What is the "FWG"? (The Engine of the LCIPP)

COP30 day 2 of 30: Inside the LCIPP mechanics that Indigenous veterans still get wrong

Welcome to day 2 of your 30-Day Series

On the previous episode we covered how LCIPP went from consolation prize to leverage. Today we’re going inside the mechanics. How representatives get selected. Why the FWG and the platform are different things. What consensus actually means in practice. And three persistent issues that every incoming representative needs to understand before walking into the room.

---

Ok, so, here’s what confuses people, even veterans: What’s the difference between the platform and the Facilitative Working Group?

They’re used interchangeably in conversation. But. They’re not the same thing:

• The platform is an umbrella. The platform was established by Decision 1/CP.21, paragraph 135. It’s a body of the convention. Not a physical space. It’s the framework under which a range of activities take place.

• The FWG is a constituted body of SBSTA (Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice) as one of 16 constituted bodies and breathes life into those activities. It implements the three functions: Strengthening knowledge systems, facilitating exchange of experiences, enhancing engagement in climate policy.

Best analogy I use: If the platform and its activities are the bones, the FWG represents the muscles that move them.

When you’re nominated to the FWG, you’re not joining “the platform.” You’re joining the working group that makes the platform operational.

That distinction matters when States or other bodies invite “the platform” to meetings. Are they inviting the FWG members? The broader caucus? The distinction determines who shows up and who speaks.

The 7+7 Formula

The UN has five regions.

Indigenous Peoples have seven: Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, Arctic, North America, Pacific, Central and Eastern Europe/Russian Federation/Central Asia/Transcaucasia.

During negotiations, States suggested matching their five regions. That would mean some Indigenous regions would have to merge or share seats.

Our response: No.

We’re not reducing our regions to fit your structure. You’re a club of States. You figure out how to complement our seven, we said. We’re maintaining our organizational structure.

The compromise: States agreed to seven representatives from their five regions, plus one from Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and one from Least Developed Countries (LDCs).

Result: 7 Indigenous representatives + 7 state representatives.

Why was this non-negotiable? Because equality in numbers reflects equality in status. If we had accepted fewer seats, we would have signaled that Indigenous Peoples’ regional structures don’t matter as much as State structures.

The seven regions aren’t arbitrary. They reflect how Indigenous Peoples organize ourselves globally. Reducing them would have undermined the principle that Indigenous Peoples determine our own structures through self-determination.

Consensus Is More Powerful Than Voting Rights

States didn’t want Indigenous Peoples to have negotiating capacity. Negotiation should remain “party-driven” (meaning only States negotiate).

We didn’t want a permanent forum that would silo us into one room.

The compromise: A Facilitative Working Group operating by consensus.

Here’s why consensus is actually more powerful than it sounds.

In a voting system, 7 Indigenous representatives could be outvoted by 7 state representatives. Majority rules. You lose.

In a consensus system, any single representative can block a decision. All parties must agree before anything moves forward.

That’s structural veto power without calling it that. States can’t steamroll us. We can object. The decision doesn’t proceed until the objection is resolved.

The name “Facilitative” also matters. It signals that the FWG facilitates climate action informed by Indigenous knowledge. It doesn’t negotiate treaties. But it provides technical input and expertise directly to the COP.

Basically: We’re not observers. We’re not NGOs commenting from the sidelines. We’re part of the formal architecture informing decision-makers.

How Indigenous FWG Members Are Selected

FWG members are not individual experts participating in their personal capacity.

This is critical. The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues uses individual experts. They’re appointed and participate as individuals, not as representatives of regions.

The FWG is different.

FWG members are representatives of their regions. They’re nominated through regional decision-making processes determined by the Indigenous Peoples of those regions.

Each region has its own process. Some are more structured than others. Arctic has strong infrastructure. Africa is building capacity. But the principle is the same: Indigenous Peoples determine who represents them. Not States. Not the secretariat.

Here’s how it works:

1. Each region conducts its own selection process (varies by region)

2. The region forwards two names (primary and alternate) to the Indigenous Peoples Caucus focal point

3. The focal point sends the names to the SBSTA chair

4. The SBSTA chair notifies all Parties of the appointments

So far, these nominations have been accepted on a non-objection basis. Meaning Sstates don’t formally approve or reject. They just don’t object.

Why? Two reasons:

1. The FWG is non-negotiating, so States don’t see it as a threat to party-driven process

2. States have respected (so far) that Indigenous Peoples know our systems and can select representatives who understand the UNFCCC

Term limits: Three years. Eligible for two consecutive terms.

This ensures rotation and prevents the FWG from becoming an elite group disconnected from the caucus. You serve your terms. You pass the baton. Someone else steps in.

This is by design. The FWG is supposed to amplify the caucus, not become a separate power center.

The Three Regions That Shaped the FWG

Between Bonn 2016 and Katowice 2018, three regions worked closely together to shape the structure and functions of the FWG: Arctic, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Pacific.

Why these three?

Because views among Indigenous Peoples were initially divergent. Some regions saw different opportunities or risks in the platform. The three regions that aligned most closely on vision came together to submit joint proposals.

The joint submission from these three regions outlined:

• Provide high-level advice from Indigenous Peoples directly to the COP

• Elevate the status of Indigenous knowledge within climate action

• Ensure regional balance with seven Indigenous representatives

• Uphold UNDRIP as the normative framework

• Maintain the distinction between the caucus (supreme authority) and the FWG (tool)

This coalition shaped the final structure. Other regions contributed, but these three drove the core principles.

Why does this matter now?

Because the caucus is the supreme decision-making body for Indigenous Peoples at the UNFCCC. Not the FWG.

If you’re nominated to the FWG, you represent your region and you operate under the guidance of the wider caucus. You’re not a free agent. You’re an amplifier.

3 Issues Every FWG Representative Should Know

Veterans in the movement flag three issues that keep coming up. If you’re stepping into the FWG, you need to understand these dynamics.

1. The FWG is being invited instead of the caucus.

   Other constituted bodies at the UNFCCC are starting to invite “the platform” or “FWG members” to their meetings instead of inviting the Indigenous Peoples Caucus and its delegates.
   
   This is unintentional. But it risks sidelining the caucus while elevating the FWG as the primary Indigenous voice at the UNFCCC. That’s backwards.

   
   The caucus is the strategy. The FWG is the tool. The moment the FWG becomes seen as the Indigenous voice instead of a mechanism to amplify that voice, we’ve lost the plot.
   
   Incoming representatives need to actively redirect. When invited, ask: “Should the caucus be invited as well?” Make sure the caucus remains visible and central.
   

2. The FWG is becoming a paper machine.

   The first two workplans produced good documents. Knowledge exchanges. Best practices. Policy guidance.

   
   But there’s a concern that the FWG is producing papers about things Indigenous Peoples already know instead of focusing on action.

   
   Incoming representatives should ask: What actions does this work plan create? What changes in climate policy will result? Who benefits from this output?

   
   If the answer is “we’ll produce another report,” push for something more concrete.
   

3. Local communities haven’t formed a constituency yet.

   The platform is named “Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform.” But local communities haven’t shown up. They haven’t said, “We want to participate.” They haven’t formed a constituency within the UNFCCC.

   
   Indigenous Peoples went through a lengthy process to become a recognized constituency. It took years of organizing and engagement. If local communities want to participate in the FWG, they should go through the same process. Not receive a shortcut through the platform.
   
   Why does this matter? Because if the definition of “local communities” gets opened up, States will want to define it. And once that door opens, they’ll push to define “Indigenous Peoples” too.

   
   We can’t let that happen. Indigenous Peoples define ourselves through self-identification. There’s a working definition (Martínez Cobo), but we don’t want a formal definition imposed by states that could exclude peoples who self-identify as Indigenous. Self-determination means we control the terms.

Where the FWG Sits in the UNFCCC Architecture

Like I said, the FWG is one of 16 constituted bodies under the UNFCCC. It’s a constituted body of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice.

SBSTA provides advice and expertise to the COP. The FWG provides that advice specifically on traditional knowledge, Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems, and climate action informed by that knowledge.

But…..the FWG is not the only UNFCCC body where Indigenous Peoples can engage.

There are 16 constituted bodies and 10 work streams under the UNFCCC. Most of them have opportunities for Indigenous Peoples to participate. Some explicitly reference Indigenous Peoples. Others have opportunities but Indigenous Peoples haven’t engaged yet.

So, I say it again. The FWG is a tool. It’s not the whole toolbox.

If Indigenous Peoples only engage through the FWG, we miss opportunities to inform finance mechanisms, adaptation planning, technology transfer, and loss and damage. All the other streams where decisions get made.

The FWG should amplify Indigenous Peoples’ participation across all those streams. It shouldn’t become the only place Indigenous Peoples show up.

The Caucus Is the Strategy, the FWG Is the Tool

This is the most important principle. Sorry to sound like a broken record, but:

• The Indigenous Peoples Caucus is the supreme decision-making authority for Indigenous Peoples at the UNFCCC.

• The Facilitative Working Group is a tool the caucus uses to amplify its voice and inform decision-makers.

If the FWG ever becomes seen as the primary body advancing Indigenous issues instead of the caucus, we’ve created the exact problem we fought to avoid: A designated space that silos Indigenous Peoples while real power stays elsewhere.

FWG representatives should always:

• Seek guidance from their regions

• Operate in alignment with IP caucus priorities

• Redirect invitations to include the caucus

• Emphasize that the FWG is not an elite group but a representative mechanism

When the FWG works well, it’s invisible. The caucus is visible. The knowledge holders are visible. The Indigenous Peoples’ communities are visible. The FWG is just the structure making that visibility possible at the decision-making level.

Before You Go

Two principles to carry forward:

1. Structure is strategy. The 7+7 formula, consensus mechanism, regional nomination process, term limits—these aren’t bureaucratic details. They’re the structural safeguards that keep the FWG from becoming a permanent forum or an elite group disconnected from the caucus.

2. The FWG is as strong as the caucus behind it. If the caucus is organized, informed, and active, the FWG amplifies that strength. If the caucus is fragmented or disengaged, the FWG becomes a disconnected talking shop.

The tool only works if the movement behind it is strong.

See you tomorrow, then we’ll talk about the work plan mechanics, the three core functions of the platform, and how outputs from the FWG actually reach the COP (or don’t).

P.S.: If you were nominated to represent your region, what would be your first question to the caucus before accepting?