A/HRC/60/29 64. In contrast, Indigenous Peoples’ rights are wider in scope and grounded in the strongest possible principles of international law, namely the right to self-determination and the prohibition of racial discrimination, both of which are generally accepted as part of customary international law.54 This difference is fundamental. For example, unlike the land rights of local communities, Indigenous Peoples’ rights are not dependent on recognition in national legislation. These rights exist and are inherent, irrespective of whether a State recognize and protect them. A State cannot not invoke its domestic laws as a justification for failing to guarantee the rights of Indigenous Peoples. 65. Unlike local communities, Indigenous Peoples are recognized as nations and therefore enjoy the right to self-determination, by virtue of which they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.55 From the right to self-determination flow many other rights, such as the right to lands, territories and resources, culture, language and self-governance. Without their right to self-determination, Indigenous Peoples are unable to enjoy the other rights. 66. Indigenous Peoples’ rights in international law are undoubtedly distinct from, wider in scope than and legally stronger than those of local communities reflected in the Rio conventions and other multilateral environmental agreements. However, the growing use of the conflated term “Indigenous Peoples and local communities” in multilateral environmental agreements can result in a dilution of the distinct rights pertaining to each of these groups. 3. Concluding remarks on local communities 67. Unlike Indigenous Peoples, local communities lack specific recognition under international human rights law, making their legal status in multilateral environmental agreements more ambiguous and dependent on national contexts. Hence, the conflation of the two groups could breach the principle of non-retrogression in the enjoyment of the rights of Indigenous Peoples, including through the lowering of standards on free, prior and informed consent to consultation and the reclassification of Indigenous lands, territories and resources to generic “community lands”. 68. Several countries have defined, or are in the process of defining, the term “local communities” and their land rights within their domestic legislation. This trend should be left to develop; however, pioneering States should refrain from imposing a conflated national understanding on the international scene. Each State is entitled to tailor the concept of “local communities” and their rights to its national context. 69. Internationally, the term “local communities” was first used in the Rio conventions.56 However, the term is not yet a human rights concept. It has not undergone a human rights standards-setting process – for example, through the Human Rights Council – to establish its own meaning and attach rights to it. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas uses the term “local communities”, but without giving it a meaning in terms of human rights. According to article 1 (3), that Declaration also applies to Indigenous Peoples and local communities working on the land, transhumant, nomadic and semi-nomadic communities, and the landless engaged in small-scale 54 55 56 GE.25-12002 See International Court of Justice, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2006, p. 6. See also International Court of Justice, Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2024, p. 78. Declaration, art. 3. The category of “local communities” was introduced in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, adopted in 1992, which notes in principle 22 that Indigenous People and their communities and other local communities have a vital role in environmental management and development. Subsequently, the term was included in the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention to Combat Desertification, the Paris Agreement on climate change and the Cancun Agreements. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted in 2022, acknowledges the important roles and contributions of both Indigenous Peoples and local communities as custodians of biodiversity and as partners in its conservation, restoration and sustainable use. 13