MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411355004 · doi:10.1017/plc.2025.10003.pr3

Recommendation: How to incorporate the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in the Global Plastics Treaty — R0/PR3

2025· peer-review· en· W4411355004 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRecycling and Waste Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeclarationIndigenousTreatyPolitical scienceLaw and economicsLawEnvironmental ethicsPublic administrationSociologyEcologyBiologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the 1980s, international governance documents have acknowledged the importance of recognizing, incorporating, and protecting Indigenous Peoples' rights and knowledge related to environmental governance.This trend continues, albeit unevenly, in the draft Global Plastics Treaty (UNEP, 2024).The primary issue with the current draft is that while Indigenous knowledge is referenced, Indigenous Peoples are absent.Indigenous Peoples are rightsholders, not stakeholders (IIPFP, 2024a(IIPFP, , 2024b)).Indigenous Peoples and Nations possess sovereignty, legal rights and intergenerational responsibilities for their ancestral lands and waters that are distinct from and beyond the interests of stakeholders.The International Indigenous Peoples' Forum on Plastics (IIPFP) has emphasized that the Treaty must "recognize that Indigenous Peoples have distinct status and inherent collective rights enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)" (UN, 2007; IIPFP, 2024a).The Declaration and the Treatyboth authored by United Nations bodieshave the potential to reinforce one another (IIPFP, 2024a(IIPFP, , 2024b)), but this alignment has not yet materialized, even in the most robust Treaty drafts.The draft Treaty offers three sets of "Principles and Approaches" (Article 1).Only one includes "The use of relevant traditional knowledge, knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local knowledge systems" (UNEP, 2024,1.2.f).Even within that version, the emphasis is on Indigenous knowledge rather than on Indigenous Peoples themselves (UNEP, 2024,1.2.f, 3.5, 3.6.e,5.1.b,9.2.b, 17.1.cand 18.3.b).This reflects a common pattern of extracting value from Indigenous communities for non-Indigenous goals without upholding Indigenous rights: to self-determination, to governance of Indigenous lands and waters and to free, prior and informed consent.The IIPFP makes clear that "the knowledge and science of Indigenous Peoples [must] only [be] considered in conjunction with protections and safeguards that guarantee the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples holding that knowledge" (UN, 2007; IIPFP, 2024a).There remains a significant opportunity to integrate Indigenous rights into the Treaty, especially when such inclusion is guided by UNDRIP (see Table 1 and IIPFP, 2024a).Central to these rights is the participation of Indigenous representatives in decision-making bodies (Table 1, Row 1; Ecojustice, 2024).This argument stems from an approach that begins with Indigenous rights and then turns to the Global Plastics Treaty, rather than framing Indigenous Peoples as resources that can enrich the Treaty.Several imperatives support this approach.First, Indigenous Peoples are not value-added assets to be leveraged by Parties or Committees outlined in the Treaty (Liboiron, 2021).Second, under international human rights law, all rights are inalienable and immutablethey cannot be subordinated to the desires of other stakeholders (Liljeblad, 2023).Third, while the Treaty references Indigenous knowledge, without the broader socio-epistemological frameworks from which that knowledge arises, it will often be misinterpreted or misapplied, weakening the reason for its inclusion in the first place (UNEP, 2024; IIPFP, 2024a, Principle 6; Liboiron and Cotter, 2023).For example, when a state Ministry for the Environment compared its 8 indicators of freshwater health with the 29 developed by Māori, only 4 overlapped.The Māori indicators included "fitness for cultural usage" and "the number of species of traditional significance that are still present" (Tipa and Teirney, 2006, p. 2).Indigenous knowledge is not simply a datasetit is a system of understanding that is intergenerational, place-based, relational and grounded in responsibilities to land and water.It cannot be separated from the Peoples who hold and maintain it.A core barrier to aligning the Treaty and the Declaration remains that "this treaty is being negotiated in rooms where Indigenous Peoples have been excluded" (Elliott, 2024;Jacobs, 2024; IIPFP, 2024b IIPFP, , 2025)).Even if the Treaty begins to integrate UNDRIP (see Table 1), two critical issues persist.First, the Treaty assigns authority to "The Parties"the state actors bound by the convention (UNEP 2024, Article 2.a).These states often fail to recognize the legal personality and sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples (Brown, 2024).This structural exclusion underscores the need to incorporate Indigenous Peoples into the Treaty's Committees and Secretariat (Table 1, Row 1; IIPFP, Point 12).

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0360.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3200.346

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same topicRecycling and Waste Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207