Abstract
Achieving just, equitable, and effective sustainability transformations requires diverse social engagement. This paper identifies five key roles played by Indigenous Peoples and local communities as agents of transformative change: embodying sustainable lifeways, resisting harm and defending rights, extending their practices to influence broader systems, and offering foundational models for care-oriented economies and governance. Through illustrative examples, we show how Indigenous Peoples and local communities actively contribute to global transformation. We emphasize the importance of engaging with a wide range of actors in supporting, expanding, and deepening these contributions to realize meaningful, systemic change toward a sustainable and just future.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Transformative change is urgently needed to address the current global polycrisis and advance a just and sustainable world1. Achieving equitable, just and effective transformative change for sustainability demands engaging diverse actors and plural forms of knowledge. This collaboration enables the implementation of multiple actions across complementary strategies to create synergistic pathways and effects in order to halt biodiversity loss and nature’s decline2. Given the context-specific nature of transformative change, which operates across different scales, there are a variety of roles for individuals and collectives to bring about a just and sustainable world3,4.
In this Perspective, we analyse the vital roles that Indigenous Peoples and local communities play in shaping and advancing transformative change toward sustainability. We focus on Indigenous Peoples and local communities as agents of transformative change because of the widely recognized importance of employing diverse ways of knowing, being, and relating for sustainability. Grounded in spirituality and relational cosmologies and rooted in deep, enduring relationships with territories and biodiversity, Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ knowledge systems often foster a respectful, reciprocal coexistence with nature5,6. Over generations, these knowledge systems have supported the conservation and sustainable use of nature7,8,9,10. As a result, a considerable portion of the world’s biodiversity is found within landscapes and seascapes that are traditionally owned, managed, used, or occupied by Indigenous Peoples and local communities11,12. Moreover, despite mounting pressures from resource extraction and the rising incidence of harassment and violence13,14, nature is declining more slowly on these lands than elsewhere15,16.
Centring on Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ contributions is also an ethical imperative. Although in recent years Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ knowledge systems have started to gain some recognition, with some influence in global environmental decision-making16,17,18, Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ rights are routinely violated in the name of economic development14. Indigenous Peoples and local communities also face large barriers to full participation in biodiversity policymaking, not only at regional and global levels but even within their lands19,20. Moreover, mainstream narratives on transformative change rarely recognize Indigenous Peoples and local communities2,21,22. Instead, non-Indigenous governance systems commonly marginalize and devalue Indigenous knowledge systems, constraining self-determination and limiting the potential of locally led, culturally grounded solutions23,24. For transformative change to be both truly legitimate and effective, Indigenous Peoples and local communities must not only be included, they must play a central role in shaping its direction and priorities.
This Perspective compiles and analyses existing evidence on the roles that Indigenous Peoples and local communities play as agents of transformative change for sustainability. By centring Indigenous Peoples and local communities, we aim to reframe prevailing narratives around who drives transformative change for sustainability. At the same time, we acknowledge that overgeneralizations can be misleading and that external pressures often hinder communities’ ability to live in harmony with nature25.
Context
There is no universally accepted definition of Indigenous Peoples and the term includes a large diversity of groups. In this work, we follow United Nations guidelines, which have increasingly adopted self-identification by individuals and their acceptance by a community as a primary defining element26,27. Indigenous Peoples have rights that are recognized in international law, most notably the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Similarly, the term local communities lacks a single, agreed-upon definition, with interpretations varying in their degree of inclusiveness of rural populations7,28. Given that this work focuses on ontologies (i.e., ways of understanding and living reality or being), epistemologies (i.e., ways of knowing and producing knowledge), and values (i.e., principles and priorities that guide what is considered important or meaningful) that differ from western thinking and practices, we follow IPBES guidelines which limits the term local communities to refer to ethnic groups who are “descended from and identify with the original inhabitants of a given region, in contrast to groups that have settled, occupied or colonized the area more recently”29. The term local communities is especially relevant where Indigenous Peoples lack legal recognition or the right to self-identify as Indigenous, or where local groups have long and deep historical connections to place and their management practices are traditionally developed and passed down through generations. It is important to note, however, that the rights and status of Indigenous Peoples must not be conflated with those of local communities. In line with established usage in academic literature, reports, and online resources, and following Brondízio et al.,7 we use the inclusive term ‘Indigenous Peoples and local communities’ (with or without a comma, as contextually appropriate) when speaking in general terms. However, to avoid overgeneralization, we refer specifically to Indigenous Peoples, local communities, or particular groups whenever relevant.
This Perspective builds on and expands the work of the ‘Indigenous and local knowledge’ (ILK) working group of the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Transformative Change Assessment, which spent three years assessing transformative change, including the roles of Indigenous Peoples and local communities as agents of change. We synthesize information from a wide range of sources, including peer-reviewed and grey literature, websites, artistic expressions, and other relevant materials. In addition to written sources, we draw on insights from three IPBES Indigenous and local knowledge dialogue workshops30,31,32. Despite challenges including power imbalances, limited representation, and differing knowledge system, these workshops offered meaningful opportunities for engagement between Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and scientists on biodiversity decision-making33. We acknowledge, however, that a predominant reliance on written English-language sources may have constrained the scope of our research.
The working group comprises individuals from diverse nationalities, disciplines, perspectives, and knowledge systems united by a shared commitment to elevating, sharing, interweaving, and expanding the knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in the care of nature. The authors include both Indigenous and non-Indigenous contributors, many of whom have long-standing relationships with Indigenous Peoples and bring expertise from a range of disciplinary backgrounds. As a collective, we acknowledge the dominant role that scientific epistemologies have historically played in shaping understandings of transformative change and nature and recognize that Indigenous Peoples and local communities often conceptualize them in fundamentally different ways. While this Perspective explores how the role of Indigenous Peoples and local communities can be more centrally situated within theories and practices of transformative change, the interpretations offered reflect the authors’ perspectives and do not claim to represent any specific group or speak on their behalf.
Challenge framing
Existing literature on transformative change for sustainability disproportionately emphasizes the roles of certain actors in bringing about transformative change, while largely neglecting others2. A recent review based on a corpus of 4.2 million documents for the IPBES Transformative Change Assessment found that only 12% of documents mentioning actors driving transformative change refer to local communities and just 2.1% mention Indigenous Peoples. In contrast, other actors appear much more frequently; for example, business and the scientific community each appear in approximately 30% of the documents2. Furthermore, the literature inadequately presents the multiplicity of roles that different actors assume in bringing about transformative change. For example, Indigenous Peoples and local communities are often framed as passive recipients of change rather than as active agents shaping policies, innovations, and governance structures. There is no regional differentiation in the diverse roles of Indigenous Peoples as agents of change, even though these roles can vary considerably depending on the extent to which national legislation recognizes their rights. More broadly, Indigenous Peoples’ knowledges have much less space in environmental policymaking compared to environmental sciences and technologies34. Where Indigenous Peoples’ futures are discussed, most publications are not led by Indigenous authors and are not based on Indigenous-designed research approaches and methodologies35. These narratives tend to focus narrowly on inclusion, rather than engaging more broadly with the divers contributions of Indigenous Peoples. These narrow framings and misrepresentations obscure a fuller understanding of both current and potential future contributions by diverse actors, as well as the richness of plural knowledge systems and ontologies36. A more comprehensive understanding of these roles is essential for fundamentally reshaping governance in support of transformative change toward sustainability37.
The IPBES Transformative Change Assessment identified five interlinked roles as essential for driving transformative change toward sustainability: innovating and creating change, adopting and following change, raising awareness, unlocking broader systemic shifts, and influencing powerful actors4. These roles are presented as not mutually exclusive, since actors may assume different roles depending on the opportunities available to them. Moreover, roles can evolve over time and instances of transformative change often emerge from the interplay of multiple actors engaging in different roles. In this Perspective, we challenge the notion that these five roles fully capture the diverse and nuanced ways in which Indigenous Peoples and local communities contribute to transformative change. While this framework offers a valuable starting point, it largely reflects roles available to actors operating within or reinforcing dominant systems. In contrast, many Indigenous Peoples and local communities engage in efforts that address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and nature decline, contributions that are not necessarily reflected in the roles outlined by the Transformative Change Assessment.
We propose a revised framework that more accurately reflects the diverse roles of Indigenous Peoples and local communities as agents of transformative change for sustainability (Table 1). We do so while acknowledging that our classification is only one of many possible approaches to understanding roles, capacities, and responsibilities. At the heart of the proposed framework is the concept of being change—the recognition that many Indigenous Peoples and local communities embody sustainable ontologies and lifeways that not only prefigure but can actively inspire the kinds of transformations needed at multiple scales (Fig. 1). Two roles protect and uphold Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ capacity to sustain their ontologies and practices amid external pressures: resisting exploitation and harms and defending rights. Two additional roles extend and amplify Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ ontologies and practices: shaping broader societal change and providing customary foundations for care-oriented ways of organizing economies, governance, and legal systems.
This conceptual framework outlines five interconnected roles that Indigenous Peoples and local communities play as agents of transformative change toward sustainability: Being change (purple), Resisting exploitation and harm (orange), Defending rights (blue), Shaping broader societal change (green), and Providing customary Foundations (red). Illustrations Being change: Birgejupmi: Saami reindeer by Premditated / CC0 1.0; Territories of Life: Territorios de vida image provided by Albert Maurilio Chan Dzul; Kaja Sacred Forest: Kaya Kinondo, Sacred Forest, Kenya by Ninara / CC BY 2.0. Illustrations Resisting exploitation and harm: Girjas: Saana, Kilpisjärvi, Lapland by Ninara / CC BY 2.0, Consensus Study on the Co-Production of Environmental Knowledge: A Diné woman in a traditional dress, on the rim of Grand Canyon, by NPS Photo/M. Quinn / CC-BY-2.0; Bikin National Park: Bikin River by Russian.dissident / CC0. Illustrations Defending rights: Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement: Royal Canadian Mounted Police (R.C.M.P.) ship St. Roch in August on the Arctic Ocean / Library and Archives Canada / CC BY 4.0; Escazú Agreement: Principio 10, Acuerdo Escazú by Gafotos / CC BY 3.0; The Subsidiary Body of Article 8j (SB8j): Capturando el espíritu de la COP 16 by EcoActivismo / CC-BY-2.0. Illustrations Shaping broader societal change: Salmon management: Rearguard Falls by D-Stanley / CC BY 2.0; Zapatista movement: Line to search delegates, Zapatista Encuentro, 1996 by Julian Stallabrass / CC-BY-2.0; Restoration of the Yarra River: Princes Bridge, Melbourne by Bernard Spragg, CC0. Illustrations Providing customary Foundations: Law of the Rights of Mother Earth: Earth Day ~ Mother Earth by Alice Popkorn / CC BY 2.0; Te Awa Tupua - Whanganui River Claims Settlement Act: Whanganui River by Jason Pratt / CC BY 2.0; Ubuntu-informed environmental governance: Results exchange workshop on land management, drought and food security, Athi village, Makueni County, Kenya, image provided by Chinwe Ifejika Speranza.
In the remainder of this Perspective, we elaborate on each of the five roles, illustrating them with selected examples from around the world. While these roles are presented as analytically distinct, they are deeply interconnected and often mutually reinforcing; most examples reflect multiple roles in practice. Rather than assigning a single role to each case, the examples highlight how different roles manifest in practice within complex social-ecological realities. These roles are both shaped by and responsive to specific social, ecological, and political contexts, as well as the urgency and scale of environmental degradation—factors we have considered in selecting examples. In the final section, we return to the critical question of how to strengthen, expand, and deepen the roles of Indigenous Peoples and local communities as agents of transformative change. We argue that doing so requires a whole-of-society approach—one that mobilizes diverse actions and fosters broad engagement across social actors in a collective commitment to cultivating ‘right relations’: respectful, reciprocal, and accountable relationships between people, communities, and the natural world that support just and sustainable transformations38.
Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ roles as agents of transformative change for sustainability
Being change
Many Indigenous Peoples and local communities embody ways of thinking, organizing, and acting that align with principles of sustainability and ‘living as’ nature1,39. These values and practices are often rooted in holistic worldviews, where kinship relationships form the foundation of philosophies of life and guide efforts to live in harmony with nature40,41,42. Embodying sustainable ways of being contrast with the Western notion of “change makers” and reflect a deep rooted mechanism of transformation, what we describe as the role of being change. This role captures the dynamism inherent in Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ ways of knowing and being, which understand reality as ever-changing, relational, entangled with the more-than-human world, and grounded in principles of care, reciprocity, and interdependence43,44,45. These ways of being already embody many of the values that visions for transformative change commonly seek to achieve37,46. As such, they challenge the notion that all communities must change47. This perspective was strongly emphasized during the IPBES Indigenous and local knowledge dialogue workshops, where participants emphasized that transformation is primarily needed in the knowledge systems and structures of key sectors responsible for nature decline31,32.
For many Indigenous Peoples and local communities, relationships with nature are deeply respected, as nature is regarded as a “revered space where all forms of life—human and non-human—flourish and sustain one another”48. Landscapes and other-than-human species are often regarded as kin because of the webs of obligation and reciprocity and linkages to ancestors31,49. During one of the dialogue workshops30, a representative of the Sámi Council, illustrated this perspective through the concept of birgejupmi—a guiding compass for living that emphasizes taking only what is needed and respecting nature’s capacity for self-renewal (Fig. 2).
For illustrations, see legend to Fig. 1.
Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ relationships with nature are reflected in biocultural practices that guide the integrated management of social-ecological dimensions of life resulting in long-term sustainability50,51,52. These practices are widespread and diverse. Examples include Aboriginal fire management in northern Australia53, or the Himba people’s rotational grazing system in Namibia54. Territories of life, ancestral lands governed by Indigenous Peoples, are a powerful expression of these biocultural approaches28. Territories of life exemplify relational ontologies and care practices, affirming the agency and sacredness of land (Fig. 2). These territories, along with the values and concepts embedded in Indigenous People’s praxis, offer living examples of what it means to be change.
The biocultural practices referenced here are often maintained through customary governance systems that, despite being overlain, distorted, or undermined by imposed State tenure regimes and extractive activities, continue to play a vital role in supporting environmental care. These systems include local regulations, religious beliefs, symbolic practices, rituals, taboos, and sanctions, often transmitted through oral histories, festivals, and ceremonies55. Customary governance may regulate specific activities through collective norms or impose temporal or spatial restrictions on access to certain species, areas, or natural elements. Customary governance systems are often enforced through spiritual or cultural sanctions limiting extraction and supporting biodiversity conservation56,57, as seen in the Kaja Sacred Forest of the Mijikenda People, Kenya (Fig. 2), and have become foundational to some conservation efforts, such as the Mapuche Conservation Area Len Ko Winkul Mapu58. Although a comprehensive global assessment of the vitality of these customary governance systems is lacking, research indicates that their effectiveness often hinges on the strength and resilience of local institutions in responding to and resisting global pressures, underscoring the importance of revitalizing and reinforcing them59.
Resisting exploitation and harms
Indigenous Peoples and local communities resist exploitation and harms60, thereby protecting and upholding the capacity to sustain ontologies and practices. Despite facing violence and systemic barriers that restrict their ability to protest, vote, lobby, participate in decision-making processes, or exercise sovereignty and autonomy, Indigenous Peoples and local communities remain at the forefront of movements resisting systems driving environmental degradation61. Through resistance, advocacy, and direct action, they challenge exploitative dominant systems and harms, not only defending their rights and territories but also advancing broader struggles for environmental justice14.
Indigenous Peoples have actively campaigned against extractive activities and their impacts on health, often mobilizing to prevent the establishment of extractive industries on their lands62. Notable examples include opposition from the Inupiat and Gwich’in Indigenous Peoples in the Arctic region of North America against oil drilling, as well as widespread resistance to the Dakota Access, the Enbridge, the Trans Mountain, and the Keystone XL pipelines62. Beyond fossil fuel projects, Indigenous Peoples-led movements have also fought natural resource extraction. In Cambodia, the Prey Lang Community Network, established in 2007 by Khmer and Kuy Indigenous Peoples, has worked to safeguard Prey Lang Forest from illegal logging, agro-industrial expansion, and mining63. In Russia, the Udege people campaigned for the creation of the Bikin National Park to protect their lands from exploitation (Fig. 3).
For illustrations, see legend to Fig. 1.
Many Indigenous Peoples and local communities have also challenged conservation efforts that overlook justice, highlighting concerns about power, responsibility, land governance, and the social costs of environmental solutions—especially when these efforts lead to displacement, loss of livelihoods, and the marginalization or erasure of Indigenous People’s knowledge and values64,65,66. Several Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ movements have played a critical role in advancing the recognition and adoption of rights-based conservation67 and advocating for equitable conservation governance68,69. Many Indigenous Peoples have also actively reclaimed rights over ancestral territories they have long cared for, as exemplified with the Girjas case concerning Sami right to hunt and fish (Fig. 3).
Indigenous Peoples and local communities have also challenged dominant narratives by questioning whose ontologies, knowledge systems, and values are recognized and valued. For example, Indigenous Peoples have questioned visions of planetary wellbeing that focus on carbon metric or economic growth, offering perspectives grounded in ontologies where the health of the Earth is inseparable from spiritual balance, ancestral obligations, and reciprocal care with all beings70,71. Indigenous Peoples have also confronted Western academic conventions that determine whose knowledge counts, by advocating for the inclusion not only of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, but also of non-human entities as legitimate knowledge holders. A compelling example is the Bawaka Collective, an Indigenous and non-Indigenous collaboration based in Australia that foregrounds relational understandings of place. In their work, land—specifically Bawaka Country—is recognized as an active, co-constitutive force in shaping human life, and is thus acknowledged as first author in academic publications45. Indigenous Peoples’ advocacy has also played a key role in advancing data governance initiatives rooted in different ethical research frameworks. In Sweden, for example, the Sámiid Riikkasearvi has issued guidance on data ownership, handling, and benefit-sharing72. Broader principles like the CARE73 and OCAP® Principles74 further assert Indigenous Peoples rights to data ownership, control, and use, emphasizing collective benefit, contextual integrity, and long-term stewardship. Indigenous Peoples advocacy has also led to the termination of initiatives that failed to adequately and equitably recognize plural knowledge systems, such as the suspension of the NASEM Consensus Study on the Co-Production of Environmental Knowledge (Fig. 3).
Defending rights
While often lacking formal institutional power, Indigenous Peoples and local communities protect and uphold their ontologies and practices by defending rights. Indigenous Peoples and local communities engage with and strategically leverage existing mechanisms, including local and international environmental decision-making processes and legal systems, to assert not only their own rights but also the rights of all living beings to a just and sustainable world. Through lobbying, litigation, and negotiation, Indigenous Peoples and local communities have shaped both local and global environmental policy, demonstrating that active participation in these arenas is essential to unlocking transformative change75.
Through participation in global policy development, Indigenous Peoples have shaped key international agreements, including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Their influence is evident in instruments such as the Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Traditional Knowledge (Fig. 4) and the historic COP 16 decision of establishing a Subsidiary Body on Article 8(j) of the CBD, which grants them a permanent role in formal biodiversity policy76. Similarly, the global peasant movement La Via Campesina has played a crucial role in the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas77.
For illustrations, see legend to Fig. 1.
Indigenous Peoples have also actively engaged in regional and local environmental policy, influencing decisions to protect both global and regionally recognized rights78. For instance, the Northern Aboriginal Peoples’ Coordinating Committee on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), formed by Arctic Indigenous groups, supported the Inuit Circumpolar Council’s role in negotiating the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution Protocols on POPs and Heavy Metals79. Arctic Indigenous Peoples also advocated for expanded bans on persistent chemicals and precautionary language in the Stockholm Convention and the Minamata Convention on Mercury62. Indigenous Peoples also contributed to the Development of the Escazú Agreement, which aims to guarantee access to environmental information, public participation, and justice in environmental matters in Latin America and the Caribbean, while providing protection to environmental defenders (Fig. 4); and Arctic Indigenous Peoples have played a role in the development of the Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement (Fig. 4). It is worth noting, however, that the inclusion of Indigenous perspectives in these agreements does not guarantee their effective implementation or enforcement, which often remains limited by political will to recognize Indigenous Peoples presence in countries, state capacity, or competing economic interests, which dominate international negotiations.
Shaping broader societal change
Indigenous Peoples and local communities are shaping future visions that inspire broader societal transformation and encourage critical reflection on dominant ideas of progress. In doing so, they challenge the legacy of colonial modernity—a system rooted in European colonial expansion that continues to marginalize Indigenous worldviews and values. This dominant model often equates modernity with progress, promoting racial hierarchies, rigid divisions between humans and nature, and the justification of extractive and appropriative practices46.
Under the assumption that integrating diverse environmental knowledges leads to more informed and broadly accepted decisions, many transition initiatives are increasingly seeking the participation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities43,80. However, these efforts often remain embedded in frameworks that treat humans and nature as separate, and they frequently position Indigenous Peoples as mere participants in externally driven conservation projects. This overlooks their deep, relational connection to the natural world, an understanding emphasized in emerging approaches such as convivial conservation81. Despite these limitations, Indigenous Peoples and local communities often actively engage in a range of transition efforts— from customary land governance and biodiversity monitoring to ecosystem management, restoration, and knowledge co-creation. Through participation, they reshape these initiatives, often in transformative ways. Their engagement creates living examples of change in practice, playing a critical role in shaping broader societal change.
Indigenous Peoples and local communities have engaged in the planning, execution, and monitoring of restoration activities, drawing on their knowledge systems and practices to shape these activities. Examples include the involvement of Indigenous Elders, through the Birrarung Council in the regeneration of the Yarra River in Melbourne, Australia (Fig. 5)82; the Ainu’s People participation in the restoration of Shiretoko National Park in northern Japan83; the work of local forest users groups in Nepal’s Community Forestry Program84; and farmers’ contributions to rice paddies restoration in Kerala, India85. Examples are also found in community-led fishing practices that promote ecosystem integrity and resilience86,87, such as salmon stewardship by Indigenous communities in British Columbia (Fig. 5)88.
For illustrations, see legend to Fig. 1.
A paradigmatic example of Indigenous Peoples shaping broader societal change is found in the Zapatistas movement, as this movement not only changed things radically within the Mexican nation state, but they also established their own sovereignty and have inspired movements around the world (Fig. 5).
Providing customary foundations for care-oriented ways of organizing economies, governance, and legal systems
Many Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ ontologies support ways of organizing society that are communal, and based upon ethics of care - hereafter termed ‘care-oriented’. In this way, they provide customary foundations for care-oriented ways of organizing economies, governance, and legal systems that transcend dominant narratives and expand the possibilities for just and sustainable futures.
While many Indigenous Peoples and local communities are drawn into capitalist relations to varying degrees, many sustain strong economies distinct from dominant systems that are typically community-centred, prioritizing collective well-being, gift economies, and subsistence- or sufficiency-based livelihoods. These perspectives have sparked ongoing debates about alternative economic models, including pluriversal approaches to economic systems, like the Potawatomi concept of the honourable harvest89, Indigenous forms of degrowth and solidarity economy initiatives90,91, or non-market food provisioning services92. Indigenous and local knowledge systems have also been foundational in transforming productive activities. For instance, permaculture - a well-established agricultural system involving holistic design principles to regenerate soil health, conserve water, and enhance agrobiodiversity—draws heavily from Indigenous knowledge93. Similarly, regenerative agriculture has roots in the practices of Mediterranean island communities cultivating climate-resilient, ecosystem-restorative crops94. Today, these practices are re-emerging and growing through translocal, solidarity networks connecting local farmers, food cooperatives, and other actors95.
Indigenous Peoples’ ontologies have also played a foundational role in shaping environmental governance innovations that seek to reimagine or re-establish human-nature relations. Central to many of these ontologies is the concept of kinship with the more-than-human world, which informs distinct cosmologies and governance systems. Examples include Sumak/Allin Kawsay from Andean traditions and Mino bimaatisiwin of the Anishinaabe People of North America96,97. These ontologies and practices foreground care, reciprocity, and solidarity, not only with other humans, but also with lands and waters understood as vital and alive. These respectful, reverent relationships and obligations with more-than-human beings, ancestors, and future generations underpin environmental governance practices, as illustrated by Ubuntu-informed environmental governance in South Africa (Fig. 6).
For illustrations, see legend to Fig. 1.
The Rights of Nature movement offers an example of how Indigenous Peoples’ ontologies have been foundational for legal systems98. Drawing on these ontologies, proponents, including many Indigenous Peoples, assert that nature possesses inherent rights, including the right to exist, thrive, and evolve. As a legal paradigm, the Rights of Nature challenges dominant Western and neoliberal legal frameworks that prioritize individual interests over collective well-being. Instead, it centres diverse ecological values rooted in relational ontologies and care-oriented values69,98,99. This movement has spurred groundbreaking legal innovations, such as Ecuador’s 2008 constitutional recognition of the Rights of Nature—the first legal framework of its kind—achieved through sustained advocacy by the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE). Other notable examples include Bolivia’s Law of the Rights of Mother Earth (Fig. 6) and the Te Awa Tupua - Whanganui River Claims Settlement Act 2017, Aotearoa New Zealand (Fig. 6). We note that rights of nature have limitations in terms of practical enforcement and also risk reinforcing rigid dichotomies between nature and culture, that have been widely critiqued, as explained above100.
Outlook
Fostering transformative change for sustainability requires expanding and deepening the recognition of Indigenous Peoples and local communities as key agents of change. Drawing on the diverse roles outlined in this Perspective, we emphasize that strengthening Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ contributions must be part of a broader, coordinated, and just transformation grounded in respectful, reciprocal coexistence, a positionality that implies care for all life1. Crucially, this transformation must begin by supporting Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ own priorities and visions for sustainability and justice.
Transformation that addresses the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and nature decline cannot emerge from the same extractive logic that has driven them. Disrupting these entrenched systems involves confronting deep political and structural struggles, including the global inequities in power, consumption, and voice that uphold relations of domination.
It is therefore vital to resist narratives that place the burden of planetary sustainability solely on Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Such framings risk romanticizing their roles while obscuring the responsibilities of elites, high-consuming groups, and States for historical and ongoing environmental harms101. What is needed is recognition of how Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ practices can inspire, inform, and support far-reaching structural and cultural shifts in sustainability imaginaries and the global political economy.
Governments, institutions, citizens, the private sector, and non-Indigenous actors all have roles in this collective effort. These include protecting and recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ ontologies, epistemologies, rights, values, and governance systems; creating enabling conditions for communities to thrive; and ensuring meaningful participation in decision-making processes. Equally important is avoiding transformation narratives that reduce change to technical innovation or novelty. As with the legacy of “wilderness” and “rewilding,” dominant conservation framings that erase human presence and reinforce the conceptual separation between the “natural” world and “culture” risk co-opting or erasing Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ ways of being that already embody sustainability102. This is not to idealize Indigenous Peoples or local communities as universally living sustainable lives, nor to suggest their politics and practices are unchanging. Rather, their relational ontologies offer powerful possibilities for reimagining sustainable futures.
A genuine commitment to transformation requires an ontological and ethical shift, from relations of domination to relations of care, reciprocity, and accountability. This shift can guide for non-Indigenous actors seeking transformations in diverse contexts, calling for humility making space for Indigenous Peoples’ leadership, deep listening (to humans and more-than-human voices), self-reflection, and alignment of action with justice38. It also means resisting efforts to impose externally driven solutions and to appropriate Indigenous Peoples’ struggles for other agendas. As the field of transformative change for sustainability grows, the need for humility and reflexivity on behalf of non-Indigenous actors becomes ever more urgent.
Ultimately, Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ roles must be recognized and supported—not substituted, romanticized, nor instrumentalized—by those committed to justice and ecological integrity. Strengthening these roles calls for a reconfiguration of ontologies, values, and relations beyond Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ contexts. Embodying this shift in research, policy, and practice is not a destination, but an ongoing, collective journey towards pluriversal justice and sustainability.
References
O’Brien, K. et al. IPBES Transformative Change Assessment: Summary for Policymakers. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17099400 (2024).
Reyes-Garcia, V. et al. Actions and actors driving transformative change for global sustainability. Nat Sustain In press, (2026).
Shen, X. et al. Countries’ differentiated responsibilities to fulfill area-based conservation targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. One Earth 6, 548–559 (2023).
Gurung, J. et al. IPBES Transformative Change Assessment: Chapter 1. Transformative Change and a Sustainable World. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16310122, (2024).
Castellano, M. Updating Aboriginal traditions of knowledge. in Indigenous knowledges in global contexts: Multiple readings of our world (eds. Dei, J., Hall, B. & Rosenberg, D.) 21–36 (University of Toronto Press, 2000).
Aboukakrine, M. W. et al. Ărramăt: an example of Indigenous Peoples’ holistic approach of health and well-being. Facets 10, (2025).
Brondízio, E. S. et al. Locally based, regionally manifested, and globally relevant: Indigenous and local knowledge, values, and practices for nature. Annu Rev. Environ. Resour. 46, 481–509 (2021).
Reyes-García, V. et al. Recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ rights and agency in the post-2020 biodiversity agenda. Ambio 51, 84–92 (2022).
da Silva, E. C. et al. The importance of traditional communities in biodiversity conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 34, 685–714 (2024).
Berkes, F. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. (Taylor & Francis, 2018).
Brondizio, E. & Le Tourneau, F.-M. Environmental governance for all. Science 352, 1272–1273 (2016).
Garnett, S. T. et al. A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nat. Sustain 1, 369–374 (2018).
Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch: World Report 2019–Events of 2018. https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/world_report_download/hrw_world_report_2019.pdf (2019).
Scheidel, A. et al. Global impacts of extractive and industrial development projects on Indigenous Peoples’ lifeways, lands, and rights. Sci. Adv. 9, eade9557 (2023).
Dawson, N. M. et al. The role of indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation. Ecol. Soc. 26, 19 (2021).
Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366, eaax3100 (2019).
Forest Peoples Programme, International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, Indigenous Women’s Biodiversity Network Centres of Distinction on Indigenous and Local Knowledge & Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Local Biodiversity Outlooks 2: The Contributions of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities to the Implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and to Renewing Nature and Cultures. A Complement to the Fifth Edition of Global Biodiversity. (Forest Peoples Programme, Moreton-in-Marsh, England, 2020).
CBD. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. https://www.cbd.int/gbf (2022).
Witter, R. et al. Moments of influence in global environmental governance. Env Polit. 24, 894–912 (2015).
Forest Peoples Programme, International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity & Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Local Biodiversity Outlooks. Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ Contributions to the Implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. A Complement to the Fourth Edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook. (2016).
van Mulukom, V. & de Wet, M. The importance of narrative and intuitive thought in navigating our realities. Evol. Stud. Imaginative Cult. 5, 61–64 (2021).
Thaman, R. et al. The Contribution of Indigenous and Local Knowledge Systems to IPBES: Building Synergies with Science. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000225242 (2013).
McGregor, D., Whitaker, S. & Sritharan, M. Indigenous environmental justice and sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain 43, 35–40 (2020).
Wheeler, H. C. et al. The need for transformative changes in the use of Indigenous knowledge along with science for environmental decision-making in the Arctic. People Nat. 2, 544–556 (2020).
Huambachano, M., Soto, G. R. N. & Mwampamba, T. H. Making room for meaningful inclusion of Indigenous and local knowledge in global assessments: our experiences in the values assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Ecol. Soc. 30, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-15599-300116 (2025).
Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Who Are Indigenous Peoples?
IPBES. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. (IPBES secretariat, 2019).
ICCA Consortium. Meanings and More. Policy Brief of the ICCA Consortium. (2019).
IPBES. IPBES Transformative Change Assessment: Glossary. https://zenodo.org/records/11382224 (2024).
IPBES. Report of the First Indigenous and Local Knowledge Dialogue Workshop for the IPBES Assessments of the Nexus of Biodiversity, Food, Water and Health and Transformative Change: Framing the Assessments. (2022).
IPBES et al. Report of the Second Indigenous and Local Knowledge Dialogue Workshop on the IPBES Assessment of Transformative Change and Scenarios of the Future: Reviewing the First Draft of the Assessment. (2023).
IPBES. Report of the Third Indigenous and Local Knowledge Dialogue Workshop on the IPBES Assessment of Transformative Change: Reviewing the First Draft of the Summary for Policymakers and Second Drafts of the Chapters. (2023).
McElwee, P. et al. Working with Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) in Large-Scale Ecological Assessments: Reviewing the Experience of the IPBES Global Assessment. Applied Ecology (2020).
Stein, S. et al. Toward more ethical engagements between Western and Indigenous sciences. Facets 9, 1–14 (2024).
Cheok, J. et al. Framings in Indigenous futures thinking: barriers, opportunities, and innovations. Sustain Sci 1–21 https://doi.org/10.1007/S11625-024-01615-1 (2025).
Frantzeskaki, N. et al. A transformative shift in urban ecology toward a more active and relevant future for the field and for cities. Ambio 53, 871–889 (2024).
Villasante, S. et al. IPBES Transformative Change Assessment: Chapter 2. Visions of a Sustainable World - for Nature and People. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16310763, (2024).
Gram-Hanssen, I., Schafenacker, N. & Bentz, J. Decolonizing transformations through ‘right relations’. Sustain. Sci. 17, 673–685 (2021).
Kenter, J. O. & O’Connor, S. The Life Framework of Values and living as nature; towards a full recognition of holistic and relational ontologies. Sustain. Sci. 17, 2529–2542 (2022).
Coté, Charlotte. A drum in one hand, a sockeye in the other: stories of indigenous food sovereignty from the Northwest Coast. 184 (2022).
Huambachano, M. Indigenous good living philosophies and regenerative food systems in Aotearoa New Zealand and Peru. Routledge Handbook of Sustainable and Regenerative Food Systems 38–49 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429466823-4/ (2020).
Watene, K. Indigenous Philosophy and Intergenerational Justice. Intercultural Philosophy and Environmental Justice between Generations 17–32 https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009343756.003 (2024).
Whyte, K. P. Our ancestors’ dystopia now: Indigenous conservation and the Anthropocene. in The Routledge companion to the environmental humanities (eds. Heise, U. K., Christensen, J. & Niemann, M.) 222–231 (Routledge, 2017). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315766355-32.
Somiah, V. The Sea is Indigenous ‘Land’ too: Negotiating presence and rights of Indigenous maritime communities in Sabah, Malaysia. Sojourn 37, 85 (2022).
Bawaka Country et al. Co-becoming Bawaka: towards a relational understanding of place/space. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 40, 455–475 (2016).
Nelson, V., Garner, B. & Cordova, J. P. P. Exploring decolonial and relational paths to sustainability. Glob. Soc. Chall. J. 3, 154–163 (2024).
Lam, D. P. M. et al. Scaling the impact of sustainability initiatives: a typology of amplification processes. Urban Transform. 2020 2:1 2, 1–24 (2020).
Huambachano, M. Recovering Our Ancestral Foodways: Indigenous Traditions as a Recipe for Living Well. University of California Press (2024).
Nemogá, G. R., Appasamy, A. & Romanow, C. A. Protecting indigenous and local knowledge through a biocultural diversity framework. J. Environ. Dev. 31, 223–252 (2022).
Artelle, K. A. et al. Supporting resurgent Indigenous-led governance: a nascent mechanism for just and effective conservation. Biol. Conserv 240, 108284 (2019).
Levis, C. et al. Contributions of human cultures to biodiversity and ecosystem conservation. Nat. Ecol. Evolut. 8, 866–879 (2024).
Sangha, K. K. et al. Assessing the value of ecosystem services delivered by prescribed fire management in Australian tropical savannas. Ecosyst. Serv. 51, 101343 (2021).
Inman, E. N., Hobbs, R. J. & Tsvuura, Z. No safety net in the face of climate change: the case of pastoralists in Kunene Region, Namibia. PLoS One 15, e0238982 (2020).
Pradhan, A. & Ormsby, A. A. Biocultural conservation in the sacred forests of Odisha, India. Environ. Conserv 47, 190–196 (2020).
Dominguez, P., Zorondo-Rodríguez, F. & Reyes-García, V. Relationships between religious beliefs and mountain pasture uses: a case study in the High Atlas mountains of Marrakech, Morocco. Hum. Ecol. 38, 351–362 (2010).
Sullivan, M. K. et al. Sacred forest biodiversity conservation: a meta-analysis. Conserv Sci. Pr. 6, e13055 (2024).
Lof Cayun Panicheo. Área de Conservación Mapuche ‘Len Ko Winkul Mapu’ En El Valle Del Río Puelo. https://observatorio.cl/lof-cayun-panicheo-presenta-su-iniciativa-para-crear-el-area-de-conservacion-mapuche-len-ko-winkul-mapu-en-el-valle-del-rio-puelo/ (2020).
Mintah, F., Pamela, T. E. P., Oberlack, C. & Speranza, C. I. Why do forests persist and re-emerge amidst tropical deforestation pressures? Archetypes of governance and impact pathways. Policy Econ. 169, 103352 (2024).
Muller, S., Hemming, S. & Rigney, D. Indigenous sovereignties: relational ontologies and environmental management. Geograph. Res. 57, 399–410 (2019).
Scheidel, A. et al. Environmental conflicts and defenders: a global overview. Global Environ. Change 102104 (2020).
Fernández et al. A state-of-the-art review of indigenous peoples and environmental pollution. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag 16, 324–341 (2020).
Turreira-García, N., Meilby, H., Brofeldt, S., Argyriou, D. & Theilade, I. Who wants to save the forest? Characterizing community-led monitoring in Prey Lang, Cambodia. Environ. Manag. 61, 1019–1030 (2018).
Whyte, K. Settler colonialism, ecology, and environmental injustice. Environ. Soc. 9, 125–144 (2018).
Friedman, K., Garcia, S. M. & Rice, J. Mainstreaming biodiversity in fisheries. Mar. Policy 95, 209–220 (2018).
IPGCC. Indigenous Peoples Principles and Protocols for Just Transition. (2024).
Tauli-Corpuz, V., Alcorn, J., Molnar, A., Healy, C. & Barrow, E. Cornered by PAs: Adopting rights-based approaches to enable cost-effective conservation and climate action. World Dev. 130, 104923 (2020).
Schreckenberg, K., Franks, P., Martin, A. & Lang, B. Unpacking equity for protected area conservation. Parks 22, 11–26 (2016).
Poelina, A., Taylor, K. S. & Perdrisat, I. Martuwarra Fitzroy River Council: an Indigenous cultural approach to collaborative water governance. Australas. J. Environ. Manag. 26, 236–254 (2019).
Redvers, N. et al. The determinants of planetary health: an Indigenous consensus perspective. Lancet Planet Health 6, e156–e163 (2022).
Poelina, A. et al. Regeneration time: ancient wisdom for planetary wellbeing. Aust. J. Environ. Educ. 38, 397–414 (2022).
Fjellheim, R. Commentary on the SODA principles and their implications for Sámi data management. Acta Boreal. 41, 127–128 (2024).
Carroll, S. R., Herczog, E., Hudson, M., Russell, K. & Stall, S. Operationalizing the CARE and FAIR Principles for Indigenous data futures. Sci. Data 8, 1–6 (2021).
The First Nations Information Governance Centre. Ownership, Control, Access and Possession (OCAPTM): The Path to First Nations Information Governance. (2014).
Gram-Hanssen, I. Individual and collective leadership for deliberate transformations: Insights from Indigenous leadership. Leadership 17, 519–541 (2021).
IIFB. Historic decision at COP16 as Indigenous Peoples and local communities gain a permanent space in biodiversity policy. https://iifb-indigenous.org/historic-decision-at-cop16/ (2024).
Claeys, P. & Edelman, M. The United Nations Declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas. J. Peasant Stud. 47, 1–68 (2020).
Hill, R. et al. Community-based approaches to biodiversity finance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain 73, 101521 (2025).
Selin, H. & Selin, N. E. Indigenous Peoples in International Environmental Cooperation: Arctic Management of Hazardous Substances. Rev. Eur. Community Int. Environ. Law 17, 72–83 (2008).
Wyborn, C. et al. Co-producing sustainability: reordering the governance of science, policy, and practice. Annu Rev. Environ. Resour. 44, 319–346 (2019).
Büscher, B. & Fletcher, R. Towards convivial conservation. Conserv. Soc. 17, 283–296 (2019).
Bellato, L., Frantzeskaki, N. & Nygaard, C. Towards a regenerative shift in tourism: applying a regenerative conceptual framework toward swimmable urban rivers. Tour. Geographies 26, 1361–1380 (2024).
Kobayashi, Y., Seidl, R., Rammer, W., Suzuki, K. F. & Mori, A. S. Identifying effective tree planting schemes to restore forest carbon and biodiversity in Shiretoko National Park, Japan. Restor. Ecol. 31, e13681 (2023).
Ojha, H. & Hall, A. Transformation as system innovation: insights from Nepal’s five decades of community forestry development. Innov. Dev. 13, 109–131 (2023).
Gopi, G. & Manjula, M. Speciality rice biodiversity of Kerala: need for incentivising conservation in the era of changing climate. Curr. Sci. 114, 997–1006 (2018).
Eckert, L. E., Ban, N. C., Tallio, S. C. & Turner, N. Linking marine conservation and Indigenous cultural revitalization: First Nations free themselves from externally imposed social-ecological traps. Ecol. Soc. 23, 23 (2018).
Makey, L. & Awatere, S. He Mahere Pāhekoheko Mō Kaipara Moana–integrated ecosystem-based management for Kaipara Harbour, Aotearoa New Zealand. Soc. Nat. Resour. 31, 1400–1418 (2018).
Healey, M. C. Resilient salmon, resilient fisheries for British Columbia, Canada. Ecol. Soc. 14, (2009).
Kimmerer, R. W. Braiding Sweetgrass. Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants. (Milkweed Editions, 2013).
dos Santos, L. L. Indigenous Economies. in Encyclopedia of the Social and Solidarity Economy, A Collective Work of the United Nations Inter-Agency Task Force on SSE (UNTFSSE) (ed. Yi, I.) 61–67 (United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), Switzerland, 2023).
Utting, P. Social and Solidarity Economy: Beyond the Fringe? Introductory chapter. (2015).
Kamiyama, C., Hashimoto, S., Kohsaka, R. & Saito, O. Non-market food provisioning services via homegardens and communal sharing in satoyama socio-ecological production landscapes on Japan’s Noto peninsula. Ecosyst. Serv. 17, 185–196 (2016).
Hes, D. & Du Plessis, C. Designing for Hope: Pathways to Regenerative Sustainability. (Routledge, London, 2015).
Sands, B., Machado, M. R., White, A., Zent, E. & Gould, R. Moving towards an anti-colonial definition for regenerative agriculture. Agric Hum. Values 40, 1697–1716 (2023).
Rossi, A., Bui, S. & Marsden, T. Redefining power relations in agrifood systems. J. Rural Stud. 68, 147-158 (2019).
Escobar, A. Designs for the Pluriverse. Designs for the Pluriverse (Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 2018) https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822371816.
Jacobs, D. Trent. & Narváez, Darcia. Restoring the kinship worldview: Indigenous voices introduce 28 precepts for rebalancing life on planet Earth. 316 (2022).
O’Donnell, E., Poelina, A., Pelizzon, A. & Clark, C. Stop burying the lede: the essential role of indigenous law(s) in creating rights of nature. Transnatl. Environ. Law 9, 403–427 (2020).
Washington, H. et al. Foregrounding ecojustice in conservation. Biol. Conserv 228, 367–374 (2018).
Guayasamin, J. M. et al. Biodiversity conservation: local and global consequences of the application of “rights of nature” by Ecuador. Neotrop. Biodivers. 7, 541–545 (2021).
Banwell, S., Nelson, V. & Dehbi, F. Achieving sustainability transformations for multi-species justice: assessing the potential of diverse legal pathways and societal struggles. Sustainability Science 20, 1017–1035 (2025).
Barros, B. & Wilk, R. The outsized carbon footprints of the super-rich. Sustainability: Sci., Pract., Policy 17, 316–322 (2021).
Fletcher, M. S., Hamilton, R., Dressler, W. & Palmer, L. Indigenous knowledge and the shackles of wilderness. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2022218118 (2021).
Porsanger, J., Guttorm, G. & Árbediehtu (prosjekt). Working with Traditional Knowledge: Communities, Institutions, Information Systems, Law and Ethics. 285 https://samas.brage.unit.no/samas-xmlui/handle/11250/177065 (2012).
Bjøru, A.-M. & Solbakken, A. R. Birgejupmi – Life Skills, the Sámi Approach to Inclusion and Adapted Education. The Morning Watch: Educational and Social Analysis 47, 16–25 (2021).
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. Territories of Life. Exploring Vitality of Governance for Conserved and Protected Areas. https://volume.territoriesoflife.org/ (2024).
Zanjani, L. V. et al. Territories of life as key to global environmental sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 63, 101298 (2023).
Githitho, A. Listing The Sacred Mijikenda kaya Forests as UNESCO World Heritage Sites: “The Long Journey”. Journal des Africanistes 86, 198–217 (2016).
Johansson, P. et al. Cultural expertise in Sami land rights litigation: Epistemic strategies in the Girjas and Fosen cases. Jindal Global Law Review 14, 217–240 (2023).
Allard, C. & Brännström, M. Girjas Reindeer Herding Community v. Sweden: Analysing the Merits of the Girjas Case. Arctic Review on Law and Politics 12, 56–79 (2021).
Östlund, L., Bergman, I., Sandström, C. & Brännström, M. The Legal Application of Ethnoecology: The Girjas Sami Village vs the Swedish State. Plants, People, and Places 188–202 https://doi.org/10.2307/J.CTV153K6X6.19 (2020).
Mervis, J. & Ortega, R. P. Study on braiding Indigenous and Western science halted. Science 385, 482–483 (2024).
Molenaar, E. J. The Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement and Arctic Indigenous peoples. Mar Policy 164, 106160 (2024).
López-Cubillos, S. et al. The landmark Escazú Agreement: An opportunity to integrate democracy, human rights, and transboundary conservation. Conserv Lett 15, e12838 (2022).
Stec, S. & Jendroska, J. The Escazú Agreement and the Regional Approach to Rio Principle 10: Process, Innovation, and Shortcomings. J. Environ. Law. 31, 533–545 (2019).
Correia, M., Alexis, S. & Dulic, A. Bringing the salmon home: a study of cross-cultural collaboration in the Syilx Okanagan Territory of British Columbia. Ecology and Society https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14831-29011529 (2024).
Lake Babine Nation. Recreational Sockeye Fisheries Management Plan. (2021).
Bush, J., Frantzeskaki, N., Ossola, A. & Pineda-Pinto, M. Priorities for mainstreaming urban nature-based solutions in Australian cities. Nature-Based Solutions 3, 100065 (2023).
Olesen, T. Transnational Zapatism. The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements 1–2 https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470674871.WBESPM410.PUB2 (2022).
Baronnet, B. Zapatismo y educación autónoma: de la rebelión a la dignidad indígena. Sociedade e Cultura 13, 247–258 (2010).
Ruru, J. Listening to Papatūānuku: a call to reform water law. J R Soc N Z 48, 215–224 (2018).
Charpleix, L. The Whanganui River as Te Awa Tupua: Place-based law in a legally pluralistic society. Geogr J 184, 19–30 (2018).
Espinosa, C. The Advocacy of the Previously Inconceivable: A Discourse Analysis of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth at Ri +20. J Environ Dev 23, 391–416 (2014).
Villavicencio Calzadilla, P. & Kotzé, L. J. Living in Harmony with Nature? A Critical Appraisal of the Rights of Mother Earth in Bolivia. Transnational Environmental Law 7, 397–424 (2018).
Cullinan, C. Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice. (Green Publishing, Chelsea, 2011).
Metz, T. Ubuntu as a Moral Theory and Human Rights in South Africa. Preprint at http://www.info.gov.za/ (2011).
Ramose, M. B. African Philosophy through Ubuntu. (Mond Books, Harare, 2005).
Mabele, M. B., Krauss, J. E. & Kiwango, W. Going Back to the Roots: Ubuntu and Just Conservation in Southern Africa. Conservation and Society 20, 92–102 (2022).
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to IPBES Member States for their strategic vision and to former IPBES Executive Secretary, A. Larigauderie, Chair, D. Obura, and the members of the Technical Support Unit, L. Périanin and A. Renaud, for continued advice. We are also grateful for the discussions with authors of the Transformative Change Assessment, on which this article is based. We received no specific funding for this work; all authors involved in the IPBES do so on a voluntary basis. The IPBES Transformative Change Assessment was made possible thanks to many contributions to the IPBES trust fund from governments (www.ipbes.net/donors). VRG and SV acknowledge support from the European Research Council (VRG: FP7-771056-LICCI and SV: FP7-101002784-EQUALSEA). SV also acknowledges the financial support to CRETUS from the Rede CIGUS, and the support of the Earth Commission and Future Earth. HCW acknowledges support from the Canada-Inuit Nunangat-United Kingdom Arctic Research Programme (CINUK). NF acknowledges the support from the Department Board and the Faculty of Geosciences of Utrecht University who supported financially and institutionally her participation in the IPBES Transformative Change Assessment. HG acknowledges support from the U.S. Global Change Research Program for her participation in the IPBES Transformative Change Assessment. This work contributes to the ‘María de Maeztu’ Programme for Units of Excellence of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (CEX2019-000940-M).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
V.R.G. conceived the idea, conducted investigation, and wrote the original draft. V.N. conceived the idea, conducted investigation, designed the figures, and contributed to write the original draft. M.B.M. conducted investigation, designed the figures, reviewed drafts, and contributed to the final manuscript. V.H. conceived the idea, conducted investigation, and contributed to write the final manuscript. J.L. conceived the idea, conducted investigation, designed the figures, and contributed to write the final manuscript. H.W. conceived the idea, conducted investigation, and contributed to write the final manuscript. Z.A. conducted investigation and contributed to write the final manuscript. P.B. conducted investigation and contributed to write the final manuscript. J.C. conducted investigation and contributed to write the final manuscript. JMD conducted investigation and contributed to write the final manuscript. N.F. conducted investigation and contributed to write the final manuscript. E.G. conducted investigation and contributed to write the final manuscript. H.G. conducted investigation and contributed to write the final manuscript. C.G. conducted investigation and contributed to write the final manuscript. J.G. conducted investigation and contributed to write the final manuscript. M.J.H. conducted investigation and contributed to write the final manuscript. Y.H. conducted investigation and contributed to write the final manuscript. MH conducted investigation and contributed to write the final manuscript. CIS conducted investigation and contributed to write the final manuscript. R.A.M. conducted investigation, designed the figures, and contributed to write the final manuscript. L.M. conducted investigation and contributed to write the final manuscript. A.V.M. conducted investigation and contributed to write the final manuscript. M.N. conducted investigation and contributed to write the final manuscript. K.O. conducted investigation and contributed to write the final manuscript. SP conducted investigation and contributed to write the final manuscript. K.R. conducted investigation and contributed to write the final manuscript. N.R. conducted investigation and contributed to write the final manuscript. R.S. conducted investigation and contributed to write the final manuscript. S.V. conducted investigation and contributed to write the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare the following competing interests. P.B. coordinates IPBES Indigenous and Local Knowledge Technical support unit, based at UNESCO-Paris. E.G. is President and a financial member of the Australian Institute of Ecological Agriculture. V.N. is a financial member of the Natural Resources Institute (NRI), a research and development organization. K.O. is co-owner of cCHANGE, which focuses on transformations to sustainability.
Peer review
Peer review information
Communications Earth & Environment thanks Elsa Tsioumani and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Yann Benetreau. A peer review file is available.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Reyes-García, V., Nelson, V., Bonilla-Moheno, M. et al. Indigenous Peoples and local communities as agents of transformative change for sustainability. Commun Earth Environ 7, 102 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-025-03098-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-025-03098-z
