Technical ReportPDF Available

Whose 'Inclusive Conservation'? Policy Brief of the ICCA Consortium No. 5.

Authors:
  • World Commission on Protected Areas / International Union for Conservation of Nature

Abstract

Policy Brief of the ICCA Consortium in cooperation with CENESTA. Supported by The Christensen Fund / UNDP-GEF-SGP / SwedBio.
page 1
Whose ‘Inclusive Conservation’?
Standing rm in Odisha (India). (
Courtesy Jason Taylor— the Source Project
)
Policy Brief of the ICCA Consortium
Produced in collaboration with CENESTA and with the supplementary support of SwedBio
Series Sponsors: The Christensen Fund and UNDP GEF SGP
Issue No. 5
page 2
Conserving nature
There are widely divergent views of what ‘conservation’ is and should be and, likewise, by and
for whom it should be undertaken. The term ‘inclusive conservation’ has recently been adopted
by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) in its 2018-2020 programme for biodiversity nancing.
In this context, the ICCA Consortium proposes here a denition of ‘inclusive conservation’ and
specic recommendations for legislators, policy makers and other conservation actors willing to
pursue it.
The Brief starts with an introductory description of ICCAs-territories of life— crucial components
in inclusive conservation systems compatible with the wellbeing of people. As nature is being
diminished under the combined pressures of widespread habitat loss and degradation, pollution
and climate change, and as communities are driven off their lands in great part by the same
processes that are overwhelming ecosystems, it is increasingly clear that a crucial capacity for
conserving nature and the wellbeing of people is the capacity of indigenous peoples and local
communities to govern and manage their territories of life. This capacity may remain viable and
even match the huge current need to regenerate ecosystems if it will receive the appropriate
recognition and support it deserves... making ‘inclusive conservation’ as meaningful as it can be
for satisfying livelihoods and vibrant cultural and biological diversity on our planet.
What is ‘conservation’?1 If we ask an
indigenous person or a member of a local
community, we often hear a description of
fortress conservation’—2 what governments
and other powerful entities impose upon
communities3 when they disregard or curtail
their rights in the name of conserving nature.
If the question is discussed more deeply,
however, another understanding often
surfaces, which reects the agency and
role of communities and their concerns
for, and rights and responsibilities towards,
nature. This is ’indigenous conservation’—4
what many indigenous peoples and
local communities have been practicing
for generations, applying their
adaptive knowledge and skills, and
negotiating, deciding and enforcing
their customary laws and collective
rules about access to and use of land,
water and the gifts of nature. These
starkly divergent views, and the wide
and more nuanced spectrum that lies
between them, have diverse historical
roots, manifestations and legacies.
‘Fortress conservation’ is rooted in the
control of nature by powerful elites
(such as royalty and colonial masters)
and tends to disregard the presence,
concerns, capacities, rights and roles
of communities. Today, it is still very
present wherever dominant state and
non-state conservation organisations
and enterprises impose their rules
and designate protected areas upon
1 The World Conservation Strategy denes conservation as including “preservation, maintenance, sustainable use, restoration and
enhancement of the natural environment” (IUCN, UNEP and WWF, 1980:18).
2 ‘Fortress conservation’ has been described in various ways over the last two decades. See Doolittle, 2007:704-705.
3 For purposes of this brief, we use the term ‘communities’ to refer to ‘indigenous peoples and local communities’ and ‘indigenous
conservation’ to refer to ‘conservation self-determined by indigenous peoples and local communities’.
4 See Note 2.
‘Indigenous conservation’ is responsible for protecting this Ramsar site in Iran
(
Courtesy CENESTA
)
page 3
non-consenting peoples and
communities.
‘Indigenous conservation’, on the
other hand, is self-determined,
rooted in local contexts, and has
led to sustaining and conserving
innumerable territories of life
throughout the world. There are
as many names as there are
languages for the territories and
areas cared for and maintained
by ‘indigenous conservation’—
wilayah adat, agdal, qoroq,
comunales, hima, territorios
de buen vivir, umbilical forests,
tagal, faritra ifempivelomana,
ancestral domains, conservancies, territorios
autonomos comunitarios, kawawana, sacred
lakes, vital migratory routes, village forests,
pastures and sheries, and many more. To
communicate about all of them in cross-
cultural situations, the ICCA Consortium has
been using the umbrella term ‘ICCAs’ or, more
recently, ‘ICCAs—territories of life’.
‘ICCAs—territories of life’ refers to an age-old, widespread, diverse and dynamic phenomenon:
territories and areas conserved by indigenous peoples and local communities. Well-dened ‘ICCAs—
territories of life’ exist wherever:
u
There is a close and deep connection between a territory or area and an indigenous people or
local community. This relationship is generally embedded in history, social and cultural identity,
spirituality and/or people’s reliance on the territory for their material and non-material wellbeing.5
u
The custodian people or community makes6 and enforces decisions and rules (e.g., access and
use) about the territory, area or species’ habitat through a functioning governance institution.7
u
The governance decisions and management efforts of the concerned people or community
contribute to the conservation8 of nature (ecosystems, habitats, species, natural resources), as well
as to community wellbeing.9
Territories and areas across diverse contexts and regions demonstrate to varying degrees10 these
three key characteristics, and their community custodians have voiced their importance, calling for
those to be maintained and strengthened.11
ICCAs— Territories of Life
5 The custodian indigenous people or community may or may not physically reside in the territory, although the vast majority of ICCAs are
inhabited and regularly used by their custodian communities. Notably, there are diverse views regarding what an ICCA is vis-à-vis the
entire territory of an indigenous people or the collective customary lands, waters and other gifts of nature to a community. For some, there
is no distinction between an ICCA and an entire territory or collective customary lands, waters and other gifts of nature to a community.
For others, an ICCA is one or more special places within such a territory, where special rules apply. The two views are largely compatible,
and diverse understandings are an asset, rather than a problem, as long as the concerned community is informed, aware, able to discuss
matters freely and capable of reaching an internal consensus.
6 Decision-making may be through a process of negotiation with other key actors.
7 The existence of the ICCA and the legitimacy of its governing institution and rules may or may not be recognised in statutory law of the
relevant country. The important condition, however, is that they function de facto. In some cases, the governing institution may have been
overpowered by other authorities or interests but may still be able to revive itself under propitious conditions.
8 ‘Conservation’ is here understood as explained in note 1, where some increasingly stress the capacity of custodians to restore and
regenerate nature.
9 Many custodians do not distinguish between the conservation of nature and community well-being. Distinguishing between them, or, worse,
setting them in opposition to one another, may legitimise imposed conservation and undermine the social relations and cultural norms that
have successfully conserved nature through time.
10 Borrini-Feyerabend and Campese (2017, page12) discuss the distinction among ‘dened’, ‘disrupted’ and ‘desired’ ICCAs.
11 Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2010; Kothari et al., 2012.
Mapping the autonomous territory of the Wampis Nation— 1,370,000
hectares in the Peruvian Amazon (
Courtesy the Wampis Nation
)
page 4
ICCAs—territories of life are associated with
an enormous variety of governance institu-
tions, from committees of elders to village
assemblies. They likewise exhibit widely
varying management approaches, from
seasonal migration to rotational farming.
In turn, diverse governance institutions and
management approaches have generat-
ed, shaped and kept alive unique forms
of biological and cultural diversity. They
support conservation while contributing to
livelihoods, social and spiritual wealth and
identity and pride for the concerned com-
munities.
Some communities govern and manage
their ICCAs—territories of life with the ex-
plicit intention to conserve nature and thus
maintain the long-term wellbeing of both
humans and non-humans.12 For others, an
explicit conservation objective is not nee-
ded, as the survival and productivity of
nature, the reproduction of the community
and life itself are implicit values. Rather,
they may be explicit about protecting spi-
ritually or culturally signicant places, secu-
ring the natural resources needed to sustain
livelihoods, or preventing disasters. When
there is no explicit conservation objective,
ICCAs do not meet
the IUCN deni-
tion of ‘protected
area’.13 However,
when the territories
are conserved de
facto, regardless of
their motivations,
they can be consi-
dered ‘conserved
areas’.14 There are
also contested
cases, e.g., where
the objectives of a
community do not
match the conser-
vation objectives
of other concer-
ned actors. In such
cases, diverse bundles of rights and interests
may need to be reconciled or adjudicated
through a fair process.
ICCAs—territories of life are perceived by
communities as their own living heritage,
embodying identity and culture, autonomy
and freedom, livelihoods and continuity of
life. In their ICCAs—territories of life, indige-
nous peoples and local communities gene-
rate knowledge and transmit it through ge-
nerations, identify values and name what is
vital to their wellbeing and what they consi-
der sacred. In them, they nd links between
their history and their desired future, con-
nections between visible and invisible rea-
lities. With them come spiritual, social and
material wealth, dignity, self-determination
and the demonstrated capacity to sustain
a signicant part of our planet’s biological
and cultural diversity. This demonstrated
capacity to care for, maintain and regene-
rate nature underpins and adds meaning
to community territorial rights and respon-
sibilities. It also supports the arguments of
communities who sustainably manage their
territories today to assert such rights and
responsibilities in the future.
12 Examples include many communities in India (see e.g. Pathak Broome, 2009).
13 Dudley, 2008.
14 The Convention on Biological Diversity refers to those as “other effective area-based conservation measures”. See Borrini-Feyerabend and
Hill, 2015; Jonas et al., 2017 and references therein.
Women in Burkina Faso have strong opinions about why nature should be
conserved. (
Courtesy Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend
)
page 5
Challenges
Huge expanses of forests, wetlands, oceans,
mountains and pastures are still cared for
and conserved by indigenous peoples
and local communities in territories of life
throughout the world.15 The forest peoples
of India and Indonesia, wetland peoples of
the Amazon and Congo basins, peasants
of Laos and Colombia, forest commoners in
Spain, traditional shers of the Pacic and
indigenous pastoralists of Morocco and
Iran still maintain precious knowledge and
skills, live in and with nature and are its
primary custodians. But
they all face enormous
challenges.
Nature is everywhere in
retreat in the face of ex-
panding large-scale indus-
trial developments, such
as logging and mining,
oil and gas extraction,
industrial shing, tree and
crop monocultures, major
water diversion and urba-
nisation and infrastructure
projects, all of which have
devastating impacts on
local socio-ecological
systems. Climate change
adds to, and complicates,
all this. Cultures are also in
retreat in the face of diver-
sity-attening inuences,
from formal education to
mass communication, from evangelisation
to the penetration of commercial interests
in the remotest corners of the world. In ad-
dition, much national legislation and policy
actively disempowers the local institutions
that used to govern and manage land,
water and natural resources.16 Further, while
the 20th century saw an impressive growth
in the number and coverage of protected
areas worldwide,17 formal protected areas
are insufcient for stopping biodiversity loss18
and remain at the mercy of political will
and budgetary allocations. Importantly,
many protected areas have been created
in toto or in part over pre-existing ICCAs—
territories of life. Often, this has disrupted or
displaced pre-existing governance systems
that could have continued to play their
invaluable conservation roles, particularly
with appropriate recognition and support.
This legacy of misunderstanding and injusti-
ce requires redress and reconciliation.19
15 See Garnett et al., 2018 and Corrigan et al., 2018.
16 See Jonas et al., 2012. The disempowerment has sometimes origin in colonial rules (e.g. the Forest Act of India of 1927, which
nationalised forests governed as common property by local institutions, criminalising local decisions and forest uses) or postcolonial
state governance (in Peru, the revised 1993 Constitution (Art. 89) eliminates the prior standing inalienability of indigenous
communities’ lands, the Natural Protected Areas Law of 1997 (Art. 22) transforms “communal reserves” into “natural protected
areas” and replaces community governance by governance by a government agency; the Forestry and Wildlife Law of 2011
imposes restrictions and requirements on native communities curtailing their autonomy). The phenomenon continues to our days
(see the Spanish Law of 27 December 2013 for the Rationalisation and Sustainability of the Local Administration.
17 UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2016.
18 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2014.
19 Stevens et al., 2016a and 2016b.
The indigenous peoples of Brazil demonstrate great courage in resisting damage to their
territories of life. (
Courtesy Conselho Indigenista Missionário, Brasil
)
page 6
Defending territories of life
Despite the huge challenges and meagre
recognition and support provided to terri-
tories of life, indigenous conservation is very
much alive. Indigenous peoples and local
communities are active as both custodians
and defenders of their territories of life, and
particularly so in the face of undesired, de-
structive appropriation and ‘development’.
Coastal communities in the south of Sen-
egal and Madagascar organise against
industrial trawling and other damaging sh-
ing operations. Batwa communities in the
Democratic Republic of Congo struggle to
keep their land free of foreign mercenaries
and loggers. Indigenous pastoralists in West
and Central Asia ally themselves with wild-
life as they defend migratory routes from
disruption by dams and expanding agricul-
tural projects. Communities in Hawai’i, India
and Indonesia resist promises of economic
perspectives and jobs and afrm their col-
lective rights and pride in their direct rela-
tion to territories and nature. Communities
in Namibia and Tajikistan resist conversion
of wildlife habitats and maintain various
forms of sustainable use. Indigenous peo-
ples in the forests of Peru and the Philip-
pines ght against illegal mining and palm
oil plantations. So many communities, from
Honduras to Mongolia, nd in their collec-
tive connection to the land the courage
to defend their rivers, forests and sacred
sites even at the cost of their lives.
20
It is that
courage, together with local, traditional
knowledge and capacity to care, that has
been nourishing indigenous conservation
all over the world.
The collective work of hundreds of
thousands of caretaker communities
defending their territories of life, using
them sustainably, regenerating and
restoring them and enriching their habitats
and biodiversity is the
inescapable
backbone of
achieving any
ambitious target
for conservation
and sustainable
development.
Yet, despite
innumerable
examples and a
growing body of
evidence,
21
this
reality has long
been neglected
in conservation
circles.
22
It remains
an area in need
of dedicated
attention, analysis
and re-thinking.
20 Global Witness, 2017; Global Witness, 2018.
21 See notes 15 and 20.
22 Some would say inexplicably neglected. Others would say that neglect is explicable by the desire to maintain control.
The Penan, Kenyah, Kelabit and Saban peoples have set up the Baram Peace Park the
Malaysian federal state of Sarawak to prove that environmental protection, economic prospects
and indigenous rights are compatible and mutually supportive. (
Courtesy Bruno Manser Fonds
)
page 7
The term inclusive conservation’ is increasin-
gly being used in international forums to dis-
cuss the need to include indigenous peoples
and local communities in the conservation
efforts of state and non-state actors, presu-
mably in attempt to remedy the failures of
top-down ‘fortress conservation’. Its growing
prominence can be seen in the lead up to
the 14th Conference of the Parties to the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
(COP 14) in 2018,
23
and in its inclusion in the
2018-2022 Global Environment Facility (GEF)
funding programme.
This attention to inclusiveness has the poten-
tial to generate signicant opportunities for
‘indigenous conservation’ and ICCAs—terri-
tories of life. At the same time, the very term
‘inclusive conservation’ may be interpreted
as top-down or even paternalistic, in parti-
cular when conveying the idea of state and
non-state conservation actors ‘including’
indigenous peoples and local communities
in their work.
The ICCA Consortium believes that inclusion
should be viewed the other way around. It
is the custodians of ICCAs—territories of life,
the concerned indigenous peoples and
local communities, who should decide whe-
ther and how to include others as supporters
in their own conservation endeavours. In
other words, the key question about inclusive
conservation should be: under what con-
ditions are custodian indigenous peoples
and local communities open to including
others— such as governmental agencies
and large conservation organisations – in
supporting roles for their own conservation
efforts?
24
Whose ‘inclusive conservation’?
Inclusive conservation’ in the Global Environment Facility
Since 2004, the Parties to the UN CBD have recognised ICCAs and other forms of community
conservation in multiple decisions, and some have taken important strides to implement these
decisions within their countries. The Trust Fund of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) is the main
nancial mechanism for implementing the CBD and, as such, could be an important source of
nancial support for ICCAs—territories of life.
In June 2018, the GEF Assembly adopted the programme for its 7th replenishment (GEF-7) for the
period of 2018-2022.25 Biodiversity is one of ve focal areas in GEF-7 and “inclusive conservation”
is one of its program areas. Although GEF-7 does not dene this new term,26 a short section on
inclusive conservation in the program document recognises indigenous peoples’ and local
communities’ “role as stewards of the global environment”,27 noting that their territories contain
an estimated 80% of the world’s biodiversity and cover nearly 25% of the world’s surface. In
the same section of the GEF-7 program document, GEF commits to building on the foundation
of previous support for indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs), including through
the Small Grants Program (SGP) and full- and medium-sized projects, to “work with indigenous
peoples and local communities, national governments, NGOs, and others to strengthen the
capacity of IPLCs to conserve biodiversity”.28 The document continues by stating that: “GEF
23 Notably ways of understanding “inclusive conservation” were discussed at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, in April 2018, and
in meetings and events organised in 2018 by the IUCN, WWF, WRI and other conservation organisations.
24 Cfr. the capacity of effective resource management institutions to include some and exclude others from accessing and using natural
resources (Ostrom, 1990).
25 GEF/A.6/05/Rev.01.
26 Notably, the use of “inclusive conservation” in GEF-7 and the present brief is distinct from its use in academic debates about the inclusion
of diverse perspectives and values in nature conservation (see Tallis et al., 2014). It is understood that there may be “many different
conservations” (Matulis and Moyer, 2016) involving many different actors. However, “inclusive conservation” as used in GEF-7 and this brief
focus specically on conservation by indigenous peoples and local communities.
27 para. 66, Annex A, GEF/A.6/05/Rev.01
28 para. 67, Annex A, GEF/A.6/05/Rev.01
page 8
projects funded with the regional/global set -aside will focus in geographies where IPLC
territories that are home to globally signicant biodiversity, and that may also include important
carbon stocks, are under threat”. Finally, it notes that: “Project investments will focus on: Site-
based conservation and sustainable use; Sustainable nancing of IPLCs-driven conservation;
and Capacity development for IPLC organisations and integration of diverse knowledge
systems to achieve conservation and sustainable natural resource management outcomes”.
In the context of GEF-7 and related
conservation programs, the ICCA
Consortium recommends that ‘inclusive
conservation’ be understood as
conservation where indigenous peoples
and local communities are the key actors
governing, managing and conserving their
lands, waters and other gifts of nature and,
as necessary and desired, invite others
to collaborate with and support them on
community-dened terms.
29
Indigenous peoples and local communities
have unique rights, responsibilities, laws,
knowledge, capacities interests, concerns
and values in relation to their specic
territories and areas.
They should never
be treated as mere
recipients, beneciaries or
stakeholders of initiatives
conceived and carried
out by others. Rather,
they should be allowed
to analyse their own
circumstances and devise
their own visions and
plans. Conservation of
their territories and areas
should be in accordance
with their own decisions,
carried out meaningfully
and purposefully, with the
assistance of supporters of
their own choosing.
This understanding
draws on the experience
of failed initiatives of the past, such as
the many ‘integrated conservation
and development projects’30 that were
anything but integrated and that failed
to respect communities as conservation
actors, or ‘community-based conservation’
projects that failed to respect rights and
responsibilities.31 It also draws on cases of
successful conservation and sustainable
and satisfying livelihoods in ICCAs—
territories of life.32 Many such emblematic
ICCAs have the capacity to inspire other
communities, policy makers and positive
leaders.33
29 A key point here is to distinguish between rights-holders (e.g., the indigenous peoples or local communities active as custodians of the
relevant territory) and stakeholders with relevant concerns (e.g., neighbouring communities, governmental agencies and conservation
organisations and enterprises).
30 Examples in Wells et al., 1998; Wishusen et al. 2002; McShane and Wells 2004.
31 Stevens, 2014:61, 64. See also Wilshusen et al., 2002.
32 See Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2010.
33 Search www.iccaconsortium.org for ‘emblematic ICCAs’.
The Karen people of Burma defend the territory of life they have named Salween Peace
Park. (
Courtesy KESAN
)
page 9
If ‘inclusive conservation’ is to fully unleash
its potential and properly address the con-
tent and dimensions of current conserva-
tion challenges, it needs to match both the
complexity of the issues and the magnitude
of the problems. Fortunately, it can build
upon the capacities, resources and good-
will that remain – or could be re-awakened
– in indigenous conservation approaches
throughout the world.
Drawing on the work of its Members and
other organisations, the ICCA Consortium
has noted a broadly shared vision among
many indigenous peoples and local com-
munities across all regions: regaining, or
retaining, collective control over their terri-
tories of life in order to govern and manage
them effectively and sustainably.
34
Under-
pinning that, are also several remarkably
common aims: conserving nature, because
this is what communities want to do, not
because of any external imposition; engag-
ing in sustainable livelihood practices to
maintain their territories for themselves, oth-
er beings and future generations (‘sustain-
able self-determination
35
); and welcoming
appropriate support, on their own terms, to
maintain and enhance their capacities to
govern and manage their territories of life.
To match the complexity of the issues,
anyone aiming to support inclusive con-
servation should advance approaches
and initiatives carefully tailored to contexts
and conceived and run by the directly
concerned rights-holder custodians. Ac-
cordingly, the ICCA Consortium has been
facilitating self-strengthening processes
grounded in mapping, inventories and
self-documentation of ICCAs—territories of
life and communities’ own rules, protocols,
institutions and values.
36
The Consortium is
also ready to help strengthen the capaci-
ties of agencies and organisations invited
to support communities engaged in such
processes.
To match the magnitude of the problems,
self-strengthening processes should take
place in all world regions, wherever indige-
nous peoples and local communities assert
rights to their territories, lands and waters.
Ideally, this would engage hundreds of
thousands of communities
37
in billions of
hectares
38
of conserved territories of life.
Together with local work tailored to the
local context, it is also important to unders-
tand the national policy, legal and insti-
tutional contexts and advocate for their
meaningful improvement and implementa-
tion. Accordingly, the ICCA Consortium has
supported the development and streng-
thening of national ICCA networks, such as
working groups, coalitions and federations
uniting the custodians of ICCAs-territories of
life, as well as their supporters, partners and
friends. National networks should engage
in analyses and advocacy towards mea-
ningful legal and policy reforms and secure
collective rights and responsibilities for true
inclusive conservation in territories of life.
A crucial test of inclusive conservation– if
indeed communities, governments and
conservation agencies have the intention
and capacities to pursue it— will be
whether ICCAs overlapped by protected
areas, where diverse worldviews and
diverse understandings of ‘conservation’
often apply, are appreciated and
A shared vision, and ideas about achieving
‘inclusive conservation’
34 See https://www.iccaconsortium.org/index.php/movement/vision/
35 Corntassel, 2008.
36 Borrini-Feyerabend and Campese, 2017; Alden Wiley, 2018.
37 Members from 79 countries (as of October 2018) unite in the ICCA Consortium to promote appropriate recognition and support to
ICCAs—territories of life. The ICCA Consortium has been expanding its activities throughout the world, and it has seen a steady growth in
membership of 20% a year since in its founding in 2008.
38 Alden Wily, 2011. See also Rights and Resources Initiative, 2015.
page 10
A bond of solidarity among people and with the environment is positive for both nature and community wellbeing. (
Courtesy TICTU
)
In line with grassroots analyses of many
ICCAs—territories of life carried out
over several years, and with the aim
of supporting communities, the ICCA
Consortium has distilled recommendations
for legislators, policy-makers and
conservation practitioners who desire to
participate in inclusive conservation at the
invitation of custodian communities. These
are summarised in Tables 1 and 2 below.
Towards inclusive conservation in
policy, law and practice
appropriately recognised and respected.
39
An appropriate practice of inclusive
conservation should level the playing
eld for dialogue and negotiations, offer
meaningful support and spare communities
and others from ongoing conicts. This
is particularly important where ICCAs
are not recognised by governments or
where there are ICCAs in contentious
overlaps with protected areas. Embracing
and practicing this type of inclusive
conservation could be the saving grace for
many ICCAs—territories of life under serious
jeopardy today.
39 Stevens et al., 2016.
page 11
Table 1. Recommendations for supportive policies and legislation
u
Incorporate the principles of international conservation and human rights law, policy and
guidance, including ILO Resolution 169, CBD decisions, the UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples, and IUCN policies on human rights-based conservation, as well as the
Declaration of the Rights of Peasants and Other Persons Working in Rural Areas to be voted on by
the UN General Assembly in December 2018;
u Respect and appropriately recognise ICCAs – territories of life and their conservation contributions,
including when they entirely or partially overlap with protected areas;40
u Respect the diversity and autonomy of the community institutions that, by governing and
managing their ICCAs—territories of life, have effectively conserved nature and sustained
livelihoods; recognise that those institutions come in a variety of shapes and forms and can be
accommodated in a pluralist legal approach; recognise that interfering with such institutions risks
destroying their vitality and effectiveness for conservation;
u Ofcially recognise and support ICCAs— territories of life through a variety of legislation and
policies (e.g., innovative laws for protected and conserved areas, decentralisation policies, and
laws recognising indigenous peoples’ rights) on the basis of lessons learned from experience;41
u Embrace in conservation legislation and policy the full spectrum of management categories and
governance types43 for protected and conserved areas as described by IUCN and CBD in recent
publications;44
u Identify “governance by indigenous peoples and local communities” as a distinct governance
type for both protected and conserved areas, applicable to all management categories;45
u Foster coherent, effective and equitable conservation systems that include both protected
areas and conserved areas and highlight the comparative advantages of diverse actors, the
benets of ecological connectivity, and the positive contributions of mechanisms that promote
communication, accountability and conict management;
u Ensure that revenues and other benets generated from ICCAs—territories of life are not
expropriated, diverted or unduly taxed, but rather ow back into the conservation practices and
livelihood security of the concerned communities;
u Protect communities from unwanted intervention by external interests and promote equity in case
of benet-sharing schemes, including by requiring the full and effective participation of indigenous
peoples and communities in decisions that affect them and their right to give or withhold free,
prior and informed consent (FPIC) for proposed activities, as dened and controlled by the
concerned communities;
u Make and implement provisions to address past injustices via the restitution of rights, access and
capacity to full responsibilities regarding territories, lands and waters taken from indigenous
peoples and local communities without their FPIC and agreed compensation;
u
Adopt the ICCA Consortium’s understanding of ‘inclusive conservation’ in CBD post-2020 policy and
action frameworks and as inspiring demonstration of many UN Sustainable Development Goals.
40 See the relevant guidance in IUCN World Conservation Congress 2016. Resolution 6.030 (which cites earlier policies) and CBD COP13 Decision XIII/2
(para.7). More is available regarding recognition and respect for the use, management and protection of sacred sites, including in protected areas
(e.g., see Wild and McLeod, 2008).
41 Examples from diverse countries are examined in CBD ICCA Country Case Studies (here: https://www.iccaconsortium.org/index.php/category/
publications-en/cbd-ts-64-en/) and in ICCA legal reviews (here: https://www.iccaconsortium.org/index.php/category/national-local-en/legal-
reviews-en/).
42 In each of these diverse management categories, there are different conservation objectives.
43 In each of these diverse governance types, different actors, or combinations of actors, hold authority and responsibility and are accountable for the
territory or area at stake.
44 See for instance, Dudley, 2008; Kothari et al., 2012; Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013.
45 See Dudley, 2008 and Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013.
page 12
The ICCA Consortium encourages
indigenous peoples and local communities
engaged in caring for and defending their
territories of life to assert their indigenous
conservation visions, plans and priorities
and— where relevant— to welcome
other communities, agencies and/or
organisations willing to support them and
work side-by-side with them.
The ICCA Consortium also calls upon
governmental agencies and conservation
and development organisations to redene
their roles, retool and reskill themselves and
collaborate respectfully with communities
to:
u
promote and support the collective
governance and sustainable
management of their territories of life;
u
prevent their disempowerment and
displacement from their territories of life;
u
ensure the conditions for sustainable
livelihoods in their territories of life; and
u
strengthen their resolve for indigenous
conservation in as many territories of life
as possible.
Table 2. DOs and DON’Ts for supporters of ‘inclusive conservation’
DOs DON’Ts
Adopt a historical perspective in conservation, i.e.
understand how and by whom the ecological values
in any given locality were created, maintained and/or
possibly damaged and impeded
Never take a conservation action before
understanding how the socio-ecological
situation has evolved and is related to
cultural and political settings in any given
locality
Emphasise that ICCAs— territories of life are living links
between biological and cultural diversity, stressing
history, ancestral territories, and cultural identity, as
well as their continuing evolution, adaptation and
emergence
Do not overtly or implicitly promote cultural
uniformity, intolerance, ethnic disrespect,
or any type of discrimination or prejudice
against ‘the others’
Respect and strengthen local, traditional knowledge,
protect it against piracy and misuse, and facilitate its
evolution in complementary partnership with other
forms of knowledge, in particular to ll gaps and
address power inequities
Do not impose external or ‘scientic’ ways
of understanding and solving problems; do
not undermine customary approaches and
values that provide effective contributions
to conservation
Help to identify and document ICCAs— territories of life
and help them to be better known and appreciated
Do not research, document or diffuse
information about ICCAs— territories of life
without the FPIC of the relevant community
Recognise and respect the local institutions that govern
(or could govern) conserved territories through unique
cultural processes and rules, and enable positive
solutions in cases of ICCAs overlapped by protected
areas or other situations where local institutions were
undermined or displaced
Do not undermine or displace functioning
local governance institutions or impose
new institutions upon endogenous bodies
and rules, in particular in case of ICCAs—
territories of life overlapped by protected
areas
In Guatemala, the ancient institution of the 48 cantons of Totonicapán has
conserved for centuries its huge forest in the watershed of Lake Atitlán
(
Courtesy Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend
)
page 13
Provide support and back-up to communities
engaged in identifying their own problems or
opportunities and deciding for themselves how to
address them
Never impose upon a community a project
conceived, initiated or solely supported
by others or addressing problems and
opportunities only of concern to others
Help prevent and mitigate threats, including by
conferring a desired special status—e.g., as a
conserved territory, ‘no-go area’ for destructive
activities, ecologically important area, or part of
a national system of protected and conserved
areas— while stressing both the FPIC of custodian
communities and the need to maintain their
collective governance responsibility towards nature
Do not impose protected area status or any
other special status on conserved territories
without the FPIC46 of the relevant communities
as decided and controlled by them
Provide coherent support to communities enforcing
their own conservation regulations, including to
apprehend violators and have them judged and
sanctioned in fair and consistent ways
Do not leave communities to carry the full
burden of surveillance and enforcement
efforts, in particular when the ICCA rules match
and enforce state rules
Assist communities to gain formal recognition of their
collective rights and responsibilities for their territory,
land, water, and bio-cultural resources, including
by supporting their claims (property, custodianship,
use…) through maps, demarcation and records
highlighting where historical injustices have taken
place
Do not acquiesce when rights and
responsibilities to land, water, and biological
and cultural diversity have been violated or
ignored, do not neglect ICCAs—territories of
life that overlap with protected areas and seek
some form of recognition on their own right
Strengthen national laws and policies that recognise
indigenous peoples and local communities as legal
actors possessing collective rights to land, water and
natural resources
Do not neglect communities in state legislation
(e.g., by recognising only individuals, corporate
actors or state agencies as legal subjects)
nor fail to appropriately acknowledge their
collective rights and responsibilities
Provide means for constructive self- or joint-
assessment and evaluation of conservation initiatives
by the relevant community, focusing on outputs and
impacts for conservation, livelihoods, governance,
and social, cultural and spiritual values
Do not evaluate conservation initiatives
without the full engagement of the concerned
communities or solely or mostly in terms of
compliance with external expectations about
their processes (e.g., regarding rules, plans,
types of institutions)
Support communities to self-assess and strengthen
the quality (e.g., accountability, effectiveness,
equity) and vitality (e.g., integration, connectivity,
wisdom, innovation) of governance of their territories
of life
Do not impose governance evaluation
methods, processes and indicators conceived
from outside
Provide assistance in technical aspects of
management, if required and sought by the
community, through respectful, cross-cultural
dialogue among different knowledge holders,
including mutual validation where necessary
Do not impose management objectives,
legal categories, or technical expertise
that undermine local meaning and values;
do not validate traditional knowledge by
‘scientic’ knowledge as a one-way process;
do not impose management effectiveness
evaluations
Help support local sustainable livelihoods and
community wellbeing, including via activities both
linked and not linked to the conservation of nature
Do not formally recognise ICCAs- territories of
life in ways that diminish local livelihoods and
wellbeing, nor support development that in
the short or long run may undermine these
(e.g., inappropriate tourism, initiatives that see
nature and culture as commodities…)
46 All implications of establishing a protected area should be discussed in advance. Doing so is both complex and critical
page 14
Provide or strengthen community-determined
socio-cultural, political, and economic incentives
for conserving ICCAs—territories of life, while
seeking to maintain their independence and
autonomy
Do not displace or undermine existing community
motivations for supporting their territories of life
or make those primarily dependent on outside
economic incentives
Assist communities in obtaining economic support
for their conservation activities if required and
desired by the community
Do not ‘use’ communities to obtain funding that
will primarily serve interests extraneous to the
community
Provide special support to young people, women
and knowledge holders contributing to governing
and managing ICCAs— territories of life
Do not support environmental or other
educational programs that neglect local
knowledge and capacities for conservation or
ignore ICCAs—territories of life
Facilitate locally relevant, culturally-sensitive
health and education services that incorporate
local languages and knowledge about territories
of life
Do not impose or support health, education
or other services that are culturally insensitive,
irresponsive to local contexts and livelihoods,
and/or disruptive of local identities
Promote values of community integrity and
solidarity and environmental awareness and
care (e.g. by grassroots discussions, study groups,
exchange visits)
Do not promote private interests and the
accumulation of individual power as positive
values and in opposition to community values
Support networking among ICCAs—territories
of life for mutually benecial learning and
empowerment
Do not overwhelm any ICCA with external
attention nor treat them as unique phenomena
Support respectful alliances among indigenous
peoples, local communities, human right
advocates, academics and development and
conservation practitioners
Do not position local, culture-based rights,
responsibilities and values against broader
human rights, responsibilities and values,
including development and conservation
aspirations
Recognise conicting interests while supporting
conict prevention and redress, and foster efforts
at reconciliation that respect communities and
their territories of life
Do not exacerbate conicts within and among
communities or between communities and
external actors and interests
As nature is being diminished under the
combined pressures of widespread habitat
loss and degradation, pollution and climate
change, and as communities are driven off
their lands in great part by the same processes
that are overwhelming ecosystems, a crucial
capacity for conserving nature and the well-
being of people is the capacity of indigenous
peoples and local communities to govern and
manage their territories of life. This capacity
may remain viable and even match the huge
current need to regenerate ecosystems if it will
receive the appropriate recognition and sup-
port it deserves... making ‘inclusive conserva-
tion’ as meaningful as it can be for satisfying
livelihoods and vibrant cultural and biological
diversity on our planet.
...vibrant biological diversity...(
Courtesy Olivier Hamerlynck
)
page 15
References
Alden Wily, L., 2018 “Collective Land Ownership in the 21st Century: Overview of Global Trends” Land 7 (2), 68.
Alden Wily, L., 2011. The tragedy of public lands: The fate of the commons under global commercial pressure. International Land
Coalition, Rome.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. and J. Campese, 2017. Self-Strengthening ICCAs – Guidance on a process and resources for custodian
indigenous peoples and local communities. Draft for use by GSI partners. The ICCA Consortium, available on line.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. and R. Hill, 2015. ‘Governance for the conservation of nature’, pp. 169–206 in G. L. Worboys, M. Lockwood,
A. Kothari, S. Feary and I. Pulsford (eds). Protected Area Governance and Management. ANU Press, Canberra.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., N. Dudley, T. Jaeger, B. Lassen, N. Pathak Broome, A. Phillips and T. Sandwith, 2013. Governance
of Protected Areas: From understanding to action. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 20. IUCN, Gland
(Switzerland).
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., et al., 2010 (reprinted 2012). Bio-cultural Diversity Conserved by Indigenous Peoples & Local Communities:
Examples & Analysis. IUCN/CEESP and CENESTA, Tehran.
Corntassel, J., 2008. “Toward Sustainable Self-Determination: Rethinking the Contemporary Indigenous Rights Discourse”.
Alternatives, 3: 105–132.
Doolittle, A.A., “Fortress Conservation”, pages 704-705 in Robbins, P. (ed.), 2007. Encyclopaedia of Environment and Society – Vol.
1. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, and Singapore.
Dudley, N. (ed.), 2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. IUCN, Gland (Switzerland).
Garnett, S.T. et al., 2018, “A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation”. Nature Sustainability,
1: 369–374.
Global Witness, 2018. At What Cost? Irresponsible business and the murder of land and environmental defenders in 2017. Global
Witness, London.
Global Witness, 2017. Defenders of the Earth: Global killings of land and environmental defenders in 2016. Global Witness, London.
IUCN, UNEP & WWF, 1980. World Conservation Strategy. IUCN, Gland (Switzerland).
Jonas, H.D., E. Lee, H. C. Jonas, C. Matallana-Tobon, K. Sander Wright, F. Nelson and E. Enns, 2017. “Will Other Effective Area-
based Conservation Measures Increase Recognition and Support for ICCAs?” PARKS 23.2. IUCN, Gland (Switzerland).
Jonas, H., A. Kothari and H. Shrumm (eds), 2012. Legal and Institutional Aspects of Recognising and Supporting Conservation by
Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, The ICCA Consortium, Natural Justice and Kalpavriksh, available on line.
Kothari, A. with C. Corrigan, H. Jonas, A. Neumann and H. Shrumm (eds.), 2012. Recognising and Supporting Territories and Areas
Conserved by Indigenous Peoples And Local Communities: Global Overview and National Case Studies CBD Technical Series
no. 64. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, ICCA Consortium, IUCN/TILCEPA, Kalpavriksh and Natural Justice,
SCBD, Montreal (Canada).
Matulis, B., and J. Moyer, 2016. “Beyond Inclusive Conservation: The Value of Pluralism, The Need for Agonism, and The Case for
Social Instrumentalism”. Conservation Letters, DOI: 10.1111/conl.12281.
McShane, T. O., and M. P. Wells (eds.), 2004. Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work: Towards More Effective Conservation and
Development. Columbia University Press, New York (USA).
Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
(UK).
Pathak Broome, N., 2009. Community Conserved Areas in India—a Directory. Kalpavriksh, Pune (India).
Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI), 2015. Who Owns the World’s Land? A global baseline of formally recognized indigenous and
community land rights. RRI, Washington, D.C.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2014. Global Biodiversity Outlook 4. Montréal (Canada).
Stevens, S., T. Jaeger and N. Pathak Broome et al., 2016a. ICCAs and Overlapping Protected Areas: Fostering Conservation
Synergies and Social Reconciliation. Policy Brief of the ICCA Consortium, Issue No.4. ICCA Consortium, Tehran.
Stevens, S., N.P. Broome and T. Jaeger et al., 2016b. Recognising and Respecting ICCAs Overlapped by Protected Areas. Report
for the ICCA Consortium, available on line.
Stevens, S., 2014. Indigenous Peoples, National Parks, and Protected Areas. University of Arizona Press, Tucson (USA).
Tallis, H., et al., 2014. “Working together: A call for inclusive conservation”. Nature, 515(7525): 27-28.
UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2016. Protected Planet Report 2016. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, Cambridge, UK and Gland, Switzerland.
Wells, M., S. Guggenheim, A., Khan, W., Wardojo and P. Jepson, 1998. Investing in Biodiversity. A Review of Indonesia’s Integrated
Conservation and Development Projects. World Bank, East Asia Region, available on line.
Wild, R. and C. McLeod, eds. 2008. Sacred Natural Sites: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers. IUCN World Commission on
Protected Areas Best Practice Protected Areas Guidelines Series No. 16., IUCN Gland (Switzerland) and UNESCO, Paris.
Wilshusen, P.R., S. R. Brechin, C. L. Fortwangler and P. C. West, 2002. “Reinventing a Square Wheel: Critique of a Resurgent
“Protection Paradigm” in International Biodiversity Conservation”. Society & Natural Resources, 15:1, 17-40.
page 16
Authors M. Taghi Farvar, Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, Jessica Campese, Tilman Jaeger, Holly Jonas and Stan
Stevens, with contributions from Trevor Sandwith, Dilys Roe, Giovanni Reyes, Ameyali Ramos Castillo, Aili
Pyhälä, Neema Pathak Broome, Thomas Moore, Justin Kenrick, Ted Karfakis, Harry Jonas, Elaine Hsiao,
Marc Foggin, Joám Evans Pim, Sergio Couto, Marcos Celeiro and Ghanimat Azhdari.
Citation Farvar, M. T. and G. Borrini-Feyerabend, J. Campese, T. Jaeger, H. Jonas and S. Stevens, 2018.
Whose
‘Inclusive Conservation’?
Policy Brief of the ICCA Consortium no. 5. The ICCA Consortium and Cenesta.
Tehran.
Design, layout and publication supervision Jeyran Farvar (jeyran@cenesta.org)
Orders info@iccaconsortium.org
Note The views expressed in the Brieng Note do not necessarily reect those of all the Members or Partners of
the ICCA Consortium.
A sherman explores a locally-managed marine area in Fiji—typical example of customary
community conservation in the Pacic. (
Courtesy Victor Bonito)
Policy Brief of the ICCA Consortium
Produced in collaboration with CENESTA and with the supplementary support of SwedBio
Series Sponsors: The Christensen Fund and UNDP GEF SGP
Issue No. 5
... Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs) -territories of life -which are defined as territories and areas conserved by indigenous peoples and local communities, are another example. Communities act as custodians who make and enforce rules that support both conservation of nature and community well-being, frequently based around a close and deep connection between people and land or ocean-based around sociocultural and spiritual identity (Farvar 2018). ...
... There is a wide consensus that communities must be actively engaged in conservation for it to be effective and fair. The term "inclusive conservation" is used for this people-centered approach to conservation, and was recently adopted by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) in its 2018-2020 biodiversity financing program (Farvar 2018). ...
... "conservation where indigenous peoples and local communities are the key actors governing, managing, and conserving their lands, waters, and other gifts of nature and, as necessary and desired, invite others to collaborate with and support them on community-defined terms" (Farvar 2018). ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Good governance is one of the principles to ensure the effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas (MPA) management. Governance refers to the formal and informal structures and processes, agencies, and institutions, technical expertise, and traditions that shape management. This could refer to the national and local legislative and regulatory frameworks, the roles and responsibilities of different agencies and individuals, and the processes and relationships through which these are carried out. Management on the other hand, comprises the different tools available to the management authority. This chapter discusses the formal governance – which is governance by government – of MPAs in Indonesia in term of institutional framework and the current challenges. Global MPA governance will be provided as a sharing experience.
... Masyarakat berperan sebagai penjaga yang membuat dan menegakkan peraturan untuk mendukung konservasi alam dan kesejahteraan masyarakat. Peraturan yang disepakati umumnya didasarkan pada hubungan yang erat dan mendalam antara manusia dan tanah atau laut, serta identitas sosial-budaya dan spiritual (Farvar 2018). ...
... Istilah "konservasi inklusif" digunakan untuk pendekatan konservasi yang berpusat pada masyarakat. Istilah ini diadopsi oleh Global Environment Facility (GEF) dalam program pembiayaan keanekaragaman hayati 2018-2020 (Farvar 2018). ...
... "konservasi yang melibatkan kelompok adat dan masyarakat lokal sebagai pelaku kunci yang mengatur, mengelola dan melestarikan tanah, air, dan kekayaan alam mereka, dan, jika perlu dan diinginkan, mengundang pihak lain untuk berkolaborasi dan mendukung mereka dengan ketentuan yang ditetapkan oleh masyarakat" (Farvar 2018). ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Tata kelola yang baik merupakan salah satu indikator yang perlu dicapai dalam pengelolaan Kawasan Konservasi Perairan (KKP) yang efektif. Keterlibatan masyarakat merupakan bagian yang tak terpisahkan dalam tata kelola tersebut. Keterlibatan masyarakat penting untuk memastikan hak-hak inklusif masyarakat dalam pemanfaatan sumber daya laut secara berkelanjutan bisa terpenuhi, pengetahuan dan praktik pengelolaan berbasis masyarakat (masyarakat adat dan modern) diakui dan terakomodir dalam rencana pengelolaan KKP. Bab ini memberikan pengantar tentang prinsip tata kelola dan regulasi-regulasi yang terkait. Bagaimana masyarakat dapat dilibatkan dalam tata kelola, rasa kepemilikan, kepengurusan, dan kesesuaian dengan konteks lokal disajikan melalui kajian literatur dan studi kasus. Bagian terakhir dari bab ini menyoroti peluang yang muncul untuk peningkatan peran yang dapat dimainkan masyarakat dalam tata kelola KKP di Indonesia. Dengan sejarah yang kaya dan beragam terkait kearifan lokal maupun adat untuk mengelola sumber daya laut, ada peluang untuk merevitalisasi dan mentransformasi lembaga adat menjadi KKP yang efektif dan inklusif untuk mencapai hasil positif konservasi dan sosial ekonomi.
... Masyarakat berperan sebagai penjaga yang membuat dan menegakkan peraturan untuk mendukung konservasi alam dan kesejahteraan masyarakat. Peraturan yang disepakati umumnya didasarkan pada hubungan yang erat dan mendalam antara manusia dan tanah atau laut, serta identitas sosial-budaya dan spiritual (Farvar 2018). ...
... Istilah "konservasi inklusif" digunakan untuk pendekatan konservasi yang berpusat pada masyarakat. Istilah ini diadopsi oleh Global Environment Facility (GEF) dalam program pembiayaan keanekaragaman hayati 2018-2020 (Farvar 2018). ...
... "konservasi yang melibatkan kelompok adat dan masyarakat lokal sebagai pelaku kunci yang mengatur, mengelola dan melestarikan tanah, air, dan kekayaan alam mereka, dan, jika perlu dan diinginkan, mengundang pihak lain untuk berkolaborasi dan mendukung mereka dengan ketentuan yang ditetapkan oleh masyarakat" (Farvar 2018). ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Tata kelola yang baik merupakan salah satu pilar yang harus tersedia untuk memastikan efektivitas pengelolaan Kawasan Konservasi Perairan (KKP). Tata kelola mengacu pada struktur kelembagaan baik formal maupun informal, keahlian teknis, dan proses kerja yang membentuk sebuah pengelolaan. Hal ini bisa mengacu pada kerangka kerja legislasi dan peraturan baik nasional maupun lokal, serta peran dan tanggung jawab lembaga maupun individu dan interaksinya. Pengelolaan di sisi lain terdiri dari berbagai perangkat pengelolaan yang tersedia bagi lembaga pengelola. Bab ini akan membahas tata kelola KKP dilihat dari kelembagaan formal — tipe pengelolaan oleh pemerintah — kerangka kelembagaan dan tantangannya saat ini. Informasi mengenai tata kelola KKP di tingkat global disajikan sebagai sebuah pembelajaran.
... Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs) -territories of life -which are defined as territories and areas conserved by indigenous peoples and local communities, are another example. Communities act as custodians who make and enforce rules that support both conservation of nature and community well-being, frequently based around a close and deep connection between people and land or ocean-based around sociocultural and spiritual identity (Farvar 2018). ...
... There is a wide consensus that communities must be actively engaged in conservation for it to be effective and fair. The term "inclusive conservation" is used for this people-centered approach to conservation, and was recently adopted by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) in its 2018-2020 biodiversity financing program (Farvar 2018). ...
... "conservation where indigenous peoples and local communities are the key actors governing, managing, and conserving their lands, waters, and other gifts of nature and, as necessary and desired, invite others to collaborate with and support them on community-defined terms" (Farvar 2018). ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Good governance is a key indicator for effective management of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Community involvement is an integral part of this governance. Community involvement is important to ensure that people’s inclusive rights in the sustainable use of marine resources can be fulfilled, that knowledge and practices of community-based management (customary and modern society) are recognized and accommodated in MPA management plans. This chapter provides an introduction to the principles of governance and how they are applied within the formal Indonesian MPA context. This includes literature review and case studies on how communities are involved in MPA governance, and the importance of community ownership and appropriateness to the local context. The final section of this chapter highlights opportunities for an increased role that communities can play in the governance of MPAs in Indonesia. With a rich and diverse history of local and customary wisdom for managing marine resources, there are opportunities to revitalize and transform customary institutions to co-manage effective and inclusive MPAs to achieve positive conservation and socio-economic outcomes.
... Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs) -territories of life -which are defined as territories and areas conserved by indigenous peoples and local communities, are another example. Communities act as custodians who make and enforce rules that support both conservation of nature and community well-being, frequently based around a close and deep connection between people and land or ocean-based around sociocultural and spiritual identity (Farvar 2018). ...
... There is a wide consensus that communities must be actively engaged in conservation for it to be effective and fair. The term "inclusive conservation" is used for this people-centered approach to conservation, and was recently adopted by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) in its 2018-2020 biodiversity financing program (Farvar 2018). ...
... "conservation where indigenous peoples and local communities are the key actors governing, managing, and conserving their lands, waters, and other gifts of nature and, as necessary and desired, invite others to collaborate with and support them on community-defined terms" (Farvar 2018). ...
Book
Full-text available
Marine Protected Areas Management in Indonesia: Status and Challenges report is a part of the MPA Vision framework for 2030, initiated by MMAF (The Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries of Indonesia) along with a consortium of NGOs (WWF-Indonesia, CTC, WCS-IP, YKAN, CII, RARE). It is intended to review the status and trends of marine protected areas in Indonesia. The document uses a knowledge based approach in describing the condition of marine protected areas in Indonesia, with four main topics, namely: (1) marine protected areas Governance in Indonesia; (2) marine protected areas Implementation in Indonesia – Progress Towards National and Global Targets; (3) Balancing Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use in marine protected areas; and (4) Building the marine protected areas Network – New Threats and Approaches to Improve marine protected areas Outcomes.
... Masyarakat berperan sebagai penjaga yang membuat dan menegakkan peraturan untuk mendukung konservasi alam dan kesejahteraan masyarakat. Peraturan yang disepakati umumnya didasarkan pada hubungan yang erat dan mendalam antara manusia dan tanah atau laut, serta identitas sosial-budaya dan spiritual (Farvar 2018). ...
... Istilah "konservasi inklusif" digunakan untuk pendekatan konservasi yang berpusat pada masyarakat. Istilah ini diadopsi oleh Global Environment Facility (GEF) dalam program pembiayaan keanekaragaman hayati 2018-2020 (Farvar 2018). ...
... "konservasi yang melibatkan kelompok adat dan masyarakat lokal sebagai pelaku kunci yang mengatur, mengelola dan melestarikan tanah, air, dan kekayaan alam mereka, dan, jika perlu dan diinginkan, mengundang pihak lain untuk berkolaborasi dan mendukung mereka dengan ketentuan yang ditetapkan oleh masyarakat" (Farvar 2018). ...
Book
Full-text available
Laporan Pengelolaan Kawasan Konservasi Perairan di Indonesia: Status dan Tantangan merupakan bagian dari Dokumen MPA Vision 2030, yang diinisiasi oleh Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan bersama dengan konsorsium Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat (WWF, CTC, WCS-IP, YKAN, CII, RARE), dalam rangka mengkaji status dan tren kawasan konservasi perairan di Indonesia. Laporan ini dibuat berdasarkan data dan informasi ilmiah dalam menguraikan status dan tren kondisi kawasan konservasi perairan di Indonesia dengan empat (4) bagian utama, yaitu: (1) Tata Kelola Kawasan Konservasi Perairan di Indonesia; (2) Implementasi Kawasan Konservasi Perairan di Indonesia – Kemajuan Terhadap Target Nasional dan Global; (3) Menyeimbangkan Konservasi Keanekaragaman Hayati dan Pemanfaatan Berkelanjutan di Kawasan Konservasi Perairan; dan (4) Membangun Jejaring Kawasan Konservasi Perairan – Ancaman dan Pendekatan Baru untuk Meningkatkan Capaian Kawasan Konservasi Perairan.
... Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs) -territories of life -which are defined as territories and areas conserved by indigenous peoples and local communities, are another example. Communities act as custodians who make and enforce rules that support both conservation of nature and community well-being, frequently based around a close and deep connection between people and land or ocean-based around sociocultural and spiritual identity (Farvar 2018). ...
... There is a wide consensus that communities must be actively engaged in conservation for it to be effective and fair. The term "inclusive conservation" is used for this people-centered approach to conservation, and was recently adopted by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) in its 2018-2020 biodiversity financing program (Farvar 2018). ...
... "conservation where indigenous peoples and local communities are the key actors governing, managing, and conserving their lands, waters, and other gifts of nature and, as necessary and desired, invite others to collaborate with and support them on community-defined terms" (Farvar 2018). ...
... Building on previous research in the context of protected areas (ENVISION, 2021;López-Rodríguez et al., 2020), we define inclusive conservation as a process for developing and answering research questions that help to solve resource management problems that emerge from balancing the consequences of different visions for nature conservation. Ideally, a model of inclusive conservation considers the scale of the system being managed, establishes legitimacy with stakeholders through equitable resource management, uses verifiable ecological knowledge and develops a multicultural conservation ethic (Berkes, 2004;Farvar et al., 2018;Musavengane & Leonard, 2019). These lofty goals have been theoretically posited in previous research, yet no studies to date have established a psychometric scale for evaluating perceived inclusivity and, therefore, understanding the degree of success achieved by management agencies in their efforts to represent stakeholder interests. ...
... 'Recognition of the difficulties associated with implementing restrictive policies, and the fact that human land-use practices need not lead to degradation or to a decline in biological diversity, should lead to more inclusive conservation policies within protected areas as well as an expansion of the conservation focus beyond protected-area boundaries' (p.741) Saberwal (1996) 'Studies for the conservation of historic environments have evolved from the conservation of only physical properties to an inclusive conservation approach concerning cultural properties' (p.105) Karakul (2011) 'Together, we propose a unified and diverse conservation ethic; one that recognizes and accepts all values of nature, from intrinsic to instrumental, and welcomes all philosophies justifying nature protection and restoration, from ethical to economic, and from aesthetic to utilitarian' (p.27) Tallis and Lubchenco (2014) 'A more inclusive conservation science (i.e., one that includes methods and insights from the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities) will enable the conservation community to produce more ecologically effective and socially just conservation' (p.65) Bennett et al. (2017) 'ICCA Consortium recommends that 'inclusive conservation' be understood as conservation where indigenous peoples and local communities are the key actors governing, managing and conserving their lands, waters and other gifts of nature and, as necessary and desired, invite others to collaborate with and support them on community-defined terms' (p.8) Farvar et al. (2018) 'Promoting more inclusive conservation is complex and requires a broader conservation agenda for more inclusivity and to genuinely tackle issues of poverty. There is a need for conservation groups to also include the previously marginalized in leadership structures and to incorporate indigenous knowledge systems. ...
Article
Full-text available
1. The success of conservation initiatives often depends on the inclusion of diverse stakeholder interests in the decision-making process. Yet, there is a paucity of empirical knowledge concerning the factors that explain why stakeholders door do not-believe that they are meaningfully represented by government agencies. 2. Our study provides insight into the relationship between trust and stakeholder perceptions of inclusivity in public land management decisions. Here, we focus on the U.S. state of Alaska, where almost two-thirds of the land area are managed by the federal government. 3. We used structural equation modelling to test whether an individual's trust and the information sources used to learn about land management positively influenced perceived inclusivity. We conceptualized trust in terms of four dimensions that reflected an individual's disposition to trust, trust in the federal government , trust in shared values and trust that agencies adhere to a moral code. 4. We found that survey respondents across the U.S. state of Alaska had a limited disposition to trust others, did not trust federal land management agencies, did not believe agencies shared their values pertaining to protected area management and did not believe that agencies adhered to a moral code. 5. Beliefs about the morality of agencies were the primary driver of perceived inclusivity in land management decisions, indicating that agencies should focus on solving problems through deliberation and discussion about moral principles rather than by force. 6. Information acquired from professional, community-based or environmental advocacy exchanges also positively influenced perceived levels of involvement among stakeholders in resource management decisions. 7. These results provide a roadmap for how land management agencies can improve public relations and work towards a model of inclusive conservation around protected areas.
... Over a quarter of the world's land, across 87 countries, falls under local collective governance, overlapping 40% of terrestrial protected areas and numerous key biodiversity areas (KBAs) [42] ( Figure 1B). It is unlikely that any of the global goals of increasing protected area coverage and management effectiveness can be achieved without including these 'Territories of Life' (territories/areas conserved by indigenous peoples and local communities) and their custodians [43]. BRI projects transect numerous such territories, but the potential social and environmental impacts are unquantified, and laws often provide insufficient protection ( Figure 1B). ...
Article
Full-text available
The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) represents the largest infrastructure and development project in human history, and presents risks and opportunities for ecosystems, economies, and communities. Some risks (habitat fragmentation, roadkill) are obvious, however, many of the BRI’s largest challenges for development and conservation are not obvious and require extensive consideration to identify. In this first BRI Horizon Scan, we identify 11 frontier issues that may have large environmental and social impacts but are not yet recognised. More generally, the BRI will increase China’s participation in international environmental governance. Thus, new cooperative modes of governance are needed to balance geopolitical, societal, and environmental interests. Upgrading and standardising global environmental standards is essential to safeguard ecological systems and human societies.
Article
Full-text available
Understanding the scale, location and nature conservation values of the lands over which Indigenous Peoples exercise traditional rights is central to implementation of several global conservation and climate agreements. However, spatial information on Indigenous lands has never been aggregated globally. Here, using publicly available geospatial resources, we show that Indigenous Peoples manage or have tenure rights over at least ~38 million km2 in 87 countries or politically distinct areas on all inhabited continents. This represents over a quarter of the world’s land surface, and intersects about 40% of all terrestrial protected areas and ecologically intact landscapes (for example, boreal and tropical primary forests, savannas and marshes). Our results add to growing evidence that recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ rights to land, benefit sharing and institutions is essential to meeting local and global conservation goals. The geospatial analysis presented here indicates that collaborative partnerships involving conservation practitioners, Indigenous Peoples and governments would yield significant benefits for conservation of ecologically valuable landscapes, ecosystems and genes for future generations.
Article
Full-text available
Statutory recognition of rural communities as collective owners of their lands is substantial, expanding, and an increasingly accepted element of property relations. The conventional meaning of property in land itself is changing, allowing for a greater diversity of attributes without impairing legal protection. General identified trends include: (1) declining attempts to deny that community lands are property on the grounds that they may not be sold or are owned collectively; (2) increased provision for communities to be registered owners to the same degree as individual and corporate persons; (3) a rise in number of laws catering specifically to the identification, registration and governance of community property; and (4) in laws that acknowledge that community property may exist whether or not it has been registered, and that registration formalizes rather than creates property in these cases. The research examined the laws of 100 countries to ascertain the status of lands which social communities, either traditionally or in more contemporary arrangements, deem to be their own. Sampling is broadly consistent with numbers of countries per region. The constitutions of all 100 countries were examined. The land laws of 61 countries were scrutinized. Secondary sources were used for 39 countries, mainly due to laws not being available in English. The main secondary source used was LandMark, whose data is publicly available at www.landmarkmap.org.
Article
Full-text available
This paper reflects on IUCN's ongoing progress to develop technical guidance on 'other effective area-based conservation measures' (OECMs) and begins to explore under what conditions OECMs - as a new form of recognition - might make a positive contribution to territories and areas conserved by Indigenous peoples and local communities (abbreviated to 'ICCAs'). It argues that while the protected areas framework is a potentially useful means by which to recognise the biodiversity contributions of some ICCAs, it is not universally appropriate. In this context, and subject to important caveats, OECM-related frameworks offer an important opportunity to increase recognition and support for ICCAs. The paper concludes with two practical recommendations: first for the development of supplementary guidance on OECMs and ICCAs; and second, for further discussion by a wide range of interested parties on whether 'OECMs' should be referred to as 'conserved areas'.
Article
Full-text available
Recent debate within the conservation community about how to define our mission and delineate our objectives has highlighted frictions between conventional (biodiversity centered) conservation and “new” (socio-economically driven) conservation. It has also prompted calls for “inclusive conservation”, aimed at accommodating both conventional and new perspectives under one big tent, and quelling continued debate. In focusing on the compatibility between two well established perspectives, however, and constructing conservation as a universal agenda rooted in a common environmental ethic, inclusive conservation reinforces currently dominant thinking in the field. We argue here that, despite its name, inclusive conservation further suppresses marginal views within the conservation community by denying the very existence of margins. Drawing on the work of Nancy Fraser and Chantal Mouffe, we underscore the importance of conflict and agonistic pluralism in maintaining space for historically underrepresented points of view. In doing so, we stake out a position in the conservation debate for what we call social instrumentalism, which is an already marginalized perspective that is further suppressed by calls for inclusivity. Finally, we offer a positive alternative vision for the future of conservation, or more aptly, for a future characterized by many different conservations. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
Chapter
Full-text available
CONTENTS • Introduction • History, power, culture and nature • Governing protected and conserved areas • The governance frontiers • Conclusion • References
Article
Full-text available
Heather Tallis, Jane Lubchenco and 238 co-signatories petition for an end to the infighting that is stalling progress in protecting the planet.
Article
Full-text available
The term integrated conservation and development project (ICDP) has been applied to a diverse range of initiatives with a common goal: linking biodiversity conservation in protected areas (PAs) with local social and economic development. In practice, ICDPs refer not just to a general concept but to a specific set of activities targeting a PA and, usually, the inhabited zone around it. ICDPs aim to provide incentives that increase the net local benefits - and therefore attractiveness - of conservation and sustainable resource use in and around PAs. Most ICDPs strongly emphasize local participation in design and implementation. ICDPs have become Indonesia's main approach to biodiversity conservation. The first ICDPs were launched in the 1980s, although similar ideas had been proposed a decade earlier. In addition to two official, government-sponsored ICDPs at Kerinci- Seblat and Siberut-Ruteng (which form a single project covering two locations), more than a dozen unofficial ICDPs were at various stages of implementation in 1997. These projects have targeted PAs with a total area of 8.5 million hectares, 40 percent of the country's conservation estate. Substantial GOI inputs to ICDPs are being supplemented by US$130 million in foreign donor funds, including at least US$7 million dollars being provided by conservation NGOs. Several more ICDPs in preparation are expected to attract at least US$200 million in new international loans and grants. This shows a serious commitment to ICDPs on their part. The objectives of this study were, first, to consider the ICDP's overall contribution to conserving Indonesia's biodiversity; second, to assess their cost-effectiveness, sustainability, and replicability; and third, to identify lessons for future conservation efforts. The study was based on a limited number of site visits supplemented by case studies, interviews, and an extensive review of project documentation (mainly plans, progress reports, and evaluations).
Book
Parks and reserves are on the front line in the campaign to conserve biodiversity. It is increasingly clear that these protected areas have limited future prospects without the cooperation and support of local people, especially in developing countries. Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs) set out to reconcile park management with local needs and aspirations -- by emphasizing social and economic development among local communities -- and have managed to attract a significant amount of biodiversity funding. But so far the results have been disappointing. Important unanswered questions remain, and there is little consensus on when and where an ICDP approach to protected area management is appropriate and likely to be effective. As the struggle to balance conservation and development continues, the need to evaluate what works and what doesn't becomes increasingly important.