

Como se ha señalado, si bien existen retos en la agenda, es innegable señalar que el Estado Mexicano, a través de la reforma constitucional, antes referida, así como a la LFPPCPCIA, ha sentado las bases para el acceso al patrimonio cultural, siempre anteponiendo el reconocimiento y ejercicio de los derechos de los pueblos y comunidades indígenas.

4. ¿ Cómo puede el informe, garantizar la inclusión de los grupos marginados, la sostenibilidad y la protección contra los riesgos de comercialización de los sistemas alimentarios y de conocimientos de los pueblos indígenas?

Dando seguimiento y alineándose a las recomendaciones emitidas por parte de los Relatores Especiales de Naciones Unidas en la materia, en particular a la información concerniente al Relator Especial sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas a través de sus Informes Temáticos, a continuación se mencionan algunos lineamientos a considerar:

• Respetar el derecho a la alimentación significa respetar los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, a seguir leyes, costumbres y prácticas, alimentarias diferentes.

• Priorizar un enfoque de derechos humanos y el seguimiento al consentimiento libre, previo e informado de los pueblos indígenas, además de cooperar y colaborar de buena, fue con las personas que trabajan en zonas rurales.

• Respeto a los derechos colectivos.

• Conciliar la inversión agrícola, y el conocimiento tradicional, a fin de idear fórmulas adecuadas que permitan disminuir la emergencia climática y al mismo tiempo, promover prácticas transformadoras y sostenibles.

• Adoptar medidas para prevenir la sobre pesca y pesca ilegal, así como la creación y protección de zonas vedadas en conjunto con el consentimiento de las comunidades indígenas y costeras afectadas y cooperando con ellas.

5. ¿ Cómo deberían documentarse y tomarse como referencia los conocimientos y tradiciones orales en la elaboración del informe?

Si bien no existe un mecanismo puntual que lo defina, la LFPPCPCIA señala en su artículo 6 el deber del respeto a la libre determinación y autonomía, así como a las formas de gobierno, instituciones, sistemas normativos, procedimientos y formas de solución de controversias de los pueblos y comunidades indígenas y afromexicanas, por lo que, corresponde al Estado garantizar el ejercicio de dichos derechos.

Por otra parte, la referida Ley, establece la creación de un Registro Nacional del Patrimonio Cultural de los Pueblos y Comunidades Indígenas y Afromexicanas, mismo que se encuentra en construcción, por lo que, el Estado Mexicano ha definido un mecanismo nacional para la documentación de los elementos que conformen los patrimonios culturales de los pueblos y comunidades indígenas.

Asimismo, el Instituto Nacional de Pueblos Indígenas, ha documentado a través de los años el patrimonio cultural a través de material audiovisual que incluye registros fotográficos, cinematográficos, de audio y video, así como sistemas de radiodifusión. De igual forma, se ha recabado información mediante el trabajo de campo y la investigación etnográfica.

Con los medios al alcance, el Gobierno de México fortalece la oralidad y la imagen que resultan fundamentales para mantener vivas las culturas, sus conocimientos y valores culturales y sociales que constituyen la memoria colectiva de los pueblos indígenas y afromexicano en México.

6. ¿ Qué dimensiones vinculadas a la capacidad de acción de los pueblos indígenas (p.ej. en cuestiones de gobernanza), podrían abordarse?

El Estado Mexicano reconoce el derecho a la propiedad del patrimonio cultural de los pueblos y comunidades indígenas y afromexicanas, y por tanto, el reconocimiento del derecho a decidir respecto del mismo, como una forma de ejercer su libre determinación y autonomía, por lo que, desde una perspectiva internacional, se considera que este reconocimiento podría tener diversas problemáticas.

Asimismo, es importante considerar el ejercicio de estos derechos al momento en que los pueblos y comunidades deciden sobre qué producir y qué consumir, considerando sus contextos, la identidad, sus recursos naturales, así como los conocimientos tradicionales de las comunidades, y de manera relevante, sus tierras y territorios.

En su conjunto, es posible apreciar la vinculación inseparable entre el derecho a su autonomía, entendida también como su derecho a definir su devenir histórico, su existencia como colectividad, su identidad, sus sistemas de gobierno y sistemas jurídicos con aquellos espacios que habitan conforme a sus cosmovisiones y que les permiten acceder a formas de vida correspondientes con sus sistemas alimentarios.

7. ¿ Faltan documentos e instrumentos normativos importantes/relevantes en la lista de los documentos fundacionales?

Se sugiere incorporar los siguientes documentos de referencia:

a) Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre Cambio Climatico:

Es un instrumento jurídico internacional que establece las bases para la acción internacional contra el cambio climático, se creó en 1992, tras la Cumbre de la Tierra en Río de Janeiro. Su objetivo es estabilizar la concentración de gases de efecto invernadero en la atmósfera, se basa en el principio de responsabilidades comunes, pero diferenciadas y capacidades relativas. La CMNUCC Reconoce que los conocimientos, prácticas culturales y planes de estudio de los pueblos indígenas. Son recursos esenciales para adaptarse y mitigar el cambio climático. 

Texto completo: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/convsp.pdf

b) Convención de Nacines Unidas de Lucha contra la Desertificación

Es un acuerdo internacional que busque combatir la descertificación y mejorar las condiciones de vida en las zonas áridas, semiáridas y húmedas secas. Su objetivo es que las personas que viven en estas zonas tengan medios de vida resilientes y mejoren los ecosistemas. La CNULD Fomenta la participación de la sociedad civil y transferencia de ciencia y tecnología, y considera la participación de los pueblos indígenas en la lucha contra la descertificación, propone que los pueblos indígenas y comunidades rurales puedan participar en actividades para combatir la desertificación.

Texto completo: https://www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/2022-02/UNCCD_Convention_text_SPA.pdf

c) Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica (CDB)

Tratado internacional que busca conservar la diversidad biológica, utilizar los componentes de la diversidad biológica de madera sostenible y distribuir de manera equitativa los beneficios que se derivan del uso de los recursos genéticos, cubre la diversidad biológica a todos los niveles, incluyendo los ecosistemas, especies y recursos genéticos. También abarca la biotecnología e incluye disposiciones para proteger los conocimientos, innovaciones y prácticas de las comunidades indígenas y locales.

Texto completo: https://www.cbd.int/undb/media/factsheets/undb-factsheets-es-web.pdf

d) Documento sobre la creación del Órgano Subsidiario del Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica 

En la reciente COP en 2024 se estableció la creación de un órgano subsidiario sobre el artículo 8 j) y otras disposiciones del Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica relativas a los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales, con el mandato de prestar asesoramiento a la Conferencia de las Partes, a otros órganos subsidiarios  y, sujeto a que estas se lo soliciten, a la Conferencia de las Partes que actúa como reunión de las Partes en el Protocolo de Cartagena sobre Seguridad de la Biotecnología3 y la Conferencia de las Partes que actúa como reunión de las Partes en el Protocolo de Nagoya sobre Acceso a los Recursos Genéticos y Participación Justa y Equitativa en los Beneficios que se Deriven de su Utilización sobre asuntos de interés para los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales que estén comprendidos en el ámbito del Convenio y sus Protocolos,

Texto completo: https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-16/cop-16-dec-05-es.pdf 

8. ¿ Podría indicar referencias pertinentes que deberían tenerse en cuenta?

• El reconocimiento y valoración a las mujeres indígenas, que desempeñan una función integral y activa en la agricultura, la producción, preparación y preservación de alimentos, así como en la conservación de semillas, transmitiendo sus conocimientos y prácticas ancestrales a nivel intercomunitario e intergeneracional. Las mujeres indígenas contribuyen a la seguridad alimentaria en sus propias comunidades, y han sido capaces de definir y aplicar estrategias de producción y distribución sostenibles.

• Las semillas son particularmente símbolos de renacimiento y crecimiento que representan el ciclo de vida, para la mayoría de los pueblos indígenas La custodia de semillas corresponde a las mujeres, ya que las semillas se considera una parte de la identidad, conocimiento y poder de las mujeres.

9. ¿ Que mejores prácticas, normas éticas y estrategias para abordar el cambio climático deberían detectarse en el informe?

• En el contexto de la inestabilidad climática, los conocimientos ecológicos, perfeccionados que poseen las mujeres son más esenciales, la lectura de las señales de ecosistema requiere una observación minuciosa y atención a los detalles, como los cambios en la conducta de los insectos, las plantas, los animales, o las aves, los niveles de la humedad y las pautas de pluviosidad o de sequía. El conocimiento de las constelaciones y la relación con el ciclo lunar, tiene también importancia considerable para determinar los ciclos, estacionales, las lluvias y los sistemas de siembra.

• Disminuir o erradicar el uso de agroquímicos, como pesticidas, fungicidas y herbicidas, para acelerar los cultivos.

10. ¿Qué mejores prácticas o estrategias para promover el entendimiento intercultural, deberían destacarse en el informe?

• Policultivo, técnica agrícola, que permite la asociación de dos o más cultivos, la cual genera ingresos casi todo el año. Cabe mencionar que los terrenos de cultivos son pequeñas propiedades que van de la 0.25 a las 1.25 ha, son productores que suelen conservar los terrenos de generación en generación.

• Planificación de la siembra, guiándose por los ciclos lunares, según las fases de la luna, se determina el momento más propicio para sembrar, cosechar y almacenar, asegurándose de qué las condiciones climáticas sean favorables para el desarrollo de los cultivos.

• Organización comunitaria para el cuidado de bosques, Barrancas, nacimientos de agua, montañas, cuevas, especies, endémicas, etc. además de la creación de grupos brigadistas, grupos organizados que realizan faenas para realizar brechas contra fuego, limpieza y recolección de basura.

• Huertos familiares, como sistema productivo tradicional, donde se siembra para el autoconsumo y mini comercialización.

• Socializar el uso de términos técnicos, que a menudo perecieran nuevos descubrimientos, pero que para las comunidades indígenas no son nuevos, ya que han estado aplicando y desarrollando estos conocimientos y prácticas durante miles de años.

11. ¿ Son suficientes los documentos jurídicos anteriores, como el consentimiento, previo e informado, a la luz de esta evolución del pensamiento sobre los conocimientos indígenas, o es necesario revisarlos?

Se sugiere una revisión de los documentos propuestos en la pregunta 7 para garantizar un enfoque de derechos humanos, así como un ejercicio pleno de los derechos de los pueblos Indígenas ante temas que les conciernen.

Dear FSN moderator,

Please find herewith IFAD’s contribution to the Preserving, strengthening, and promoting Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems and traditional practices for sustainable food systems - HLPE-FSN consultation on the scope of the report.

Wishing you the best,

Karla

Showcasing practical examples that can provide meaningful insight of Indigenous Peoples perspectives.

Evidence-based case studies on the environmental and social outcomes of Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge and governance applied, including showing economic value.

11. Are the previous legal documents such as Prior and Informed Consent, enough in light of this evolution of thinking about Indigenous People’s knowledge, or do they need to be revised?

As a principle, free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) refers to an internationally recognized right of Indigenous Peoples. Fundamentally it is the exercise of the right to self determination[1] and it references the right of Indigenous Peoples to determine who they are and who they will become. FPIC is not about Indigenous Peoples simply saying yes or no to a proposed action and it is not a mere safeguard to protect them from any adverse impacts (direct or indirect) of plans, policies and projects. In fact, while it seeks to safeguard, more broadly, FPIC as the exercise of the right to self- determination is about working along with Indigenous Peoples in identifying, co-designing, and pursuing development pathways that respond to their priorities and aspirations.

Indigenous knowledge systems, including their environmental, agricultural and medicinal practices, have historically often been undervalued or neglected. In order to keep pace with the evolving understanding of indigenous rights. Legal revisions could focus on clarifying the guiding principle of equitable benefit-sharing of traditional knowledge, while more clearly recognizing collective ownership, rather than individualistic intellectual property law frameworks.

Dear All

Greetings from M S Swaminathan Research Foundation India!

We would like to submit to the  consultation on, Conserving, strengthening and promoting Indigenous peoples' food and knowledge systems and traditional practices for sustainable food systems based on our experience in engaging with indigenous communities of South India. On behalf of the institute, the report was jointly prepared by Dr. Sabu K U and Dr. Vipindas P.

The experiences shared here are rooted in the work of the Community Agrobiodiversity Center (CAbC) of the M S Swaminathan Research Foundation, India, a community-embedded research center with twenty-seven years of experience addressing food and nutrition insecurities among indigenous communities (Adivasis) of the Western Ghats region in Southern India. CAbC has pioneered community-based participatory projects, collaborating closely with tribal communities to identify and implement sustainable solutions to their food and nutritional challenges. Key contributions of the Center include the participatory documentation of uncultivated food crops traditionally used by indigenous communities, research on gendered roles in wild food collection, and the scientific validation and nutritional profiling of wild edibles, traditional rice varieties, and neglected uncultivated foods such as roots, tubers, leafy greens, and legumes. These efforts have enriched the understanding of the Adivasi food basket and its role in enhancing food security and dietary diversity. To ensure the preservation and promotion of these resources, CAbC has established on-farm conservation plots for these critical crops. Additionally, the Center has supported the local self-governance department of the Government of Kerala in preparing People’s Biodiversity Registers, thereby safeguarding the eroding oral traditions and traditional knowledge systems of these communities. Through its participatory and community-centered approach, CAbC continues to contribute to sustainable solutions for addressing the complex food and nutrition challenges faced by tribal populations in the region.

1.Do you agree with the guiding principles indicated above?

Yes, the guiding principles are inclusive and holistic  

2.Should the objectives include mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples food and knowledge systems, and lessons learned from them, for the benefit of all, or solely for the benefit of Indigenous Peoples as rights holders?

he question of whether the objectives should include mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples' food and knowledge systems for the benefit of all, or solely for the benefit of Indigenous Peoples as rights holders, presents a significant dilemma. On one hand, the vast repository of indigenous food and knowledge systems holds invaluable lessons for addressing global challenges such as food insecurity, climate change, and biodiversity conservation, offering potential benefits for humanity as a whole. On the other hand, these systems are integral to the identity, autonomy, and livelihoods of indigenous communities, who have nurtured and safeguarded them for generations. In this context, it is critical to prioritize the autonomy of indigenous communities and ensure that any decision is rooted in their voices and consent. Mainstreaming must not occur at the expense of their rights, nor should it result in the exploitation or misappropriation of their knowledge systems. Instead, the process must center on equitable partnerships, where indigenous communities are active decision-makers and primary beneficiaries. Any benefits derived from mainstreaming must directly contribute to strengthening their livelihoods, preserving their cultural heritage, and empowering them to define the terms of how their knowledge is shared and utilized. Furthermore, safeguards must be put in place to ensure the sustainable use of these resources, preventing overexploitation and enabling effective regeneration for future generations. Awareness generation and the implementation of robust regulatory mechanisms at the grassroots level are essential to achieving this balance. Ultimately, the decision-making process must uphold the principles of justice, equity, and sustainability, with indigenous communities leading the way in determining how their knowledge and food systems are shared and integrated into broader frameworks

3. What are the challenges related to Free, Prior and Informed Consent and Access and Benefit Sharing when widely promoting and/or mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples food and knowledge systems?

The key challenges in this process are rooted in the unequal power dynamics between indigenous communities and program-implementing institutions, including researchers. These power imbalances often lead to scenarios where indigenous communities may feel coerced or inadequately informed, undermining the essence of true participatory decision-making. A significant challenge lies in the historical context of systemic exploitation and marginalization faced by indigenous communities. This has resulted in a deep mistrust of external entities, including researchers and organizations seeking to engage with them. This lack of trust can hinder the establishment of genuine partnerships required for effective FPIC and equitable ABS. Furthermore, indigenous communities often lack the institutional support and resources necessary to fully understand and negotiate the complexities of ABS agreements, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation. Bridging this gap requires a commitment to fostering transparent, trust-based relationships, ensuring capacity-building within the communities, and promoting a rights-based approach that places indigenous voices at the centre of all decisions. To address these challenges, CAbC, with its decades-long engagement with indigenous communities in the Western Ghats, has developed a community-embedded approach that prioritizes their autonomy and fosters trust. By ensuring participatory decision-making and community-led governance, CAbC places indigenous voices at the center of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) and Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) processes. Through transparent discussions, capacity-building initiatives, and equitable benefit-sharing arrangements, the Center addresses power imbalances and helps overcome historical mistrust, creating a model of engagement that safeguards indigenous rights while promoting their well-being.

4. How can the report ensure the inclusion of marginalized groups, sustainability, and protection against commercialization risks for Indigenous Peoples' food and knowledge systems?

Larger market-linked commercialization of Indigenous Peoples' food and knowledge systems poses risks to sustainability, including overexploitation of resources, loss of biodiversity, and reduced access for indigenous communities themselves due to market-driven forces. To mitigate these risks, the report should emphasize the implementation of protective legal measures, such as granting patent rights or community intellectual property rights over indigenous food and knowledge systems. These rights would ensure that the benefits derived from commercialization are equitably shared with indigenous communities while safeguarding their cultural heritage. Additionally, the report should advocate for the establishment of regulatory frameworks to monitor commercialization practices, prevent exploitation, and promote the sustainable use of these resources. Efforts should also be made to strengthen the communities' capacity to engage with markets on their own terms, ensuring that their needs and priorities remain central. This balanced approach would help protect against the risks of over-commercialization while fostering the inclusion of marginalized groups and promoting sustainability.

5. How should oral knowledge and traditions be documented and referenced in the development of the report?

Co-production of knowledge is essential, as Indigenous communities are the custodians of their oral knowledge and traditions. To document and reference this knowledge effectively, participatory methods should be prioritized. These include the creation of photo stories by community members to visually capture and narrate their lived experiences, practices, and traditions. Other participatory approaches, such as community-led video documentation, oral history interviews, and participatory mapping, can also be employed. These methods ensure that the documentation process is inclusive, respects the autonomy of indigenous communities, and authentically represents their perspectives. Such participatory documentation not only preserves oral traditions but also fosters a sense of ownership and ensures ethical representation in the report.

6. What dimensions linked to Indigenous Peoples’ agency, e.g., in governance issues, could be addressed?

Indigenous Peoples’ agency in governance issues can be addressed by drawing from the Community Agrobiodiversity Center’s (CAbC) extensive experience in fostering community-led governance. CAbC has actively worked to strengthen indigenous communities' role in local governance structures, such as supporting the preparation of People’s Biodiversity Registers, which empower communities to document and protect their traditional knowledge and resources. Through participatory initiatives, CAbC has facilitated the inclusion of indigenous voices in decision-making processes, ensuring that their self-determination and cultural heritage are respected. The Center’s efforts to build the capacity of indigenous communities to engage with external stakeholders, including government bodies and researchers, have enhanced their ability to advocate for their rights and manage their resources. By promoting community-led governance models and equitable benefit-sharing arrangements, as well as safeguarding intellectual property rights over traditional knowledge, CAbC has demonstrated the importance of empowering Indigenous Peoples to govern their own knowledge systems and resources. These experiences highlight the critical need to place indigenous agency at the center of governance frameworks to ensure sustainability and equity.

7. Are there important/relevant policy papers and instruments missing from the foundational documents list?

8. Could you please indicate relevant references that should be taken into account?

United Nations (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Convention on Biological Diversity (2011). Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization.

Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples.

Dutfield, G. (2006). Protecting Traditional Knowledge: Pathways to the Future.

FAO (2009). Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems: Insights on Sustainability and Resilience from the Front Line of Climate Change.

9. What best practices, ethical standards, and strategies for addressing climate change should be highlighted in the report? 

There are different climate-smart practices followed by Indigenous communities, such as mixed cropping systems, crop-livestock integration, crop rotation, conservation of indigenous crop varieties that withstand extreme weather events, and sustainable natural resource management of settled agriculturist indigenous communities of southern India. Scientifically proved aspects of these year-old traditions can be highlighted in the report.

10. Which best practices or strategies to promote cross-cultural understanding should be highlighted in the report?

To promote cross-cultural understanding, the report should emphasize participatory approaches that give Indigenous Peoples an equal voice in decision-making and knowledge-sharing. Cultural sensitivity training for stakeholders, community-led documentation of traditions, and platforms for dialogue and storytelling are essential strategies. Facilitating reciprocal cultural exchange programs, creating safe spaces for dialogue, and incorporating legal safeguards to protect indigenous knowledge can foster trust and mutual respect. By prioritizing these practices, the report can build equitable and respectful partnerships that bridge cultural divides and promote shared understanding.

11. Are the previous legal documents such as Prior and Informed Consent, enough in light of this evolution of thinking about Indigenous People’s knowledge, or do they need to be revised?

 Prior and Informed Consent frameworks, while essential in protecting Indigenous Peoples’ rights, often fall short in addressing the deeper power imbalances and epistemic injustices highlighted by post-colonial theories. These frameworks are primarily procedural, ensuring consent is obtained, but they rarely address the structural inequities and historical marginalization that Indigenous Peoples face. Post-colonial thinkers emphasize the need to move beyond procedural compliance toward frameworks that actively decolonize knowledge systems, recognize Indigenous epistemologies, and prioritize Indigenous Peoples as co-creators of knowledge rather than passive subjects of research. A revised approach should incorporate a transformative agenda that not only seeks consent but also builds equitable partnerships, respects Indigenous sovereignty over their knowledge systems, and ensures that benefits derived are determined by and for Indigenous communities. This includes rethinking how knowledge is documented, shared, and utilized, ensuring that these processes reflect Indigenous worldviews and values. The evolution of thinking in this space demands a shift from mere legal compliance to a rights-based, justice-oriented framework that centers Indigenous Peoples as primary actors in all decisions concerning their knowledge.

-end-

Dear HLPE-FSN Secretariat,

Please find attached a short submission from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, on "“Preserving, strengthening and promoting Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems and traditional practices for sustainable food systems to achieve FSN” as a key means of achieving the CFS vision, SDG2, and an array of other SDGs, including SDGs 1, 10, 12, 13 and 15."  Please note that our submission requests that the HLPE report include a focus on specific aspects of conflict between the broad range of commitments to Indigenous people’s food sovereignty on the one hand and commercialization and/or trade policies on the other hand.

Best wishes,

Shiney Varghese, Sr. Policy Analyst, 

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, USA

(Member of the UN HLPE St. Committee (2017-2019) and Contributing author to the CFS-HLPE report on Water for Food Security)

Comments Submitted by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) commends the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS) on its request to its High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE-FSN) to produce a report on “Preserving, strengthening and promoting Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems and traditional practices for sustainable food systems to achieve FSN” to help inform this workstream to help create a set of focused, action- oriented policy recommendations on the topic. IATP also welcomes this opportunity to contribute towards developing the scope of the HLPE-FSN Report.

We find the proposed research questions to be valid and relevant.

However, in order to ensure that the report provides comprehensive analysis, IATP considers it important to focus on an aspect that is currently missing: trade policy (perhaps it is an issue that can be addressed under principle 7, which stresses that in this HLPE report ““Current disparate, conflicting, contradictory, and controversial issues will be addressed, along with ramifications, repercussions and unintended consequences for Indigenous Peoples from unrelated, and/or well-meaning policies and processes.”).

We suggest that the HLPE report consider the intersection/ conflict between the broad range of commitments to Indigenous people’s food sovereignty and trade policies; and develop recommendations to ensure that trade agreements and trade partnerships are adapted to honor these commitments.

We suggest that U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) offers a starting point to consider the broad range of commitments to Indigenous peoples and food sovereignty and on adapting trade policy to meet those important goals. (We do this in the context of the ongoing trade dispute over Mexico’s restrictions on genetically engineered (GE) corn and glyphosate, a pesticide that GE corn is designed to resist.) In support of this suggestion, IATP wishes to draw attention to the Indigenous Rights general exception clause in the USMCA.

The joint comments submitted to the official USMCA dispute resolution process (by IATP with our partners the Rural Coalition in the USA and the Alianza Nacional de Campesinas in Mexico), provide legal arguments in support of this kind of clause on Indigenous Rights.

Article 32.5, on Indigenous Peoples Rights, a new provision in the USMCA, allows USMCA parties (member governments) to adopt or maintain measures “necessary to fulfill its legal obligations to Indigenous peoples,” provided the measures are not unjustified discrimination or disguised restrictions on trade. The language of the USMCA general exception is bolstered in the Environment chapter, which elaborates on the links between Indigenous rights and biodiversity protection and conservation.

These provisions were the direct result of pressure by First Nations communities on the Canadian government, which at the time hailed the inclusion of the Indigenous rights exception as historic.

Our analysis established that Mexico’s policies regarding glyphosate and GE corn are necessary to fulfill its legal obligations to Indigenous peoples, including protecting biodiversity and ensuring access to safe, healthy and culturally appropriate food. Mexico’s Constitution includes multiple provisions recognizing Indigenous peoples and rights specific to them. Indigenous rights are also protected through national legislation, executive decree and international treaties to which Mexico is a signatory, including International Labor Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, the Convention on Biological Diversity and other United Nations conventions ensuring Indigenous peoples’ rights.

In the context of this case, it is important to note that within the U.S. too the issue of Indigenous rights have come up, including in Minnesota, where IATP is based. The Ojibwe (Anishinaabe) people are based in the Great Lakes region, including in Northern Minnesota. Manoomin (wild rice in the Ojibwe language), in addition to being a food staple, has tremendous cultural and spiritual significance to their people. In the late 1990s, as commercial interest in the plant increased in the U.S., the University of Minnesota began genetic studies of Manoomin germ plasm, including research potentially to develop genetically modified wild rice. After a long campaign by a number of Indigenous nations for legislation to protect Manoomin, finally, in 2007 the Minnesota legislature passed a law restricting the release and sale of GE wild rice in Minnesota and requiring consultations with Minnesota Ojibwe. Please read our blog respecting-rights-usmca-corn-dispute for more details.

For more information on USMCA Dispute Resources including Policy Briefs, Reports and Press Materials please visit https://www.iatp.org/food-sovereignty-trade-and-mexicos-gmo-corn- policies#home (We expect to see the USMCA corn case decision later this week, and please let us know if the HLPE would like an update.)

Among all the other questions we find that the question, “How can the report ensure the inclusion of marginalized groups, sustainability, and protection against commercialization risks for Indigenous Peoples' food and knowledge systems?” is most pertinent. This question closely mirrors question 2 (“Should the objectives include mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples food and knowledge systems, and lessons learned from them, for the benefit of all, or solely for the benefit of Indigenous Peoples as rights holders?”).

Even though Question 3 (“What are the challenges related to Free, Prior and Informed Consent and Access and Benefit Sharing when widely promoting and/or mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples food and knowledge systems?”) points to internationally accepted language such as FPIC and ABS, to help address the challenges, its premise assumes that mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples food and knowledge systems is a given.

Clearly, there is a need to value Indigenous Peoples food and knowledge systems, and learn from them; ideally the lessons could be for the benefit of all. However, it is of utmost importance that it is not be at the cost of Indigenous Peoples as rights holders. Nor should non-Indigenous Peoples’ desire to benefit from these knowledge systems shift our focus away from the everyday livelihoods of indigenous peoples as has happened in the case of Andean quinoa farmers, a real risk associated with global scale commercialization.

Thank you,

Shiney Varghese, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

I am the National Coordinator of the World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative Australia. This submission is on behalf of the WBTiAUS and colleagues.

WBTi Australia is a coalition of individuals and organisations established in September 2017. Its primary aim is to change the way breastfeeding is protected, promoted and supported in Australia by:

• assessing the status of, and benchmarking the progress in implementation of, the Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding in Australia using the standardised tool of the World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative (WBTi)
• engaging with relevant stakeholders in the process of assessment
• communicating the results of the assessment to key decision-makers and stakeholders

WBTiAUS has prepared two country assessments published in 2018 and 2023, and its assessment score is the international benchmark for the 2019 Australian National Breastfeeding Strategy. 

Response to questions

Do you agree with the guiding principles indicated above?

Yes

Should the objectives include mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples food and knowledge systems, and lessons learned from them, for the benefit of all, or solely for the benefit of Indigenous Peoples as rights holders?

No comment

What are the challenges related to Free, Prior and Informed Consent and Access and Benefit Sharing when widely promoting and/or mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples food and knowledge systems?

The use of Indigenous Peoples food and knowledges requires free, prior and informed consent (as per the (World Bank, 2016)) and fair and equitable benefit sharing with First Nations peoples (as per the Convention on Biological Diversity and its associated Nagoya Protocol).

For First Nations peoples to profit from their extensive knowledge of Country, food, and medicine, they first need adequate protection. We recommend putting in place legislative requirements such as the Nagoya Protocol that will protect Indigenous knowledges and enable communities to leverage this knowledge.

How can the report ensure the inclusion of marginalized groups, sustainability, and protection against commercialization risks for Indigenous Peoples' food and knowledge systems?

A recent submission to the Australian Parliamentary inquiry into economic self-determination and opportunities for First National Australians considered the issue of protecting indigenous intellectual property rights regarding traditional foods, found here - https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=e9f66bda-d19f-4319-865e- 746f590dc860&subId=757029

This did not consider the issues regarding patents over human milk components by the commercial milk formula industry, which marginalizes breastfeeding women even while human milk products generate large profits and surpluses for market enterprises.

However, it pointed to traditional food and medicine practices as a source of opportunity as well as food security for indigenous communities and called for suitable infrastructure investments and intellectual property law reforms to protecting traditional knowledge in each State and Territory’s biodiscovery legislation and support development of a native foods and medicines industry.

Comparable issues of basic infrastructure provision and recognition of the intrinsic value of women’s traditional knowledge on infant and young child feeding could also be considered, alongside investments in birthing and breastfeeding support systems with high rates of return to health systems and communities.

How should oral knowledge and traditions be documented and referenced in the development of the report?

Oral knowledge and traditions should be documented in ways which respect and do not devalue or minimize indigenous knowledge, and protect indigenous knowledge from being appropriated or controlled by outsiders such as through inappropriate exploitation of copyright or patents (29).

Suitable documentation and referencing systems have been developed and recommended, which we support https://subjectguides.nscc.ca/apa-7-ed/CitingTraditionalKnowledge . Sensitivities around sharing indigenous knowledge must also be recognised and the wishes of the indigenous owners heeded.

What dimensions linked to Indigenous Peoples’ agency, e.g., in governance issues, could be addressed?

see Gall et al above.

Are there important/relevant policy papers and instruments missing from the foundational documents list?

no comment

Could you please indicate relevant references that should be taken into account?

See above

What best practices, ethical standards, and strategies for addressing climate change should be highlighted in the report?

It can be argued that investments in enabling breastfeeding are carbon offsets. A recent paper in the Bulletin of the WHO argued for better systems of measurement of productivity to include non-market production including breastfeeding and breastmilk (30).

As commercial milk formula has adverse environmental impacts, reduces adaptability and resilience and generates 10-14 kilograms of greenhouse gas emissions for every kilogram of powder (31) (9) (11) (10), strategies for reparations should include funding for measures to increase breastfeeding as investment in carbon offsets (30).

Climate change presents an opportunity for redress and empowerment of Indigenous communities to lead climate action planning based on their intimate traditional and historical knowledges of Country. Best-practice principles to facilitate this are outlined in the Climate Change and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Discussion paper, these include:

1. Building adaptive capacity of communities by restoring basic rights to adequate housing and access to Country and its resources;
2. Place-based adaptation and mitigation planning given the diversity of Indigenous cultures, as well as the diversity of climate impact.
3. Establishing equitable power relationships and co-governance arrangements at multiple levels to provide Indigenous communities more certainty and control in protecting Country;
4. Centering and leveraging the valuable biocultural knowledge of Indigenous people with appropriate intellectual and cultural property protection;
5. Building respectful, trusting partnerships to share and weave together Indigenous and Western knowledge systems to inform innovative adaptation and mitigation;
6. Providing sustainable resourcing and program flexibility to support innovation and long-term monitoring and evaluation; and
7. Establishing geographic and intersectoral networks for collaboration, sharing and learning about experiences to build sustainable effective climate action strategies.

Which best practices or strategies to promote cross-cultural understanding should be highlighted in the report?

Australia has been developing a number of strategies to remedy the harms to indigenous breastfeeding. This includes the Australian National Breastfeeding Strategy, as well as specific programs relevant to the needs of indigenous women.

Are the previous legal documents such as Prior and Informed Consent, enough in light of this evolution of thinking about Indigenous People’s knowledge, or do they need to be revised?

No comment

1. Holmes W, Phillips J, Thorpe L. Initiation rate and duration of breast–feeding in the Melbourne Aboriginal community. Australian and New Zealand journal of public health. 1997;21(5):500-3.
2. Smith JP, Cattaneo A, Iellamo A, et al. Review of effective strategies to promote breastfeeding: Sax Institute; 2018.
3. COAG Health Council. Australian National Breastfeeding Strategy: 2019 and Beyond. Canberra, Australia2019.
4. Gribble KD, Gallagher M. Rights of Children in Relation to Breastfeeding in Child Protection Cases. The British journal of social work. 2014;44(2):434-50.
5. Gribble KD. Supporting vulnerable women in mothering through skin-to-skin contact, proximity and breastfeeding: Part 1 Research. Breastfeeding Review. 2024;32(2):6-18.
6. Mitchell F, Walker T, Hill K, Browne J. Factors influencing infant feeding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and their families: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. BMC public health. 2023;23(1):297.
7. Tomori C, Palmquist AEL. Racial capitalism and the US formula shortage: A policy analysis of the formula industry as a neocolonial system. Frontiers in Sociology. 2022;7.
8. Renfrew MJ, Kent G, Smith JP, Baker P, Salmon L. Inquiry, Critical and Emerging Issues for Food Security and Nutrition addressed the importance of including infants and young children in food security frameworks. Committee on World Food Security HLPE; 2016.
9. Baker P, Smith JP, Garde A, Grummer-Strawn LM, Wood B, Sen G, et al. The political economy of infant and young child feeding: confronting corporate power, overcoming structural barriers, and accelerating progress. Lancet. 2023;401(10375):503-24.
10. Maudrie TL, Nguyen CJ, Wilbur RE, Mucioki M, Clyma KR, Ferguson GL, et al. Food Security and Food Sovereignty: The Difference Between Surviving and Thriving. Health Promot Pract. 2023;24(6):1075-9.
11. Lemke S, Delormier T. Indigenous Peoples' food systems, nutrition, and gender: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Matern Child Nutr. 2017;13 Suppl 3(Suppl 3).
12. Balakrishnan R, Elson D, Heintz J, Lusiani N. Maximum available resources and human rights. Center for Women’s Global Leadership, Rutgers New Brunswick, NJ: The State University of New Jersey. 2011.
13. Oruç P. Documenting Indigenous oral traditions: Copyright for control. International Journal of Cultural Property. 2022;29(3):243-64.
14. Smith JP, Borg B, Nguyen TT, Iellamo A, Pramono A, Mathisen R. Estimating carbon and water footprints associated with commercial milk formula production and use: development and implications of the Green Feeding Climate Action Tool. Front Nutr. 2024;11.
15. Smith JP. A commentary on the carbon footprint of milk formula: harms to planetary health and policy implications. International Breastfeeding Journal. 2019;14(1):49.