International Human Rights Update: Indigenous Peoples Can Help Set the UN Climate Platform’s Next Priorities

The UN climate process is seeking input on what its Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform should do next.

Indigenous Peoples, Tribal governments, local communities, and other stakeholders may submit proposed activities and thematic priorities for the LCIPP’s 2028–2031 workplan by September 30. Comments will be considered by the Facilitative Working Group at its 16th meeting (FWG 16) in November 2026 in Antalya, Turkey.

Some questions commenters might address include:

  • Looking towards 2031, what concrete outcomes should the LCIPP seek to achieve?
  • Drawing on the discussions across the gathering, what issues, activities, or areas of work should be prioritized in the 2028-2031 workplan to help achieve those outcomes?
  • Where could stronger connections between the LCIPP and other bodies, workstreams, and processes under the UNFCCC create the greatest added value?

Organizations with UNFCCC observer status submit through their designated contacts; those without observer status may send comments directly to submission-info@unfccc.int.

A separate November 1 deadline invites views on the LCIPP’s impact to date. The official two-page submission guide is here.

The current workplan of the LCIPP can be accessed here: https://lcipp.unfccc.int/sites/default/files/2024-12/Baku_Workplan_of_the_Local_Communities_and_Indigenous_Peoples_Platform.pdf

Tribal Amicus Brief in Suncor v. Boulder

Here:

Yes.
We’re against this, in case one wondered.

Suncor, BTW, is a truly heinous polluter.

Coalition of Large Tribes Joins Oil Company Efforts to Undo Boulder County’s Fight Against Climate Change

Here is COLT’s amicus brief in support of the petition for writ of certiorari in Suncor Energy (USA) Inc. v. Board of Commissioners for Boulder County:

Kyle Whyte on Nonanthropocentric Environmental Ethics

Kyle Whyte has posted “Recovering Scale for Climate Action: Indigenous Peoples, Nonanthropocentric Ethics, and Caretaking Institutions” on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

Philosophers have widely debated and defended nonanthropocentric environmental ethics. However, nonanthropocentrism rarely features in philosophical climate ethics, which has been largely anthropocentric in focus. In contrast, Indigenous peoples throughout the world have offered a diverse array of arguments for climate action-arguments intent on achieving impact at scale-but that hinge on nonanthropocentric environmental ethics, often in relation to Indigenous peoples’ own institutions for taking care of the environment, or ‘caretaking institutions’. These arguments contain claims, based on nonanthropocentric ideas, about how climate action can be scaled up through Indigenous caretaking institutions. Additionally, one of the successful measures some Indigenous peoples have taken to scale up climate action is to carve out formal spaces in national and multilateral institutions for philosophizing about nonanthropocentric ethics and climate action. Climate ethicists should consider the contribution Indigenous peoples are making in developing nonanthropocentric ethics for climate action, both for developing philosophical approaches and for the actual mitigation of climate change ‘at scale’.

Tribal Nations Amicus Brief in Enbridge v. Nessel

Here:

Earthjustice article detailing the issue and the brief here.

Climate Rights Activists Petition to Inter-American Court for Human Rights

Here:

NARF’s Work in Alaska Over 40 Years

The Native American Rights Fund has provided legal assistance to Tribes in Alaska since NARF’s founding in the early 1970s. In 1984, NARF opened an Alaska office so it could better serve Alaska Native Tribes and individuals. In the 40 years since NARF Alaska opened its doors, the office has litigated some of the most influential cases in the development of federal Indian law in Alaska. Below is an overview of the foundational work that NARF has done with and on behalf of Alaska Native Tribal governments and people.

Washington Federal Court Remands Tribal Climate Change Claims to State Court

Here are the materials in the consolidated cases, Makah Indian Tribe v. Exxon Mobile Corp. (W.D. Wash.) and Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe v. Exxon Mobile Corp. (W.D. Wash.):

Camacho, Kronk Warner, McLachlan & Kroeze on Conservation Governance, Climate Change, and Indian Country

Alejandro E. Camacho, Elizabeth Kronk Warner, Jason McLachlan & Nathan Kroeze have published “Adapting Conservation Governance Under Climate Change: Lessons from Indian Country” in the Virginia Law Review. PDF

Here is the abstract:

Anthropogenic climate change is increasingly causing disruptions to ecological communities upon which Natives have relied for millennia. These disruptions raise existential threats not only to ecosystems but to Native communities. Yet no analysis has carefully explored how climate change is affecting the governance of tribal ecological lands. This Article, by examining the current legal adaptive capacity to manage the effects of ecological change on tribal lands, closes this scholarly and policy gap.

This Article first considers interventions to date, finding them to be lacking in even assessing—let alone addressing—climate risks to tribal ecosystem governance. It then carefully explores how climate change raises distinctive risks and advantages to tribal governance as compared to federal and state approaches. Relying in part on a review of publicly available tribal plans, this Article details how tribal adaptation planning to date has fared.

Focusing on climate change and ecological adaptation, this Article delves into the substantive, procedural, and structural aspects of tribal governance. Substantively, tribal governance often tends to be considerably less wedded to conservation goals and strategies that rely on “natural” preservation, and many tribes focus less on maximizing yield in favor of more flexible objectives that may be more congruent with adaptation. Procedurally, like other authorities, many tribal governments could better integrate adaptive management and meaningful public participation into adaptation processes, yet some tribes serve as exemplars for doing so (as well as for integrating traditional ecological knowledge with Western science). Structurally, tribal ecological land governance should not only continue to tap the advantages of decentralized tribal authority but also complement it through more robust (1) federal roles in funding and information dissemination and (2) intergovernmental coordination, assuming other governments will respect tribal sovereignty. This Article concludes by identifying areas where tribal management practices might serve as valuable exemplars for adaptation governance more generally, as well as areas in which additional work would be helpful.

Montana SCT Affirms State Law Right to “Stable Climate System”

Here is the opinion in Held v. State of Montana:

Prior post here.