War, climate change, and AI: What’s at stake at this year’s UN Indigenous forum

Hundreds of delegates representing the world’s approximately 476 million Indigenous people are convening at the United Nations headquarters in New York City this week for the 24th session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII). While the forum remains the largest and most significant global gathering of its kind, the atmosphere this year is marked by a palpable sense of urgency and mounting hostility. Indigenous leaders arrive to find themselves at the intersection of several global crises: an artificial intelligence boom driving renewed resource extraction on ancestral lands, restrictive visa policies that hinder diplomatic participation from the Global South, and the dual pressures of climate change and "green energy" projects that frequently ignore Indigenous land rights.

A Holistic Approach to Survival in the Shadow of War

The official theme of this year’s forum, "Ensuring Indigenous peoples’ health, including in the context of conflict," addresses a grim reality for many communities worldwide. Indigenous populations frequently reside in territories that are resource-rich but politically marginalized, making them primary targets for militarization and armed conflict. Experts participating in the forum emphasize that Indigenous health cannot be viewed through the narrow lens of Western clinical medicine. Instead, it is inextricably linked to the environment, territorial sovereignty, and cultural continuity.

A key report presented by Geoffrey Roth, a Standing Rock Sioux descendant and board chair of the Indigenous Determinants of Health Alliance, argues that the health inequities faced by Indigenous peoples are a direct legacy of colonialism and are being exacerbated by modern ecological degradation. Roth’s report outlines the "Indigenous determinants of health," which include land tenure, governance authority, and the preservation of traditional food systems.

"You cannot separate human health from the health of the environment, or our culture, or our language," Roth stated during the opening sessions. "Indigenous people view health from a holistic perspective."

The report highlights how state-sanctioned erasure of Indigenous languages and the banning of traditional practices, such as midwifery, contribute to a cycle of trauma. In many regions, Indigenous women are forced into conventional medical institutions where they face systemic racism and "obstetric violence"—a term used to describe medical procedures performed without informed consent or in a manner that disregards cultural dignity. Conversely, the report points to the Coquille Indian Tribe in Oregon as a model of success. By adopting an Indigenous Determinants of Health ordinance, the tribe has integrated cultural activities, such as monthly fishing trips for elders, into their healthcare strategy, recognizing that tradition and behavioral health are one and the same.

Institutional Hurdles and the Diplomacy of Exclusion

Despite the UNPFII’s status as a premier diplomatic venue, the ability of Indigenous leaders to participate is being undermined by practical and political barriers. Many delegates from the Global South have reported increased difficulty in securing visas to enter the United States. Mariana Kiimi Ortiz Flores, an advocacy assistant at Cultural Survival and a member of the Na Ñuu Savi people of Mexico, noted that several representatives from Africa and South America were denied entry this year.

This "visa diplomacy" has created a tiered system of participation where those most affected by extraction and conflict are often the ones silenced by administrative red tape. Flores pointed out that the general climate of insecurity and hate speech against Latin and Indigenous peoples in the U.S. has made delegates feel physically and spiritually threatened even before they reach the UN floor.

The forum’s efficacy is further questioned by the experiences of those who do manage to attend. Last year, Indigenous leaders from Bolivia who traveled to New York to protest mining on their lands were reportedly harassed by members of a Bolivian political party within the forum itself. Such incidents have led to a growing disillusionment with the UN system. "The forum is meant to be for Indigenous peoples, but we really felt that’s not what’s happening anymore," Flores said. "At the end of the day, the states are the ones who have more power over our lives."

The New Frontier of Digital Extractivism

As the global economy pivots toward artificial intelligence, a new threat has emerged: digital extractivism. Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim, an Indigenous Mbororo leader from Chad and former chair of the UNPFII, warned in a recent report that AI is a "double-edged sword." While AI tools could theoretically assist in revitalizing endangered languages or monitoring territorial boundaries via satellite imagery, they are also being used to scrape Indigenous cultural content without consent.

This "scraping" involves generative AI systems consuming medicinal knowledge, traditional stories, and even genetic data to fuel commercial algorithms. Lydia Jennings, a citizen of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe and an assistant professor at Dartmouth College, has documented cases where mining companies pulled cultural information from environmental impact statements to promote their projects online.

"How much information do we share in efforts to protect our sacred homelands? And what are the ways that we can govern how and who uses that data?" Jennings asked. The movement for "Indigenous Data Sovereignty" is now a central pillar of the forum’s agenda, seeking to ensure that communities retain the right to own and control information that is derived from their lands and traditions.

Climate Adaptation and the Crisis of Mobility

The climate crisis remains an overarching concern, but the forum is specifically highlighting how "green" solutions can sometimes be as damaging as the problems they seek to solve. The transition to renewable energy requires a massive influx of critical minerals like lithium, cobalt, and copper—most of which are located on or near Indigenous lands. This has led to a surge in mining projects that advocates say are driving rights violations under the guise of environmental progress.

Furthermore, a report focusing on nomadic and pastoralist peoples warned that "fortress conservation" models—where land is fenced off to protect biodiversity—are curbing the traditional mobility of groups like the Tuareg in the Sahara and the Maasai in East Africa. Samante Anne, a Maasai representative from Kenya, explained that mobility is not just a lifestyle but a deliberate climate adaptation strategy.

"Mobility has everything to do with ensuring our livelihoods are secure and our food security is good," Anne said. However, communal lands in Kenya are increasingly being subdivided for carbon offset projects, which restrict movement and render the lived realities of pastoralists invisible in official policy frameworks.

The Legal Battle Over Identity: Indigenous Peoples vs. Local Communities

A significant point of contention within the UN bureaucracy is the persistent lumping of Indigenous peoples with "local communities" under the acronym "IPLC." While this may seem like a semantic detail, Indigenous leaders argue it has profound legal implications. Under international law, particularly the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), Indigenous peoples hold distinct rights to self-determination and land restitution. "Local communities," while important stakeholders, do not hold the same legal standing.

Geoffrey Roth noted that the World Health Organization and other agencies often categorize Indigenous initiatives as "equity" issues rather than "rights" issues. "Conflating us with other populations really diminishes our rights and diminishes our ability to maintain our health in our communities," Roth said. In 2023, the three primary UN Indigenous rights bodies issued a rare joint statement demanding an end to the use of the IPLC acronym, arguing that it dilutes the specific obligations states have toward Indigenous nations.

Timeline of Modern Indigenous Rights Advocacy

To understand the stakes of the 2025 forum, it is essential to view it within the chronology of the last two decades of advocacy:

• 2000: The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues is established by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
• 2007: The General Assembly adopts the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) after 25 years of negotiations.
• 2014: The World Conference on Indigenous Peoples is held, resulting in an outcome document where states reaffirm their commitment to UNDRIP.
• 2021: At COP26 in Glasgow, a historic $1.7 billion pledge is made to support Indigenous and local communities in forest conservation, though much of this funding has yet to reach communities directly.
• 2023: Indigenous bodies issue a formal protest against the "IPLC" acronym used in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
• 2025: The 24th Session of the UNPFII opens with a focus on health, conflict, and the impacts of AI.

Analysis of Implications for Global Governance

The challenges presented at this year’s forum suggest a pivotal moment for international diplomacy. As member states increasingly prioritize national security and economic competition—particularly in the realm of AI and green energy minerals—the multilateral system’s ability to protect marginalized groups appears to be waning.

The "visa denials" and "harassment" mentioned by delegates suggest that the UN headquarters, once considered a neutral "safe space" for global dialogue, is becoming susceptible to the same geopolitical tensions that define the outside world. If Indigenous leaders are unable to access these forums, or if their voices are "diluted" by being grouped into broader stakeholder categories, the legitimacy of the UN’s human rights framework may be permanently damaged.

However, the resolve of the delegates remains high. The forum continues to serve as a vital networking hub where Indigenous nations can bypass state intermediaries to form their own alliances. As Mariana Kiimi Ortiz Flores concluded, "If we as Indigenous peoples don’t do it, no one else will speak for us and defend us." The 2025 forum is not just a meeting; it is a testament to the endurance of peoples who have survived centuries of displacement and are now fighting to ensure that the "green" and "digital" futures of the 21st century do not repeat the mistakes of the past.