This original article was submitted by the Indigenous Peoples Caucus for the ECO Newsletter, November 13, 2026.
Indigenous Peoples did not fight for generations to be branded as stakeholders. Yet the routine conflation of “Indigenous Peoples and local communities” in climate and environmental policy risks doing exactly that. Behind the language of inclusion lies a question of power: who holds rights, who makes decisions, and who answers when those rights are violated?
Our recognition within international human rights frameworks reflects generations of resistance to colonization and struggles to uphold our identities, inherent rights and relationships with our lands, waters, and territories. These gains cannot become disposable whenever institutions need a convenient umbrella term.
Unlike Indigenous Peoples, “local communities” have neither a universally agreed definition nor a distinct, internationally recognized framework of collective rights. The term can include groups whose interests conflict with Indigenous rights and title. Treating the two as interchangeable blurs whose authority must be respected and whose consent must be sought. It also harms local communities by obscuring their particular needs and priorities, making it easier for institutions to claim inclusion without establishing meaningful processes for their participation. That ambiguity serves institutions far better than it serves either group. The consequences reach beyond wording. Shared selection processes can sideline our chosen representatives, allowing institutions to count stakeholder participation as respect for decision-making by Indigenous Peoples. Our knowledge is welcomed into climate strategies while the laws and protocols governing its use are ignored. Combined funding announcements celebrate support for “Indigenous Peoples and local communities” without revealing how much Indigenous Peoples receive directly, control, or allocate ourselves. The headline promises inclusion; the fine print leaves power untouched.
Local communities deserve support to organize, define themselves and articulate the rights and protections they seek. They need accountable representation and processes that reflect their diverse circumstances. Leaving local communities to build those processes is a responsibility governments and international institutions must take seriously. Their failure to do so cannot become an excuse to absorb local communities into Indigenous Peoples’ mechanisms, dilute our representation, or our collective rights and lived experiences.
Indigenous Peoples and local communities can stand together against extractive industries, environmental destruction and climate injustice. Strong alliances make room for differences in rights, responsibilities and authority, including when interests diverge. Solidarity requires relationships built through trust, accountability and respect for self-determination.
Institutions must stop treating blurred distinctions as evidence of progress. If inclusion requires Indigenous Peoples to surrender our distinct status and rights, whose interests does it serve?
