United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII)
This May, I had the opportunity to attend the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. The UNPFII serves as an advisory body to the Economic and Social Council with the mandate to advance indigenous communities interests in economic and social development, cultural preservation, environmental justice, education, health and human rights.
My time at the forum was spent listening to a diverse representation of indigenous peoples from across the globe including Benin, Indonesia, Nepal, and several South and Central American countries. Below I describe the economic, environmental, social and cultural challenges faced by these communities and I highlight advocates’ success stories, best practices and lessons learned.
Across all sessions there was a common theme that indigenous peoples must be represented and empowered in places of governance and decision making. Too often indigenous peoples rights have been deprioritized or circumvented by governments and private sector actors who see their rights as bureaucratic headwinds or obstacles to development instead of a vital component to democracy and social progress.
Holding our governments accountable and ensuring meaningful engagement with indigenous communities is something all UNA members can do as global advocates. When we are in places of power, ask where the indigenous voices are. When laws are being implemented, advocate for resources that center indigenous experts and include indigenous leaders. Finally, support museums that have repatriation programs, advocate for the U.S. to rejoin UNESCO, and voice your support when communities demand the return of their sacred artifacts.
Session 1: Indigenous Peoples meaningful participation and FPIC in global processes.
Indigenous peoples have long faced challenges with local governments recognizing their human rights. Consent is a prime example of how indigenous voices are being ignored especially in the context of environmental justice. Story after story was shared of how companies sprayed chemicals over forest land that impacted pregnant mothers, or toxic dump sites that were zoned in indigenous land that seeped into water ways.
The concept of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) is a specific right granted to Indigenous Peoples recognized in international law (UNDRIP) that allows communities to give or withhold consent to projects affecting their lands, territories, and resources. International legal protections are only truly effective when Indigenous peoples possess the genuine power to reject proposals that impact their land and resources, rather than just negotiating for better terms.
In other words, the right to say “no”. The right to say no to the destruction of their land for development projects. The right to say no to dumping toxic chemicals on their land. The right to real notice and information about the health impacts of mine excavation. The core challenge lies in ensuring nations uphold indigenous peoples ability to freely and fully exercise their rights, even when the answer is no.
Often, and across all jurisdictions, indigenous peoples have voiced frustration that FPIC is triggered late, meaningful consultations and notice are underfunded and deprioritized, and indigenous communities impacted by private sector and federal projects are disconnected from the actual decision making. This often leads to consent being treated by governments and the private sector as a checkbox exercise and not meaningful. The session ended with no clear path forward, but as members of the UNA we can take the challenges here and be mindful of how we talk about sustainability and environmental justice in our own advocacy.
The Gen-Z Movement in Nepal: Intergenerational Pathways for Indigenous Land Rights and State Conflict
One of the most engaging roundtable discussions was led by a young protest organizer who talked about the student-led movement in Nepal. At the start of her presentation, she talked about the creation of the Gen-Z protest movement but also how the protests transcends age and instead embodies a spirit of anti-corruption and a drive for future-oriented, transparent governance. In the country, frustration over deep-seated nepotism and a systemic lack of accountability for the wealthy in both Nepal and Indonesia served as a primary catalyst for these protests. A lot of student protestors used social media, including TikTok, which became a vital tool for the movement that was utilized for organizing, disseminating information, and discussing grievances. Social media also served to show the events of the September 8th protests which were marked by shocking instances of police violence, including authorities firing upon students in uniform. The speaker meaningfully discussed a lot of worry from citizens that had heightened concerns regarding a potential return to monarchy or authoritarianism, alongside anxieties about U.S. involvement in potentially entering the country to try to stifle protests.
Initial government negotiations with protestors were criticized for being dominated by high-ranking men, leading grassroots activists to advocate for a negotiation process that included indigenous and young people as decision makers and align policy outcomes with the UN human rights framework. A significant milestone was reached in December when the Prime Minister adopted a reform proposal drafted by Gen-Z activists. Nepal’s interim government signed a historic 10-point accord with Gen-Z protest representatives on December 10, 2025. Prime Minister Sushila Karki adopted the sweeping reform proposal, which legalized the September 2025 youth uprising, established a Gen-Z Council, and mandated structural, anti-corruption, and electoral reforms.
Bangladesh: Anti-Discrimination Student Movement and Uprising
In the same Gen-Z roundtable discussion, another student speaker focused on the Bangladesh 2024 student demonstrations which similarly coalesced around government criticism of economic elitism and the prevalence of widespread racism. Indigenous students have been at the forefront of the demonstrations calling on the government to acknowledge their indigenous identity and secure formal recognition within the national constitution. Similar to Nepal, news reports from the demonstrations and student-led protest detail cases of human rights abuses and extreme physical violence. A lot of the protesters felt and continue to feel a deep connection and sense of solidarity with what is occurring in Nepal. One of the main hopes that the speakers had was to bring more awareness about these protests and the underlying reasons for the unrest to help increase their influence and bring concerns to international platforms and global forums.
International Repatriation of our Sacred Items: Progress, Challenges, and the Road Ahead
Repatriation is a complex topic. One of the most challenging aspects of the process of returning indigenous artifacts is identifying a clear legal basis that a country recognizes and is willing to use to enforce the repatriation request. Efforts to integrate indigenous law into international legal frameworks have been used to justify artifact transfers where traditional domestic laws were insufficient. In a major win for UNPFII, a recent 2025 UN resolution was adopted that recognized UNESCO as the primary multilateral mechanism for coordinating cultural property repatriation.
Case Studies and State Involvement
Yaqui Artifact (Sweden/Mexico): Back in 2014, negotiations between the indigenous Yaqui peoples and the Sweden government for the return of artifacts held in a Swedish museum. While Sweden acknowledged the item belonged to the Yaqui, international protocols required state involvement for export and import controls. With the support of indigenous Swedish Saami locals, the artifact was repatriated to the Mexican government to be returned to the Yaqui people.
Guatemala: To combat the auction of indigenous artifacts in the U.S. and Europe, Guatemalan ambassadors often publicly declare the items’ origins to halt sales. In response, some organizers have begun denying access to these officials or indigenous participants.
Benin: There is an ongoing effort to establish principles and best practices for the return of African artifacts currently held in Europe.
Ongoing Challenges and Requirements
The process is often described as frustrating or “humiliating” due to the extensive documentation required by states to prove an item’s origin. Universities and museums frequently impose conditions on repatriation, such as requirements for the construction of new museums, specific display mandates, or detailed conservation plans. It is also challenging to know where indigenous artifacts are being held. UNESCO has been proposed as a potential clearinghouse to help identify cultural artifacts, where they are kept and their places of origin. Cultural complexities arise when indigenous groups request that pictures not be taken of sacred items, complicating documentation and database efforts.
Conclusion
Each session offered a unique window into how the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has played a role in various aspects of indigenous identity, cultural restoration and representation, economic development and environmental justice. While significant work still needs to be done in order to fulfill the vision and full participation of Indigenous People, it is clear that there has been meaningful progress towards indigenous advancement and empowerment. We all play a role in ensuring all peoples are represented, heard and empowered. As part of our own advocacy, we should seek to identify when indigenous voices are missing from the conversation and ensure we are not speaking for indigenous people but building space to include every community.
