A/HRC/60/29 59. A submission from a national human rights institution as input to this report revealed that a community forest scheme that grouped Indigenous Peoples and local communities under the same protective regime did not benefit Indigenous Peoples because of the dominant position of local communities, including in management and decision-making structures.51 There are also positive cases of Indigenous Peoples and local communities partnering in their advocacy, such as for recognition of their respective rights to lands. However, any alliance between Indigenous Peoples and local communities to work together, particularly in the context of biodiversity and climate change, should be based on the recognition of the differentiated legal regimes applicable to the two groups, and openness about the social dynamics, to counter any attempts at domination by one group. 2. Application of the weaker rights of local communities to Indigenous Peoples: breach of the principle of non-retrogression52 60. Numerous countries, particularly in Africa and Asia, recognize collective customary land rights within their national laws for groups other than Indigenous Peoples. However, these rights are subject to limitations, depend on State discretion and can be overridden in favour of protected areas, private investments or other uses. 61. Multilateral environmental agreements, especially those known as the Rio conventions,53 and associated protocols and frameworks provide for some additional rights for local communities, but these are not human rights and they are limited to participation, respect and protection of their knowledge, innovations and practices, benefit-sharing and information. Additionally, as framework conventions, the Rio conventions establish broad principles and commitments for States Parties, leaving the details to be filled in by subsequent protocols or national legislation, as illustrated by the wording of article 8 (j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate: … (j) Subject to its national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of [I]ndigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity…. 62. The conflation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities could therefore also mean the application of the weaker rights of local communities to Indigenous Peoples. The legal protection of the rights of Indigenous Peoples would thus be undermined, by subjecting them to domestic legislation, which would thereby amount to retrogression in the enjoyment of rights. Unfortunately, the weakening of the rights of Indigenous Peoples seems to be the objective of States that support the conflation while contesting the relevance of the concept of Indigenous Peoples and their rights in the domestic context. The conflation thus becomes a back-door way of weakening Indigenous Peoples’ rights. 63. States can easily justify the non-implementation of international standards dependent on national laws, citing a lack of resources or non-alignment with political priorities. 51 52 53 12 Submission by the national human rights institution of Cameroon. All submissions received will be made available at https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2025/call-contributions-report-60thsession-hrc-recognition-indigenous-peoples. Under the principle of non-retrogression, States are obliged not to retreat on human rights already protected and guaranteed. In Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India argued the following in its judgment of 6 September 2018: “[T]here must not be any regression of rights. In a progressive and an ever-improving society, there is no place for retreat. The society has to march ahead. The doctrine of non-retrogression sets forth that the State should not take measures or steps that deliberately lead to retrogression on the enjoyment of rights either under the Constitution or otherwise.” The Rio conventions are the multilateral environmental agreements that originated from the 1992 Rio Summit, namely the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa. GE.25-12002