Hi, local communities are make up of group of people living together who may not originally from that locality while indigenous people  are people who are originally from a particular locality. community base natural management had always been a bone of  contention because most natural management project does not use decentralization approach. the local and indigenous are often excluded and denial access to  the natural resources thereby encouraging unsustainable natural  resources management.  

thanks! thats actually what my research is about - how Namibia decentralises its CBNRM approach leading to more sustainable resource use. I just got a bit confused between the terms :)

From knowledge perspective, these two (LK & IK) are more or less synonymous. Local community knowledge is the knowledge that people in a given community has developed over time, and continues to develop in a changing environment. All communities possess LK: rural and urban, youngsters and elders, original inhabitants and settlers. Indigenous people refers to people who have been living in a particular geographical area for a very long time, over many generations

follow traditional, non-industrial lifestyles inhabiting a certain locality for many years and they develop indigenous knowledge.

Looks like you are clear on the difference and potential overlap in the terms now.  One could be indigenous (people of the region) and of the local community (residing in this group); yet the local community may not be made up of the indigenous.  Good luck with your research.

thanks again this was very helpful!

I agree with the other authors. In addition, Local communities exhibit most of the characteristics cited in the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Expert Group Meeting of Local Community Representatives Recommendations on the Common Characteristics of Local Communities that is: self-identification; social cohesion; willingness to be represented as a local community; traditional knowledge transmitted from generation to generation including in oral form; shared common property over land and natural resources; lifestyles linked to traditions associated with natural cycles, the use of and dependence on biological resources, and the sustainable use of nature and biodiversity; among others. On the other hand In international law, however, the UN human rights system has set out a number of broad characteristics that support the identification of Indigenous Peoples worldwide. These characteristics include self-identification as indigenous peoples; historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies; strong links to territories and surrounding natural resources; distinct social, economic, or political systems, language, culture, and beliefs from non-dominant groups of society; and a resolve to maintain and reproduce ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities (UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Factsheet 1).

In a physical sense there is absolutely no difference at all. People are people the world over. The differences spoken of above reflect nothing other than states of mind, of consciousness, of "outlook" so to speak and come to that "law", however defined, is also just a state of mind.

Why am I saying this? The question of how local resources should/could be managed in principle falls on the shoulders of local & perhaps even regional representation, hopefully those within some ecologically cohesive area. Thus there arise what perhaps can be described as "political" considerations. But there is no a-priori reason to suppose a qualitative differentiation in respect of any one person's experience as opposed to another even if the groups to which they may identify with be deemed local or indigenous. Where such differences obtain any "social" recognition or standing what-so-ever then you may be sure that you are looking at a "power-play" - usually a disguised "resource grab".

As it called, local communities are made up of people of diverse origin or same origin living in a locality. that is the simple, clear and enforceable definition we can give.

But indigenous people are made up of people from a precise origin with a historical ties to this particular territory, and their cultural or historical distinctiveness from other populations. there are so many thing to say about indigenous people.

You can read:

Sanders, Douglas (1999). "Indigenous peoples: Issues of definition". International Journal of Cultural Property 8: 4–13.

local communities are make up of group of people living together who may not originally from that locality.

 indigenous people are people who are originally from a particular locality. 

Basically I agree with the opinions given. Local communities are obviously made up of groups of diverse origin (native and immigrated), and they are spatially localized. Indigenlous peoples have been defined in the ILO covenant of 1989 (Article 1 b) as follows:

"peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions. "

Article 2 adds 'self-identification' as a fundamental criterion.

Indigenous people are less localized and need not live in the same area. The Akha, Hmong, Dai or Tai and others in Southeast Asia are a diaspora and live in different countries, but they would still consider themselves as indigenous to the wider region. 

See for example:

- Janet C. Sturgeon, 2005, Border landscapes. The politics of Akha land use in China and Thailand, Chiang Mai, Silkworm Books

- Leepreecha P., McCaskill D. & Buadaeng K. (eds. 2008), Challenging the limits. Indigenous peoples of the Mekong region, Chiang Mai, Mekong Press

- McCaskill D., Leepreecha P. & Shaoying H. (eds. 2008), Living in a globalized world. Ethnic minorities in the Greater Mekong Subregion, Chiang Mai, Mekong Press

Agreed with Robin - In a physical sense there is absolutely no difference at all. And agree with many others - it depends on a case - normally legal case claiming rights to land, for example... We can define the Indigenous as those that lived in one locality (for a long – undefined - period). Yet, by the same token as “invasive species" are labeled, we would expect that groups that have moved from a place (e.g. ‘out of Africa’), slaves brought from other locales, or contemporary migrants should have a lower status on the hierarchy. Should, for example, all white Australians be thrown out of Australia because they are not native to the local environment and indeed have destroyed, directly or indirectly, some native species, including some of their kind (Aboriginals)? Or how about Russians living in The Netherlands – should they not be sent back to Siberia? Should the indigenous groups have special rights? While it is argued that traditional society had not harmed biodiversity (Sponsel 2013), evidence shows that early humans might have caused extinctions (Barnosky et al 2004). There is also evidence that as the population grows, supported by medical technology, and consumerist practices and anthropocentric ideology take over, “traditional” (e.g. hunting critically endangered wildlife for bushmeat) or “modern” (e.g. intensive farming, industrial production) practices can be as damaging to the last remaining wild habitats. see Article Indigenous Rights and Ecological Justice in Amazonia: Explor...

Local communities can consist on indigenous peoples and peoples who has arrived later.  Legislation can be different in many countries and there are some special  laws for indigenous peoples according to them all activity which is connected with exploitation should be accorded with communities of indigenous peoples.

I think these two words have been used conveniently at different times to arrived at certain desired goals. A local community simply refers to those people living in a given locality irrespective of their origin and may be sharing or having some common interests in the area. However, the word indigenous people is always pulled out when the group wants to paint itself as completely dependent on the natural resources, poor, marginalized and therefore people that should not be touched. For example, indigenous people that I have encountered could like to be left in the forest under the guise that they are hunters and gatherers BUT they practice modern day agriculture like any body else. In my view, very few people if any, may be dependent purely natural resources. The indigenous peoples is in the mind  

Dear Adri

I will get back to you late with a full example but here is one example of the difference between the two.

In 2009 I was asked by Bureau Veritas (Beijing) to conduct an impact assessment of forest-farms on the indigenous population of part of Manchuria.. I was expecting to find that the local population was mostly man chu (or manzu) but in reality they were immigrant hanzu (Han Chinese). In the 1940s when China was invaded by Japanese some Chinese joined them and settled in Manchuris after the Japanese left. In terms of my assessment although the indigenous population (of most of Manchuria) is manzu, the "local community" (around the forest-farms) is mostly hanzu (of immigrant stock). I had to emphasise to Bureau Veritas (Paris) that the "local community" around the forest farms WERE NOT INDIGENOUS 

I hope this helps

Regards

Dr John Studley

Dear Adri

Because there is no broadly accepted definition of indigenous peolple I have often used the following definition of indigenous people

Indigenous refers to a politically subdominant and underprivileged group who share a distinct ethnic identity and geographical concentration from the nation in power, and who have been an ethnic entity from old-age times before the present ruling nation took over power (Greller 1997 ILO Convention 107 of 1957 )

combined with the following characteristics of ethnicity

• an ethnonym; a collective self-name of the group;
• a belief in common descent (either real or putative) and historical destiny;
• a set of physical and/or cultural features, so called ethnic markers (such as language & worldviews) by which group members differentiate themselves from the other groups of such kind;
• shared historical memories;
• a sense of collective solidarity; and
• and an association with a territory or homeland (Smith 1986)

The local people I referred to in an earlier post (about Manchuria) were unable to satisfy most of the criteria outlined above. They were not politically sub-dominant, they were not an underprivileged group, they did not have an ethnonym, and as immigrants their ancestral homeland was not in Manchuria. They were local people in terms of their geospatial proximity to the forest-farms, and they were animistic in contrast to cadre culture of Chinese officialdom.

In terms of my research in Manchuria I was not able to conduct an impact assessment of the impact of forest farms on indigenous people but I was able to assess the impact on local people.

I hope this helps

Dr John Studley

Ethno-Forestry Consultant

Dear Adri

I forgot to add my references in the previous post

Greller, W. 1997 Provision and Regulation of the Sámi Languages, Centre for Educational Studies, Aberystwyth, Wales, U.K. .

Smith, A. 1986 The Ethnic Origins of Nations, Blackwell, Oxford..

John

In some discourses, one may see that both terms have been used interchangeably, but strictly speaking there is a slight difference. For instance, the term ‘local communities’ may first refer to a group of people living in a particular geographical area at a given time and can therefore can be classified one people. Secondly, it may simply described as those people living in a given locality irrespective of their origin and may be sharing or having some common interests in the area as James argues above. There is however, a debate over the scope of the term ‘indigenous’. The term has now assumed a diversity of meaning, especially when it is applied to a particular people. Some scholars see it as a pejorative when applied to a group of people. In view of this, the world body like the UN is hesitant to use it. However, the controversy can be resolved if we look at it from its Latin etymology–indgena (native). In this way, indigenous refers to original or aboriginal and thus, the term ‘indigenous people’ can be understood as those people whose forebears founded settlements where they are found today and are attached to the customs and traditions of their forebears. They are thus, the people who can lay legitimate claim to the land they are occupying today through ancestry.

I have heard that Indigenous Peoples do not like to be lumped with Local COmmunities as in IPLC. Their argument is that IPs have very specific characteristics that are distinct from LC and they want the term IPLC disaggregated and not referred to as one concept, viz IP OR LC

I found this (see link below) to be the most useful explanation: https://www.kaainamomona.org/iplc