Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

This member contributed to:

    • Dear HLPE-FSN Secretariat, 

      Please find the transcription of an oral knowledge contribution from Atama Katama, Dusun People, Borneo; shared on his behalf and upon his request.

      Best, FAO Indigenous Peoples Unit 

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

      Response to HLPE E-Consultation from an Indigenous Sovereignty perspective

      Transcription of oral knowledge contribution from Atama Katama, Dusun People, Borneo.

      I would like to begin this response by opening and invoking Tumbang Anoi 2019 Protocol (herein “the Protocol”),  which demands the recognition and protection of the Dayak People of the whole of Borneo island, comprising around 10 million people. And through the Dusun Adat system. The Dusun People are the Indigenous Peoples of north Borneo, the Sabah territory of south Malaysia from which I come. The Protocol 2019 is a foundational document for Indigenous Peoples’ sovereignty and governance in Borneo. These principles are non-negotiable and are critical for addressing the contradictions within the HLPE-FSN framework and the key questions that have been posed to Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous youth.

      The Protocol dictates that the Adat Law, which is customary law of the Indigenous Peoples in Borneo, is the “living law”. Not only is it a source of peace and order, but it is also practiced daily as a legitimate foundation for justice and governance in Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei - the three member states of Borneo island. Its principles extend beyond Borneo and offers solutions to Indigenous challenges across Southeast Asia, because the Dayak People are part of a larger group of Indigenous Peoples across Southeast Asia and the Pacific. The Protocol and the Adat Law include food sovereignty, cultural heritage, and the protection, defence and resilience of food and knowledge systems - which are highly relevant to UN concerns around climate change and environment.

      Tumbang Anoi, Adat Law and Colonialism in Borneo.

      The Dusun People of Malaysia and the Dayak People of Indonesia have memories of colonial practices that have disrupted and violated Indigenous Peoples’ lives. These acts weaken our customary law sovereignty and have created the foundation for ongoing marginalisation of Indigenous Peoples. The recent Tumbang Anoi was a process of truth and reconciliation held in 2019 in the territory of Kalimantan, Indonesia. During an international seminar, our leaders from the Malaysian state and from the Brunei state of Borneo gathered together to develop a treaty for peace building - just as their ancestors had done 125 years earlier. The purpose of this action in 2019 was to reclaim lost autonomy and demand the recognition for Dayak and Dusun rights, and our governance and cultural systems within modern legal and political frameworks. The seminar was held on 22-24 July 2019, commemorating the original peace conference held in 1894, when 1000 Dayak leaders gathered to make peace and to end intertribal conflict, such as headhunting and slavery. The 1894 meeting also established the unified Adat legal framework, where 96 items of customary law were created for peacemaking across the Borneo territories - which are described as the rivers, the mountains, the jungles, the coasts, and the manua (the traditional name for country). In 2019, 125 years later, the international seminar was held to reaffirm the importance of Dayak cultural diplomacy, collectively as Dayak Peoples, demanding cultural autonomy. We emphasise the recognition of these customary laws, known as the Adat, which are still practiced, are dynamic, and remain integral to justice and cultural preservation today.

      These customary laws and protocols are set against a backdrop of colonialism in Borneo, and the impacts of colonialism on the Dayaks and Dusuns. In Indonesia, the Dutch colonial regime sought to pacify and exploit the Dayaks for resource exploitation. It suppressed all customary law by imposing colonial systems of law, in doing so weakening the Indigenous governance. The regime exploited natural resources and alienated Indigenous communities from their land through forced labour and land concessions. A large population of the Dayak went deeper into the jungle. The jungle would be encroached by colonisers with intentions to capture or attack and displace the Dayak Peoples who did not want to be part of the colonial regime and civilisation. The Dayak Peoples were labelled as uncivilised and their Dayak identity and autonomy was undermined. The Dutch colonial regime held the territory of the modern day Indonesia for many hundred years.

      In the context of my people, the Dusun People of Sabah, Malaysia: Malaysia was under British colonial rule through the chartered company established in 1884. It colonised our lands and territories for profit, prioritising western monoculture systems of rubber and tobacco plantation and for the extractive timber industry. The colonial rule ignored the traditional governance systems, and began displacing our communities through force, violating our Indigenous land tenure systems. Our traditional Dusun governance systems were suppressed by colonial British law and Christianity was used to erode practices and spiritual beliefs. My ancestors were subjugated to exploitation and assimilation and were forced out of their sacred traditional beings, as people of the forest. Farmlands became commodified through the actions of the British chartered company.

      Our position is clear. In Borneo, we see that the colonial tactics are still evident today - through strategies of divide and rule, the suppression of our Adat, and through the assimilation of traditional food and knowledge systems through various means of modern violence including land and cultural marginalisation.

      With this context, I now respond to the HLPE guiding questions for the e-consultation from an Indigenous Peoples sovereignty perspective.:

      1. Do you agree with the guiding principles indicated? 

      We Indigenous Peoples of Borneo reject the guiding principles listed here. They fail to recognise Indigenous Peoples’ legal authority - in our case, the Adat - and instead appear to view them as supplementary to the state and international legislative authorities that the guiding principles appear to prioritise. The sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples is over all our territories and all of our knowledge systems. The Tumbang Anoi protocol demands the integration of Indigenous laws and justice systems as part of the state and international governance. 

      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? 

      Our position is that Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems are not for mainstreaming or appropriation. The Tumbang Anoi Protocol 2019 reinforces that these food systems are tied to cultural autonomy and territorial rights. They are sacred and are meant to sustain our communities as the true rights-holders - and not to be exploited for any global benefit.

      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 FPIC is often weaponised as a bureaucratic formality against Indigenous Peoples - while actual decisions bypass the individual and community consent. When FPIC is used in international debates and forum, this demonstrates that there is an ability to bypass Indigenous Peoples’ individual and community consent. We have our traditional customary law and seeking FPIC must respect these customary laws and governance systems, and not merely involve NGOs that claim to be and/or represent Indigenous Peoples.

      The ABS mechanism can result in the conversion Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge and resources into a commodity - which directly violates the customary and spiritual principles and obligations of our Peoples and livelihoods. The Protocol insists that these challenges can only be resolved by centering the customary law itself, and by redefining sovereignty beyond the states framework.

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

      Recognising Adat jurisdiction or customary law jurisdictions protects against the external commercialisation of any food and knowledge systems. The protocol calls for political and legal recognition of our customary judges, our customary judging spaces or courts (held by customary chiefs of the law house) in any dispute or resolution intended for the protection of Indigenous Peoples.

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

      Oral traditions are a sacred trust. Decisions and processes relating to how any documentation or recording of oral traditions are used must be led by Indigenous Peoples themselves, under the framework of customary laws and protocols. This follows the Tumbang Anoi protocol, which emphasises the living, customary law. We want to avoid external interference or external ownership of our oral traditions. In the recent in-person meeting of the Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples’ food systems (who also provide a response to this e-consultation), I raised a concern that in Borneo, we have been visited many times by actors from academia in the western world have come to record and document sacred chanting, mantras and other oral traditions. Such documentation has never been returned. Yale University has taken the traditional chants of Indigenous Peoples in the northern part of Sabah, Malaysia, publishing three books as a result, with none of these books ever returned to the descendants of those Shamans who shared their knowledge with Yale for the purpose of Yale’s research. I want to emphasise that the recording of our oral traditions cannot be done in such a way.

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

      We know that Indigenous governance is rooted in customary law or Adat. The Protocol stipulates 94 customary laws. Among these laws are the provisions made to empower the position of customary courts and empower customary leaders as primary decision makers of the tribe. This also recognises Adat law as equal to state law in Malaysia. Under the constitution of Malaysia, the Indigenous Peoples of Sarak have a traditional customary court that is guaranteed under the Malaysian court/justice system. So in terms of agency in governance issues, we already have this in place. We demand that all governance be rooted in customary laws.

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

      Our collective Dayak identity is shared by around 750 distinctive groups, who live according to our customary practices. Here, the Protocol has become a template for cultural diplomacy between tribes from the rivers, mountains, plains and forest. This protocol is a template for the modern affairs of Indigenous Peoples. Such protocols are found among many Indigenous Peoples from all the seven socio-cultural regions. Where they exist, they must become integrated within state and global frameworks.

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

      Our relevant references are our living oral histories, and recognition for our traditional justice and customary systems found in our communities. They are not necessarily found in official records, but these knowledges and customary systems are produced by Peoples, and by the Adat court system, mediated by customary judges.

      Two key references that can be included in the report are the 2019 Tubang Anoi Protocol, and the 1894 Tubang Anoi Peace Agreement - which was a peace accord drafted in Central Kalimantan 125 years earlier in the village of Tubang Anoi. Similar, relevant references are available from many Indigenous Peoples across the world.

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

      We want to emphasise that our ecological governance is based on our customary law or Adat Law. Food practices such as rotational farming and fisheries help to protect sacred sites, and have been proven to be climate resilient strategies. However, we are concerned that these practices are made a commodity by global systems that want to adopt the traditional practices.

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

      For Dayak and Dusun Peoples, our practices have demonstrated that true cross-cultural understandings come from recognising the Indigenous laws as equal to state or  international legal systems. Cultural diplomacy today must rest upon and prioritise mutual respect and Indigenous sovereignty.

      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? 

      This is related to the response to question 3 - and I reemphasise that these legal documents are still insufficient. Our Protocol demands recognition and institutionalisation of the traditional justice and governance systems as binding legal entities, with and through modern laws. We demand the replacement of extractive frameworks with mechanisms based living law and customary justice. Under systems of customary laws, perpetrators of law are held accountable for their actions, whereas abusers of FPIC and ABS are rarely, if ever sanctioned. In its current form, FPIC and ABS will never be accountable to its abuse against Indigenous Peoples. We therefore need to place and prioritise our customary frameworks of living law and justice above them, as binding legal entities, in order to regulate and facilitate a true process of FPIC and ABS.

      To conclude, we are not simply asking for inclusion in global frameworks, but demanding that our sovereignty, our laws and our systems be recognised as equal and binding.

       

      See the attachments:

    • 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.

      [4]The program was based on knowledge gained from participatory research within the community on the traditional food system and involved community-based health promotion activities and events (including school presentations, community gardens, and food preservation demonstrations), and publications, including a handbook and recipe book of traditional Nuxalk foods. Since the NFNP of the 1980s, more than 116 more community health projects have been initiated in the region, some of which are documented in Kuhnlein et al., 2013.  

      [5] The agenda item states: “Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems, and traditional knowledge and practices are either misunderstood or unknown, which often result in incomplete or inadequate policy tools”.

      [6] See also FAO (2016) for a full description.

      See the attachments:

    • Dear FSN colleagues,

      Please allow me to write to you in reference to the online e-consultation “Guidance on strengthening national science-policy interfaces for agrifood systems – Draft report”.

      Kindly find the contribution of the Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems to the e-consultation.  

      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, UN Agencies, Indigenous Peoples. The Global-Hub aims to generate evidence on the sustainability and resilience of Indigenous Peoples’ food systems whilst putting Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems and academic science at same level of respect and consideration. Today, the Global-Hub brings together 31 members and 2 collaborators. FAO Indigenous Peoples Unit acts as Secretariat.  

      I remain attentive to any feedback that you might have.

      Thank you very much and best regards,

      Anne Brunel

      Technical Officer

      Coordinator, Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems

      Indigenous Peoples Unit

      Partnerships and UN Collaboration Division (PSU)

      CONTRIBUTION

      Contribution from the Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems to the FSN Forum e-consultation: Guidance on strengthening national science-policy interfaces for agrifood systems – Draft report.

      1. When you think about advancing an SPI for agri-food systems in your country, what is the greatest challenge that the FAO guidance, such as presented here, can help address? What suggestions do you have to make the guidance more practical and useable at the country level?

      In its current form, the draft guidance does well to acknowledge Indigenous Peoples as key knowledge holders. This is a welcome advancement in comparison to narratives commonly used that refer to Indigenous knowledge without putting Indigenous Peoples at the centre and recognizing them as knowledge holders. 

      However, when thinking about translating the guidance to national level, the draft could do more to further stress that Indigenous Peoples are also distinctive rights holders. Many countries still do not recognise Indigenous Peoples’ distinct identity and their associated bundle of rights (UN, 2007), nor their distinctive status as knowledge holders. Even where Indigenous Peoples are recognised as thus, their rights are often violated. This includes rights to self-determined development; free, prior and informed consent (FPIC); and rights to protect, maintain and control their knowledge, as enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). This also implies the right to respect their self-governance systems in decision-making and implementation.

      The importance to respect those rights has been reiterated by Indigenous Peoples and leaders in recent several instances. In March 2024, the three UN Mechanisms on Indigenous Peoples, namely the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), the Special rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples (SRIP), and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP), issued a joint statement recalling the importance to recognize Indigenous Peoples as right and knowledge holders. Consequently, they requested to stop the use of the term Indigenous Peoples in conjunction with local communities, as well as the use of the acronym “IPLC”. They also requested to refer to “Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge”, rather than to “Indigenous knowledge” in order to emphasize the ownership of Indigenous Peoples over their knowledge. In the same context, consideration should be given to the use of the terms “traditional” food and “Indigenous” food. Indigenous Peoples’ food should refer only to the use of the food by Indigenous Peoples, which would also be their traditional food.  Traditional food of other cultures should have the name of that culture or territory attached, and not be assumed to be the food of Indigenous Peoples.  The terms “indigenous food” or “Indigenous food”, meaning food species that evolved in a particular ecosystem, should be discontinued. 

      In October 2023, the II Session of the UN Global Indigenous Youth Forum resulted in the 2023 Rome Declaration on Safeguarding Seven Generations in times of Food, Social, and Ecological Crisis, in which the Indigenous Youth urge to stop the exploitation of Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems by external actors. Whilst recognizing the power of their knowledge to support the sustainable transformation of food systems worldwide, they also demanded support for the preservation and strengthening of their knowledge systems based on Indigenous Peoples’ values and orality. Guidance such as this can help to address this challenge, urging countries to address violations of Indigenous Peoples’ rights as they seek to include and work them within SPIs.

      The FAO guidance must emphasise that the development of SPIs must be accompanied by strong foundational, within-country support for Indigenous Peoples rights – or else, the SPI risks exacerbating Indigenous Peoples marginalisation, the exploitative use of their knowledge, and policy implementation excluding them. This emphasis could be brought out particularly within Section 5.1 (Operationalisation of an SPI), which currently does not mention engagement with rightsholders, nor associated processes such as FPIC.

      A few suggestions to make FAO guidance more practical at country-level, could be to include:

      • Frameworks for good and ethical participatory engagement of Indigenous Peoples in decision and policy making processes. 

      • Provide guidance on mechanism for equitable benefit sharing to address power imbalance in benefit of Indigenous Peoples.

      • Provide guidance on clear and transparent mechanisms for conflicts resolution when Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems confront dominant scientific knowledge, leading to scientific recommendations and policies.

      • Case studies that highlight examples of successful work with Indigenous Peoples and integration of their knowledge in policies.

      • Tools allowing knowledge translation to ensure that Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems and associated terminologies, values, practices, know-how and cosmovisions, are accurately understood and valued within other knowledge systems, in particular the dominant scientific knowledge system.

      • Engagement with Indigenous Peoples to be completed in the local language, or with the assistance of local, Indigenous translators, to enable the participation and inclusion of diverse community members (particularly elders and women, who may be less likely to speak the dominant, national language).

      Bodies of research highlight some cases where Indigenous Peoples recognize a need to gain technical knowledge and thus contribute to resource management led by techno-centric authorities. However, they express the wish to see two-way knowledge-sharing, where resource management authorities also learn about Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems (Stevenson 2006). This runs counter to common science communication practice which posit knowledge-sharing as one-way knowledge-transfer from techno-scientific authorities to local ‘lay’ actors (Ghorbani, et al., 2021). 

      2. Are the sections/elements identified in the draft guidance the key ones to strengthen SPIs at the national level? If not, which other elements should be considered? Are there any other issues that have not been sufficiently covered in the draft guidance? Are any sections/topics under- or over-represented in relation to their importance?

      In its current form, the guidance gives good recognition to Indigenous Peoples and their knowledge systems as critical to advancing sustainable food systems transformation. However, there is a tendency within the report to focus only on the inclusivity of diverse knowledge holders (such as Indigenous Peoples) on the “science” side of the interface. In contrast, on the “policy” side of the interface, the guidance currently underemphasises the importance of inclusion and participation of Indigenous Peoples in decision making and implementation, in virtue of UNDRIP and their right to self-governance. Especially given historical top-down processes of policy implementation, it is important to ensure that Indigenous Peoples are enabled to remain principal agents in the sharing and use of their knowledge and decide what and how policies are made that may directly or indirectly affect them, their territories, or natural resources. Currently, bottom-up approaches and community-level decision making are given only superficial mention within the guidance (page 44); instead, decisionmakers/implementers are assumed to be those already in power. The draft guidance should address this power imbalance within its reporting.

      On the science side, scientists and science usually produce knowledge on priorities that are relevant to their discipline or their funders; similarly, Indigenous Peoples' knowledge is based on their own livelihood priorities and identified needs (e.g. can be decided at household and community levels relative to key risks experienced), therefore it is important to balance the participation of multiple knowledge holders. This will help to ensure the of knowledge shared with policymakers responds not only to the dominant science, but also to the knowledge holders.

      The guidance could also do more to showcase Indigenous Peoples not as a homogenous group of knowledge holders but recognising the diverse array of Indigenous Peoples, cultures, spiritualities, cosmovisions, and thus knowledge holders often found across and within Indigenous Peoples’ communities. For example, within Indigenous Peoples’ communities, Indigenous women are often overlooked both as important knowledge holders (e.g. on matters relating to food gathering, seed selection and saving, biodiversity, and food preparation), as well as overlooked within policy and national statistics. Similarly, Indigenous elders often hold important knowledge on customary governance and territorial management practices, as well as medicinal plant use. 

      The importance of knowledge transmission within Indigenous Peoples’ communities (e.g. between elders and youth, or between age and gender categories) is also important to the longevity and evolution of the science-policy interface.  In this regard, we also draw attention to the importance of Indigenous education systems, which promote learning and knowledge transmission on Indigenous Peoples’ knowledges and cultures. ‘Education’ is usually understood to mean ‘schooling’, and priority is often given to the voices of those that have higher levels of schooling and can thus converse more easily with western scientists – rather than those that have high levels of Indigenous education. The promotion of dominant educational models and participation of Indigenous children in formal schooling often undermines the transmission of Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems. The link between Indigenous education and the transmission and perpetuation of Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems should be fully recognized, and priority given to supporting those that have high levels of Indigenous education, even if they do not have high levels of schooling.

      Diverse “formats/media” of knowledge must also be noted. For Indigenous Peoples, knowledge is often not written – but orally transmitted and/or performative, tied to specific places, things, experiences. Their knowledge systems are based on observations, know-how, local appropriate technologies, techniques, creation stories and ceremonial practices that they teach through storytelling, skits, popular folklore, songs, poems, art, dance, objects and artefacts, and during ceremonies (FAO, 2021). The strength of Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge in relation to the transformation towards more sustainable food systems lies in its local situatedness. 

      Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems are bodies of science. Indigenous Peoples refine their knowledge systems through experimentation and accumulated observation of the environment, adjusting their responses over time. This has enabled Indigenous Peoples not only to understand natural cycles, weather patterns and wildlife behaviour but also to develop a day-to-day practical de facto experimentation based on this observation. Given their direct living and long-term exclusive interactions with their local ecosystems, Indigenous Peoples have developed abilities to know and understand their territories and resources as well as their functions and capacities. This final point of difference is perhaps most important in terms of identifying effective and sensitive food policy solutions. Acknowledging difference between different knowledge systems, as well as the local, cultural, spiritual, linguistic and cosmogonic aspects inherent to Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems, can still be of value to SPIs (FAO, 2021).

      3. In order to make the guidance as concrete as possible, we are including numerous boxes/cases studies on real-life use cases. In this context, please contribute 300-450 words on examples, success stories or lessons learnt from countries that have/are strengthening SPIs for agrifood systems, including addressing asymmetries in power, collaboration across knowledge systems, connecting across scales, capacity development activities and fostering learning among SPIs.

      Higher education institutions can play a key role in capacity development and collaboration across knowledge systems (Naepi, 2019). The Knowledge Makers Programme of Thompson Rivers University, Canada, is an example initiative that has successfully promoted Indigenous-led education, and imbued power and value to Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge. The Knowledge Makers programme began in 2016 and is a collaborative teaching initiative where Indigenous students learn how to research, and how to publish research, as Indigenous researchers. Based at Thompson Rivers University, The Knowledge Makers Programme bring together up to 20 Indigenous undergraduate students each year from across the university to learn how to ‘make knowledge’ through a multi-modal approach. The programme also boasts its own journal: the Knowledge Makers Journal is a peer-reviewed Indigenous interdisciplinary journal that showcases research from current and alumni Knowledge Makers, Indigenous staff, and Indigenous academics, along with ally scholars from Canada and internationally. For instance, the Knowledge Makers Programme has launched a special volume that included Indigenous students from the United States, Mexico, New Zealand and Australia. Since its establishment in 2016, over 100 articles have been published by Indigenous (mostly involving women) researchers. Most recently Knowledge Makers also completed a training program and launched a journal in collaboration with FAO that saw 16 Indigenous women from 16 different countries receive training and write up their research in their own volume of Knowledge Makers https://bit.ly/3P4l4EV. 

      4. Is there additional information that should be included? Are there any key references, publications, or traditional or different kind of knowledges, that are missing in the draft, and which should be considered?

      The White/Wiphala paper on Indigenous Peoples’ food systems (FAO, 2021) may be usefully included within the guidance. The publication of The White/Wiphala Paper ahead of the UN Food Systems Summit in 2021 marked a pivotal moment for the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge within science-policy processes relating to food systems. The paper comprised more than 60 contributions from Indigenous and non-Indigenous experts from six out of the seven socio-cultural regions and sought to characterise Indigenous Peoples’ food systems, the ways that they support diverse and nutritious diets, support biodiversity conservation and climate change, and the drivers they face. The drafting of the paper was motivated by the apparent lack of recognition and inclusion of Indigenous Peoples within the Summit agenda – indeed, in the build-up to the summit, many Indigenous groups considered boycotting the Summit due to their perceived exclusion. The White/Wiphala Paper was eventually accepted by the UNFSS Scientific Group as a key reference text for the Summit. Indigenous Peoples were included on the agenda of the Summit and the Coalition on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems was formed as a direct outcome of the Summit. The paper is a concrete example of successful collaboration between diverse knowledge systems, and the ways in which such collaboration can enhance equitable dialogue within SPIs.

      We are pleased to see the emphasis on finding common vocabulary and conceptual frameworks on pages 39-40. In this vein, we draw attention to the ongoing work of the Indigenous Peoples’ Unit in FAO to amend the AGROVOC to include Indigenous Peoples’ terminology. Together with Open Institute, FAO works with Indigenous Peoples in the Pacific, Latin America and Africa region in order to connect terms usually used in policy discussions together with Indigenous Peoples’ terms and cosmogonies. The overall objective is to acknowledge commonalities and differences in languages, concepts and their semantic spread amongst the 5000 Indigenous Peoples’ groups worldwide in order to bridge the gap of worldviews, and foster better informed policy-making. Furthermore, Indigenous Peoples speak 4 000 out of the 6 700 languages remaining worldwide (UNDPI, 2018). As identified in the FAO and Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT publication “Indigenous Peoples’ food systems: insights of sustainability and resilience from the front line of climate change” (2021), there are numerous examples of Indigenous foods that are not identified by neither the dominant language in the country, nor the Linnaean scientific classification. The publication gathers the profiling of 8 Indigenous Peoples’ food systems conducted by and with Indigenous Peoples and organizations, universities. This further emphasize the need to include Indigenous Peoples as knowledge and right holders to any policy discussions, making and implementation that would impact their territories or food systems.

      Emphasis could also be placed on the importance of generating data differentiated for Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous women and Indigenous youth globally. This will improve the generation of knowledge based on the diversity of populations in the world, specially to understand the impacts of agrifood systems in the nutrition and health of Indigenous Peoples. The report by Anderson et al (2016) found that for indicators of malnutrition and obesity, Indigenous children in 8 to 10 countries had worse status compared with non-Indigenous Peoples – however it also noted the severe paucity of data on Indigenous Peoples from which to draw such conclusions. Science-policy interfaces can only be enhanced based on the availability of comprehensive and representative data from all populations across the world.

      In Box 10, the guidance may also refer to existing guidelines on good research practice engaging Indigenous Peoples, many of which have been developed by Indigenous Peoples themselves. Examples include that of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, Secwepemc Nation and University of Saskatchewan. 

      As example, the Andean Potato Park in Cusco, Peru, provides example of an evolutionary plant breeding site managed by Indigenous Peoples. This park is a centre of origin and domestication for crops such as potatoes, quinoa, and amaranth. The Quechua people of the park have developed a collective and customary governance structure that includes learning and exchange systems, seed banks, and more. They manage a rich diversity of underutilized species and varieties, including ancestral populations of crops, based on Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge, values, and worldviews (Swiderska and al., 2022). 

      References:

       

      See the attachments:

    • Contribution from the Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems.

      Analysis of the complexities and practical problems associated with science-policy interfaces

      • Do you have an understanding of how agrifood systems policy is enacted in your country or at the regional or international levels?
      • Are you aware of opportunities to contribute science, evidence and knowledge to policy at national, regional or global levels?

      In 2021 during the UN Food Systems Summit, the Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems together with many Indigenous Peoples from across the world contributed to the global debate on sustainable food systems, highlighting how their knowledge systems could inform the global debate on sustainable food systems. This was achieved through the coordination of the writing of the White/Wiphala paper on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems that compiles 60 contributions from Indigenous and non-Indigenous experts from 6 of the 7 socio-cultural regions. The paper played a fundamental role in the recognition by the international scientific community of Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems, and their role in the sustainability and climate resilience.

      The Global-Hub has contributed to the several consultations:

      • “Reducing inequalities for food security and nutrition”, HLPE report to be presented at the 51st plenary session of the CFS in October 2023; The Global-Hub commented on the scope of the report, and on the V0 of the report.
      • “Data collection and analysis tools for food security and nutrition”, HLPE report presented on the 50th plenary session of the CFS.
      • A/HRC/51/28: Indigenous Women and the development, application, preservation and transmission of scientific and technical knowledge, report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples.
      • What kind of knowledge and evidence is privileged in such processes?
      • What are the strengths and weaknesses of the processes you are aware of?

      Despite those great achievements, Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems, still remain often relegated to the lowest level of hierarchies of evidence (Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems, 2021).  There are still several barriers for Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems to be fully considered as a valid source of evidence for policy making. Three of them are identified and described below:  

      1. Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems can be unknown to the dominant academic system 

      Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems are based on observations, know-how, local appropriate technologies, techniques, creation stories and ceremonial practices. Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge is likely not found in written publications. It is rather mainly oral and transmitted within Indigenous communities for millennia through storytelling, skits, popular folklore, songs, poems, art, dance, objects and artefacts, and during ceremonies. In this context, it constitutes a body of knowledge that is pluralistic, linked to the local ecosystems, the culture, the values, the languages, the spirituality and the cosmogony of Indigenous Peoples. It is therefore not possible to consider Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems in dissociation with the people who generated and maintained the knowledge through time, and associated with this, their culture, language, and ecosystem in which they live.

      Unless shared by Indigenous Peoples themselves, Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge and innovations often remain de facto unknown and hardly accessible by the scientific community.

      1. Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems are often misunderstood and relegated to the lowest level of hierarchies of evidence

      Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems are often regarded as un- or less scientific, anecdotal, and inapplicable to and/or incapable of addressing emerging global challenges because of their common characteristics of being based on accumulated observations of local phenomena, often held in oral rather than written forms, and holistic rather than specialist. On the contrary,  dominant scientific knowledge is written (mostly in English), can be stored and analysed, and has historically been conceived as universal knowledge that can be transported and usefully applied in multiple and diverse contexts (Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems, 2021).

      As a result, there are countless historical examples whereby dominant science and technologies have been privileged over traditional knowledge systems, resulting in the top-down implementation of irrelevant, contextually inappropriate and ineffective policy solutions that have exacerbated social disparities and social exclusion (Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems, 2021). Despite well-intended, several development policies have failed to reach Indigenous Peoples through not having taken account of Indigenous Peoples' perceptions of well-being and what they themselves deem as necessary to improve their status.

      Indigenous Peoples holds the traditional knowledge that they have developed for millennia to ensure their survival and the sustainability of their food systems and livelihoods. It is an element of proof showing the sustainability and resilience of their food systems. Indigenous Peoples have demonstrated their capacity to innovate through time, while adapting the ever-changing environmental conditions in their territory, and sometimes shocks. Undervaluing Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems disregards this strong adaptation capacity of Indigenous Peoples, while ability to maintain a rich biodiversity on their territories.

      1. Indigenous Peoples lack recognition as knowledge holders.

      In this context, traditional knowledge of Indigenous Peoples constitutes a body of knowledge that is pluralistic, linked to the ecosystems, the culture, the values, the languages, the spirituality and the cosmogony of Indigenous Peoples. It is not possible to consider Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems in dissociation with the people who generated and maintained the knowledge through time.

      Recognizing that Indigenous Peoples are knowledge holders is the pre-requisite in policy-making that could affect them. In addition, Indigenous Peoples have rights that pertain to them. Their knowledge systems are associated to a bundle of rights for which Indigenous Peoples have fought for several decades. In particular the right to self-determined economic, social and cultural development as per the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the right to free, prior and informed consent as per the ILO Convention 169. As a recommendation, the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in policy-making should be go beyond participation. It should rather ensure full ownership on their knowledge and data for innovation by them and for them or others (with their consent). This is a concern and a request that Indigenous Peoples have made in many occurrences[1], not only when it comes to policy-making, but also when it comes to knowledge preservation or co-creation with other actors.

      However despite those challenges, the recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge systems is not new. There has long been acknowledgement that Indigenous Peoples are well placed to provide expert contributions to global debates on sustainable food systems. The increasing recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge and perspective in global assessments produced by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), confirm this trend (Global-Hub on Indigenous People’ Food Systems, 2021).

      • What opportunities and challenges have you faced for drawing from sustainability science, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity to inform policy?
      • How can power asymmetries among stakeholders be taken effectively into account in science-policy processes?

      There is an urgent need to acknowledge Indigenous Peoples as both knowledge and right holders.

      Indigenous Peoples’ rights are framed in international frameworks. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirms the rights to self-determined economic, social and cultural development, the right to food and the right to free, prior and informed consent as per the ILO convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples.

      Indigenous peoples have experienced violation of their rights for centuries, in particular through the extraction of their knowledge. Use of plants and animals traditionally held by Indigenous Peoples by the pharmaceutic industry is a well-known example. Practically, the principle of co-creation of knowledge needs to be implemented, from the design of research methodologies, to the use and ownership of results and data in accordance with their own traditional governance systems.

      Co-creation of knowledge needs to be at the center, ensuring that knowledge systems are considered with same level of respect and consideration. On the one hand, too often Indigenous Peoples have seen their knowledge extracted for commercial purpose without their consent. On the other hand, too often Indigenous Peoples have been imposed innovations from other dominant actors denying their traditional knowledge systems and practices.

      Knowledge production for policy

      • What actions do you take to align your research to problems and challenges faced by agrifood systems?
      • In what ways are the research questions in your sphere of work framed by academic interests and/or funders’ focus?
      • To what extent do you feel research and policy-making communities in your sphere of work are united in their understanding of the challenges facing agrifood systems? 
      • To what extent do you work across disciplines and/or draw on expertise from academic and non-academic actors including Indigenous Peoples and small-scale producers?
      • To what extent, and in what ways, is your research co-produced with other knowledge holders and non-academic-stakeholders important for informing policy in agrifood systems?

      Knowledge translation for policy making

      • To what extent does your organization/university support you to produce and disseminate knowledge products to a range of audiences?
      • How does it create/maintain institutional linkages between producers and users of research? Describe any dedicated resources for knowledge translation that are in place.
      • Please describe any incentives or rewards in place for effective, sustained policy engagement, for example successfully conducting policy-relevant research and for its dissemination.
      • Please tell us about any activities that you or your organization / university engage in to collate evidence for policy, such as evidence synthesis activities, or guideline development.
      • Do you or your organization / university engage in processes to build evidence into agrifood policy processes such as government consultations, government knowledge management systems, digital decision-support systems, web portals, etc.? Please tell us more.
      • Do you or your organization / university contribute to efforts to ensure that evidence is provided for policy making which is grounded in an understanding of a national (or sub-national) contexts (including time constraints), demand-driven, and focused on contextualizing the evidence for a given decision in an equitable way? If so, please tell us more.

      Assessing evidence

      • What makes evidence credible, relevant and legitimate to different audiences, and how might we balance their different requirements?
      • How can evidence be assessed in a rigorous, transparent and neutral manner?
      • How can assessments of evidence best be communicated to all stakeholders?

      Examples

      • Please share any examples of how the science, evidence and knowledge generated through your work or the work of your organization / university has subsequently fed into decision-making.

      The White/Wiphala paper on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems played a fundamental role in the recognition by the international scientific community of Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems, and their role in the sustainability and climate resilience. It has been pivotal towards in the creation of the Coalition on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems as one of the outcomes of the UN Food Systems Summit. The paper compiles 60 contributions from Indigenous and non-Indigenous experts from 6 of the 7 socio-cultural regions. On the occasion of the publication of the White/Wiphala paper, the Global-Hub organized an exchange of knowledge with the Scientific Group of the UN Food Systems Summit, and in presence of the FAO Chief Scientist, and FAO Chief Economist.

      The Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems is currently coordinating the drafting of a new collective paper on Indigenous Peoples’ mobile livelihoods and collective rights to their territories, lands, waters, and natural resources. Similarly to the white/wiphala paper, the collective paper will compiles contributions from Indigenous and non-Indigenous experts from across the world.

      The Global-Hub is planning to organize two other exchanges of knowledge:

      - In March 2023, in the frame of the working session organized by the FAO division on Inclusive Rural Transformation and Gender Equality Division (ESP) on Shaping priorities for investment in Resilient, Inclusive Rural Transformation (RITI). The exchange of knowledge will focus on Indigenous Peoples and indicators of poverty;

      - during the first trimester of 2023, with the High-Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) to share perspective on the contributions Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems could bring to the global debate on sustainable food systems.

      References

      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

      [1] Recommendations expressed by Indigenous leaders during the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit, and based on the White/Wiphala paper on Indigenous Peoples’ food systems. See also the Indigenous Peoples Rome Declaration on the Arctic Region Fisheries and Environment, the final report of the 2018 High-Level Expert Seminar on Indigenous Peoples’ food systems, and many other examples.