Indigenous Peoples’ rights in national climate governance: An analysis of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the recognition of Indigenous Peoples' contributions to climate governance by the international community has gradually increased, a rights-based approach in national climate action is still largely absent. This article analyses the recognition of Indigenous Peoples' rights in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement. We conducted a content analysis of all NDCs submitted between 2016 and May 2022. Through a five-pronged framework of sustainable self-determination, we assessed how the NDCs recognise: i. Indigenous Peoples as rights-holders; ii. Indigenous jurisdiction over land; iii. Indigenous knowledge systems; iv. Indigenous Peoples' right to full and effective participation in climate governance; and v. the legacy of colonialism. NDCs with references related to Indigenous Peoples are increasing. However, questions remain regarding their sincerity and commitment to implementation. States must therefore make more significant efforts to ensure that the NDCs take a rights-based approach and contribute to strengthening Indigenous Peoples' role and say in climate governance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".