UNDRIP and Indigenous well-being: Global challenges for social workers and social-work organizations

Indicators of progress

In principle, the international legal standards concerning the rights of Indigenous Peoples are now accepted and recognized as obligations by the majority of states, especially at the legislative and judicial levels. During the first 10 years following its adoption, the role played by UNDRIP was not limited to contributing to the formation and/or crystallization of rules as legal principles. UNDRIP has also been generally acknowledged as the instrument of reference to define state obligations existing in the field of Indigenous Peoples’ rights (Lenzerini, 2019). For instance, the on going process led by Norway, Finland, and Sweden to develop a Sámi Convention represents a major regional development. This Convention, co-developed across borders, is based on partial alignment with UNDRIP (Lenzerini, 2019).

In response to contextual differences in policy needs, several existing and subsequent regional initiatives have supplemented UNDRIP in the Global South. In 2000, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) created the Working Group on Indigenous Populations/Communities (WGIP), “which has been a significant voice in bolstering Indigenous Advocacy” (Côté et al., 2025: 322). In 2002, leaders from Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela established the Andean Charter for the promotion and protection of human rights; the Charter includes articles specifically intended to protect the rights of Indigenous communities (Côté et al., 2025). In 2016, the Organization of American States adopted the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights’ draft on American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Côté et al., 2025).

At the national level, a few states have succeeded in implementing key principles and values embedded in UNDRIP. Canada is “sometimes seen as the world leader in UNDRIP implementation” (Côté et al., 2025: 311). In Greenland, where Indigenous people constitute the majority of the population, self-governance is increasing the number of Greenlandic Inuit in leadership positions empowered to implement self-determination (Côté et al., 2025). In Aotearoa/New Zealand, Indigenous participation in government is guaranteed through designated Māori constituencies in Parliament (Côté et al., 2025). The Constitutional Court of Ecuador ruled in 2022 that the consent of Indigenous communities in the country must be obtained for resource development projects (Côté et al., 2025).

It is the implementation and enforcement of laws protecting rights that is most critical (Côté et al., 2025), as political statements alone do not guarantee effective compliance with human rights rules. Progress also requires ground-level efforts, including those by social workers, that generate improvements in people’s well-being (Lenzerini, 2019). However, in many countries, the degree of practical implementation and effective realization of the rights of Indigenous Peoples remains unsatisfactory (Lenzerini, 2019).

Stagnation

Stagnation observed in many places has resulted in “concerns and urgency” for UNDRIP implementation (Côté et al., 2025: 309). Globally, the unique context of diverse Indigenous Peoples and different UNDRIP entry points forecloses uniform implementation. Moreover, “the international legal regime leaves Indigenous Peoples at the mercy of states [and the territorial integrity defined by states] at every turn, and seeking relief under international law perpetuates this dependency” (Bayot, 2023: 306).

To a large extent, responsibility for implementing UNDRIP rests with nation-states. Nationally and sub-nationally, however, many Indigenous groups have no chance to engage in impactful political participation and are not consulted on matters affecting them (United Nations [UN], 2020: 36). Given that mainstreaming Indigenous rights in institutional machinery and policies at the national level is challenging (Roy, 2009), such implementation efforts have not yet been realized in many parts of the world. State compliance with UNDRIP could be improved through more effective monitoring and evaluation (Rodríguez-Piñero , 2009). However, current approaches to monitoring state compliance are “qualitative and non-standardized, which limits comparability across time and across geopolitical lines” (Smith and Mitchell, 2020: 1).

The competing interests of governments and Indigenous communities produce roadblocks (Smith, 2008). Differing interpretations of Indigenous Peoples’ rights by states, Indigenous Peoples, business enterprises, nongovernmental organizations, and others have resulted in uneven implementation of UNDRIP and slow progress in realizing the full range of Indigenous Peoples’ rights (Forero, 2015). Development projects are often authorized unilaterally by governments without the FPIC of Indigenous Peoples (Mamo, 2022: 734). Even when FPIC is applied, its implementation “may or may not constitute a practical veto power for Indigenous Peoples who wish to prevent certain unwanted development-related projects on their traditional lands” (Côté et al., 2025: 314). For instance, Sweden lacks both informal and formal rules on consultation with Sámi people, although the Swedish constitution acknowledges Sámi rights (Côté et al., 2025). In Kenya, multiple, often foreign-invested, development projects “have been launched without FPIC in the course of government expropriation of Indigenous-occupied lands” (Côté et al., 2025: 320).

The absence of a universally accepted definition of Indigeneity, along with debate concerning who is truly Indigenous, contributes to undermining UNDRIP implementation in certain contexts (Côté et al., 2025). The meaning of “Indigeneity” remains controversial in many national contexts as it “involves not only legal classifications but also historical, sociological, anthropological and political issues which may affect how certain rights can be defined and implemented in legal documents and courts” (Odello, 2016: 51). Some African and Asian governments maintain that there are no “Indigenous Peoples” in their countries and that “everyone there was indigenous” (Morel, 2016: 357). For example, Bangladesh denies the existence of Indigenous Peoples by constitutionally categorizing them as “small ethnic groups” (Uddin, 2019: 68).

Because some rights embedded in UNDRIP (e.g. rights to self-determination, land, and natural resources) are perceived by both states and local stakeholders as contentious, governments remain reticent to implement the Declaration (Côté et al., 2025). Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, notes that disputes between governments and Indigenous communities in UNDRIP interpretation exist, especially in relation to rights to lands and resources, States’ duty to consult with and seek FPIC in matters that affect Indigenous Peoples, and “harmonizing State and customary Indigenous governance and justice systems” (Tauli-Corpuz, 2014: 9).

The undeniable reality is that the impact of UNDRIP at the country level is, at best, limited. Even in “world implementation leader” Canada, only 2 of the 10 provinces, namely British Columbia and the Northwest Territories, have enacted UNDRIP-related legislation (Côté et al., 2025). On the other side of the globe, Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders are still not recognized in Australia’s constitution (Côté et al., 2025). The People’s Republic of China gives only lip service to UNDRIP and has yet to recognize Indigenous rights and their land, housing, or resource ownership (Côté et al., 2025). In a post-UNDRIP reversal, the US Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that state governments may have jurisdictional authority over tribes. Prior to this decision that undercut the principle of self-determination, state and tribal laws were regarded as fairly equal by the US national government (Côté et al., 2025). The following discussion illuminates commonly encountered UNDRIP implementation gaps and barriers.

Sustainable development in Indigenous territories

In pursuit of recognition of their rights through implementation of UNDRIP, Indigenous Peoples should have avenues to work with national and supranational organizations to define sustainable development agendas concerning their communities and their Aboriginal homelands (Forero, 2015: 222). However, the implementation of “sustainable development” in Indigenous territories has proven to be a highly contentious and divisive rights-based issue. Indigenous Peoples have fought hard to “make it obligatory under national and international laws” that sustainable development projects in their territories could only happen when the initiatives “unequivocally endorse the complete implementation of their human rights as individuals and as Peoples” (Gilbert, 2007: 223). Nevertheless, there is an increased scale of externally determined development projects on the traditional lands of Indigenous Peoples (Debelo, 2011: 258), where the social and economic needs of non-Indigenous people often outweigh those of the Indigenous populations (Ngai, 2023; Song et al., 2022: 5).

The Voluntary National Review reports of many countries reveal that the majority of Indigenous Peoples live in rural areas and are struggling with livelihood issues. However, the national plans of many governments do not include appropriate interventions and provide insufficient budgetary allocations to address their struggles. On the contrary, development targets in Indigenous territories are often extractive in nature; governments seldom honor Indigenous Peoples’ rights to land and resources and rarely allow for equitable participation in decision-making (IPMG, 2019). Indigenous Peoples continue to “face serious threats not only in the context of being left behind but also of being pushed behind in the name of national economic growth for sustainable development” (IPMG, 2019: 3).

Disagreements over collective rights

The concept of collective rights, in particular the right to self-determination and collective land and natural resource rights, represents a major challenge to the implementation of UNDRIP. Collective rights “continue to face formidable resistance within national legal systems” around the world (Vivas-Barrera et al., 2023: 9).

A related contentious issue in the implementation of UNDRIP is “the recognition of Indigenous Peoples as ‘Peoples’” as that would result in the affirmation of their collective rights (Gilbert, 2007: 208). Outright refusal to recognize Indigenous identity constitutes a barrier encountered in some states. The very concept of “Indigenous Peoples” has been treated as problematic (Morel, 2016: 357).

Disagreements over self-determination

One of the biggest controversies concerning Indigenous Peoples’ rights is the principle of self-determination (Shrinkhal, 2021). UNDRIP does not contain a definition of “self-determination” (Gilbert, 2007). While Indigenous self-determination (i.e. “the agency of Indigenous people freely to determine their political status and pursue their economic, social, and cultural goals”) constitutes a key requirement for the advancement of Indigenous rights, many studies describe the relationship between self-determination and state autonomy as a “conflictual” one (Côté et al., 2025: 310).

Political resistance to its recognition and nation-state denial of Indigenous Peoples’ rights to self-determination largely spring from governments’ perception that self-determination is a “threat to national integrity” (Dahl, 2020: 268; also Dorough, 2009). Even countries with a long history of Indigenous rights movements refrain from fulfilling this aspect of UNDRIP, partly out of fear that self-determination would lead to “state disintegration through secession” (Debelo, 2011: 270).

While some countries’ constitutions contain autonomy arrangements and acknowledge Indigenous customary law and customary land tenure (UN, 2020: 42), other national governments are reluctant to concede autonomy and/or would not be able to implement the autonomy agreements, especially if they require amendments to the constitution, a referendum, or new legislation (Limbu, 2020: 60). Most Asian national governments consider “autonomy” a problematic agenda, “especially when it comes to . . . resource sharing or redistribution of the nation’s resources” (Limbu, 2020: 60). In some cases, the dominant political groups that hold power nationally use negative narratives, such as the threat of secession, to suppress autonomy movements or dismiss the autonomy agenda (Debelo, 2011; Limbu, 2020: 61).

Disputed definitions of lands

Much of the conflict between governments and Indigenous communities concerns externally imposed resource development and the sacredness that Indigenous people attribute to their land. For example, the Munduruku people in Brazil resisted land-based development because land to them is intimately tied to spiritual identity (Côté et al., 2025).

UNDRIP lacks clarity on how to provide and protect Indigenous Peoples’ rights to continued access to their “territories.” While affirming that “states shall give legal recognition and protection to Indigenous Peoples’ territories, lands, and resources,” the Declaration “does not provide for a clear obligation to demarcate Indigenous lands” (Gilbert, 2007: 226). The Indigenous lands that have never been delimited or titled create “complex legal and technical issues between the government and the local population” (Stavenhagen, 2009: 367).

Marginalization

There are few opportunities for genuine partnerships between Indigenous communities and local or national government and for Indigenous Peoples to be listened to because, in many cases, states are not accountable to them or “they lack adequate political weight and representation to influence policy outcomes” (Dorough, 2009; Roy, 2009: 223). Without political power, Indigenous Peoples will continue to face difficulties in developing “lasting, peaceful relationships with other Peoples,” gaining political power, exercising genuine self-determination, surviving as cultural groups with distinct identities, and achieving well-being (Dorough, 2009: 274). Barriers are exacerbated for Indigenous Peoples living in conflict-affected areas, such as the Kurds, Bedouins, or Kashmiris, where the implementation of Indigenous rights is directly influenced by the lack of international legitimacy and subordination to national security priorities (see, for example, Allassad Alhuzail and Mahajne, 2021).

Social-work contributions

Ongoing support of Indigenous Peoples at the local level across the globe by social-work organizations and social workers deserves more attention in the social-work literature. For example, social-work organizations have been trying to apply the Indigenous mentoring and monitoring system among Vatsonga-speaking people toward child protection. In the Chimanimani district of Zimbabwe, social workers worked with Indigenous communities to use their Indigenous knowledge system in crop and livestock production and in social ecology (Mwapaura et al., 2024). In Guatemala, Indigenous and non-Indigenous social organizations collaborate to fight for space in the public sphere by holding public forums and advocating for local and national policy changes (Minnick and O’Brien, 2018). At the national level, the Canadian Association of Social Workers has been contributing to “the ongoing process of reconciliation” (Canadian Association of Social Workers [CASW], 2019: 10). The US Council on Social Work Education created teaching resources to promote decolonization in social-work education, emphasizing repairing harms, respecting tribal sovereignty, and integrating Indigenous knowledge to build equitable practices. Recently, IFSW has stepped up in calling on social workers around the world to respect “Indigenous wisdom” and endorse “Indigenous social movement” and to take actions to advance Indigenous Peoples’ rights (International Federation of Social Workers [IFSW], 2024).

Social-work NGOs have contributed constructively to the UN knowledge base and the international organization’s ability to make improved decisions. Social workers’ interests are regularly represented on UN committees, NGO coalitions, alliances, and events by international social-work organizations, namely the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW), IFSW, and the International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW). Although there is no tally of social workers working with and for the UN system, it is reasonable to assume that thousands of transnational and local NGOs around the world are headed and staffed by social workers, many of whom are positioned to advocate for change at the UN level (Gabel and Yang, 2022). It is imperative that current and future generations of social workers seeking justice for Indigenous Peoples learn how to shape policies and decisions made at the UN, which in turn will impact national policies and local practices.

Social workers are at the front line of a human rights-based approach to achieving justice for Indigenous Peoples (Calma and Priday, 2011). Social workers can use their positions to influence other stakeholders on specific issues concerning Indigenous rights. Indigenous social workers and their allies have been advocating for Indigenous rights for decades. To build on social workers’ contributions thus far, the following section recommends further steps.

Local and grassroots level

UNDRIP does not include a concrete implementation manual, nor does it come with guidelines for contextualized applications. To bring about tangible positive change at the local level, social workers need to pay attention to “the crucial need for social transformation, meaning-making, and value enforcement that help to realize relevant rights, transformative participation, and inclusion of all groups” at the grassroots level (Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact [AIPP], 2021: x). Inclusion is essential in this work, as Indigeneity cannot be reduced to “oppositional relations between native Peoples and their others” (Paradies, 2016: 29).

To move beyond the binary dualism of Indigenous versus non-Indigenous, social workers need to recognize a “thoroughly hybridized world where boundaries have become utterly porous, even though they are artificially maintained” (Paradies, 2016: 29). The field of social work must acknowledge Indigenous Peoples, including Indigenous social workers, as “individuals with multiple personal and professional identities, including [but not limited to] Indigeneity” (Paradies, 2016: 30). It also must recognize the complexity of “a self-determining ‘changing-same’ Indigeneity, in which people do not have to look a certain way, be radically different, live by particular moral beliefs/actions or inhabit social disadvantage to being Indigenous” (Paradies, 2016: 30). In this regard, schools of social work need to draw on the insights of Indigenous social workers and their allies who have worked for Indigenous communities for decades and are not new to Indigenous issues.

To carry out social-action-based initiatives, building capacities and empowering stakeholders are steps that social workers can take to accelerate solutions at the local level (see, for instance, UNESCO Global Action Programme 2015–2019). This approach involves working with Indigenous communities to defend Indigenous cultures and identities, which constitute a transformed and transformative force; formulating visions and concrete proposals in the context of existing political constraints; and assisting Indigenous communities in enabling national and supranational organizations to devise advocacy plans and community development and Indigenous Peoples’ empowerment strategies. Building alliances has been at the heart of many successful advocacy campaigns (Lewis et al., 2021). Service delivery is important, not only in itself, but as “a way of gaining legitimacy and as an entry point for advocacy” (Lewis et al., 2021: 118). Ongoing and fruitful community organizing or mobilizing involves supporting Indigenous communities to advocate for themselves within their particular local political contexts (Ngai, 2023).

In the capacity-building process, social workers can use UNDRIP to provide a powerful, if incomplete, framework for the expression and maintenance of local and emic expressions of rights. In particular, the Declaration offers an important counter to the lack of respect for local interpretation of rights through “its emphasis on self-determination, self-governance, the promotion of spiritual and cultural practices, and the right to development in accordance with their own needs and interests” (Witter and Satterfield, 2018: 1088).

National level

While some governments constitutionally or legally recognize Indigenous Peoples and their identity, other governments impose national identities based on religious or ethnic denominations that favor dominant groups and systematically discriminate against Indigenous Peoples (Limbu, 2020: 61). Endorsement of UNDRIP seldom has led to governments’ change their position on the legal status of Indigenous Peoples in their countries. Article 46 of UNDRIP stipulates that “The exercise of the rights set forth in this Declaration shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law” (UN, 2007: 29). Most governments do not consider UNDRIP to be legally binding because it is not an international convention that requires ratification. Some state officials might even consider token support for the Declaration as merely a gesture of goodwill that does not carry any real obligations for the governments concerned. At best, for instance, most Asian governments considered UNDRIP as “soft laws” that do not include enforcement mechanisms and, thus, can be ignored at will (Stavenhagen, 2009: 356). This signals that Indigenous rights advocates need to work at the country level in order to find effective ways to protect and advance Indigenous rights within the constraints of the local context (Stavenhagen, 2009).

The majority of Indigenous rights implementation efforts focus on “moral persuasion” and “state accountability campaigns on a state-by-state basis” (Lightfoot, 2016: 264). Indigenous and non-Indigenous social workers have contributed to this effort and need to nurture the next generations of social workers to continue this role. The type of advocacy needed to bring about change involves making recommendations to governments through advocacy processes that push for implementation of what is promised in UNDRIP, constitutions, and national policies. Social workers should use UNDRIP as a “tool” to rally international pressure on governments to address the abuses, assaults, discrimination, and injustice imposed on Indigenous Peoples by governmental and nongovernmental entities. A key change agent role for civil society is to “make governments uncomfortable” and “not let them take comfort in policies that are oppressive or fail to promote well-being and human rights,” including Indigenous Peoples’ rights (Healy, 2017: 14). Thus, engaging in advocacy to pressure governments on Indigenous rights is an ethical obligation of social workers; it is imperative that social workers “monitor and lobby for improved positions that benefit vulnerable people . . . [and] bring their valuable practice knowledge into policy dialogs” (Healy, 2017: 13).

Regional and global levels

Social workers also must “engage with global structural forces and use consciousness-raising and praxis to enable . . . the profession to make the connections between personal suffering and structural oppression at the global level” (Deepak, 2012: 790). Much global advocacy needs to be activated at regional and international levels to pressure representatives of global bodies on issues such as Indigenous Peoples’ rights (Healy, 2017). When dealing with unresponsive governments, the ability of social workers to forge transnational connections with international organizations, NGOs, and social movements in other parts of the world is particularly helpful (Lewis et al., 2021).

Critical policy decisions are regularly made at the UN that affect how we frame human rights and Indigenous rights issues and respond to them in our own countries. Social workers need to be more deeply involved in these policy decisions by participating in “coalition building, networking, and the participatory decision-making process promoted at the UN” (Gabel and Yang, 2022: 417). Social-work organizations can use their consultative status and expertise within UN bodies to advocate for Indigenous Peoples’ rights while retaining their roles as external lobbyists and protesters at regional and international levels (Healy, 2017).

Promising ways to help advance Indigenous rights at regional and global levels include supporting international and regional IPOs in their advocacy and activism and serving as allies in the international Indigenous rights movement. Indigenous organization leaders have been working hard on projecting Indigenous perspectives on the global stage (Ngai, 2023). Growing political consciousness among Indigenous activists and their organizations contributes to transforming critical dimensions of Indigenous rights movements at the global level (Debelo, 2011: 266). For instance, in international decision-making forums across the world, IPO leaders have gained a platform to connect claims about Indigenous identity and culture to the health and sustainability of environmental systems (Witter and Satterfield, 2018: 1088). Indigenous nations are pushing international human rights beyond the limits of state-centered structures (Anaya, 2009; Smith, 2008: 1821). An increasing number of Indigenous Peoples have organized across geographic and political borders, bringing international attention to their common struggles. These activist groups vary from transnational organizations to smaller local organizations that reunite cultural groups divided by political borders.

Furthermore, a number of transnational IPOs have been influential in shaping the global discourse on Indigenous Peoples’ rights and the interpretation of UNDRIP. For example, Tebtebba (Indigenous Peoples’ International Centre for Policy Research and Education) is an “Indigenous Peoples’ organization born out of the need for heightened advocacy to have the rights of indigenous Peoples respected, protected and fulfilled worldwide” (Tebtebba, n.d). The organization has been “actively engaged in the processes which led to the adoption of international human rights law and other international instruments, policies, and agreements.” It “seeks to promote and disseminate widely Indigenous Peoples’ worldviews and perspectives” on important issues such as “Indigenous individual and collective human rights, and self-determined development” (Tebtebba, n.d). Another example is the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA). IWGIA is a global human rights organization dedicated to “promoting, protecting, and defending Indigenous Peoples’ collective and individual rights” worldwide. IWGIA focuses on “defending Indigenous Peoples’ land rights, territories, and resources; promoting inclusion in climate action, participation in local and international decision-making processes; and advocating for Indigenous Peoples’ self-determined development.” Its current core focus is “the impact of climate change and climate action on Indigenous Peoples’ rights, land defense and Indigenous defenders, and the creation and consolidation of Indigenous self-governance and autonomy” (Mamo, 2022: 691; see also International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs [IWGIA], n.d).

At the regional level, an inspiring example is the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP), a leading IPO in Asia, where 80 percent of the world’s Indigenous Peoples reside (World Bank, 2011). AIPP is “committed to the cause of promoting and defending Indigenous Peoples’ rights and human rights and articulating issues of relevance to Indigenous Peoples.” At present, AIPP has 46 members from 14 countries in Asia, including 18 Indigenous Peoples’ national alliances/networks and 30 local and sub-national organizations (see Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact [AIPP], n.d.). AIPP reiterates the right to self-determination as the “pathway to addressing the restoration of our homelands and our agency as sustainers and peacemakers of our society” (AIPP, 2022).