Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Dear HLPE-FSN Secretariat, 

Many thanks for the opportunity to comment on the scope of the report on "Preserving, strengthening and promoting Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems and traditional practices for sustainable food systems”

Kindly find attached the contribution from the Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems. 

The Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems is a space of co-creation of knowledge between Indigenous and non-Indigenous experts from Universities, research centres, Indigenous Peoples and UN agencies. It brings at the same level of respect academic and Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge. To date, the Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems counts 34 members Institutions and 3 collaborators. 

More about the Global-Hub:  https://www.fao.org/indigenous-peoples/secretariats/global-hub/en

Thank you and best regards, 

Anne Brunel, Coordinator, Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems

----------------------------------------------

Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems – Collective Response to HLPE-FSN consultation on the scope of the report “Preserving, strengthening and promoting Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems and traditional practices for sustainable food systems”

The Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems provides the following collective response to the HLPE-FSN consultation. We note the particular importance of questions 2, 3 and 11, which evoked much discussion among the Global-Hub members. We also emphasize the importance of ensuring strong Indigenous representation within the eventually appointed drafting team.

Summary of key points

The Global-Hub reaffirms the importance that the report:

• is aligned with Indigenous Peoples’ rights, as enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the ILO Convention 169 and the right to free, prior and informed consent. In this context: 
  • Indigenous Peoples must be referred as “Indigenous Peoples”, and not as minorities, local communities, or stakeholders
  • the problematic use of Indigenous Peoples in conjunction with the term “local communities”, must be avoided, as well as the use of acronyms, such as “IP”, “IPLC”, or “IP&LC”
  • power asymmetries in research, policymaking and implementation must be addressed, emphasizing Indigenous Peoples’ rights to self-determined development, and FPIC.
• considers the role of Indigenous Women and of Indigenous Youth in Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems. See reference to the Indigenous Youth Declarations and statements made in 2017, 2021 and 2023 at the end of the document.
• recognizes oral knowledge as a valid way of knowing, citing it as a valid reference within the report, and gathering and using it in accordance with FPIC and Indigenous Peoples’ data sovereignty.
• ensures the majority (ideally all) of researchers and experts within the drafting team of the HLPE report are Indigenous and ensures a regional balance of work and experience within the seven socio-cultural regions.

1. Do you agree with the guiding principles indicated?

The guiding principles are highly comprehensive. We offer a few suggestions on principles 1, 2 and 6.

In reference to guiding principles 1 and 2: It is crucial that the report adheres to the Indigenous Peoples’ rights as enshrined within the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the ILO Convention 169, and the right to free, prior and informed consent. In particular, we refer to the latest recommendations made by the three UN Mechanisms on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to avoid the problematic use of the term “Indigenous Peoples” in conjunction with “local communities”.  This includes the following documents:

• Statement by the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Geneva, July 2023[1]
• Outcome document, Meeting between the The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), The United Nations Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP), The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (SRIP), FAO Headquarters - Rome, Italy, 26-28 February 2024[2]
• Final report of the 22nd Session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, with oral amendment, 17–28 April 2023 (recommendation 25)[3]

Indigenous Peoples are collective rights-holders, unlike local communities, minorities or stakeholders. In addition, the outcome document recommends to “avoid the use of any acronym or names other than “Indigenous Peoples” to identify their representatives” (p.3 line 2). The use of the acronyms, “IP”, “IPLC” or “IP&LC” overlooks simultaneously the two recommendations mentioned above. Finally, considering that Indigenous Peoples are subjects of specific rights, it is highly recommended to use an adapted terminology, such as “Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge” instead of “Indigenous knowledge”. This acknowledges Indigenous Peoples as creators and custodians of their own knowledge systems, and that they are the primary actors involved in its maintenance, sharing and evolution. It also reinforces that Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems must be understood and safeguarded in a systemic and integral way, which means that it is held by the collective subject and is inseparable from the relationship of this collective subject to its territory and its right to self-determined development. 

Guiding Principle 6 refers to the fact that “Relevant text and recommendations from previous HLPE-FSN reports will be reviewed, updated, and corrected as appropriate”. The Global-Hub has undertaken a preliminary review of previous HLPE-FSN reports and the ways in which Indigenous Peoples and their knowledge systems are referred to and characterized within these reports. The analysis reveals the critical need to better understand and highlight the important roles played by Indigenous Women and Indigenous Youth in Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems. The Global-Hub is ready to support the work on the revision and update of the previous HLPE-FSN reports, based on the preliminary analysis already achieved. 

Finally, within the section on guiding principles, it is indicated that the HLPE will “ensure legitimacy among stakeholders and maintain a high degree of scientific quality”. To ensure legitimacy, we encourage the HLPE Steering Committee to consider appointing a drafting team in which the strong majority (if not all) of members are Indigenous, and with regional balance of work and expertise across the seven socio-cultural regions into which Indigenous Peoples organise themselves (Africa; the Arctic; Asia; Central and South America and the Caribbean; Eastern Europe, Russian Federation, Central Asia and Transcaucasia; North America; and the Pacific).

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?

First, we encourage the reframing of this question to say, “for the benefit of Indigenous Peoples as rightsholders and of all”? The two must not be considered mutually exclusive, quite the contrary - any mainstreaming activities can only take place if Indigenous Peoples have so decided, can benefit, and that their rights are respected. 

Referring to Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems, Indigenous Dene National Chief Bill Erasmus wrote in 2009 that “without doubt, for Indigenous Peoples collectively, these resources are of global significance. They need to be protected environmentally and fostered for sustainable use – not only among the women, men and children who hold the traditional knowledge of these cultural treasures, but for our collective human knowledge” (Kuhnlein et al., 2009, page x). While similar sentiments have often been shared by Indigenous persons, it does not necessarily represent the feelings of all Indigenous Peoples. The answer to the question of mainstreaming must depend on the Indigenous Peoples in question, with respect to their needs and priorities, and as expressed by them following their right to self-determined development, FPIC processes and ABS agreements (see question 3).

For instance, some of the Indigenous members and youth collaborators of the Global-Hub have articulated that the Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems should not be mainstreamed for non-Indigenous use. What is more important is that their rights are actualized, and their needs are sufficiently supported to enable their food systems to sustain them. This actualization must also come with recognition of competing and encroaching forces of the agrifood system and other drivers of change that often compromise Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems.

Rather than mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples’ food systems, it is perhaps better to consider what lessons can be learned from Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems to support the global work underway for sustainable agrifood system transformation. And within this, rather than simply focusing on practical tangible solutions that Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems might directly offer, we also encourage intercultural processes, such as reflection on the ways that non-Indigenous societies can learn from the philosophies of Indigenous Peoples to allow them to regain their own knowledge.

Positive examples of mainstreaming efforts have been documented. This includes the Nuxalk Food and Nutrition Program (NFNP), which worked with the elders of the Nuxalk Nation to document past and current food systems that could be used for health and wellness promotion activities (Kuhnlein et al., 2013).[4]

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?

1.  

The right to self-determined development of Indigenous Peoples must always come before considering the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent and Access and Benefit Sharing. FPIC must not be considered the ultimate outcome of engagement with Indigenous Peoples, but part of a broader process of engagement that promotes and enhances their right to self-determined development.

The right of Indigenous Peoples to Free, Prior and Informed Consent is recognized within the International Labour Organization Convention 169, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP; Article 19), the Convention on Biological Diversity. It is now widely accepted as the minimum standard for any project involving or affecting directly or indirectly Indigenous Peoples.

While acknowledging the importance of FPIC as the minimum rights standard and starting point for any project involving or affecting Indigenous Peoples, if it is initiated by exogenous development actors, it does not centre Indigenous Peoples’ priorities and is misaligned with the right to self-determined development. Too often, projects are developed through discussions that take place outside the community, and thus are removed and misaligned from the priorities and needs of communities themselves. When FPIC is started, projects are often already at advanced stages of their development. In this context, FPIC simply becomes a tool to validate the ideas of external actors or groups – rather than a tool that can empower and enable the self-determined development of communities. Consent goes beyond consultation and implies a place of greater agency.

However, as mentioned above, it is important to go beyond the vision of Indigenous Peoples as beneficiaries of resources and projects and create space where they are recognized as equals and as agents of their own processes. Whilst FPIC is an important right-based tool, but the right to self-determined development should be duly primarily considered to re-balance power asymmetries. In this context, mechanisms should exist to support Indigenous Peoples willing to develop their own project. In addition, external actors that engage with Indigenous Peoples must be encouraged to co-design projects with Indigenous Peoples from the start. 

A forthcoming paper by the Global-Hub titled “Indigenous Peoples: From discrimination and marginalization to inclusive, meaningful, and effective participation” engages with these questions, highlighting how well-intended development policies can have harmful impacts on Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems. It shows how dominant notions of poverty, vulnerability and economic wellbeing, are often misaligned with Indigenous Peoples worldviews. Indigenous Peoples’ notions of poverty differ qualitatively and quantitatively from the dominant related concepts, which can lead to the design and implementation of ineffective and non-inclusive policies. In addition, these notions of poverty, vulnerability, and economics held by Indigenous Peoples can vary considerably by individual or by culture. It is important to be aware of these variations and include consideration of them. This point is critically highlighted as one of the main challenges presented in the CFS agenda item[5], and underscores the need to enable Indigenous Peoples’ self-determined development as a prerequisite to FPIC.

Acknowledging that it is often difficult to get funding without a project, funders must be encouraged to provide initial funds for pre-project development that can allow projects to be co-defined and co-developed with communities and based on their needs and ideas. It must also be recognized that before FPIC can be completed, important preparatory work is needed to understand the community context, their traditional systems of governance, and the existence of prevailing community codes of engagement and customary governance. Capacity building activities to permit the implementation of a thorough FPIC process should also be considered.

Despite the ratification of UNDRIP by the large majority of UN members, FPIC is not always adhered to, or is inadequately implemented. Critical features of FPIC that are often overlooked or misunderstood include that[6] once consent is given by Indigenous Peoples, they can withdraw it at any stage. Furthermore, consent is not the guaranteed result of an FPIC process - FPIC may also result in withholding of consent or may require a renegotiation of terms of engagement before consent is given. FPIC is not a consultation conducted to obtain consent to a particular project, but a process which enables Indigenous Peoples to conduct their own independent and collective discussions and decision making from the design to the implementation and monitoring of the project. Consent must be a collective and active decision, in accordance with customary governance practices, and not something that can be given by a single/small group of representatives. Consent must be seen as comprising Indigenous Peoples' capacity to do, participate and act – not only to agree or disagree.

There remain several other challenges and limitations to FPIC that must be considered in any project involving Indigenous Peoples, but particularly when the promotion or mainstreaming of their food and knowledge systems is sought.

• Funding constraints. FPIC requires financial resources and time – however, it is often an afterthought in the allocation of these resources and FPIC processes end up being rushed and insufficient. External actors engaging with Indigenous Peoples must be encouraged to allocate sufficient time and financial resources to FPIC processes to ensure its thorough completion. Funding bodies must ensure that funding timescales are sufficient to allow thorough FPIC processes and may consider introducing minimum thresholds of spending on project co-design and FPIC.
• Working with customary governance structures and existing community codes of engagement. FPIC is often rolled out as a one-size-fits-all exercise that is not adapted to the local context. Project co-design and FPIC must be completed with attention and respect to existing governance structures of Indigenous Peoples to ensure that the objectives of mainstreaming are aligned with local priorities. Furthermore, many Indigenous Peoples have their own self-developed codes of engagement (see Question 8) that must not be overridden by FPIC - closer engagement with these during FPIC processes can lead to more equitable and effective engagements.
• Capacity building:  FPIC can often be one-sided, in the sense that Indigenous Peoples may or may not know they have the right to FPIC within a consultation process/project negotiation. More often it is up to the external entity to know how to respectfully and properly complete the process in a way that is not biased towards their desired outcomes for their project proposal. 
• Data sovereignty. Indigenous Peoples have the right of not sharing information and data. Meanwhile, as an Indigenous Peoples’ right, FPIC often enables the consensual collection of data for a specific and agreed purpose. However, challenges can arise when data are collected for one purpose and then used for a different one (for example, an additional paper or other output). FPIC as an instrument falls short of ensuring that data are not abused in future, even if it was adhered to throughout project inception and implementation phases.

Other challenges of data sovereignty arise when products, data and/or knowledge have already been taken out of communities, and where FPIC and Access and Benefit Sharing instruments/processes have not previously been applied. How can past wrongs be rectified when promoting and/or mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems? 

Finally, the increasing use of digital sequence information (DSI) on genetic resources raises concerns amongst Indigenous Peoples. This was brought to light by the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB) during COP16 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), held in November 2024 in Cali, Colombia. As companies are increasingly using this technology without involving Indigenous Peoples, nor seeking their consent to use the genetic resources of Indigenous Peoples’ species, a strong legal framework needs to be adopted urgently, either under the CBD or the Nagoya Protocol, emphasising equity. It is recommended that the HLPE take this threat into consideration in its report and provide adequate recommendations to guarantee data sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples aligned with the ongoing CBD negotiations and the expectations and considerations of Indigenous Peoples.  In this vein, Indigenous Youth, through the Rome 2023 Indigenous Youth Declaration, have already called for the end of biopiracy and called upon national governments to create initiatives for the preservation of genetic resources in situ and ex situ of Indigenous Peoples from a framework of law respecting free, prior and informed consultation to safeguard the wealth and knowledge of Indigenous Peoples. Other relevant aspects of the 2023 Indigenous Youth Declaration, as it pertains to these guiding questions, are highlighted below question 11.

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

To ensure the inclusion of marginalized groups, it will be important for the report to consider the diversity of Indigenous Peoples across and within each of those regions (encompassing different food practices, ecosystems, governance structures). Perspectives from Indigenous Women and Indigenous Youth also need to be considered across these regions and sub-regional groups. 

Furthermore, sustainability means different things for different Indigenous Peoples depending on where they live and their specific circumstances and environmental conditions. There are some common themes and values held by Indigenous Peoples in order to realize sustainability, including reciprocity, harvesting only what is needed within the balance of what is available, and a relational understanding with food sources – but nuances should be captured.

With regard to commercialization risk, the rights of Indigenous Peoples to self-determined development, data sovereignty and their own intellectual property (as outlined in Article 31, UNDRIP, 2007) must be explicitly highlighted within the report. In this vein, the report must stress the importance of respecting Indigenous Peoples’ governance systems and collective rights and address power asymmetries in decision-making, as well as in project design and implementation. The report may highlight particular challenges of intellectual property as it pertains to Indigenous Peoples and the harms that have been brought against Indigenous Peoples through commercialisation. Notably, this includes the fact that for Indigenous Peoples, knowledge is a collectively generated and community-held resource by humans and also by non-humans who are part of this collective. In other words, Indigenous Peoples' knowledge is based on a different way of understanding of what it means to know, what is knowable, and who knows. It cannot be ascribed to one individual, or one instance of discovery. By recognising this, the report offers an opportunity to put into practice a true confluence and co-construction of the knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and non-indigenous peoples.

An important case in Oaxaca studied by Kloppenburg and al. (2024) highlights these particular challenges: a nitrogen-fixing variety of corn, called Oloton, that had been cultivated by Indigenous Peoples in Mexico for generations was patented by external entities. Although the collaboration complied with the Nagoya Protocol and an Indigenous Peoples community was financially compensated, the case raised important questions about the long-term benefits, the ways in which Indigenous Peoples are engaged in lengthy legal negotiations, and the potential repercussions of the agreement for neighbouring communities that also use the maize but who are not intellectual property holders. The forthcoming Guidelines on Knowledge Co-Creation and Ethical Engagement with Indigenous Peoples, to be published by the FAO and the Global-Hub, address these issues of knowledge and data sovereignty. 

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

Indigenous Peoples’ oral knowledge and traditions must be recognized as a valid way of knowing and cited as a valid reference within the report. This has been elaborated on further within a paper published by the Global-Hub in 2021: the paper noted that dominant hierarchies of knowledge, which often consider oral knowledge as a weak form of evidence, must be rethought (Global-Hub, 2021). 

The oral knowledge contributed to the report must be gathered and used in accordance with FPIC and recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ data sovereignty. Consultations to gather knowledge should be co-designed with Indigenous Peoples, with participation and knowledge sharing consented to. Once given to the report, knowledge should not be used for any purpose other than those with which it is given. If Indigenous contributors decide to remain anonymous, this should be respected; if knowledge shared is for the attention of the HLPE drafting team only and not to be included explicitly in the report, this should be respected. Indigenous contributors should be able to withdraw their knowledge at a future date if they decide so. They should consult with their communities or organisations to ensure that communally held knowledge is ok to be shared.

The report may include links to audio files to enable oral knowledge to be heard in its original form, if desired by the contributor. 

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

Understandings of agency amongst Indigenous Peoples have tended to focus exclusively on humans and the interactions among them. Such an understanding overlooks the important non-human components of Indigenous Peoples’ cultures, which includes values of and connectivity with nature (see Watts, 2013). By focusing on agency as human-to-human interactions (which usually the concept of governance does), a more complete picture of Indigenous Peoples’ agency in the design and management of their natural and food systems is missing.  

The report must also note the importance of Indigenous Peoples’ governance and land/water tenure systems (which include human and non-human aspects) as foundational for the preservation and sustaining of their food and knowledge systems. Indigenous Peoples’ customary governance and management systems, which are often overlooked within policy approaches but offer a way to ensure inclusive and effective engagement and impact.

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

Existing codes of conduct from Indigenous Peoples should be highlighted within the report, either within the foundational documents list or the list of relevant references. These include codes such as the Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement, and the Secwépemc Nation Research Ethics Guidelines, which have been developed by Indigenous Peoples themselves to indicate the standards of engagement that are required when engaging with external actors (particularly researchers). It is also important that the report highlights instruments of self-government, such as the Life Plans of the Indigenous Territorial Entities in the Colombian Amazon. Such instruments have the legal status and jurisprudence of public policy in Colombia and include their own definitions of Amazonian Indigenous epistemologies and the knowledge systems on which they are based: their raison d'être and their meaning. We also draw attention to the forthcoming Guidelines for Knowledge Co-Creation and Ethical Engagement with Indigenous Peoples, under development by the Global-Hub, which will lay out principles for knowledge co-creation, ethical engagement, and research practices that protect, promote, uphold and amplify Indigenous Peoples’ rights.

In addition, the Global-Hub is currently finalizing two important technical publications on Indigenous Peoples: From discrimination and marginalization to inclusive, meaningful, and effective participation and on Collective paper on Indigenous Peoples’ mobility, nomadism, and collective rights for biodiversity.

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

• FAO (2016). Free Prior and Informed Consent: An indigenous peoples’ right and a good practice for local communities. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/I6190E/i6190e.pdf
• FAO (2024, forthcoming) Collective paper on the importance of Indigenous Peoples’ mobility, nomadism and collective rights for biodiversity. Rome. 
• FAO (2024, forthcoming) Indigenous Peoples: From discrimination and marginalization to inclusive, meaningful, and effective participation. Rome.
• FAO (2025, forthcoming), Guidelines for Knowledge Co-Creation and Ethical Engagement with Indigenous Peoples. Rome.
• FAO and Alliance of Bioversity and CIAT 2022. Labelling and certification schemes for Indigenous Peoples' foods – Generating income while protecting and promoting Indigenous Peoples’ values. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0155en
• FAO and Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT. 2021. Indigenous Peoples’ food systems: Insights on sustainability and resilience in the front line of climate change. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb5131enGlobal Indigenous Data Alliance (2018). CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance. Online at: https://www.gida-global.org/care
• The Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems. Rethinking hierarchies of evidence for sustainable food systems. Nat Food 2, 843–845 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00388-5 
• Inuit Circumpolar Council Alaska. 2020. Food Sovereignty and Self-Governance: Inuit Role in Managing Arctic Marine Resources. Anchorage, AK
• Kuhnlein, H., Fediuk, K., Nelson, C., Howard, E., and Johnson, S. (2013) The Legacy of the Nuxalk Food and Nutrition Program for the Food Security, Health and Wellbeing of Indigenous Peoples in British Columbia. No. 179: Ethnobotany in BC. https://doi.org/10.14288/bcs.v0i179.184117 
• Kloppenburg, J, et al. 2024. The Nagoya Protocol and nitrogen-fixing maize: Close encounters between Indigenous Oaxacans and the men from Mars (Inc.). Elem Sci Anth, 12: 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2023.00115 
• Van Uffelen, A., Tanganelli, E., Gerke, A., Bottigliero, F., Drieux, E., Fernández-de-Larrinoa, Y., Milbank, C., Sheibani, S., Strømsø, I., Way, M. and Bernoux, M. 2021. Indigenous youth as agents of change – Actions of Indigenous youth in local food systems during times of adversity. Rome, FAO.
• Watts, V. (2013). Indigenous place-thought & agency amongst humans and non-humans (First Woman and Sky Woman go on a European world tour!). Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 2(1). 

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

Indigenous Peoples’ food systems are being impacted by climate change globally - in diverse ways. 
The contribution of the Global-Hub on the scope of the HLPE report on “Building resilient food systems” is highly relevant here:

(quoting)

“Through a systematic review of 227 peer-reviewed articles published in the last 10 years, Ford and colleagues (2020) identified four common interacting drivers contributing to the resilience of Indigenous Peoples to environmental change and highlighted the centrality of place to anchor those (FAO et al., 2020; Redvers, et al., 2022). 

The four common interacting drivers identified by Ford and colleagues are: 

a) Place

Place comprises access to land, territories and natural resources of Indigenous Peoples, and the relationship between people and environment. Traditionally, Indigenous Peoples’ food systems are characterized by high level of self-sufficiency. Often, the food items are generated, cultivated and harvested for family and community consumption (Valdivia-Gaco et al., 2023; Parraguez-Vergara, et al., 2018), although this is changing rapidly for many Indigenous Peoples’ food systems (FAO, 2021; Gracey and King, 2009; Swinburn. et al., 2019). Evidence shows that up to 80 percent of food consumed by an Indigenous community can be sourced from their traditional territory (FAO and Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, 2021). 

Thus, access to land, territories and natural resources is a central element of the resilience and sustainability of Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems. It also guarantees Indigenous Peoples’ rights to self-determined development (Maudrie, et al., 2023) and their right to foods. Indigenous Peoples’ food security, sustainability and resilience is intimately tied to access to land, territories and natural resources. 

b) Agency 

Agency is the “ability of people, individually or collectively, to have a choice in responding to environmental change” (Ford et al. 2020). It derives from self-reliance, local decision-making power, and knowledge for how to manage changes. Recognizing the agency of Indigenous Peoples to decide and act according to their right to self-determined development is essential to ensure the resilience and sustainability of their food and knowledge systems. 

c) Traditional governance systems, institutions and collective action

Traditional governance systems and institutions deeply rooted in collective rights and actions help to manage environmental stress. They include customary laws and common property systems that promote preservation, maintenance, sustainable use and restoration (IUCN, 1980) of the environment, biodiversity and the resilience of their food and knowledge systems (FAO, 2021; FAO and Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, 2021; Ford et al., 2020). 

d) Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems 

Deep knowledge of their environments and their associated cycles enables Indigenous People to leverage the many resources available in different areas of their territories, and is a cornerstone for their adaptation strategies, making their food systems resilient to ecological changes.

Learning is a process that is embedded within Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems that are based on experimentation, observation, and continuous re-evaluation, which is vital for the continuous adaptation and resilience of their food systems. The process involves adopting and modifying practices, as well abandoning practices that no longer serve. Learning is supported by opportunities for intergenerational exchange with Elders and to interact with the diversified resource base that underpins Indigenous Peoples’ food systems (FAO, 2021; Galappaththi, 2022). 

Additional drivers, such as mobility and biodiversity affect resilience of Indigenous Peoples’ food systems, especially considering climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic. Mobility underpins the resilience of Indigenous Peoples’ food systems. Through considered movements, Indigenous Peoples can respond to ecological change and ensure the sustainability of the use of natural resources, lands and territories.”

For decades, Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous Youth have been publicly raising the alarm and publishing materials on the impacts of climate change. In recent years, there has been a lot of publicly available materials of Indigenous-led research highlighting the impacts of climate change on their food systems, territories, and ways of life. We encourage those materials to be included in the report.  For example, Arctic Indigenous Peoples and Youth are detailing and recording how quickly changes are happening in their region, upwards of ten times faster than other parts of the world.  Indigenous Youth in the Pacific document changes in weather systems, such as changes in sea level, intensity of storms, and how it affects their islands and food systems (Van Uffelen et al., 2021).

Furthermore, many Indigenous Peoples have developed their own standards and strategies to mitigate the effects of climate change, which are rooted within their customary governance and knowledge systems.  See for example: Inuit Circumpolar Council Alaska, 2020.

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

• Intercultural education, allowing conditions for different knowledge systems to interact and to strengthen their own ways of learning, creating, innovating and transmitting knowledge. 
•  Promote biodiversity, both intra and interspecific, in food systems. 
•  Promote ecosystem and social fabric restoration, culturally pertinent. 
•  Promote recycling, circular economy and solidarity. 
•  Promote intercultural business. 
•  Promote Indigenous Peoples’ agency of their culture, ways of knowing and natural systems management, including food systems. 

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?

We do not believe so. Please refer to question 3 for the limitations of such documents and the revisions proposed.

 

Relevant aspects of the Global Indigenous Youth Declarations from 2017. 2021, and 2023.

Relevant to Question 3:

From the Rome 2023 Indigenous Youth declaration “Safeguarding Seven Generations in Times of Food, Social, and Ecological Crisis”

• Recommendation 35. We recommend that national governments create initiatives for the preservation of genetic resources in situ and ex situ of Indigenous Peoples from a framework of law respecting free, prior and informed consultation to safeguard the wealth and knowledge of Indigenous

Peoples.

• Recommendation 39. We recommend  governments ensure that any project implemented in Indigenous Peoples' territories is always in compliance with the free, prior and informed consultation of Indigenous Peoples and that labels or narratives of sustainable or green alternatives do not violate or override the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Relevant to Question 4:

From the Rome 2023 Indigenous Youth declaration “Safeguarding Seven Generations in Times of Food, Social, and Ecological Crisis”

• Recommendation 36. We recommend governments to establish food value chains that strengthen and prioritize Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems, strengthening them through technologies and connecting them with local markets to promote local, sustainable and responsible consumption.
• Recommendation 37. We recommend governments to recognize the land and water tenure rights of Indigenous Peoples so that they can continue to practice and maintain the practices that make them self-sufficient, sustainable and custodians of the biodiversity of the planet.
• Recommendation 39. We recommend governments ensure that any project implemented in Indigenous Peoples' territories is always in compliance with the free, prior and informed consultation of Indigenous Peoples and that labels or narratives of sustainable or green alternatives do not violate or override the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Relevant to Question 5:

• From the Rome 2023 Indigenous Youth Declaration - Our knowledge as Indigenous Peoples is essential for the transformation of food systems, but it is in danger. Our grandfathers and grandmothers, repositories of millennial knowledge, are slowly disappearing as well as our cultures and languages. We are prepared to overcome the challenges of knowledge and language transmission. Indigenous Youth have the unique ability to navigate different worlds at the same time. We can merge the ancestral and the own with what is said modern. But we need the right policies to support us in the process of safeguarding, reviving and strengthening the world's oldest, most sustainable, efficient and necessary knowledge.
• From the Rome 2017 Indigenous Youth Declaration - We stand in solidarity with fellow Indigenous Peoples… to offer our determination and conviction of the importance of combining innovation with technologies and looking for new ways to stop the disappearance of ancestral knowledge, much of it oral, in our Indigenous Peoples’ communities about plants, animals and ecosystems that constitute the foundations of our cultures, customs, beliefs, cosmogony and language. We are aware of the urgency of looking for new formulas that guarantee the transmission of the knowledge of our peoples before it disappears, along with the departure of our elders, old women and old men. 

Relevant to Question 6:

From the 2021 Rome Declaration:

• Recommendation 10. We ask Member states to develop emergency preparedness, response and climate change adaptation plans with us, that respect our traditional governance and decision-making processes. We have agency in our preparedness and responses. 
• Recommendation 11. We call upon Member States, to ensure that Indigenous Youth are granted access to our lands and territories in order to protect and uphold our cultural rights and carry forward our food systems. 

Relevant to Question 9:

From the 2023 Rome Declaration: 

• On responsibility - Mother Earth is hurt and angry. We, Indigenous Youth, are the first to experience and most affected to the impacts of the damage inflicted on Mother Earth but we are also her advocates and protectors. The effects of climate change is how Mother Earth communicates her discontent and frustration about how her children mistreat her. The acceleration of these changes, coupled with biodiversity loss, puts even the most resilient in our food and knowledge systems at risk. Actions must be taken to sustainably preserve what the seven future generations have lent us.
• Recommendation 14. We recommend UNESCO to work with Member States and the Inter-Agency and Support Group of Indigenous Peoples promote the institutionalization at the international and country level of research programs led by Indigenous Peoples and with Indigenous Peoples, from legal framework, on issues that affect their rights and their health and that of their territories, For example, climate change observatories, studies on the physical and mental health status of Indigenous Youth, the nutritional value of their food, among others.

• Recommendation 22. We recommend WHO, UNICEF and the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to carry out a study on the status and determinants of the physical, spiritual and mental health of Indigenous Youth and children in the context of climate change, migration and conflict worldwide in order to make specific recommendations to Member States in order to address these problems.

  Recommendation 23. We recommend UN Women, the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls to conduct studies on the rule of law of Indigenous women, girls and sexual minorities within a framework of food security, climate crisis, conflict and forced displacement to make recommendations to Member States on actions to address gender equality and equity challenges.

 

Indigenous Youth Rome Declarations 

2023: Rome Declaration on Safeguarding Seven Generations in Times of Food, Social and Ecological Crisis

2021: Indigenous Youth Global Declaration on Sustainable and Resilient Food Systems.

2017: Rome Statement on the Contribution of Indigenous Youth Towards a World Without Hunger

References

FAO and the Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT. 2021. Indigenous Peoples’ food systems: insights on sustainability and resilience from the front line of climate change. Rome, FAO. 

FAO. 2020. COVID-19 and Indigenous Peoples. Rome, FAO. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/ca9106en/CA9106EN.pdf)

FAO. 2021. The White/Wiphala Paper on Indigenous Peoples’ food systems. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4932en   

Ford, J.D., King, N., Galappaththi, E.K., Pearce, T., McDowell, G. & Harper, S.L. 2020. The resilience of Indigenous Peoples to environmental change. One Earth, 2(6): 532-543

Galappaththi, E. K., Falardeau, M., Harris, L. N., Rocha, J. C., Moore, J. S., & Berkes, F. (2022). Resilience-based steps for adaptive co-management of Arctic small-scale fisheries. Environmental Research Letters, 17(8), 083004.

Gracey, M., & King, M. (2009). Indigenous health part 1: determinants and disease patterns. The Lancet, 374(9683), 65-75.

Kuhnlein, H.V., Erasmus, B. &Spigelski, D. 2009. Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems: The Many Dimensions of Culture, Diversity and Environment for Nutrition and Health. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 339 pp. 

Kuhnlein, H.V., Erasmus, B., Spigelski, D. &Burlingame, B. 2013. Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems and Wellbeing: Interventions and Policies for Healthy Communities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 398 pp. 

Maudrie TL, Nguyen CJ, Wilbur RE, Mucioki M, Clyma KR, Ferguson GL, Jernigan VBB. Food Security and Food Sovereignty: The Difference Between Surviving and Thriving. Health Promot Pract. 2023 Nov;24(6):1075-1079. doi: 10.1177/15248399231190366. PMID: 37877640.

Parraguez-Vergara, E., Contreras, B., Clavijo, N., Villegas, V., Paucar, N., & Ther, F. (2018). Does indigenous and campesino traditional agriculture have anything to contribute to food sovereignty in Latin America? Evidence from Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 16(4–5), 326–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2018.1489361

Redvers, N., Celidwen, Y., Schultz, C., Horn, O., Githaiga, C., Vera, M., Perdrisat, M., Mad Plume, L., Kobei, D., Cunningham Kain, M., Poelina, A., Rojas, J.N., Blondin, B. The determinants of planetary health: an Indigenous consensus perspective. Lancet Planetary Health 6, E156-E163 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/s2542-5196(21)00354-5

Swinburn, B. A., Kraak, V. I., Allender, S., Atkins, V. J., Baker, P. I., Bogard, J. R., ... & Dietz, W. H. (2019). The global syndemic of obesity, undernutrition, and climate change: the Lancet Commission report. The lancet, 393(10173), 791-846.

Valdivia-Gago, A., Zavaleta-Cortijo, C., Carcamo, C., Berrang-Ford, L., Lancha, G., Pizango, P., ... & IHACC Research Team. (2023). The seasonality of nutrition status in Shawi Indigenous children in the Peruvian Amazon. PLOS Climate, 2(9), e0000284.

Van Uffelen, A., Tanganelli, E., Gerke, A., Bottigliero, F., Drieux, E., Fernández-de-Larrinoa, Y., Milbank, C., Sheibani, S., Strømsø, I., Way, M. and Bernoux, M. 2021. Indigenous youth as agents of change – Actions of Indigenous youth in local food systems during times of adversity. Rome, FAO.