The Indigenous World 2025: UNESCO’S World Heritage Convention

Written on 25 April 2025. Posted in UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention

This article is part of the 39^th edition of The Indigenous World, a yearly overview produced by IWGIA that serves to document and report on the developments Indigenous Peoples have experienced. The photo above is of an Indigenous activist Funa-ay Claver, a Bontok Igorot, standing alongside Indigenous youth activists and others. They are protesting against the repressive laws and human rights violations suffered through the actions and projects of the Government of the Philippines and other actors against Indigenous Peoples at President Marcos Jr’s national address on 22 July 2024 in Quezon City, Philippines. The photo was taken by Katribu Kalipunan ng Katutubong Mamamayan ng Pilipinas and is the cover of The Indigenous World 2025 where this article is featured. Find The Indigenous World 2025 in full here

International Expert Workshop on Recognizing and Respecting Indigenous Peoples’ Heritage Values in World Heritage sites, Geneva, 17-19 January 2024

On 17-19 January 2024, with the assistance of IWGIA, the IIPFWH organized an expert workshop on recognition and respect for the heritage values of Indigenous Peoples within the framework of the World Heritage Convention. The workshop brought together Indigenous Peoples’ representatives and experts from the seven Indigenous socio-cultural regions, officials from UNESCO and the WHC’s Advisory Bodies, the three UN mechanisms on Indigenous Peoples (Special Rapporteur, Expert Mechanism, Permanent Forum), the UN Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, other experts in World Heritage, human rights, and Indigenous Peoples’ issues, and some government representatives. Financial support for the expert workshop was provided by the Australian government, UNESCO’s World Heritage Fund, and IWGIA.

The workshop responded to concerns raised by the UN mechanisms on Indigenous Peoples about the nature-culture divide in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention and the frequent classification of World Heritage sites in Indigenous Peoples’ territories as purely “natural sites”, without recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ relationship to the land and cultural values in the OUV (i.e. as part of the heritage values for which sites are inscribed on the World Heritage List). For instance, the Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, José Francisco Calí Tzay, remarked in 2022 that the distinction between cultural and natural World Heritage sites was “highly problematic where Indigenous Peoples’ territories and heritage are concerned” considering that “for Indigenous Peoples, cultural and natural values are inseparably interwoven and should be managed and protected in a holistic manner”.^[3] The Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP) observed in 2015 that

the protection of world heritage can undermine Indigenous Peoples’ relationship with their traditional lands, territories and resources, as well as their livelihoods and cultural heritage, especially in sites where the natural values are deemed to be of outstanding universal value but the cultural values of Indigenous Peoples are not taken into account.^[4]

The EMRIP recommended that “the WHC should adopt changes to the criteria and regulations for the assessment of ‘outstanding universal value’ so as to ensure that the values assigned to World Heritage sites by Indigenous Peoples are fully and consistently recognized as part of their OUV”.^[5]

The theme of the expert workshop was connected to a 2023 ICOMOS resolution entitled “Recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ Values and Interconnections between Culture and Nature in the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage Sites”.^[6] The resolution acknowledges that many World Heritage sites in Indigenous Peoples’ territories were designated without meaningful Indigenous participation and failed to reflect their cultural context, their relationship to land, and the links between nature and Indigenous culture, with significant negative effects on Indigenous rights, traditions, livelihoods, and cultural heritage. It calls on ICOMOS to advocate for reforms to World Heritage processes and to work with the other Advisory Bodies and the IIPFWH to develop options for changes to the criteria for assessing OUV.

The main purpose of the expert workshop was to develop recommendations from Indigenous experts on measures to enable and support more consistent and appropriate recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ heritage values and relationship to the land in the OUV and management of World Heritage sites. The results of the expert workshop were to be compiled in an outcome document containing recommendations for the consideration of the WHC, States Parties, UNESCO, the Advisory Bodies, and others, to be submitted to the WHC at its 46^th session in July 2024 and presented in relevant UN and other international forums.

The WHC officially welcomed the (planned) expert workshop in a decision passed at its extended 45^th session in Riyadh in September 2023.^[7] It invited States Parties to contribute financially to the workshop and requested the World Heritage Centre to report on the workshop at its 46^th session.

Outcome Document of the Geneva expert workshop

The final day of the expert workshop was dedicated to discussing the Outcome Document and the key elements of the recommendations contained therein. The representatives of the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies decided not to participate in these discussions as the Outcome Document was supposed to reflect the collective view of the Indigenous experts at the workshop rather than those of UNESCO or the Advisory Bodies. At the end of the discussions, a drafting committee of six persons was tasked with developing a consolidated draft of the Outcome Document for the review and feedback of the workshop participants (including UNESCO and the Advisory Bodies) and subsequent submission to the WHC’s 46^th session. The Outcome Document resulting from this process was finalized by the drafting group at the beginning of May 2024 but, as of the time of writing, the IIPFWH Secretariat has not submitted it to UNESCO nor has it been published. It contains a series of recommendations under seven themes:

1.    Refining the interpretation of the concept of Outstanding Universal Value so that it accommodates and is respectful of Indigenous Peoples’ values and perspectives, in consistency with the international community’s commitment to the protection of cultural diversity.

2.    Making changes to the natural criteria to help overcome the Eurocentric nature-culture divide in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention.

3.    Ensuring that the implementation of the World Heritage Convention is consistent with a human rights-based approach.

4.    Ensuring that Indigenous Peoples’ right to free, prior, and informed consent is operationalized in the processes of the World Heritage Convention in a systematic, consistent, and constant manner, in accordance with international standards and obligations.

5.    Ensuring the direct and meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples in all World Heritage Convention processes affecting Indigenous Peoples.

6.    Establishing independent grievance/redress mechanisms at the UNESCO/WHC level to help remedy injustices suffered by Indigenous Peoples in World Heritage sites and World Heritage processes.

7.    Developing capacity building programmes to support the effective participation of Indigenous Peoples in World Heritage processes and increase understanding of Indigenous Peoples’ status, rights, and heritage within the World Heritage system.^[8]

IIPFWH meeting, Geneva, 20 January 2024

On the day after the Geneva expert workshop, there was a meeting of the IIPFWH to discuss the way forward for the IIPFWH and the possibility of establishing a voluntary fund for Indigenous Peoples’ participation in the World Heritage Convention. One main topic of discussion was the advantages and disadvantages of incorporating the IIPFWH as a legal entity. There were highly divergent views on that issue and there was agreement that more discussion was necessary. A new interim steering committee for the IIPFWH was appointed, as well as a technical committee. Chrissy Grant from Australia was reappointed as IIPFWH Chairperson and Lance Syme, also from Australia, was appointed as the new interim IIPFWH Secretariat (a role that had previously been played by the Indigenous Peoples of Africa Co-ordinating Committee (IPACC)). It was also decided that terms of reference would be developed for the steering committee and the secretariat.

Joint UNESCO/ICOMOS/IUCN Advisory mission to the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA), Tanzania, 4-9 February 2024

From 4-9 February 2024, at the invitation of the Tanzanian government, a joint UNESCO/ICOMOS/IUCN Advisory mission was undertaken to advise on the ongoing review of the NCA’s Multiple Land-Use Model management system (MLUM), the resettlement of Indigenous communities that is being implemented as a result of the review, and matters related to human rights concerns raised regarding the resettlement scheme.^[9] While the Tanzanian government claims that all relocations are “voluntary”, the government has heavily reduced basic social and medical services in the NCA and continues to constrict Maasai livelihoods as a means of exerting pressure on the Maasai to relocate.^[10] The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies have received numerous letters and reports in recent years, from civil society organizations and international human rights mechanisms alike, raising concerns about forced evictions of Maasai from the NCA and serious human rights abuses in and around the World Heritage site.^[11] Regrettably, this comes after UNESCO, the WHC and the Advisory Bodies have for many years been identifying the livelihood activities and growing population of the NCA’s pastoralist residents as a major threat to the OUV of the site and repeatedly encouraging Tanzania to promote the “voluntary resettlement” of the Indigenous communities.^[12]

Although the Advisory mission was mandated to meet with Indigenous community representatives, it was reportedly fully controlled by the Tanzanian government and conducted in a non-participatory and non-transparent fashion. The Maasai community in the NCA was neither clearly informed of the mission nor properly consulted, and there were extensive complaints that the mission members did not meet with legitimate representatives of the Maasai.^[13] Indigenous organizations have therefore demanded that a new, genuinely transparent and participatory mission be conducted. They have also insisted that the report of the February 2024 mission remain unpublished due to its lack of legitimacy.^[14]

46^th Session of the WHC, New Delhi, 21-31 July 2024

Given that the WHC in 2023 had welcomed the Geneva expert workshop and requested a report for its 46^th session, the workshop was referenced in several of UNESCO’s working documents for the session.^[15] The World Heritage Centre’s report on its activities, published on 7 June, notes that it participated in the workshop alongside the Advisory Bodies and that the workshop’s main objective was “to discuss Indigenous Peoples’ concerns about the lack of recognition, respect and protection of Indigenous Peoples’ heritage and values in many World Heritage properties”.^[16] With respect of the results of the workshop, the report states that the workshop’s outcome document was still being finalized, that it was expected to contain a series of recommendations under seven themes, and that it would hopefully provide a basis for working collaboratively to bring about change both at the international level and on the ground.^[17]

A later working document, published on 15 July, recommended that the WHC urge the IIPFWH to release the outcome document promptly, emphasizing the need for a human rights-based approach under the World Heritage Convention.^[18] The document draws attention to the many reports of human rights violations in and around World Heritage sites, including allegations of forced evictions, and recommends that the WHC encourage States Parties to actively investigate any allegations and strengthen their efforts to adopt a rights-based approach in line with the 2015 World Heritage and Sustainable Development Policy, the UNDRIP, and the International Bill of Human Rights. The document warns that “it is increasingly clear that the credibility of the World Heritage Convention and of individual World Heritage properties relies on the implementation of rights-based approaches”.^[19]

On the opening day of the session, IIPFWH Chairperson Chrissy Grant was invited to deliver a 5-minute verbal report on the findings of the Geneva expert workshop from the podium.^[20] This symbolic gesture contrasted sharply with the lack of a meaningful role accorded to Indigenous organizations for the remainder of the session. As in previous years, Indigenous organizations and other observers were only allowed to speak after decisions had already been adopted, rendering their interventions meaningless to the decision-making process. The WHC completely ignored a “Declaration of Principles” passed by the General Assembly of States Parties in 2021, which commits the WHC to encour­aging interventions from observers, including Indigenous Peoples’ rep­resentatives, before decisions are adopted.^[21]

Decision 46 COM 7

Highly significant for the promotion of respect for Indigenous Peoples’ rights in the implementation of the Convention was the WHC’s adoption of Decision 46 COM 7,^[22] in which it recalls the obligations of States Parties to

ensure that the management of their World Heritage properties should follow a human rights-based approach in line with international human rights standards and norms… [and] ensure the full participation of all right-holders and stakeholders and in particular Indigenous Peoples including through the provision of Free, Prior and Informed Consent on issues related to World Heritage properties that affect Indigenous Peoples.

The decision also

strongly condemns all forms of human rights violations against Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including forced evictions, and reiterates that such violations are unacceptable within the framework of the World Heritage Convention, urges the States Parties concerned to urgently investigate allegations where such violations have been reported, and calls upon States Parties to ensure equitable, inclusive and participatory governance mechanisms ensuring full respect of human rights, including the rights of Indigenous Peoples, as an integral part of the management of World Heritage properties.

Furthermore, the decision

[a]cknowledges that historically for some World Heritage properties, OUV has been defined without the meaningful or sufficient participation of the Indigenous Peoples concerned and may not have taken into account their perspectives, including their relationship with the land and the interconnectedness of nature and culture and that this may have significant negative impacts on the rights, practices, traditions, livelihoods and heritage of concerned Indigenous Peoples.

The decision also takes note of the international expert workshop held in Geneva in January 2024 with the participation of the Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre and “invites the IIPFWH to make available the outcome document at the earliest opportunity”.

Noteworthy decisions on specific World Heritage sites

As usual, the WHC adopted many decisions on World Heritage sites in Indigenous Peoples’ territories. Among the particularly noteworthy ones was the decision on the World Heritage sites in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), which expresses concern over reported human rights abuses against Indigenous Peoples and local communities during law enforcement operations. It urges the DRC to strengthen protections, implement a national code of conduct for eco-guards, establish a grievance mechanism, and adopt a rights-based management approach.^[23] A separate decision on Kahuzi-Biega National Park (KBNP) reiterates these concerns and calls for the implementation of the recommendations of the “Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Violations Committed by ICCN [Congolese Institute for Nature Conservation] Personnel in the KBNP” and the 2019 “Bukavu Dialogue” to improve relations with Batwa communities.^[24]

The decision on the Laponian Area (Sweden) expresses concern about the potential impacts of the proposed Kallak Mine on Sámi reindeer herding and the OUV of the Laponian Area. The decision requests that Sweden “ensure that any further consideration of mining permits guarantees the FPIC of the Sámi indigenous peoples, in accordance with international norms and standards”.^[25]

The decision on the Ngorongoro Conservation Area^[26] acknowledges ongoing complaints from local communities about inadequate consultation during the February 2024 UNESCO/ICOMOS/IUCN Advisory mission. While noting that a report on the mission’s preliminary findings was being finalized, the decision stresses that further on-site engagement was required and requests that Tanzania invite a new Reactive Monitoring mission to ensure that all views and concerns on the review of the MLUM and the voluntary resettlement scheme are heard. Regarding the NCA’s management system, it expresses the WHC’s view “that the continued implementation of a MLUM, that is developed in consultation with stakeholders and rightsholders, and ensures a clear human rights based approach, is appropriate in principle”, noting that Tanzania’s own 2020 MLUM review^[27] states that maintaining a MLUM has “more advantages economically, socially, culturally, politically and internally than… changing NCA to other protected area category”.^[28] The decision emphasizes the need for effective consultation with all stakeholders and rightsholders, including those who oppose relocation, in going forward.

A controversial incident occurred immediately after the WHC’s adoption of the NCA decision. As the IIPFWH was preparing to read a statement on the decision – which had already been sent to the World Heritage Centre for translation purposes – a senior representative of the Centre demanded the removal of a sentence objecting to the issuance of any report on the February 2024 mission due to its lack of legitimacy. The IIPFWH complied under the threat of being silenced but later sent a formal protest to UNESCO denouncing the act as censorship and coercion.

African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) Decision on Kahuzi-Biega National Park (KBNP)

In late July 2024, the ACHPR published an historic decision in favour of the Batwa Indigenous People of the KBNP,^[29] who were forcibly evicted from their ancestral land when the park was created in the 1970s without being given compensation or other land to live on. The decision had already been adopted by the ACHPR in 2022 but its publication was delayed by months. It has been fully endorsed by the African Union.^[30]

In its decision, the African Commission found that the DRC government had violated at least 10 articles of the African Charter, to which the DRC is a signatory and party. These include the rights to life, property, natural resources, development, religion, and culture. The decision recognizes Batwa as the best guardians of biodiversity and calls for their return to their ancestral land. It requests that the DRC take several steps to provide restitution and redress for the rights violated and harm suffered, including the reintegration of the Batwa into their ancestral territory, the granting of collective titles over their ancestral lands, and the rescinding of all laws, ordinances or other measures that prohibit the presence of the Batwa on their ancestral lands and their traditional use and enjoyment.

The ruling contains several references to the World Heritage Convention and explicitly recognizes the social, cultural, and other contributions of the Batwa to the heritage of humanity. It also recognizes that “fortress conservation”’ – a conservation model based on creating strict protected areas that exclude people – has failed to achieve environmental objectives and thus opens the door to other, better conservation practices.

Stefan Disko works as an Advisor to IWGIA on issues related to heritage, conservation, and Indigenous Peoples’ rights. He holds an M.A. in World Heritage Studies from BTU Cottbus and an M.A. in Ethnology and International Law from LMU Munich.

This article is part of the 39^th edition of The Indigenous World, a yearly overview produced by IWGIA that serves to document and report on the developments Indigenous Peoples have experienced. The photo above is of an Indigenous activist Funa-ay Claver, a Bontok Igorot, standing alongside Indigenous youth activists and others. They are protesting against the repressive laws and human rights violations suffered through the actions and projects of the Government of the Philippines and other actors against Indigenous Peoples at President Marcos Jr’s national address on 22 July 2024 in Quezon City, Philippines. The photo was taken by Katribu Kalipunan ng Katutubong Mamamayan ng Pilipinas and is the cover of The Indigenous World 2025 where this article is featured. Find The Indigenous World 2025 in full here

Notes and References

^[1] See The Indigenous World 2019, p. 662-664.

^[2] Decision 41 COM 7, para. 41. Available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6940/

^[3] Report on “Protected areas and indigenous peoples’ rights: the obligations of States and international organizations”, UN Doc. A/77/238, para. 40. Available at https://docs.un.org/en/A/77/238

^[4] Study on “Promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples with respect to their cultural heritage”, UN Doc. A/HRC/30/53 (2015), para. 55. Available at https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/30/53

^[5] See ibid., Annex, Expert Mechanism advice No. 8 (2015), para. 29.

^[6] Resolution 21GA 2023/18 of the ICOMOS General Assembly, https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Secretariat/2024/AGA_2024/Documents_de_travail/2-4_GA2023_Draft_minutes_EN_v4_27_11_2023.pdf#page=22

^[7] Decision 45 COM 5D, para. 8. Available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/8069/

^[8] “Outcome Document: International expert workshop on recognizing and respecting Indigenous Peoples' heritage values in World Heritage sites,” May 2024 (unpublished as of January 2025).

^[9] See UNESCO Doc. WHC/24/46.COM/7B.Add.4, pp. 24-29 (State of Conservation of the NCA, 2024). Available at https://whc.unesco.org/document/207607

^[10] See PINGO’s Forum et al., Press release of 7 February 2024, https://pingosforum.or.tz/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Press-Release-2024-I-Feb.pdf; Human Rights Watch, “It’s Like Killing Culture”: Human Rights Impacts of Relocating Tanzania’s Maasai, 2024, https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/media_2024/07/tanzania0724%20web.pdf; and Survival International, “#DecolonizeUNESCO,” April 2024, https://www.survivalinternational.org/documents/DecolonizeUNESCO-report

^[11] Doc. WHC/23/45.COM/7B.Add.2, pp. 53-39 (State of Conservation of the NCA, 2023), available at https://whc.unesco.org/document/200900. Also see the UNHRC Special Procedures Joint Communication to the WHC of 9 February 2022, Communication no. OTH 262/2021, https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=26939

^[12] See, e.g., Maasai International Solidarity Alliance (MISA), “MISA engagement with UNESCO on Ngorongoro World Heritage Site and Ngorongoro Lengai Global Geopark: Background and key demands for Paris meeting,” September 2024, https://www.celep.info/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/MISA-UNESCO-position-paper-Sept-2024.pdf; and Maasai Indigenous Residents, “Ngorongoro Conservation Area: Not Our World Heritage Site,” Submission to the UNSRIP, 2022, https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2022/call-submissions-protected-areas-andindigenous-peoples-rights-obligations. Also see The Indigenous World 2020, p. 733; and The Indigenous World 2022, p. 796.

^[13] See the newsletters of the Maasai International Solidarity Alliance (MISA) from January/February 2024 and March/April 2024, available at https://www.celep.info/newsletter-of-maasai-international-solidarity-alliance/; PINGO’s Forum et al., Press release of 7 February 2024; and World Heritage Report 2024, pp. 157-160, “Update on the Eviction of the Maasai Population from the Ngorongoro Conservation Area,” https://world-heritage-watch.org/content/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/WHW-Report-2024-final.pdf. Also see UNESCO Doc. WHC/24/46.COM/7B.Add.4, p. 26.

^[14] See the MISA newsletters from March/April 2024 and June/August 2024.

^[15] See “Report of the World Heritage Centre on its activities” (Docs. WHC/24/46.COM/5A and INF.5A), “Report of the Advisory Bodies” (WHC/24/46.COM/5B), and “State of conservation of World Heritage properties” (WHC/24/46.COM/7), all available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/46COM/documents/

^[16] Doc. WHC/24/46.COM/5A, para. 45.

^[17] Ibid., para. 46. The document also contains a short description of the seven themes.

^[18] Doc. WHC/24/46.COM/7, para. 69 and Annex (Draft Decision 46 COM 7, para. 30).

^[19] Ibid., paras. 65-69.

^[20] A video recording is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbJaAOuxBYE&t=5667s

^[21] Doc. WHC/21/23.GA/INF.10, para. 9. Available at https://whc.unesco.org/document/190398

^[22] Available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/8469/

^[23] Decision 46 COM 7A.46, available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/8515/. For background information on the decision, see Doc. WHC/24/46.COM/7A.Add, pp. 59-60.

^[24] Decision 46 COM 7A.48, available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/8517/. For background, see Doc. WHC/24/46.COM/7A.Add.2, pp. 13-14.

^[25] Decision 46 COM 7B.45, available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/8571/. For background, see Doc. WHC/24/46.COM/7B.Add.4, pp. 19-21.

^[26] Decision 46 COM 7B.48, available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/?id_decision=8574&. For background information on the decision, see Doc. WHC/24/46.COM/7B.Add.4, pp. 24-29.

^[27] The MLUM Review is appended to Tanzania’s 2024 SOC report, available at https://whc.unesco.org/document/205623

^[28] The report of the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies additionally states that “Any option which would include abolishing the MLUM approach… and would require the relocation of all residents from the property, would mark a dramatic and highly concerning change in the management of the property. Furthermore, such an option would be in contradiction with the State Party’s position that relocation is entirely voluntary, as it is apparent that there are residents who opposed to relocation”. Doc. WHC/24/46.COM/7B.Add.4, p. 26.

^[29] Decision on Communication 588/15 (Minority Rights Group and ERND Institute on behalf of the Batwa of Kahuzi-Biega National Park v. DRC), available at https://minorityrights.org/batwa-ruling/

^[30] For background on the ACHPR decision, see https://minorityrights.org/batwa-ruling/. A declaration on the decision by the Batwa of KBNP, dated 2 August 2024, is available at https://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/default/files/documents/DECLARATION%20BATWA%20en.pdf

Tags: Global governance