This Question Revealed Everything Wrong With How We Negotiate Indigenous Rights
Why a UN negotiator's genuine question taught me more about advocacy than any conference room
Good morning, sorry for being late with this note. I did the 3,5 hour livestream and decided not to put an alarm to write the Saturday note. So this one, is a bit later.
Here we go. Picture this: You're on a Zoom call with someone who controls billions in climate finance. They're genuinely trying to help you, and then they ask: "Would you be OK with SDGs instead of UNDRIP?"
That question told me alot about why Indigenous rights keep getting sidelined in international policy. Not because people are evil, but because they don't understand what they're actually trading away.
Here's what happened next and what it teaches about effective advocacy.
Fighting for Rights in Carbon Markets
I was leading the Indigenous caucus in the UN's Article 6 carbon market negotiations. Think trillion-dollar market, mandatory global framework, that affects every carbon credit project under the Paris Agreement.
We'd submitted formal comments pushing for Indigenous rights protections based on UNDRIP (UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples). But the real work happens in follow-up calls with decision-makers.
This particular Supervisory Body member was committed to Indigenous issues but getting pushback from colleagues about including "complicated" UNDRIP references.
"Brother, I need your advice," they said. "What if we used SDGs instead of UNDRIP? That way we still address Indigenous issues in a framework everyone's comfortable with."
I paused. Not because I was angry, they were genuinely trying to find middle ground. But because they thought these were interchangeable options.
To me, this is like asking: "Would you be OK with a thermometer instead of a thermostat?"
The Key Difference (That Nobody Explains)
Here's what I told them, and why it mattered:
SDGs measure outcomes. UNDRIP governs process.
"SDGs tell you how many jobs got created, how much energy access improved, how many people got clean water. Those are development results measured after decisions get made. UNDRIP determines who gets to make those decisions in the first place. It says Indigenous Peoples have the right to say yes or no to projects on their territories."
SDGs aggregate. UNDRIP protects.
"A hydroelectric project can flood sacred sites, displace entire communities, and still contribute positively to SDG 7 (clean energy) and SDG 13 (climate action). UNDRIP says that's not sustainable development, that's colonialism."
SDGs are aspirational. UNDRIP is operational.
"Governments can miss SDG targets with zero consequences. Violating UNDRIP by proceeding without Indigenous consent isn't a disappointing development outcome, it's a human rights violation with legal implications."
The Moment They Got It
"I hadn't thought about it that way," they said. Then the question that told me we were getting somewhere: "But how would that actually work in practice?"
Now we weren't talking about avoiding Indigenous rights complications. We were talking about implementing them effectively.
They started asking different questions:
What does FPIC look like in carbon markets?
How do other mechanisms handle this?
What would Indigenous-led monitoring involve?
That member became one of our strongest advocates in subsequent discussions.
What We Actually Won
Those phone calls (plus about twenty others) got unprecedented protections into mandatory global climate rules:
Element 9: Indigenous Peoples as a standalone requirement, not a checkbox under "social impacts."
Mandatory consent for any impacts on territories, resources, cultural heritage, or sacred sites. Not consultation. Consent.
"Full and effective participation" requiring adequate resources for Indigenous engagement, not just invitations to comment.
Benefit-sharing requirements ensuring Indigenous Peoples receive equitable benefits from resource development on their territories.
Because of the constant pressure of the Article 6 team, those contributions must now be achieved within Indigenous rights constraints.
Here’s The Lesson For You
Educate, don't just advocate That member wasn't trying to undermine us. They didn't understand the difference between measuring outcomes and governing processes. Once they got it, they became our ally. Most resistance comes from misunderstanding.
Use simple comparisons "Thermometer vs. thermostat" worked better than citing legal frameworks. Find analogies that make complex distinctions instantly clear.
Build relationships through direct contact Formal submissions create the technical foundation. Phone calls build the political support that makes policy change possible.
You need both, but relationships are what move the needle.
Before You Go
The Article 6.4 Sustainable Development Tool now includes Indigenous rights protections in a mandatory global climate finance mechanism. Projects affecting Indigenous Peoples must obtain consent, not just hold consultations.
It's not perfect. We wanted stronger enforcement and explicit UNDRIP references throughout. But it establishes that Indigenous rights aren't optional add-ons to sustainable development, they're foundational requirements.
And it happened because one person was curious enough to ask a question and humble enough to listen to the answer.
Sometimes the most important advocacy work happens in phone calls, not conference rooms. Be ready to share, not just argue. And never accept thermometers when you need thermostats.
See you next week!