Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Kia ora ra,

Please find attached my contribution to the HLPE-FSN Consultation on Preserving, strengthening and promoting Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems and traditional practices for sustainable food systems.

It is noted that the criteria for the panel of experts to consider the submissions may directly contravene the purpose of this Consultation.  A panel of experts considering Indigenous Knowledge systems and traditional practices for sustainable food systems should have equitable opportunities for Indigenous peoples with a 'seat at the table,' to engage, integrate and validate Indigenous knowledge with, as opposed to against, the scientific rigour of western frameworks.  An integrated approach would provide a more balanced and robust analysis, for if we ask the same people, we shall receive the same response.  

Create space on the HLPE for Indigenous knowledge holders and practitioners for a more robust and rigorous consultation.

Aku mihi nui.

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

• Recognise and Value Indigenous Knowledge: Policies must integrate mātauranga Māori alongside Western scientific approaches to ensure cultural and ecological knowledge are equally valued. This supports the broader objective of enhancing equity and inclusiveness in global food systems.
• Embed Kaitiakitanga in Policy: The integration of kaitiakitanga ensures that food security policies are based on stewardship, emphasising regenerative agriculture and biodiversity conservation as foundational principles for long-term sustainability.
• Foster Partnerships and Co-Governance: Effective food security strategies must include Indigenous-led co-governance models, like the management of Te Urewera. Such partnerships allow Indigenous Peoples to shape policy, ensuring that strategies are culturally appropriate and effective.
• Support Indigenous Rights and Land Tenure: Secure land rights and self-determination (tino rangatiratanga) for Māori and other Indigenous communities by aligning policies with international agreements like UNDRIP and the ICESCR, which emphasise the right to food and land sovereignty.

This holistic approach promotes inclusive, resilient food systems that prioritise Indigenous rights and knowledge, ensuring that global food security strategies align with sustainable and equitable development goals.

Summary of Answers from different INSUAH Partners:

1. Agreement with Guiding Principles 
   Traditional knowledge is not limited to Indigenous Peoples; in some regions, traditional knowledge can also help improve resilience in food supply chains and contribute to environmental sustainability and human rights. This inclusion should be acknowledged in the policy framework. Additionally, it is critical to emphasize the role of scientific rigor, inclusivity, and cross-sectoral collaboration in creating sustainable food systems.
   The guiding principles proposed in the report are supported, as they offer a framework for preserving Indigenous Peoples' food and knowledge systems. This approach emphasizes rights-based policies that include Indigenous Peoples' rights, the right to food, and the rights of nature. The principles uphold Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) and Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS), focusing on Indigenous sovereignty.
2. Mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems 
   It is suggested that Indigenous Peoples' food systems and the lessons they offer should be mainstreamed for the benefit of all. However, this must be done with respect for Indigenous Peoples' property rights to prevent exploitation. Practices like agroforestry and the cultivation of diverse crops, such as medicinal plants and traditional foods, showcase resilient systems that reduce dependency on single food sources and contribute to food security. Examples like the Sundanese "nyaneut" meal, which incorporates roots and bananas instead of relying solely on rice, can be models for global food resilience.
3. Challenges in Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) and Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) 
   A significant challenge is that knowledge considered a "common good" in market-oriented contexts can be commodified, leading to exploitation without adequate consent. Indigenous communities often face misappropriation of their knowledge and practices without fair compensation. The absence of strong legal frameworks results in unfair benefit-sharing, which undermines their sovereignty. To address this, stronger protection measures, such as special patent systems or prohibiting patent claims by profit-driven organizations, would help safeguard Indigenous knowledge.
4. Inclusion of Marginalized Groups and Protection from Commercialization Risks 
   The report should adopt rights-based approaches to protect biodiversity and Indigenous food systems while ensuring marginalized groups' contributions are recognized. Strengthening mechanisms like ABS will help protect Indigenous Peoples from exploitation. It is vital to emphasize the role of traditional knowledge in fostering sustainable food practices and building resilient, locally-led solutions that respect cultural integrity and support community-driven food security. Moreover, it is suggested that there be special protections against the commercialization of Indigenous knowledge systems.
5. Documenting Oral Knowledge and Traditions 
   The documentation of Indigenous knowledge should be approached with cultural sensitivity and respect for intellectual property. Tools like an "Atlas of heritage" could be used to register this knowledge. An example is the Indonesian Cirendeu community’s practice of cultivating cassava, which goes beyond a food source to serve as a means of cultural preservation. Documentation must follow FPIC principles to ensure voluntary, participatory, and ethical collection of knowledge, preventing unauthorized commercialization.
6. Addressing Indigenous Peoples’ Agency and Governance 
   The report should highlight Indigenous Peoples’ participation in governance, particularly regarding land tenure, resource management, and food sovereignty. Indigenous communities must have authority over decisions impacting their ecosystems and livelihoods, and the recognition of traditional governance structures will further affirm their rights. This would enable Indigenous Peoples to influence policies related to biodiversity conservation, sustainable practices, and equitable food systems at all levels of governance.
7. Missing Policy Papers and Instruments 
   While the foundational documents list is comprehensive, it could benefit from considering urban food systems. Indigenous knowledge is no longer confined to isolated communities; it has traveled to urban areas, where it is maintained and cultivated by people with roots in these practices. Excluding urban food systems might be a shortcoming. Furthermore, integrating the Global Framework on Food Systems from the UN Food Systems Summit and the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework would strengthen the rights-based approaches and support the integration of Indigenous perspectives in global food security and biodiversity conservation.
8. Relevant References to Include 
   Miltenburg E, Neufeld HT, Anderson K. Relationality, Responsibility and Reciprocity: Cultivating Indigenous Food Sovereignty within Urban Environments. Nutrients. 2022 Apr 22;14(9):1737. doi: 10.3390/nu14091737. PMID: 35565705; PMCID: PMC9105266.
9. Best Practices and Strategies for Addressing Climate Change 
   Indigenous communities possess invaluable knowledge for sustainable natural resource management, which is crucial in addressing climate change. Practices like traditional agroforestry, including homegardens, contribute to biodiversity, ecological stability, and food security while offering solutions for climate adaptation. Such systems help mitigate climate change by promoting carbon sequestration and enhancing environmental resilience. These practices should be integrated with ecosystem-based approaches to ensure food sovereignty and respect for Indigenous rights through FPIC.
10. Promoting Cross-Cultural Understanding 
    Promoting cross-cultural understanding requires inclusive education and training, particularly for the younger generation, integrating Indigenous knowledge with academic knowledge. An example is the collaboration with the Baduy people (Indonesia), where they shared their knowledge of natural resource management and food security. This cross-cultural exchange builds bridges between cultures, fostering mutual respect and shared learning.
11. Revisions to FPIC and Related Legal Documents 
    As Indigenous Peoples' knowledge systems continue to evolve, there is a need for systematic updates to legal frameworks such as FPIC. The increasing pressures of commercialization, digital rights, and the protection of intellectual property necessitate revisions to address contemporary concerns. Updated policies should prioritize Indigenous sovereignty over traditional knowledge and ensure equity, sustainability, and cultural integrity.

In a Nutshell:
INSUAH Recommends:

1. Protect Indigenous Knowledge and Rights: Strengthen policies like FPIC and ABS to ensure Indigenous Peoples retain control over their knowledge systems. Introduce protective measures to prevent the commercialization of traditional knowledge without fair compensation, such as prohibiting patenting by profit-driven entities.
2. Integrate Indigenous Knowledge in Food Systems and Climate Strategies: Include Indigenous knowledge in both urban and rural food systems as they offer innovative solutions for global food resilience. Integrate traditional agroforestry and sustainable practices into climate adaptation strategies to support biodiversity conservation and climate resilience.
3. Promote Cross-Cultural Education and Dialogue: Support educational initiatives that combine Indigenous knowledge with academic learning. These programs can build bridges between cultures, fostering mutual understanding and addressing global challenges like food security and climate change through shared knowledge.
4. Regularly Update Legal Frameworks: Continuously revise legal frameworks such as FPIC and ABS to adapt to evolving challenges, including digital rights and intellectual property, ensuring Indigenous Peoples’ rights are safeguarded in the context of commercialization pressures.
5. Expand Inclusivity and Recognize Diversity: Acknowledge the diversity within Indigenous and Traditional Communities, particularly in urban settings, and ensure their knowledge is integrated into broader food systems for more inclusive and sustainable outcomes.
6. Support Traditional Practices for Sustainability: Revitalize and support traditional agroforestry and food systems to enhance climate resilience, food sovereignty, and biodiversity, recognizing their importance for sustainable development.
7. Ethical Documentation with Consent: Develop participatory, ethical methods for documenting Indigenous knowledge, ensuring that community rights and cultural integrity are respected in all documentation efforts.
8. Establish Protective Mechanisms: Introduce legal protections to prevent the exploitation of Indigenous knowledge, ensuring that it is not commercially appropriated without equitable benefit-sharing.

Estimados colegas del GANESAN,
 

adjuntamos la contribución del MSCPI a la consulta sobre el alcance del informe sobre la creación de sistemas alimentarios resilientes.
Un cordial saludo,
Secretaría del MSCPI en nombre del Grupo de Trabajo sobre conocimientos y sistemas alimentarios de Pueblos Indígenas del MSCPI

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

Insumo del Mecanismo de la Sociedad Cívil y Pueblos Indígenas (MSCPI)

Opiniones iniciales

El nombre del estudio se refiere a la “Conservación, fortalecimiento y promoción de los sistemas alimentarios y de conocimientos y las prácticas tradicionales de los Pueblos Indígenas en favor de los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles”. 

Al respecto del uso de la palabra “tradicionales” en referencia a los conocimientos, si bien en el artículo 31 de la Declaración de las Naciones unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas se encuentran las expresiones: “conocimientos tradicionales y expresiones culturales tradicionales”; esta redacción por parte de los Estados sigue siendo etnocéntrico, racista y clasista; en consecuencia, devalúa el sistema de conocimientos de los Pueblos Indígenas. Esta corriente es cuidada celosamente por la UNESCO que no representa la voz, los intereses y los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas. 

El Relator Especial sobre los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas, José Francisco Calí Tzay en su estudio: Las mujeres indígenas y el desarrollo, la aplicación, la preservación y la transmisión de los conocimientos científicos y técnicos (2022) posiciona el uso de la expresión “conocimientos científicos y técnicos” en vez de conocimientos “tradicionales” o “consuetudinarios” atendiendo a las peticiones de evitar términos que devalúen las ideas de los Pueblos Indígenas. Históricamente, los conocimientos indígenas se han considerado primitivos, inferiores, poco científicos, supersticiosos o incluso peligrosos. Calificar los conocimientos indígenas de “científicos y técnicos” resalta el hecho de que se basan en observaciones y tienen un carácter contemporáneo y dinámico y no estático ni fijo en el tiempo. Subraya además que los conocimientos indígenas son un conjunto sofisticado de formas de comprensión cuyo valor no es inferior al de otros tipos de conocimientos que a menudo constituyen el fundamento de la ciencia “occidental”. Por ejemplo, actualmente los científicos reivindican que se reconozcan y apoyen los sistemas de conocimientos científicos indígenas para preservar los recursos naturales y mitigar los efectos del cambio climático (A/HRC/51/28 párrafo 8). 

En síntesis, se pretende no supeditar los conocimientos de los Pueblos Indígenas a otros sistemas, ni en la teoría ni en la práctica. 

El siguiente caso ilustra lo que se viene planteando[1]: 

Lideres de la Comunidad Puerto Arica, departamento de Amazonas, Colombia; se encuentran sumamente preocupados ante decisión de los funcionarios de excluir los sistemas alimentarios indígenas del programa gubernamental de auxilio alimentario. Argumentan falta de información técnico-científico que lo respalda, por lo tanto, dudan de su eficacia.  

Sorprendidos por dicha postura, en este momento los líderes estan buscando apoyo profesional con expertos en nutrición, ciencias químicas y trabajadores sociales para documentar qué nutrientes contiene la dieta indígena y demostrar que la misma es saludable. Con esta medida desean desmontar el mito que la desnutrición que flagela a las familias se debe a la cultura alimentaria de la comunidad. 

Para verificar los dos párrafos ut supra pueden comunicarse con el señor Reynaldo Giagrecud (Autoridad indígena del Pueblo Witoto) al teléfono +57 310 5009499. 

Por lo tanto el MSCPI sugiere que el próximo informe del GANESAN sobre conocimientos y sistemas alimentarios de Pueblos Indígenas analise qué se debe entender por el término “tradicional” teniendo en cuenta las consideraciones de arriba. 

Respecto al Principio rector No. 1. 

La Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas debe ser el estándar central del estudio por ser la norma mínima para la supervivencia, la dignidad y el bienestar de los Pueblos Indígenas del mundo (art. 43 de la Declaración). Esta se complementa e integra con otras normas internacionales de derechos humanos (Art. 1 de la Declaración) incluyendo las Observaciones Generales de los Órganos de Tratados, recomendaciones de los procedimientos especiales, conclusiones de estudios e investigaciones de agencias especializadas, centros académicos y los aportes directos de los Pueblos Indígenas.  

Algunos artículos pertinentes no excluyentes de la Declaración de utilidad para el presente proceso son: 

Artículo 3: Los pueblos indígenas tienen derecho a la libre determinación. En virtud de ese derecho determinan libremente su condición política y persiguen libremente su desarrollo económico, social y cultural.

Artículo 18 referente a la participación en la adopción de decisiones en las cuestiones que afecten a sus derechos; 

Artículo 20 sobre el derecho a disfrutar de forma segura de sus propios medios de subsistencia y desarrollo; 

Artículo 23 sobre el derecho a determinar y a elaborar prioridades y estrategias para el ejercicio de su derecho al desarrollo;

Artículo 25 respecto a su relación espiritual con las tierras, territorios, aguas, mares costeros y otros recursos; 

Artículo 26 respecto al derecho a las tierras, territorios y recursos; 

Artículo 29.1 respecto al derecho a la conservación y protección del medio ambiente y de la capacidad productiva de sus tierras o territorios y recursos; y artículo 29.2 que no se almacenen ni eliminen materiales peligrosos en las tierras o territorios de los Pueblos Indígenas sin su consentimiento libre, previo e informado; 

Artículo 31 el derecho a mantener, controlar, proteger y desarrollar sus ciencias, tecnologías y culturas, comprendidos los recursos humanos y genéticos, las semillas, las medicinas, el conocimiento de las propiedades de la fauna y la flora; y 

Artículo 32 el derecho a determinar y elaborar las prioridades y estrategias para el desarrollo o la utilización de sus tierras o territorios y otros recursos. 

Respecto al derecho de la naturaleza. No es necesario referirse a los derechos de la naturaleza como una categoría autónoma en el estudio, ya que la cosmopráctica de los Pueblos Indígenas por principio lo considera como una regla de vida. 

La elaboración del presente estudio representa la oportunidad para crear un positivo precedente sobre la manera de elaborar estudios de manera conjunta con los Pueblos Indígenas.  

Otros comentarios atendiendo las preguntas de la consulta 

Los sistemas alimentarios y conocimientos de los Pueblos Indígenas han aportado a la humanidad desde tiempos inmemorables. Un ejemplo de ello ha sido la domesticación de especies claves como el maíz, maní, calabazas y yuca entre otras, que ha estado a disposición para la sobrevivencia de la humanidad; en el reciente azote del COVID-19 también aportaron respuestas y soluciones a dicha crisis[2]. 

En tal sentido no hay duda de que el estudio reflejará la contribución de los Pueblos Indígenas a la humanidad en la seguridad alimentaria y nutrición. Tal como se señala en el Convenio 169 de la OIT (Párr. preambular 7 y Art. 1, párr. 1 b). 

En cuanto a la titularidad de derechos, se refiere entre otros, a la propiedad intelectual de los Pueblos Indígenas frente a la práctica extractiva del plagio, apropiación indebida, privatización, explotación en detrimento de los recursos y la humanidad en general o principalmente cuando las empresas pretenden tener dominio exclusivo sobre especies nativas en territorios de los Pueblos Indígenas. 

La utilización de recetas o fórmulas propio de los Pueblos Indígenas puede estar sujeta a restricciones conforme a las prácticas y normas propias, algunas pueden ser del dominio público y, por lo tanto, cualquiera podría usarlas libremente. (Artículo XIX. Derecho a la protección del medio ambiente sano y Artículo XXVIII. Protección del Patrimonio Cultural y de la Propiedad Intelectual de la Declaración Americana sobre derechos de los Pueblos Indígena. DADIN)

Los retos respecto al consentimiento libre, previo e informado y el acceso y la distribución de beneficios son de carácter político, esquematizado de la siguiente manera: 

1. Que los Estados reconozcan plenamente la existencia de Pueblos Indígenas en sus territorios. En algunas regiones del mundo esta parte aún no es posible. Es más, en los últimos años se viene erosionando al asociar a los Pueblos Indígenas con entidades no indígenas, como minorías, grupos vulnerables o «comunidades locales». 
2. Que los Estados reafirmen su compromiso de cumplir la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas. 
3. Que se reconozca y respete las tierras, territorios y recursos propios de los Pueblos Indígenas. y 
4. Que los Pueblos Indígenas sean actores políticos; autónomos y libres de tomar sus propias decisiones. 

Sin dichos engranajes políticos, los Pueblos Indígenas seguirán siendo periféricos para el Estado. 

Se sugiere que junto al principio de Acceso y Participación en los Beneficios (APB, 2011) se incorpore un texto de salvaguarda de los conocimientos y derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas[3], de tal manera que la propiedad intelectual seguirá siendo de los propios pueblos, de ninguna manera será propiedad de la entidad responsable de la redacción el informe: GANESAN, CSA, agencias de la ONU u otra entidad. El caso: Ceremonia del djalambu publicado en La propiedad intelectual y la salvaguardia de las culturas tradicionales[4], Página del 9 al 63, OMPI 2010; ilustra claramente la necesidad de la salvaguarda. 

Para la documentación de los aportes de los Pueblos Indígenas al informe, debe aplicarse el principio de propiedad colectiva considerando que los conocimientos, innovaciones y prácticas tiene esta base. La titularidad de la referencia lo debe tener el Pueblo Indígena de quien se hace alusión. 

Respecto a la capacidad de acción. Los Pueblos Indígenas tienen el conocimiento y la capacidad de producir alimentos libres de tóxicos, sí y solo sí, no estén siendo hostigados en sus tierras y territorios por factores políticos y comerciales externos. 

Esta capacidad será mucho más sostenible si se garantizara el apoyo de Estado en infraestructura para el riego, almacenamiento y transporte de la producción. Así como la promoción del acceso de los productos agroecológicos indígenas a los mercados internacionales. 

Los Pueblos indígenas siempre han estado anuentes de compartir sus conocimientos toda vez sea para el servicio de la humanidad en condiciones libres sin privatización.

Entre otros instrumentos importantes/relevantes se puede indicar que los siguientes Órganos de Tratados han establecido directrices sobre la manera de garantizar los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas: 

• Recomendación general Nº 23. Relativa a los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas. Comité para la Eliminación de la discriminación racial. Todo el texto es pertinente. 
• Recomendación general núm. 39 (2022) sobre los derechos de las mujeres y las niñas Indígenas. Párr. 58. Comité para la Eliminación de la discriminación contra la Mujer. 
• Observación General No. 11 (2009) Los niños indígenas y sus derechos en virtud de la Convención. Párr. 16, 18, 25, 34 no restrictivo. Comité de los Derechos del Niño. 

También pueden ser de utilidad algunos elementos orientativos contenidos en las Directrices voluntarias Akwé: Kon para realizar evaluaciones de las repercusiones culturales, ambientales, y sociales de proyectos de desarrollo que hayan de realizarse en lugares sagrados o en tierras o aguas ocupadas o utilizadas tradicionalmente por las comunidades indígenas y locales, o que puedan afectar a esos lugares. Secretaría del Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica (2004). 

Es importante considerar las Directrices Voluntarias sobre la Gobernanza Responsable de la Tenencia de la Tierra, Pesca y Bosques en el contexto de la Seguridad Alimentaria Nacional, en particular el capítulo 3.9. (Directrices voluntarias sobre la Gobernanza responsable de la tenencia de la tierra, la pesca y los bosques en el contexto de la seguridad alimentaria nacional)

https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/akwe-brochure-es.pdf

También las Directrices sobre las cuestiones relativas a los Pueblos Indígenas del Grupo de Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo. 

https://www.acnur.org/fileadmin/Documentos/Publicaciones/2010/7374.pdf

Respecto a las mejores prácticas, normas éticas y estrategias para abordar el cambio climático que deberían destacarse en el informe, se sugiere revisar la sección 13.6 y 13.7 del texto titulado: CONOCIMIENTO INDÍGENA Y CAMBIO CLIMÁTICO en el enlace: https://sgccc.org.gt/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/1RepCCGuaCap13.pdf

También  es importante revisar el documento publicado por la FAO: Libro Blanco/Wiphala sobre sistemas alimentarios de los pueblos indígenas

En cuanto al entendimiento intercultural que debería de destacarse en el informe. Cabe prever que un tratamiento y valoración justa de los conocimientos de los Pueblos Indígenas como aporte a la humanidad, sin sobreponer sistemas; haría comprender el informe como una aproximación al diálogo interciencias, lo que motivaría la confianza de los Pueblos Indígenas, a la vez profundizar e incluso elaborar estudios más específicos. 

Finalmente, el derecho a la consulta debe ser reflejada en la metodología del estudio, por ser un estado previo e integral del Consentimiento Libre, Previo e Informado. Ambas son interdependientes. Puede haber consulta sin que se logre el CLPI, pero nunca el CLPI sin consulta. 

 

 

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.

 

• In Brazil, there are not only indigenous peoples, but also “Traditional Communities peoples”. The universe of native and diasporic peoples is not homogeneous or unique: there are 29 of these groups recognized by the Brazilian Federal Government, as we could see in this document that links them with Food Security: (https://mds.gov.br/webarquivos/MDS/2_Acoes_e_Programas/Acesso_a_Aliment…). There are many nations that have been subjected to processes of subordination, erasure or extermination of their cultures and knowledge, due to colonial processes that have imposed many social hierarchies of values;
• The objectives that include mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples food and knowledge systems, and lessons learned from them, should be for the benefit of all, not only solely for the benefit of Indigenous Peoples as rights holders, once their knowledge are sustainable and healthy solutions and ways of life;
• The challenges related to Free, Prior and Informed Consent and Access and Benefit Sharing should be ratified by national governments in order to widely promote and/or mainstream Indigenous Peoples food and knowledge systems. In Brazil, Indigenous and Traditional Communities peoples’ participation have increased their participation in the policy making processes in order to inform properly what issues are the stake, so they can decide properly;
• There are other tools in order to ensure the inclusion of marginalized groups, sustainability, and protection against commercialization risks for Indigenous Peoples' food and knowledge systems. Besides the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC),  there is ILO Convention 169, called "Previous Consultation". In Brazil it is known as "Previous Consultation Community Protocol". National governments should ratify these guiding principles. It guarantees Indigenous and Traditional Communities peoples the right to choose, participate in and evaluate trade issues, projects, undertakings, legislative proposals, academic research and any interventions that directly or indirectly affect their way of life. This is because it is the people, in their territories, who know the local realities, the problems and difficulties they face and also their potential. Therefore, for any action in the territories, it is the people who must be consulted first;
• In order to be document and referenced oral knowledge and traditions in the development of the report, it is important to document their inputs through different Participatory Inventory tools. The Brazilian National Historical and Artistic Heritage Institute created an instrument that builds, in a participatory way, especially those who are the Indigenous and Traditional Communities peoples, a methodology to register in a multistakeholder environment, different tangible and untangible heritage features, through different medias: images, texts, sounds, maps, etc.;
• The dimensions linked to Indigenous Peoples’ agency, e.g., in governance issues, should address security of tenure, sociobiodiversities (food culture, intersectionality -gender, age, race/ethny, religious) connected to environmental protection, labour conditions, land threats (violence against leaderships, against women and foreigners, economic pressures, etc.), issues that influence food production and Food Security and Nutrition;
• There are important/relevant policy papers and instruments missing from the foundational documents list. South Global countries and their authors should have been addressed, once these are the countries that there are important representatives of Indigenous and Traditional Communities peoples:
• Brazil: 
  • Felipim, A. P.; Queda, O. O sistema agrícola guarani mbyá e seuscultivares de milho: um estudo de caso. INCI v.30 n.3 Caracas mar. 2005;
  • Silva Araujo, L.; Bidaseca, K. (org.) Agroecología en los sistemas andinos. 1a ed. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires: CLACSO, Minneapolis, Fundación McKnigth, 2021.
  • Viveiros de Castro, E. A Inconstância da Alma Selvagem. Sao Paulo: Csac Naify, 2002.
  • Eidt, J.S.; Udry, C. Sistemas Agrícolas Tradicionais no Brasil. Brasília, DF: Embrapa, 2019.
  • Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Formação em soberania e Segurança alimentar e nutricional para agentes de pastoral negros. Silva, D.O. (org.). Brasília, DF: Fiocruz, 2024.
  • Rede Brasileira de Pesquisa em Soberania e Segurança Alimentar – PENSSAN. Insegurança alimentar e desigualdades de raça/cor da pele e gênero. II VIGISAN : inquérito nacional sobre insegurança alimentar no contexto da pandemia da Covid-19 no Brasil. São Paulo : Fundação Friedrich Ebert, 2023.
  • Ministério do Desenvolvimento Social (MDS). Diretrizes para o Atendimento de Povos Indígenas e povos e comunidades tradicionais em Programas de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional. 1ª ed. Brasília, DF: MDS: 2024.
• Best practices, ethical standards, and strategies for addressing climate change should be highlighted in the report: the institutions responsible for public policies on Food and Nutrition Security should carry out ongoing training for technicians and managers on Indigenous Peoples and Traditional Communities. Carry out studies by public and private institutions on socio-territorial diagnoses. Promote a symmetrical dialogue with the Indigenous Peoples and Traditional Communities, including language, open space to regular and legitimized representatives in bargaining channels, promote campaigns that value socio-cultural differences on food culture and ancestral knowledge, monitore public programme;
• One example of a best practice or strategy that promotes cross-cultural understanding and could be highlighted in the report is the Project Integrated Study on Urban Agriculture as Heritage, financed by Volkswagen Foundation that is a Global North-South Research Cooperation between Germany, Brazil, Cuba, Japan and Indonesia: www.insuah.info;
• The previous legal documents such as Prior and Informed Consent could include more Global North and South representatives in authorship and conceptual references in light of this evolution of thinking about Indigenous People’s knowledge.

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.

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

Ans: Yes, to a larger extent. At the same time it shall be noted that semantics on the needs can differ from area to area of the world

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?

Ans: The objectives shall encompass all mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples food and knowledge systems and the outcome needs to be shared for the use of all and shall not be confined to use of Indigenous Peoples as rights holders for the reasons that

Thorough understanding of “knowledge System” is helpful in sustainable development, conserving biodiversity, combating extremes of climate change and saving water (which is going to scarce in the coming decades).

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? 

Access to the correct data (data collection), related to rights, socio-cultural conditions and improper financial literacy.

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

1. Criteria need to developed in identification of marginalized groups.
2. Involvement of Multinational companies as a part of CSR
3. Promulgation of federal laws at local level to ensure prevention of commercial exploitation.

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

Answer: This    is a  serious question   as indigenous people contribute to more than 5x of proper protection. For documentation purpose expert linguists help is required and software needs to be developed

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

This need to be multipronged approach. As no single dimension can be address the issues. Governance, social, cultural can vary region to region

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

This needs elaborate perusal.

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

As far as India is concerned all the policy documents are available on federal portals. India hosts largest number of Indigenous people constituting 8% of the total population.

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

Deforestation for agricultural purposes, burning of trees is a serious problem. Alternative sources of income, such as social forestry, Bee Keeping and aquaculture are some examples.

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

Hygiene, sanitation, potable water facilities are common problems for all cultures. They need to be given priority.

Comment by

Prof. Manuel Moya MD. University Miguel Hernandez Campus of S. Juan Alicante Spain

Indigenous agriculture and food systems are quite inhomogeneous all over the world, even within a specific country,  then aiming a general attitude to adequate these foods panorama for establishing  right  recommendations would be delusory. This is by no means an undervaluation of traditional feedings specially in early ages as we will see. Let`s take the Bangladesh example.

In 1993 the Food for Education Program (FFE) was launched in  Bangladesh at that moment with 105 million of inhabitants of which a vast majority could not afford an adequate diet  (1 ) . The program provided a monthly ration of rice or wheat to poor families if their children attended primary school. By 2000 this program covered 27% of all primary schools in the country with a total of 5.2 million students  of which 40% received the familial monthly ration. The educational effectiveness was only related to greater school attendance, but  this can be an acceptable starting point now

After the Bangladesh Government actions  on nutrition and agriculture  and data from the National Census and the Demographic and Health Survey two facts are evident: the first is the improved reliability of data  and the second the remarkable success on children’s malnutrition. We should remember that the term malnutrition also includes overweight and obesity and  also it should be considered their eventual coexistence. As results of the gradual application  of the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations of 2015 as well as  other global initiatives underweight in children aged from 0 to 5 years decreased from 70% in 1998 to 30% in  2022. In the same population and periods of time the decreasing trend of stunting  was respectively   80% and 22%. (2). Micronutrients Fe, I, Zn, Vitamin A, folate and B12, are now measured and being below  standards, despite the USAID programs for diversifying agriculture.   These positive advances appearing in successive reports of the National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPORT) were related to improved food security, stable breast feeding (63%), better complementary feedings, decreasing of infectious diseases, better sanitation facilities, although in 2019 only 38% of households had an adequate latrine  and handwashing place (3) and better socioeconomic status. No mention of indigenous pattern of food. 

Why should be supported  the persistence of the different patterns of the Indigenous People?

From the nutritional point of view, first because with small complements it will preserve the growth rate of children and adequate nutritional status of both child and adult as it has happened in some LMIC in Central Africa. Second, because if the attachment is weak, the commercial colonization of fast food and particularly of ultra-processed food will surreptitiously settle with obesity risk (in Bangladesh 16% of  pregnant women are overweight or obese, NIPORT 21), with the normally associated comorbidities such as elevated blood pressure, cardio vascular disease,  T2D, steatotic liver disease… and thirdly because in this agricultural countries some preservation of green surfaces can be expected.

Probably a survey  covering  different areas of  indigenous people life  will be necessary. Concerning the nutritional area the questionnaire should contain precise data of origin , age, sex, weight, height waist circumference and an elementary set of questions about food  and knowledge, that would permit a real assessment about the quality of indigenous food regimes.

References

1 Ahmed A, Del Nino C. Food  for Education Program in Bangladesh: An Evaluation of its Impact on Educational Attainment  and Food Security. IFPRI 2002. (www.ifpri.org/divs/fcnd/dp.htm)

2 Idris A. Nutritional status of Children in Bangladesh: Changes and Challenges for Development. May 2^nd 2024. Doi: 10.21203/rs-4345998/v1

3 U.S. Agency for international Development (USAID). Bangladesh: Nutrition Profile. Updated November 2021

An Outline of a Strategy to Preserve, Develop or Evolve and to Employ the Competence of indigenous people to operate their traditional food systems as an adjunct to sustainable food production.

First of all, let us weed out certain peculiar usages of English language, semantic confusion and redundancies in the heading provided for this discussion. We surmise that what is required here is an outline of a strategy bundle to preserve, develop or evolve and to employ the competence of indigenous people to operate their traditional food systems as an adjunct to sustainable food production.

Consider now, one may learn all about how to swim in great detail from an illustrated book, but possessing that knowledge does not make one a swimmer. Likewise, ‘knowledge of indigenous people’ will serve no practical purpose unless it is coupled with a sufficient skill to apply that knowledge, in other words, this combination constitutes the relevant competence which needs to be preserved.

This unfortunate neglect of relevant skill renders most impressive data collections items highly suited to some intellectual museum, but worthless in the field. We affirm clear thought free from jingling jargon is essential to formulate a discussion framework if one expects it to result in contributions that would be of any practical use. We hope the future discussions on this forum would meet this requirement.

Having thus established a clear frame of reference for the current discussion, let us proceed to identify what type of competence ought to be preserved and nurtured, and then go on to outline the strategic actions required to achieve our objective. Selection of this competence has to be guided by the following obvious criteria:

1. Is the application of this competence benign to the environment? Slash and burn method practised by many indigenous people is patently unsuitable under today’s conditions.
2. Is it possible to engage in selected practice on a sustained basis yielding an appreciable quantity of food of sufficient quality?
3. Does the engagement in the chosen practice make a significant contribution to one’s livelihood?
4. Is there a sufficient area of suitable land available for the practice?

Once we have selected indigenous agricultural practices which meet the criteria listed above, we can undertake appropriate measures to achieve our objectives:

   • Preservation of the relevant agricultural competence requires four simultaneous efforts:

1. Immediate halt to activities that would prevent the application of such competence by denying indigenous agriculturalists access to their traditional lands either by legal or illegal means. Extraction industries, land grabs by agro-industry and threats to indigenous peoples have taken place throughout the world. Preservation of anything calls for rapid enforced legal action to present its disappearance.
2.  Ensuring the continued existence of indigenous competence involves two distinct but related measures. It would be useful to use audio-visual recordings of how indigenous people engage in food production and use. This requires such recordings of how each sub-system in their food systems are operated. To recap what sub-systems would justifiably constitute a food system are (not necessarily according to tradesmen and academics who may once in a while water their potted cactus):
3. Yielder; where food is grown or harvested from.
4. Harvester; how food is gathered from yielder sub-system.
5. Transport; how food is transported from place to place until final consumption.
6. Preservation; ways of preserving food either in toto or processed in some way.
7. Storage; may range from one’s own pantry to a large cold storage facility.
8. Culinary; how food is prepared for the table.
9. Supplementary; methods used to restore soil fertility, irrigation, dealing with pests etc., which was necessitated by the repeated use of the same plots of land by sedentary populations.
10. Last sub-system to evolve even though much irrelevant verbiage is spent on it, is the trade sub-system which needs no elaboration.

 

1. Written documentation would be useful as an adjunct to the audio-visual records of the sub-systems in operation as described about. Unless this is done, one would be left with ‘knowledge’ which non of the knowledge gatherers would be able to use except to display their erudition at fine conferences free from dung and dirt. Such scientific gatherings do use food in varying quantities, but alas, produce none.
2.  While steps 2 and 3 in conjunction go some way to preserve the required competence, we cannot be certain of its preservation unless and until a certain number of indigenous people  should continue to engage in their traditional food production and use. Ensuring this calls for step 1, prevention of disturbing outside intrusion, especially by tradesmen and their minions, modernisers of every ilk, a wide variety of improvers etc. At the same time, financial incentives, health care and education with an emphasis on the value of the way of life pursued by the indigenous people should be provided. Unfortunately, the perverse value system embodies in ‘modern education’ devalues the traditional while championing an addiction to consumption with a view to increased profit for tradesmen, money-mongers, stock jobbers etc.

   • Development or evolution of indigenous agriculture requires stringently enforced legal measures to protect the patrimony of the indigenous peoples from outside intrusions, which often come in a seemingly benign guise. For instance, introduction of ‘modern’ technology, political dogmas of vested interests, etc. It is critical to save the indigenous people from being ‘colonised by do-gooders.’ Once this has been ensured, the following measures may be undertaken to evolve the indigenous practices in a natural manner at a pace desired by those who engage in it.

1. Encourage and facilitate the relevant indigenous practitioners of traditional agriculture to meet and discuss how to improve their methods. This should be conducted in their own dialect, for even among many indigenous communities living not very far apart, there are often significant dialectal differences. Neither outside ‘inputters’ of new ideas or linguists should be included in such gatherings owing to their disruptive influence on what we attempt to preserve and nurture. Participants should then be encouraged to try new way of their own design.
2. In follow-up gatherings, they ought to evaluate their new way. If better than the previous method, facilitate its wider application with sufficient means compatible with the existing indigenous practice.
3. Improvements designed by indigenous people should be widely disseminated among the members of the same ethnic group, and if identical original methods are used by other ethnic groups, their agriculturalists may be informed of the improvements with a view to making use of them. This should be undertaken in the type of gatherings described in 1 above.
4. When such an improvement has been successfully in use for three years or more, it should be archived by audio-visual and written forms.

 

    • Continued employment of traditional agricultural practices has been facing a myriad of threats, all of which arise from unbridled greed for gain wrapped in pseudo-altruistic garb. Let us consider two of the favourite ploys used here:

1. “Those poor indigenous people” should not be denied modern technology! Let us not leave them behind! Following these sanctimonious cries, cell-networks and cheap cell-phones are made available to indigenous youngsters while the altruist’s mentors have gained the right to  run a national or a regional phone network. What the possession of a cell-phone does to a poorly educated  youngster and his desire to work needs no description.
2. The next altruistic trick is to clamour for other infra-structural improvements like road construction not in order to enable to export their produce, but mostly to sell them items calculated to destroy their mode of life in every conceivable respect including diseases hitherto unknown to them. Otherwise, roads are a boon to loggers or those engaged in extraction trade, both of which are effective in rendering indigenous culture extinct. If interested, one may look up the unsavoury saga of Fordlandia in the Amazons.

   • Post protective application of indigenous methods of food production; once indigenous communities are protected from being swamped into extinction by the altruists described above, it is important to build an appropriate infra-structure as benign to the environment as possible. Whenever feasible, water and rail transport should receive priority over highways. The greatest challenge is how to induce younger generation to engage in agriculture using traditional methods. It would be possible to teach them to understand the great value of their heritage, but this knowledge is not a source of livelihood. Therefore, the authorities from the international to the local level should carry out the following as an incentive to the continued usage of traditional modes of environmentally benign modes of food production:

1.  Subsidised food production by traditional methods described above.
2.  On-the-job training facilities for indigenous youth under the tutelage of their own elders who are qualified to do so.
3.  Aid the indigenous people to establish and run cooperative units for food production and marketing the surplus. It is emphasised the indigenous people should not be deprived of their traditional food in order to earn money to buy food from the outside. This ‘great idea’ was insisted on by the world bank in West Africa compelling the governments to export peanuts to Europe for cash, which resulted in wide-spread child malnutrition there.

In conclusion, we would like to underline that the preservation of what indigenous people did, i. e., knowledge by itself is useless. What is worth preserving is how that knowledge is applied with skill, i. e., indigenous competence in food production. But competence is dynamic albeit in indigenous circles its evolution is slow compared to agriculture elsewhere. There are two reasons for it:

1.  Population growth is less among indigenous peoples. Hence, there is less pressure to increase yield.
2.  Consumerism has less influence among indigenous people, hence they are not so keen on ‘expanding their markets’, at least for now.

We may yet learn both some sound ethical values and modes of food production from indigenous people; but the least we can do is to help them to live the way they prefer by enabling them to do so without imposing on them some of our ludicrous conditions, for we have committed on them worst atrocities, plain robbery, enslavement, disenfranchisement, humiliation, just to mention some of the choice bits of our civilisation.

Best wishes!

Lal Manavado.

 

Below is the contribution from GFAiR on 13/12/2024

1. While drafting the report, HLPE-FSN experts will to a number of guiding principles Do you agree with the guiding principles indicated above?

The guiding principles - to ensure legitimacy among stakeholders - should provide a strong foundation to ensure women's access to nutrient-dense Indigenous foods which supports their reproductive health, reduces anemia, and fosters overall well-being​.

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

The objectives should prioritize Indigenous women as rights holders, as they are central to food preparation and nutrition within their communities. Particularly indigenous women are the custodians of the Food Heritage, receiving a diversity of lable: Indigenous Foods, Forgotten Foods, Traditional crops, Neglected Crops, Underutilized species, Under-researched crops, Minor crops, Crops of the future, Opportunity Crops, Smart Foods, Nutrient dense foods. However, mainstreaming these systems for broader use can amplify the benefits, such as improving women's health globally by addressing common deficiencies like iron and folic acid​​, and in general the benefits of healthy nutritious food to limit the present hidden cost of poor nutritious food on health.

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?

• Ensuring equitable benefit-sharing for Indigenous women, who are often custodians of food traditions, can be challenging.
• Commercialization risks could marginalize Indigenous women or undervalue their knowledge, impacting their livelihoods and mental well-being.
• Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) frameworks need to address gender-specific concerns, such as women's roles in knowledge transmission and health interventions​.

4. How can the report ensure inclusion of marginalized groups, sustainability, and protection against commercialization risks?

• Advocate for women-led initiatives in food production and entrepreneurship, such as the African Food Heritage Project (by Foodbridge), which empowers women through economic opportunities​. https://www.thefoodbridge.org/index.php/food-heritage-project/194-food-heritage-project
• Highlight policy recommendations that ensure Indigenous women's traditional knowledge remains central and benefits them directly.
• Promote gender-sensitive approaches to sustainability, ensuring women retain control over their roles in food systems​.

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

• Use participatory approaches that prioritize Indigenous women’s voices, ensuring their roles in preserving culinary and medicinal practices are documented. A great example is the GAMAAL app https://gamaal.co.uk/ 
• Tools like recipe books and digital platforms (e.g., Gamaal App) can showcase women’s contributions to traditional food knowledge while promoting health-focused education​.

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

• Elevate women's agency in food governance, recognizing their dual roles as producers and caregivers.
• Encourage women-led cooperatives and networks to foster collaboration and advocacy for their health needs within broader governance structures​​.

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

• Include FAO’s "Compendium of Forgotten Foods in Africa," which links Indigenous foods to improved health outcomes​.
• GFAR’s Global Manifesto on Forgotten Foods, which underscores women’s roles in sustainable food systems, is another key resource​.

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

• FAO’s "Future Smart Food" report for linking nutrient-dense crops to women's health​.
• The Nutrition Business Monitoring tool by GAIN, which supports women entrepreneurs in integrating Indigenous foods into health-focused businesses​.

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

• Promote regenerative farming and agroecological practices that empower women to sustainably grow and use traditional crops.
• Highlight development and action research projects, which integrate Indigenous foods into health systems, reducing anemia and malnutrition among women​. Again a great example is KOKO plus: Forgotten Foods / Opportunity Crops and Nutrition in the First 1000 Days https://paepard.blogspot.com/2024/10/in-spotlight-nutrition-in-first-1000.html

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

• Support initiatives like diaspora-led food festivals that celebrate women’s roles in culinary heritage, promoting mental well-being through cultural connection​​.
• Document and share stories of women using Indigenous foods to address health issues, fostering empathy and global understanding​.

11. Are the previous legal documents such as Prior and Informed Consent enough, or do they need to be revised?

Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) needs to be strengthened to explicitly consider gender dynamics, ensuring Indigenous women are not sidelined in decision-making processes. Integrating health-focused frameworks like the OneHealth agenda can further enhance its relevance to women's physical and mental health​.