Indigenous Peoples

“Indigenous Peoples are not stakeholder categories created by a project; they are peoples with collective rights that pre-date it. ”

Organisations often begin by asking for a definition that will tell them exactly who qualifies as Indigenous. International practice resists one universal checklist. Histories of colonisation, state formation and identity differ across regions, and rigid external definitions have often been used to deny recognition.

Self-identification is therefore a fundamental criterion, considered alongside historical continuity, territorial connection, distinct institutions and recognition by the community.

ILO Convention No. 169, adopted in 1989, describes Indigenous Peoples in relation to descent from populations present at the time of conquest, colonisation or the establishment of state boundaries, together with the retention of some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions. It also makes self-identification a fundamental criterion.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted in 2007, places self-determination, autonomy, culture and rights to lands, territories and resources at the centre.

The word peoples is important. It signals collective rights as well as individual human rights. Land may be governed through customary tenure rather than individual title. Knowledge, language, sacred sites and decision-making institutions can belong to and be maintained by a people collectively.

An assessment that searches only for registered ownership or individually signed consent may fail to recognise the actual rights relationship.

State recognition is relevant but not definitive. Some governments formally recognise particular peoples; others use different terminology or deny Indigenous status altogether. A company cannot safely conclude that no Indigenous Peoples are present merely because a registry contains no entry.

Due diligence should examine history, self-identification, customary institutions, language, land use and credible local evidence.

Territory is more than a production asset. It can sustain identity, spirituality, governance, food systems, medicine, memory and obligations to future generations. Compensation based only on market value can therefore miss the nature of the loss.

A project that leaves a settlement physically intact may still impair access to hunting areas, rivers, ceremonial sites or seasonal routes that make the territory functional.

Conservation can create impacts as well as prevent them. Protected areas and restoration projects have sometimes restricted customary access or displaced Indigenous Peoples in the name of nature. The high ecological integrity of many Indigenous territories is not evidence that those territories are unused. It often reflects long-standing governance and knowledge systems that conventional land maps do not record.

Representative institutions require care. Indigenous Peoples have the right to maintain and develop their own institutions and to determine how they are represented. Project-created committees or convenient intermediaries should not replace legitimate structures.

Internal diversity still matters: women, youth, families in remote areas and people with different livelihoods may hold distinct views that representative processes need to accommodate.

Data and knowledge create another rights issue. Mapping territories, recording traditional knowledge or collecting genetic and cultural information can expose communities to appropriation, surveillance or conflict. Indigenous data sovereignty emphasises the right of peoples to govern the collection, ownership and application of data about their communities, lands and resources.

Consent to one use should not be treated as permission for all future uses.

Engagement should begin early enough for Indigenous Peoples to shape whether and how an activity proceeds, not simply how impacts will be managed. Where Free, Prior and Informed Consent applies, it establishes a specific standard rooted in self-determination. Ordinary stakeholder consultation cannot be relabelled as FPIC after the fact.

The discipline is to begin with rights and relationship rather than classification convenience. Organisations should understand who the peoples concerned are, how they identify, which institutions they recognise, how their territories function and what decisions belong to them. Indigenous Peoples are not vulnerable because of their identity.

Vulnerability often arises when states, markets and projects fail to respect the rights attached to it.

Practical application

Use qualified local and Indigenous expertise to assess potential presence before project decisions are fixed. Do not rely solely on state lists, individual land title or visible settlement. Engage through institutions selected by the peoples concerned and provide time, resources, language support and independent advice.

Map collective rights, customary use and cultural relationships as well as physical assets. Establish data-governance agreements before collecting maps or knowledge. Where FPIC applies, design the process jointly and treat consent as ongoing rather than as a single document.

Why it matters

Indigenous territories contain significant cultural and ecological value, but development and conservation decisions can threaten collective rights even where physical displacement is absent. Respecting self-determination improves both rights outcomes and the quality of decisions about land, resources and long-term stewardship.

Common misconception

Indigenous Peoples are sometimes treated as remote communities, ethnic minorities or vulnerable stakeholder groups. Those categories may overlap but are not equivalent. The defining issue is a peoples' historical continuity, institutions, self-identification and collective rights, including relationships with lands and territories.

Connections

Human rights and due diligence provide the wider responsibility framework. Community engagement must adapt to Indigenous institutions, but FPIC can require more than consultation. Landscape approaches and stewardship are incomplete where Indigenous governance and territorial rights are treated as external interests.

A question worth asking

Would your organisation still recognise the Indigenous Peoples concerned if the state registry did not, and what evidence and rights framework would guide that decision?

Selected references

United Nations. 2007. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. International Labour Organization. 1989. Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169). United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Who Are Indigenous Peoples? Factsheet. Anaya, S. J. 2004. Indigenous Peoples in International Law, 2nd edition.

Carroll, S. R. et al. 2020. The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance. Data Science Journal 19: 43.