30 Minutes to Save Indigenous Rights
The story behind the emergency call that came 30 minutes before plenary.
This happened last Thursday.
In 15 minutes.
Four missed calls.
Three WhatsApp chats lighting up my phone.
17:45. I'm walking out of my final negotiation session at the Human Rights Council.
Exhausted. Ready to go home.
I grab my bags, find a quiet corner in the Serpentine lounge, and call back.
"We have 30 minutes before plenary," the voice says. Light confusion in their tone. "We just spent an hour with their negotiator. They won't budge on the Indigenous Peoples and local communities conflation. It's their only red line."
"Did you ask why?"
"They either don’t know or won't say. Just keeps saying those are their instructions and there's precedent."
Here's what I should have told them upfront: This isn't bureaucratic confusion. It's strategy.
The Strategy Behind the Words
Some States have standing instructions. In every multilateral process, push for "Indigenous Peoples and local communities" as a single unit. Make it your red line.
It's not rhetoric. It's a power move.
They know exactly what they're doing. Conflate the two groups and you erase Indigenous Peoples' distinct rights under international law. Local communities don't have the same legal framework. They're not recognized as rights-holders in the same way.
But here's the trap they're setting: If you object to inclusion of local communities, you look discriminatory. You look like you're excluding vulnerable people.
That's the genius of it. And the cruelty.
The Oxford Comma Won't Save You
"What if we use 'Indigenous Peoples, and local communities' with a comma?" they asked. "Doesn't that create separation?"
I had to break it to them. The Oxford comma feels like it helps, but it doesn't carry legal weight in international law. The UN doesn’t base decisions on punctuation marks.
If grammar mattered that much in treaties, it would be explicitly codified.
Legal recognition comes from substance and precedent. Not commas.
And suggesting punctuation as a solution plays right into their hands. It makes it look like you're splitting hairs instead of defending fundamental rights.
The Knowledge Problem
Then we talked about our knowledge.
The text read "Indigenous and local knowledge." That's what these negotiators had to work with. But I said that we should prefer "knowledge of Indigenous Peoples" because it activates the rights dimension.
I avoid "traditional knowledge" for two reasons.
First, it makes our knowledge sound old and outdated. Like something gathering dust in a museum.
Second, if you're trying to separate Indigenous Peoples from local communities, "traditional knowledge" actually points more towards being a monolith.
In environmental agreements, I push for the Paris Agreement language from Article 7.5: "traditional knowledge, knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local knowledge systems." It's longer but it's clearer.
How to Hold the Line
"So what do we do?" they asked.
Here's what they knew: Hold the line on what exists. Indigenous Peoples have distinct rights under international law. Local communities don't have the same legal framework, aside from basic human rights that everyone has.
In their push back, I advised to focus on ensuring Indigenous Peoples maintain our distinct status. Don't let others frame local communities as co-rights holders when the legal foundation isn't there.
It's not about excluding anyone. It's about protecting rights that took decades to establish.
The Vulnerability List
This was the other issue they were dealing with.
Every international process has lists of vulnerable groups. Indigenous Peoples always end up on these lists.
But here's what I always say in negotiations:
Indigenous Peoples aren't vulnerable.
We've been put in vulnerable situations. Big difference.
One implies something inherent. The other points to external factors and systems.
When I see these lists, I tackle two things.
First, change "vulnerable groups" to "people in vulnerable situations."
Second, figure out where to place "Indigenous Peoples and local communities."
If it's a human rights process, I'd say delete "local communities" entirely. They're not recognized in international human rights law. But in environmental processes, as a starting point I advocate to split the two.
If that's not possible, I move "Indigenous Peoples and local communities" to the very end of the list. I call this constructive ambiguity.
Getting Rights Right
But here's what worried me most about that call. I kept asking about rights language in the text.
"Is UNDRIP referenced anywhere?"
"Are there safeguards?"
"Any mention of Indigenous rights in the main text?"
The answers kept coming back negative.
Here's the thing: It's hard to claim rights if they're not included from the start. Preamble or operational text. It doesn't matter where, but they need to be there.
That's why I fought hard in the BBNJ process for two things.
First, reference to UNDRIP (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples). Second, safeguard language that looked like this:
"Recalling the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
Affirming that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as diminishing or extinguishing the existing rights of Indigenous Peoples, including as set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or of, as appropriate, local communities."
The second paragraph wasn't perfect. But it was important because we were dealing with States that kept trying to lump us together with other groups.
You can't build participation or knowledge recognition on empty ground.
The safeguard paragraph only works because it can point back to UNDRIP. Without that initial reference, the safeguards have nothing to build on. It would be protecting rights that weren't established in the document.
That's why the order matters so much.
You need the foundation before you can build the protection.
The Footnote Problem
"What if we use the BBNJ safeguard language?" they asked. "Put it in a footnote linked to 'Indigenous Peoples and local communities' for participation."
I had to stop them there.
The BBNJ safeguard language made sense in BBNJ. We included it because we knew exactly how to operationalize it in that specific context. We understood the mechanisms, the processes, how it would actually work.
But dropping that same language into a footnote for a completely different process? That's not strategy. That's copy-paste hoping.
Here's the bigger problem: Footnotes don't create legal obligations. Especially safeguard language. If you're trying to protect Indigenous rights, that needs to be in the main text where it has teeth.
A footnote attached to "Indigenous Peoples and local communities" in a participation clause? I suggested they keep [,][and] in brackets and live to fight another day. Sometimes you take what you can get and regroup.
Before You Go
When Indigenous Peoples enter any international process, we have to secure three things in this exact order:
Indigenous rights
Participation
Knowledge recognition
You have to prioritize like this. Because you can't have meaningful knowledge recognition without participation. And participation means nothing if there are no rights to stand on.
Start with rights. Everything else builds from there.
Thirty minutes later, they thanked me and hung up. I walked home knowing it wasn’t over.
These negotiations happen every week, somewhere in the world. Same strategy. Same red lines. Same attempt to erase distinct Indigenous rights through careful word choice.
The Indigenous leaders I spoke with could have stayed quiet. Could have accepted whatever language was on the table. Instead, they called for backup with 30 minutes to spare.
I wish I'd had the actual text in front of me. Wish we'd had days instead of minutes. But sometimes you work with what you have.
I'm glad they called. I'm glad they were in that room. I'm glad they refused to accept language that would undermine everything our elders fought for.
Because this is how rights disappear. Not through dramatic reversals, but through small compromises that seem reasonable at the time.
One word. One comma. One conflation at a time.
That’s it for today.
Enjoy your weekend!