Thirty-two Indigenous representatives from thirteen countries released a declaration calling for fundamental reforms to global certification schemes that impact Indigenous Peoples’ rights. The declaration was developed following a global meeting in March 2025 to examine and share experiences with certification schemes and auditing systems affecting Indigenous Peoples’ rights across internationally traded commodities such as minerals, palm oil, timber, carbon credits, renewable energy and aquaculture.
Human Level’s Take:
- A declaration by Indigenous representatives is calling for fundamental change in the way that certification schemes address Indigenous rights: some certifications can falsely legitimise harmful practices by presenting them as sustainable.
- For example, a number of certifications have weak auditor independence, demonstrate poor cultural understanding and establish ineffective, inaccessible grievance mechanisms. Many also lack Indigenous perspectives in the development and governance of standards.
- Indigenous representatives urge companies to hold certification standards to the international human rights standards governing Indigenous rights, like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and to standards governing business and human rights like the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
- The statement calls on companies to ensure FPIC is obtained according to Indigenous laws and customs before proceeding with any project; to conduct rigorous, independent human rights due diligence; to suspend or cut ties over credible abuse allegations; and to provide accessible, gender-sensitive grievance mechanisms and protections against reprisals.
- The authors also state that certification schemes need a transformative shift, ensuring that Indigenous Peoples participate fully in standard-setting, governance, and audits, with clear protections for customary land rights and meaningful, transparent audit processes.
- There is also a need for auditors and certifiers to be trained in Indigenous rights, follow community FPIC protocols including for audits, implement strong anti-retaliation safeguards during audits, and follow consistent, peer-reviewed auditing practices that are overseen by Indigenous rights experts and accreditation bodies.
Some key takeaways:
- Concern over existing certification approaches: The signatories to the declaration point out that, despite important gains, a number of certification processes continue to pose human rights risks to Indigenous Peoples and have not delivered meaningful protection to Indigenous communities in practice. They state that certification processes that do not secure Indigenous Peoples’ free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) can legitimise harmful activities by labeling them as sustainable. Key challenges raised include auditors’ lack of cultural understanding, limited community engagement during development and implementation of standards, and the potential for conflicts of interest if auditors are hired by the companies they assess. In addition, access to remedy is limited where certification grievance mechanisms are inaccessible, complicated, expensive and ineffective, and enforcement and oversight of remedy tends to be weak. If certifications do not have consequences for violating standards, this can enable continued harm. As a result, they can give false assurances of respect for human rights. Where Indigenous Peoples are not included in the governance of certifications, there is a heightened risk of harm to their human rights.
- Recommendations to companies using certifications: The organisations make recommendations to businesses using certification schemes. First, companies are expected to fully respect Indigenous Peoples’ rights as outlined in international human rights standards like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and to ensure projects only proceed with proper FPIC according to Indigenous laws and customs. In addition, the statement recommends that companies conduct thorough human rights due diligence in supply chains and use independent, transparent audits. Companies should also be prepared to suspend or terminate business relationships for confirmed allegations of human rights impacts. Companies can support meaningful remedy by providing accessible, gender-responsive grievance mechanisms and supporting broader avenues for redress. In addition, they can protect Indigenous rights across their full value chain by enforcing a zero-tolerance policy for threats or reprisals against Indigenous communities and only supporting certification schemes that uphold Indigenous rights.
- Recommendations to strengthen certification schemes: The groups also issue a number of recommendations to strengthen respect for Indigenous rights in certification schemes. For example, certification schemes must include Indigenous Peoples’ full and effective participation in developing and revising standards. FPIC should guide all project activities, audits and remedies, with clear, enforceable standards addressing customary land rights and participatory assessments. Audit processes should be transparent, culturally appropriate, and include both pre-planned and unannounced visits, conducted by trained, independent auditors with expertise in Indigenous rights. Grievance mechanisms must be reformed to meet the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ standards of accessibility, legitimacy and effectiveness, with certification suspended during investigations of community complaints. Indigenous Peoples must also have authoritative roles in certification governance, and all measures must include safeguards against reprisals, with financial and operational reforms to eliminate conflicts of interest in auditing. To organisations involved in validating and verifying certifications, the statement recommends that auditors are trained in Indigenous Peoples’ rights and broader human rights. When auditing projects that affect Indigenous communities, auditors must obtain FPIC and follow community protocols, including agreeing on how audits will be conducted. Safeguarding and anti-retaliation measures are needed to protect complainants and communities from reprisals during audits. In addition, consistent auditing practices need to be ensured through peer reviews involving experts in Indigenous rights and oversight by relevant accreditation bodies.
