Last Updated on March 10, 2026
Countries are increasingly referencing the rights of Indigenous Peoples in the climate action plans they produce every five years under the Paris Agreement.
As of August 2025, about 54% (105 out of 195) had referenced such rights in their plans, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). That was up from 22% in the first submission cycle (2015-16) and 38% in the second one (2020-21).
Although this appears a promising trend, a more mixed picture emerges from a closer look. Our analysis at the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) has found governments are still far from aligning their climate policy with their human rights’ obligations. They are also far from harnessing the knowledge, governance systems and leadership that Indigenous Peoples bring to climate solutions.
The analysis rates NDCs’ references to Indigenous Peoples across five dimensions proposed by Indigenous scholar Graeme Reed: Indigenous Peoples as rights-holders; Indigenous jurisdiction; Indigenous Knowledge Systems; full and effective participation; and the legacy of colonialism.
Roughly a third of NDCs (32%) now recognize Indigenous Peoples as rights-holders in some form, and 28% do so explicitly, often by citing domestic or international legal frameworks. This marks a notable improvement on the first two NDC cycles, where references tended to be vague or symbolic. Still, only a very small group of states mention rights, such as free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).
The weakest area remains Indigenous jurisdiction over lands, territories and resources. Only 16 countries (8%) include any recognition of it, with most limited to land rights or claims, fewer to governance systems, and just one explicitly recognizing an Indigenous legal system. In contrast, references to Indigenous Knowledge Systems are far more common and detailed, with 44 countries (23%) acknowledging Indigenous Knowledge and many describing practices or mechanisms for engagement; though only six explicitly recognize Indigenous worldviews and values.
Participation is where the gap between rhetoric and practice becomes most visible. Forty countries (21%) promote Indigenous participation in climate governance, and 23 outline concrete mechanisms or funding for engagement. However, only 14 countries explain how Indigenous Peoples were involved in the design of the NDCs, despite deciding to report on this during the COP24 climate conference of 2018. Most of these describe generic stakeholder consultations rather than distinct, self-determined processes or “nation-to-nation” engagement.
Finally, 30 countries (about 15%) refer to Indigenous Peoples’ vulnerability to climate change, and 17 propose measures to address their specific realities. But only four make the critical link to structural drivers of vulnerability such as colonialism, dispossession and marginalization.
In any case, counting references can be misleading when deeper structures remain unchanged. Our NDCs analysis confirms that the “implementation gap” persists: Indigenous Peoples are increasingly visible in NDCs, but not yet influential in shaping or governing climate action.
There are at least three reasons why this is important.
First: climate justice and legal obligations. The Paris Agreement’s preamble explicitly calls on countries to “respect, promote and consider” their obligations on human rights, including the rights of Indigenous Peoples. The UNDRIP set out minimum standards, including self-determination, land and territorial rights, and FPIC. As did the International Labour Organization’s Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, though only 22 countries have ratified that.
NDCs that ignore or dilute these standards risk enabling climate measures – from large-scale renewables to carbon markets – that reproduce the same patterns of dispossession and exclusion that promoted the climate crisis in the first place. Without recognition of land rights and governance systems, climate policies can, and do, violate Indigenous rights or deepen vulnerabilities, especially where territorial demarcation remains unresolved.
Second: the effectiveness of climate action. Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge and practices are indispensable to adaptation and resilience. This was acknowledged by the UN’s climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its Sixth Assessment Report. Indigenous Peoples collectively steward a significant proportion of the world’s remaining biodiversity and carbon-rich ecosystems. Their governance systems, cultural practices and knowledge have sustained forests, grasslands, wetlands and marine ecosystems over generations.
Most references related to Indigenous Peoples still fail to uphold the integrity of Indigenous Knowledge Systems, their values, protocols and customary laws. When countries mention Indigenous Knowledge as a box to tick, they miss an important opportunity to holistically address climate change.
Third: trust, legitimacy and long-term cooperation. For decades, Indigenous Peoples have been present – often against all odds – in processes under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. They have been able to advance critical spaces, such as the Facilitative Working Group belonging to the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform. But gains at the multilateral level have not yet fully translated into domestic climate policy. Failure to move from symbolic recognition to real power-sharing undermines trust and risks fueling conflict over climate measures implemented in Indigenous territories.
Time is passing, and with it, temperatures are rising. It is no longer just a matter of commitments, but of implementation. All this in a context marked by geopolitical tensions, market pressures, and growing contestation of multilateral climate governance.
Countries must commit to a series of steps to fulfill their international obligations, respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and promote a more just, equitable and sustainable world. NDCs should explicitly affirm that climate action will be consistent with UNDRIP. This includes integrating FPIC as a non-negotiable standard for all measures that may affect Indigenous lands, resources, livelihoods and cultures, and recognizing Indigenous Peoples as rights-holders with collective decision-making authority.
NDCs must move beyond generic recognition of “vulnerability” in Indigenous territories and address the underlying question: who holds authority over these lands, waters and ecosystems? That means acknowledging and respecting Indigenous governance institutions and customary legal systems, supporting territorial demarcation, and ensuring that national climate policies and carbon market rules do not override Indigenous jurisdiction.
Countries should commit to long-term, directly funded mechanisms for Indigenous-led research, monitoring and adaptation planning. Collaboration must be guided by Indigenous protocols, values and worldviews, and not be reduced to data extraction or short-term consultation.
Participation must move stakeholder meetings to formalized, ongoing mechanisms of engagement that are designed with, and led by, Indigenous Peoples’ own representative institutions. This requires predictable, directly accessible funding for Indigenous-led climate action and capacity-building, with specific attention to Indigenous women, youth, gender-diverse people, knowledge holders, and persons with disabilities who remain largely invisible in most NDCs.
Finally, NDCs should explicitly diagnose how land dispossession, racism and marginalization, as well as historic and ongoing colonization, shape Indigenous Peoples’ exposure and sensitivity to climate impacts. They should design measures that help to reverse, rather than reproduce, these patterns. The third NDC cycle calls for countries to align climate policy with justice, equity and partnership. Indigenous Peoples have already done the work of articulating what this looks like.
The question now is whether governments will listen.
This article was originally published on Dialogue Earth under the Creative Commons BY NC ND license.
Across the world right now, Indigenous peoples are facing a renewed assault on their lands, rights, and ways of life.
From extractive industries pushing deeper into ancestral territories, to governments rolling back hard-won protections,
the threat is global—and it is growing.
What makes this moment especially dangerous is how little attention it receives.
Stories like this are disappearing in real time. Mainstream media
barely covers it and the coverage is fragmented. The public is left without the context
needed to understand what is truly at stake.
That is exactly why IC Magazine exists..
For more than 20 years, IC has reported on Indigenous struggles worldwide — consistently, independently, and without compromise.
We don’t follow news cycles; we trace patterns. We don’t sensationalize; we provide context.
And when the world looks away, we stay focused.
But this work is increasingly difficult to sustain.
We refuse to lock our reporting behind a paywall. We don’t sell access through subscriptions.
And we don’t answer to advertisers. IC Magazine survives solely because readers like you choose to
support independent Indigenous journalism.
Please donate today if you can. Every contribution helps us to continue this crucial work.
Thank you,
John Ahni Schertow
Founder and Editor in Chief
