A/HRC/60/29 54. The self-identification of Indigenous Peoples who suffered violations, combined with States’ recognition of these peoples within their jurisdiction, should also serve to protect Indigenous Peoples’ history and cultural integrity, including from pretenders. State institutions, including the judiciary, should deal with those who, without having suffered the same or similar historical injustices of Indigenous Peoples, self-identify as such and wrongfully claim access to the subsequent remedial human rights regime. However, this process should involve the active participation of legitimate Indigenous Peoples’ organizations and institutions, as required under the Declaration.46 C. Adverse impact of the conflation of Indigenous Peoples with local communities, including on recognition 55. The term “local communities” has not yet been established as a human rights concept with a clear meaning or associated rights. It remains primarily a domestic law concept, so far defined by few States. It was embedded in multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), including the Convention on Biological Diversity, which borrowed it from national practices.47 56. However, there is an increasing practice, particularly among actors working on issues pertaining to climate change and biodiversity conservation, of conflating Indigenous Peoples with local communities, including merging the two concepts through the abbreviation “IPLC”. This conflation has led to a fundamental misconception that the rights of Indigenous Peoples and those of local communities are the same, and are grounded in the same international instruments. One recent publication asserted that “IPLC rights” were guaranteed by the Declaration and the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), 48 as if Indigenous Peoples and local communities have become one homogeneous group of rights holders. This assertion is totally incorrect. The term “local communities” (and “IPLC”) is neither referred to nor protected in the Declaration or the ILO Convention. This conflation poses serious risks to the rights of Indigenous Peoples, as previously stated by the three United Nations mechanisms on Indigenous Peoples.49 1. Blanket extension of the regime of Indigenous Peoples’ rights to local communities: serious moral and legal concerns 57. A blanket extension of the regime of Indigenous Peoples’ rights to local communities raises serious concerns. The human rights regime concerning Indigenous Peoples, as a remedial framework, cannot be meaningfully applied to individuals or groups who have not experienced the same or similar specific human rights violations or abuses. Remedial human rights regimes are victims-focused. A blanket extension would also risk the cultural integrity of Indigenous Peoples, render invisible the historical injustices that they have suffered and open the door to usurpation. 58. Extending Indigenous Peoples’ rights to local communities could also result in empowering dominant groups against Indigenous Peoples. In several cases, particularly in Asia and Africa, neighbouring communities have dispossessed Indigenous Peoples of their ancestral lands, including by using racially discriminatory views against their traditional livelihoods and practices such as hunting, pastoralism or shifting cultivation. Reports have documented cases of local communities in Africa considering neighbouring Indigenous Peoples as having backward cultures and as not being capable of enjoying the same ancestral rights over lands and resources as they do.50 46 47 48 49 50 GE.25-12002 Ibid., art. 19. Convention on Biological Diversity, art. 8 (j). See https://www.peoplesforestspartnership.org/principles. See https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/indigenouspeoples/emrip/Statement_EMR IP_July_2023.pdf and https://www.culturalsurvival.org/news/three-un-indigenous-peoplesmechanisms-joint-statement-about-local-communities. African Commission, Report of the African Commission’s Working Group, pp. 37–40. 11