Indigenous & community conservation

COMMUNITIES, RIGHTS, AND CONSERVATION

Ashish Kothari

Kalpavriksh &

ICCA Consortium

Indigenous peoples and local communities are the world’s oldest

‘conservationists’

range of indigenous peoples’ and local community conservation ...

sacred spaces &

habitats…

Sacred lake, Indian Himalaya

Chizire sacred forest, Zimbabwe

Sacred crocodile pond, Mali

Forole sacred mountain

Borana/ Gabbra Ethiopia/ Kenya

indigenous territories and cultural landscapes/seascapes…

Paruku Indigenous PA, Western Australia

Caribou crossing

site in Inuit territory, Canada

Alto Fragua Indi-wasi National Park, Colombia


territories & migration routes of nomadic herders / mobile indigenous peoples

Wetlands in Qashqai mobile peoples’ territory, Iran


sustainably-managed resource

reserves (those with substantial wildlife

value)

Parc Jurassien Vaudois, Switzerland

Qanats, Central AsiaCommunity forests in India, Nepal, Bangladesh (CHT)


sustainably-managed wetlands, fishing grounds and water bodies…

Lubuk Larangan river, Mandailing, Sumatra Coron Island, The Philippines

Baikka beel and other wetlands in Bangladesh


Traditional village heronry, Kokare Bellure, Karnataka

Blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra) - Protected by the Bishnoi community, Rajasthan/Punjab

Wildlife populationsnesting, roosting, feeding habitats

Rushikulya turtle conservation, Orissa

Indigenous Peoples’

and Community Conserved

Territories & Areas (ICCAs)

natural and modified ecosystems with significant biodiversity, ecological functions and

cultural values voluntarily conserved (or restored/regenerated) by

indigenous and local communities through customary laws or other effective means

Three defining features of ICCAs(not all indigenous/community lands are ICCAs!)

Predominant decisions by community (regardless of land or resource ownership)

Community has rules or institutions for governance and management

Community management is achieving conservation (regardless of objectives)

Extent of ICCAs? No comprehensive estimate availableSome examples: – Worldwide: 500 million ha of forests (15% of the world’s total)

under community ownership or management (2011); of this, about 90% under some level of conservation management (based on Molnar et al. 2004).

– Brazil: 1/5th of Amazon under indigenous reserves (5X govt PAs, and achieving equal or better conservation; Nepstad et al 2006)

– Philippines - over 60% of forests in indigenous territories; 4.5 m.ha. recognised as Ancestral Domain (Pedgragosa 2012)

– Australia: 25% of protected area estate are Indigenous PAs (Govan/Grant 2012)

– Namibia: 14 m.ha. community forests & conservancies (Jones 2012)

– Fiji: 1.7 m.ha. under Locally Managed Marine Areas (100% of marine PAs; Govan 2012)

– Mexico (Oaxaca): 82% forests community owned/managed (Martin et al 2010)

– South Asia: Thousands of unrecognised ICCAs (no estimate)

What is the worldwide significance of ICCAs?

Could double the earth’s coverage of protected areas or effective conservation sites! Maintain/restore critical ecosystem functions and ecological connectivityAre the basis of livelihoods and cultural identity for hundreds of millionsAre site-specific, adaptive, built on sophisticated ecological knowledge YET MOSTLY NOT RECOGNISED

Walalkara Indigenous PA, Australia

Shimshal Community Conserved Area, Pakistan

Setulang river, Indonesia

expand the total coverage of conservation sitesaddress gaps in the systemimprove connectivity in the landscapehelp restore ecosystems and wildlife populationsenhance public support for conservationincrease the flexibility and resilience of the systemhelp mitigate and adapt to climate change

combining a variety of categories and governance types in a national system of protected areas & conservation sites can:

Chilika Lagoon

B a y o f B e n g a l

Forest and wildlife revival at Jardhargaon (Indian Himalaya): black bear, leopard, over 120 spp. of birds…

Regeneration and increase in density of forests at Satara TukumForest regeneration and density increase in co-managed (JFM) forest, Satara Tukum, Maharashtra (India)

Customs / strategies …

Social fencing Sanctions/fines/penalties Fire / grazing /logging control (not

necessarily complete suppression)Community patrolling Assisted restoration (limited)Control of invasives

Diverse governance/management institutions

ICCAs also link wild and domesticated biodiversity, and associated cultures…providing

resilience, adaptation, food security

Challenges & threats ICCAs face

Unclear or weak legal status and tenure Lack of social and legal recognition as ICCAsLack of information on ecological and social valuesInappropriate ‘development’ processes (mining, agricultural expansion, dams…)Imposition of non-participatory govt protected areasInadequate livelihood optionsInternal inequalities, political vested interestsCultural and aspirational changes

Global Study on ICCA Recognition and Support

(ICCA Consortium, IUCN TILCEPA, Kalpavriksh, Natural Justice)

19 country case studies, global overview:

Analysis of legal recognition (rights, access, etc)

Analysis of non-legal recognition & support (social, economic, etc)

Crucial ingredients of a secure ICCA

Clear tenurial rights (territory, resources)Recognition of collective decision-making

authorityPrior informed consent provisionsCustomary &/or statutory lawClear cultural, economic, ecological, &/or

political linkage with site/resourceContinued traditional knowledge

(complemented by modern knowledge)

Three ways to legally recognise ICCAs (distinct or overlapping)

As part of protected area system (e.g. in PA law)

As part of more general conservation measures (e.g. in biodiversity law)

Embedded in recognition of indigenous peoples, decentralised governance, etc (e.g. in Constitution, or land law, or village council law)

Progress of legal recognitionForests under community ownership/management, up

from 10 to 15% in last decade (RRI 2012)Brazil, Bolivia, Columbia, Australia: indigenous territories

designated in ~200 hundred m.ha. Philippines: Ancestral Domain titles to many indigenous

territories, could go up to 6-7 m.ha. India: Community Forest Rights (incl. use/management)

under Forest Rights Act to ~ 0.5 m.ha. (potential >30 m.ha.)Kenya, Namibia, Tanzania: community forests &/or

conservancies, with full management and use control, several m.ha.

Iran: much of country under mobile peoples’ territories, with increasing recognition

Major new international tools for ICCAs…

1. U.N. Convention on Biodiversity

2. UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

3. IUCN protected area categories

4. UNEP protected area database

IUCN matrix of protected areas categories and governance types (2008 IUCN Guidelines)

Governance type

Category(manag. objective)

A. Governance by Government

B. Shared Governance C. Private Governance

D. Indigenous Peoples & Community Governance

Federal or national ministry or agency

Local/ municipal ministry or agency in change

Government-delegated management (e.g. to an NGO)

Trans-boundary management

Collaborative management (various forms of pluralist influence)

Joint management (pluralist management board)

Declared and run by individual land-owner

…by non-profit organisations (e.g. NGOs, univ. etc.)

…by for profit organisations (e.g. corporate land-owners )

Indigenous Peoples’ Territories &Conserved Areas—declared and run by Indigenous Peoples

Community Conserved Areas—declared and run by traditional peoples and local communities

I - Strict Nature Reserve/ Wilderness Area

II – National Park (ecosystem protection; protection of cultural values)

III – Natural Monument

IV – Habitat/ Species Management

V – Protected Landscape/ Seascape

VI – Managed Resource

Challenges of recognition…Imposition of uniform

rules & prescriptions (e.g. Community Reserves in India; tagal fisheries in Malaysia)

Grafting ‘jointness’ or govt role onto community governance (e.g. JFM on Van Panchayats in India; PA status to CFs in Mexico)

Joint Forest Management vs.

Community Forestry (India)Conservation/restoration by whom, for whom?

Govt vs. community governance Unclear vs. clear tenure Access/benefits as concessions vs. rights Timber vs. non-timber forest produce Uniform vs. diverse institutional arrangements Administrative vs. legal backing

At least 100 villages in Nagaland have declared forest and wildlife reserves under Village Council Act, helping restore

or protect forests and wildlife

Luzaphuhu WL reserve

Forest reserve of Chizami and 5 villages

Sendenyu WL reserve, with its own “Wild Life Protection Act”

In contrast … recognition of diversity of local initiatives (e.g. Philippines, Australia, Nagaland)

What is needed for ICCAs? Identification and documentation, mapping Study of ecological & socio-economic values Legal and policy measures for recognition and

support (esp. tenurial/territorial rights)Building capacity for more effective conservation /

restoration, management planning, livelihood enhancement

Generating livelihoods (appropriate development)Resolving human-wildlife conflictsRegional level and national networksAlert system for ICCAs under threat

for more information:

www.iccaforum.orgwww.kalpavriksh.org

Environment

Indigenous & community conservation