Download Filling the Gaps

Indigenous Peoples’ &
Community Conserved Areas
(ICCAs)—
Guidelines towards appropriate
recognition and support
first draft outline for comments
(please send comments to [email protected] )
IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy
IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas
Preface
This document presents an extended outline of guidelines towards appropriate recognition and support to
conserved areas established and managed by indigenous peoples and/or local communities. It is a draft for
discussion and will doubtless go through much iteration before – if and when – it is finalised into a completed
publication.
Importantly, such a publication can only be of legitimacy and use if it actively involves many of the
practitioners in such conserved areas. As these people are found in all continents except Antarctica, speak
many different languages, are already fully occupied and have a range of opinions and priorities, agreeing
on a text of global applicability is likely to prove a challenge. On the other hand, as we outline below, the
threats to conserved areas are intense and growing, and we do not have the luxury of huge amounts of time
to refine our ideas; hence this draft for discussion at the World Conservation Congress in Barcelona in
October 2008.
The document already draws on many sources. Most recently, funding from GTZ allowed TILCEPA and
TGER to run a series of grassroots initiative, where practitioners held workshops around the world and
facilitated the local discussion of questions about the status of some specific ICCAs, their threats and their
needs, as identified by the communities that conserve them. Among the people who facilitated and reported
about such discussions– some of which worked as consultants and others as volunteers – are Slimane
Bedrani, Donato Bumacas, Dave de Vera, Ali Asghar Didari, Mashqura Fareedi, Datu Johnny Guina, Ruddy
Gustave, James Hardcastle, Jillian Kennedy, Ashish Kothari, Sudeep Jana, Kira L. Johnson, Jimmy
Kereseka, Constanza Monterrubio Solis, Dao Nguyen, Dario Novellino, Paulina Ormaza, Neema Pathak,
Bernardo Peredo-Videa, Vololoniaina Rasoarimanana, Juan Carlos Riascos, Vikal Samdariya, Cynthia Silva
Maturana, Eddy Terrazas, Stan Stevens, Ahfi Wahyu-Hidayat and Gonzalo Zambrana. Other relevant
information was extracted from documents prepared by Rosina Moru Blomley, Li Bo, Mike Ferguson, Hugh
Govan, Abdella Herzenni, Adrian Martin, Gary Martin, Fred Nelson and Martine Ngobo. To all of them, and
to the communities that agree to share their knowledge and ideas, very warm thanks!
What follows is an initial attempt to draw some lessons from this material as well as from other experience
built up by CEESP, WCPA and various working groups over the last few years.
The first part of this document sets the scene in terms of how the so-called Indigenous and Community
Conserved Areas (ICCAs) emerged in conservation discourse; the types and diversity they encompass ; and
how these relate to “official” protected areas. Much of this will be familiar to those already well versed in
these subjects and could be skipped. The second part looks at evidence for the effectiveness of ICCAs from
ecological and social perspectives; examines some of the threats to ICCAs and where they come from; and
develops some general analysis of levels of ICCA security. The third part proposes some necessary
elements in recognising and securing individual ICCAs and looks more generally at future directions for the
ICCA movement as a whole.
A few examples are scattered throughout the text. In the full Guidelines, these will be expanded, both in
number and detail. The manual itself will also be thoroughly reference. We apologise in advance for the lack
of references in the current version.
first draft outline for comments Page 2
Introduction
Territory and peoples. From the perspective of many indigenous societies, the relationship between
peoples and nature (what in other perspectives is called “management” and “governance”) cannot be
separated from their knowledge (science) and the moral/ ethical foundations of their behaviour. This basic
concept, which can be found in indigenous societies throughout the world and has been difficult to translate
for people in so called modern societies, is embedded in the concept of “territory”. In this sense, “territory”
(regardless of the different terms utilised by different societies) is an archetypical entity related to the
“common good of people and/in nature”.
If we understand the concept of territory -- a door to a multiplicity of worldviews with little in common with a
purely utilitarian relationship with nature – it is clear that people have been deliberately “conserving” land for
thousands of years. They did so while living with it and taking for it the essential materials of life. Some of
the most powerful areas in the land, with whom people related in special and different ways, could even
resemble what modern people call “protected areas” but their understanding was more complex and more
engaging than simply “setting aside” land and resources for conservation.
Through time, some such special places came to be controlled by the rich and the powerful, for instance as
hunting reserves. Many more were maintained until very recently by communities, through customary
frameworks such as the hima system of protected grazing lands in the Arabian Peninsula and so many
others related to the specifics of the land. Many, but by no means all such sites, lost some of their spiritual
significance. In particular, many of the “territories” of indigenous peoples throughout the world retained all or
much of that meaning, as peoples keep feeling they are the custodians – rather than the owners – of the
land they inhabit. People remain one with their land. In many more parts of the world than “modern man”
may think, territory, culture, and people are one.
The recent “environmental agenda”. In the last decades, mounting evidence of environmental problems
throughout the world stimulated the development of innumerable local movements in both the industrialised
North and the South. Both problems and reactions started well before the 1970s, but it is in 1972, at the UN
Conference in Stockholm, that the international community took stock of an environmental movement of
planetary proportion and started designing an “environmental agenda” for it. In the 1980s and early 1990s,
that agenda was taken on by national states and environmental ministries, aid agencies poured large
amounts of funds into environmental initiatives, and public support increased dramatically. Two critical
issues are identified by this movement:

Biodiversity crisis. It is recognised that many wild species of plants and animals are in danger of
becoming extinct. The full extent of this crisis is still largely speculative, because the majority of the
world’s species have not as yet been described by science. Our limited knowledge is based largely on
trends in larger animals and plants and on some more obvious invertebrate species such as butterflies
and moths. The IUCN Species Survival Commission runs a Red List of threatened species, which
shows the continuing decline and in some cases disappearance of iconic and important species. In the
last year, for example, it seems likely that the Yangtse River Dolphin has become extinct in China, one
of five freshwater dolphin species in the world. Most people believe that we have an ethical
responsibility to prevent extinctions caused by our own actions

Environmental breakdown. There is evidence that many of the ecological systems that support life on
the planet, including ourselves, are in danger of breaking down as a result of habitat destruction,
species loss and pollution. Key problems include: changes to hydrology and weather patterns; water
shortages; increasing soil erosion; landslides and desertification; more human disasters linked to
extreme weather events; the spread of invasive species and diseases; loss of crop diversity and
first draft outline for comments Page 3
associated food insecurity; famines; and -- influencing everything-- accelerating climate change. The
role of natural or semi-natural habitats in providing environmental services is increasingly recognised.
These two phenomena are of a physical/biological nature, and yet they are not separate (and in the
indigenous perspective mentioned above they are intimately related with) human and socio-cultural change.
These ties are embedded in innumerable phenomena – from changed consumption patterns to demographic
dynamics – which cannot be addressed here. One such phenomenon, however, is closely related to the
topic of this document, namely the erosion of community governance over natural resources (replaced by
governance by private individuals, corporations and the state). With that, went a loss of ethnically-specific
and context-tailored institutions in charge of the “common good” of the territory and people, each made of
unique knowledge, skills, resources and organisations that previously stood the test of time. Other “modern”
phenomena -- such as the increased life expectancy of a large part of the human population, the enhanced
role of women in public affairs, the democratisation of some societies or some of the results of modern
sciences -- offer solace to some. For others, the current environmental and socio-cultural situation of our
planet can only be described as a time of crisis.
 Protected areas: One of the responses to the crisis has been a spectacular increase in the deliberate
setting aside of land and water for protection of plants, animals, geology, ecosystems and scenery. The
majority of large, officially recognised protected areas were established and run by governments but other
models also emerged, including NGO, community and private protected areas. Many different models were
developed – national parks, nature reserves, wilderness areas etc – which became lumped together under
the title of “protected areas”.
Today, protected areas are the cornerstones of most national and international conservation strategies.
They act as refuges for species and ecological processes that cannot survive in intensely managed
landscapes and seascapes. They provide space for natural evolution and future ecological restoration.
People – nearby and further away – benefit from the genetic potential of wild species, the environmental
services of natural ecosystems, recreational opportunities and the refuge given to traditional and vulnerable
societies. Flagship protected areas are as important to a nation’s heritage as the Notre Dame Cathedral is
for France or the Taj Mahal for India.
Protected areas are still being established. Today, there are over 100,000 designated protected areas listed
on the World Database on Protected Areas by the UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre covering
18.8 million km2 or well over a tenth of the Earth's land surface, along with over 1300 marine protected
areas, covering about 1 per cent of the oceans. The vast majority of these were identified and gazetted
during the 20th century, in one of the largest and most dramatic conscious land use changes in history. But
this growth gives a false impression of the strength of the world’s protected area network. Many are remote
and inaccessible – ice caps, deserts and mountains – and not in the best places to protect biodiversity or
benefit communities. There are also notable gaps: for example just 0.1 per cent of original forest is protected
in the Southern Pacific Islands, only 1 per cent of the moist forests of the Cameroon Highlands of Central
Africa, the Argentine pampas and Gulf of Guinea mangroves, and only 2 per cent of lake systems. Flagship
species like tigers and rhinos suffer from lack of suitable habitat in protected areas.
Protected areas were a visionary and necessary concept, but not one that came without cost. Setting aside
land and water means that the resources they contain are “locked up”: while some people gain from the
ecosystem services, the chances to see wildlife and the other benefits that protected areas provide, others
lose out. In general, it is the people that live within or closest to protected areas that have paid the price on
behalf of the rest of us. Sometimes areas that had been effectively managed by communities over long
periods of time were taken from them because of a perceived “conservation value” that had, in fact, been
created by the traditional managers themselves.
first draft outline for comments Page 4
Indigenous people and local communities have been expelled from protected areas throughout their history;
right at the start of the modern protected areas movement the Shoshone people were expelled from
Yellowstone National Park in 1872. Other examples include the Ik from Kidepo National Park in Uganda, the
Vedda from the Madura Oya National Park in Sri Lanka and the Batwa of Rwanda, Uganda and DR Congo
from gorilla reserves. These inequities have not been confined to developing countries and there have also
been conflicts in North America, Australiasia and Lapland. Such clashes have, apart from their social and
humanitarian impacts, done little for conservation. Loss of traditional rights generally reduces peoples’
interest in the long-term stewardship of land and water and the creation of a protected area can in some
cases increase the rate of damage to the very values that stimulated protection in the first place. When the
forests of Yuhu village were incorporated into the Yulongxueshan Nature Reserve in Yunnan China, farmers
cut down trees that they had previously managed on a sustainable basis. Putting a fence around a protected
area seldom creates a long-term solution to problems of disaffected human communities, whether or not it is
ethically justified. Fortunately, the international community is moving towards ways to reconcile the rights of
people to their lands (and “territories”!) with the necessities of conserving nature (biodiversity and ecological
functions) as part of land use planning that - ideally -- puts some order into complex situations and locally
important environmental crises.i
 New models of protected areas emerging, in particular shared governance and governance by
indigenous peoples and local communities: Also as a result of concerns about human rights implications
of protected areas, some new models are emerging, that focus more on making collective decisions about
land and water management; being more flexible about how such areas are managed (frequently allowing a
continuation of traditional activities for example) and in particular focusing on new governance models for
protected areas that hand some or all of the decision-making power back to local and indigenous
communities. At the same time, there is increasing recognition that some traditional forms of land and water
management also have valuable lessons for the modern protected areas movement. For instance, early in
2008 the government of Colombia has declared a new National Park—a sanctuary for wild plants, and
medicinal plants in particular – managed in close collaboration with the Cofán Indigenous Peoples in
Putumayo.
 Some policy context: new approaches have not been ignored by the international community. They are
recognised and to some extent made concrete by inclusion in a number of important international
instruments that directly or indirectly relate to protected areas and potentially cover other, more complex
types of interaction between people and nature, including:







The Convention on Biological Diversity’s Programme of Work on Protected Areas
The Ramsar Convention
The UNESCO Man and the Biosphere programme and Conventions on Cultural and Natural Heritage
The UNESCO Convention for the Conservation of the Cultural inmaterial Heritageii
The International Labour Organisation Convention 169
The Millennium Development Goals
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
The final text of the manual will contain greater detail on all of the above, including some description of
international instruments. It will, however, remain a scene-setting and therefore quite brief part of the text.
first draft outline for comments Page 5
What is an ICCA?
 Governance by indigenous peoples and local communities: a large number of territories and areas
throughout the world conserve nature and its associated economic and cultural values as a direct
consequence of the decisions and actions -- including active management -- of indigenous peoples and/or
other local communities. These are known as indigenous peoples’ protected areas, indigenous peoples’
conserved territories, community conserved areas and a variety of other local names. To designate
them collectively we propose to use here the summary acronym of ICCA.iii Importantly only a few of
those are officially recognised by their governments and even fewer are considered protected areas as part
of a national system of protected areas or other networks.
According to IUCN, an ICCA consists of “natural and modified ecosystems including significant
biodiversity, geological diversity, ecological services and cultural values voluntarily conserved by
indigenous peoples and local communities, both sedentary and mobile, through customary laws or
other effective means”.
Concepts of governance by indigenous peoples and local communities are evolving and differ around the
world. Some indigenous peoples wish to see their conserved territories clearly distinguished from those of
local communities. In other cases, indigenous peoples and local communities are co-inhabiting and comanaging areas, and in yet further cases indigenous
peoples use the term “community conserved areas”
for practical reasons; for example in some countries
the term “indigenous” is not recognised. Similar
regional differences exist regarding the term
“territory”. Of course the concepts also vary a little
when translated into different languages. Amongst
both indigenous peoples and local communities there
are cases where the term “conserved area” is used
and others where “protected area” is preferred: they
all refer to much the same management approaches.
 Some other important definitions. To make things clear, the following definitions are also important:

Indigenous peoples: (a) tribal peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural and economic
conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and whose status is
regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations; (b)
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 colonization 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.
[Source: Definition applied to the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention (No. 169)
concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries. Indigenous peoples stress that
there is a degree of self-definition in determining what makes up a specific indigenous or tribal people.]

Local communities: human groups sharing a territory and involved in different but related aspects of
livelihoods—such as managing natural resources, producing knowledge and culture, and developing
productive technologies and practices. Since this definition can apply to a range of sizes it can be
further specified that the members of a “local community” are those people that are likely to have faceto-face encounters and/or direct mutual influences in their daily life. In this sense, a rural village, a clan
in transhumance or the inhabitants of an urban neighbourhood can be considered a “local community”,
first draft outline for comments Page 6
but not all the inhabitants of a district, a city quarter or even a rural town. A local community could be
permanently settled or mobile. Most local communities developed their identity and cultural
characteristics over time by devising and applying a strategy to cope with their environment and
manage its natural resources. They thus possess a distinctive form of social organization, and their
members share in varying degrees political, economic, social and cultural characteristics (in particular
language, behavioural norms, values, aspirations and often also health and disease patterns). Local
communities can also function, or have functioned in the past, as micro-political bodies with specific
capacities and authority.
 Characteristics: ICCAs have three main characteristics:
 Some indigenous peoples and/or local communities are closely concerned about the relevant
ecosystems – usually being related to them culturally (e.g., because they value them as sacred areas)
and/or because they support their livelihoods, and/or because they are their traditional territories under
customary law.
 Such indigenous peoples and/or local communities are the major players (“hold power”) in decision
making and implementation of decisions on the management of the ecosystems at stake, implying that
they possess an institution exercising authority and responsibility and are capable of enforcing
regulations.
 The voluntary management decisions and efforts of indigenous peoples and/or local communities lead
and contribute towards the conservation of habitats, species, ecological functions, geological diversity
and associated cultural values, although the original intention might have been related to a variety of
objectives, not necessarily directly related to the protection of biodiversity.
Some examples of ICCAs
There is no simple model for an ICCA. Protected areas controlled and governed by indigenous peoples and
local communities embrace a wide variety of management types, sizes, habitats and official designations.
Many examples will come throughout this manual. To give a flavour of what is to come:

Tembawang gardens of Borneo: tiny areas maintained in the otherwise degraded landscapes of
western Kalimantan (part of Indonesia) as graveyards and fruit gardens. Over 400 wild species are
maintained and the resulting areas have a very similar structure to natural forests, although they have
been planted. They are often the only refuge for wild biodiversity in otherwise cultural landscapes, but
have no official status as protected areas

Uluru National Park in Australia: better known as Ayer’s Rock, this is one of the most iconic protected
areas in the world. It is also an important sacred site for the Anangu Aboriginal people. In Aboriginal
faith systems Uluru is the Intelligent Snake from the universe, who emerged from a rainbow and
slithered down to Earth; in other traditions it arose suddenly out of a larger sand hill. Originally
established by the government, since 1985
management of the park has been handed back to
Aboriginal people.

Natural Reserves of afro-descending indigenous
communities in the Colombian Pacific Coast.
Many communities of afro descending indigenous
peoples along the Pacific coast of Colombia were
recently assigned collective property title over land
and natural resources in agreement with the
Colombian constitution. Each community commands
now relatively large territories accessible only by boats and in virtual isolation from the rest of the world,
harbouring unique biodiversity and spanning coastal mangroves, estuaries, alluvial plains and hill
first draft outline for comments Page 7
forests. A recent survey of the experience of a network of community councils called RECOMPAS has
found there a common, regular pattern whereby such communities establish and manage their own
strict natural reserves and other areas of limited or collective use, and set those out clearly in the
community zoning and management plans.

Regole of the Ampezzo Valley (Italy): The Regole are an institution with a recorded history of
approximately 1,000 years. The common property resources they manage were initially established as a
CCA by the work of the early Regolieri, who created pastures, managed the woods and established
rules (“regole”) to craft the sustainable use of one of the most magnificent corners of the Alpine region.
Through time, the Regole maintained their autonomous status thanks to internal unity and diplomatic
skills. Today, their land is the Parco Naturale delle Dolomiti d’Ampezzo, a regional protected area
recognised and supported tby he European Union, the Italian state and the Veneto regional
government… and still governed by the direct descendants of the early Regolieri.
There is mounting evidence that ICCAs can provide effective biodiversity conservation responding to any of
the management objectives of the IUCN categories, and particularly so in places where protected areas
governed by governments are politically or socially impossible to implement or likely to be poorly managed.
ICCAs are starting to be recognised as part of conservation planning strategies, complementing
government-managed protected areas, private protected areas and various forms of shared governance.
The following manual is about the ICCA concept, what it offers, what threats it faces, some practical issues
relating to management and some proposals for the future.
This will also be quite a short section in the final manual.
first draft outline for comments Page 8
Diverse types of ICCAs
ICCAs can vary in terms of size and history (including length of time they have been functioning). In addition,
their establishment and maintenance are driven by a range of different underlying values and motivations,
and their daily management choices follow different main objective. Most strikingly, ICCAs span an
immense variety of governance institutions.
 Size and history

Size of the area and/or extent of the resources being protected. The size of an individual ICCA may
range from as small as a hectare, as for many of the sacred grooves of Benin to as large as entire
mountains, lakes, or valleys, as for Paraku Indigenous Protected Areas in Australia. Similarly, resources
may range from a single species (such as the painted stork or globally threatened spot-billed pelican
whose nesting sites are strictly protected by some villages in India) to broader classes of flora or fauna
(such as Ficus tree species and groves, also in India). Broadly speaking the potential dimension of the
ICCA phenomenon are enormousiv. In Latin America, 27 per cent de Brazilian Amazons is officially
demarcated as Indigenous Territory, nearly 35 per cent of Colombia is constituted by indigenous
“resguardos” (covering 52 per cent of the Colombian Amazon) and territories of the communities with
African ancestors; in Bolivia there are today 44 Tierras Comunitarias de Origen; the new Constitution of
Ecuador is calling for similar denominations, etc.

History, including the occasion for establishing management objectives and rules. ICCAs can
originate through internal or external initiatives, as a response to a new opportunity (e.g. a new law or
project) or as a response to a crisis, a threat or a severe shortage in resources that may have been so
far back in time to have already vanished from memory. In some cases, the ICCA is part of a process of
local empowerment, self-rule, and regained control over natural resources. Related to history is the
length of time the protection effort or practice has been sustained and enforced, often also reflected in
how strongly the ICCAs contributed to the sense of identity of the local community. As an example, the
indigenous peoples that conserve the UMU Kaja Yepa territory in Vaupès (Colombia) do so with the
stated objective of securing a “good life” for all. As they say: “Since the beginning of time, the territory
has been cared for through culture, the traditional knowledge of the Kumuã and the social adherence to
the laws assigned by each ethnic group”.v
ICCAs stretch our understanding of the concept of “area”, as the territories under protection do not always
have clear borders, being associated with forces of nature or influenced by the seasons and climatic
phenomena. This is particularly true in the case of mobile indigenous peoples, who relate to very broad
territories and resources affected by varying climatic conditions and differently managed for determined
numbers of months or years. They also stretch western concepts of “nature” often associating with it a
variety of intangible presences and values that are not perceived by all.
 Underlying values and purposes
Very few ICCAs are managed purely for a single reason. Most (but not all) sacred sites also provide practical
benefits in terms of wild food or shelter. Watershed management will often go hand in hand with collection of
non-timber forest products. Land managed for grazing domesticated livestock may also be used for
occasional hunting of wild species. The fact that a community sets asides or restores areas for wildlife
doesn’t mean that they will not also want to use the area for walking or playing, or they will not want to
extract from it water or food products. In fact, single motivations appear the exception more than the rule
and communities are driven to protect resources and sites for a variety of reasons, including but not limited
to:
first draft outline for comments Page 9












maintenance of food sources (including crop genetic diversity)
maintenance of convenient sources of fuel, medicinal plants, fodder and building materials
security of supply of pure drinking water
security of supply of sufficient water for irrigation and local hydro-electric power
maintenance of cultural and sacred sites
maintenance of wild species for cultural, spiritual, ethical or other reasons
conservation of areas for recreation
prevention of natural disasters (e.g. landslides)
provision of jobs income and rural development (often through tourism initiatives)
for reasons of promoting peace (as in the Peace Parks movement)
for reasons of maintaining one own peace (e.g. un-contacted people in voluntary isolation)
as a means of political empowerment or security against external threats
Most ICCAs are neither purely utilitarian or functional, or purely spiritual or aesthetic in their approach.
Underlying the list summarised above, there appear to be a few major motivations, which often intermingle
or overlap. First, many ICCAs are conserved to offer goods and services (food, medicines, environmental
services etc) in times of climatic, economic or political crisis or times of exceptional scarcity of resources.
[Example: the humid higher elevation woods in the Borana indigenous territories] They are the only
insurance policy available to many indigenous peoples and local communities all over the world. Secondly,
ICCAs are often cared for because they embody an important part of cultural identity for the indigenous
peoples or local community involved. This can be expressed as a particular spiritual value, or an historical
association or even something much more recent such as pride in a woodland planted by a community or
delight in a local nature reserve. A third common motivation is the search for political autonomy, the ability to
be able to control one’s lives and surrounds, and to protect one’s territory against external threats.
 Management objectives: closely related to the underlying values and purpose of the community, ICCAs
can be managed for a variety of specific objectives from strict protection to intensive sustainable use. These
also reflect the full variety that can be found in “official” protected areas and by way of illustration we link
them with the IUCN protected area management categories below:

Strict protection: ICCAs managed for strict protection and avoiding disturbance and change. Typical
examples are sacred sites or areas meant to leave wildlife alone. Many of the most strictly protected
areas on the planet are set aside because of links with one or more traditional faiths but also from all of
the 14 so-called “major faiths”. Example: parts of Coron Island, Palawan, Philippines; many sacred
groves in India. Burial sites are linked with but often distinct from sacred sites. Examples: the
cemeteries of marabous in Morocco and other Muslim societies; burial grounds in Madagascar.
Communities also at times set aside areas for strict nature protection, e.g. Khonoma Tragopan
Sanctuary in Nagaland, India. (Equivalent to IUCN protected area category Ia.)

Preservation of large ecosystems in their natural state for perpetuation of associated sociocultural values (including voluntary isolation as well as hunting and low-level herding),
environmental services (such as watershed security), and/or ecotourism. These ICCAs maintain
very large tracts of natural land in a natural state. An extreme example relates to the territories of uncontacted people living in voluntary isolation in the Amazons or some remote corners of the Philippines.
[Examples: Intangible Zones of Cuyabeno-Imuya and Tagaeri-Taromenane, Ecuador; Río Puré,
Colombia, spanning 1 million ha, set out to protected the legitimate desire of the Yuri o Aroje tribe to be
let on their own.vi] More commonly, ICCAs are managed with the intent of maintaining nature and the
integrity of its relationship with people. Example: Alto Fragua-Indiwasi National Park, Colombia. Some
large natural sites (particularly but not only forests) are maintained to provide clean drinking water, to
mitigate flooding or to reduce erosion and siltation of freshwaters. Examples: várzea reserves in
Amazonian Brazil. In some cases these ICCAs can play a unique complementary role for the biological
first draft outline for comments Page 10
connectivity of other protected areas, as for a complex of indigenous territories and protected areas in
the northeast Amazons, spanning 30 million ha. across Brasil, Venezuela, Colombia and Perú.
(Possibly equivalent to IUCN protected area category Ib or to category II)

Conservation of specific natural features. These ICCAs are usually small and focus on one feature in
the landscape. Examples: limestone caves, Kanger Ghati National Park, India; sacred lakes in
Madagascar. (Equivalent to IUCN protected area category III)

Conservation of species or habitats with restricted resource use. ICCAs set aside land for
conservation of nature and associated habitats, with some associated resource uses under strong
regulations. Example reserves for cranes in Japan; sacred crocodile ponds, Mali; Kokkare Bellur
protected heronry, India. At times ICCAs set up for hunting purposes include protection of natural
ecosystems (sometimes with some management) and maintenance of viable populations of hunted
species. Example: hunting areas in Namibia; wetlands preserved by duck trappers in Iran, essential to
conserve unique stepping stone habitats for the Siberian cranes; conservation of medicinal flora in the
Orito – Ingi Ande Sanctuary, Colombia, which is a de jure ICCAvii (Equivalent to IUCN protected area
category IV.)

Conservation of landscapes/seascapes in their managed/ modified status including for cultural
reasons. Many ICCAs concern community transformed landscapes and seascapes where people
derived and embedded cultural values as part of the relationship with natural resources. Example; potato
park, Peru; Minorca biosphere reserve, Spain. In many cases these ICCAs involve grazing areas:
grasslands established and maintained to allow (often seasonal) grazing of livestock through controlled
burning etc. Such areas can be important for wild herbivores and for grassland and savannah plant and
animal species. Examples: migration territory of the Kuhi, Sashavan and Bakhtiari nomadic tribes, Iran;
Iran hima in the Arabian peninsula. (Equivalent to IUCN protected area category V.)

Sustainable (and biodiversity friendly) use of natural resources. These ICCAs are natural or nearnatural ecosystems managed to extract in a sustainable way specific natural resources, such as nontimber forest products, food, building materials, fuel, medicines. Example: nut and fruit forests in
Kazakhstan, community forests in Val di Fiemme, Italy, Pred Nai mangroves, Thailand, community fishing
areas in marine environments in the Pacific and in freshwater areas (river fisheries conservation, Laos).
(Equivalent to IUCN category VI.)
 Governance institutions
The variability here is striking, as indigenous peoples and local communities all over the world have devised
their own institutions (knowledge, skills, organisations, rules, management practices, surveillance and
enforcement procedures and the like) linked to their cultures and uniquely structured to respond to the
specificity of their environments. These can be democratic or hierarchical (village committees or hereditary
chiefs); involving everyone or a selected minority (e.g. chiefs and religious leaders); simple or complex.
More generally, the conservation practices proper to an ethnic group, based on their unique institutions and
cultural norms — do not tend to work through exclusive associations between a given community and a
given territory or marine area, but commonly includes overlapping entitlements, where different communities,
tribes and clans have legitimate rights and responsibilities related to different resources, types of uses,
timings of use, etc. Several ethnic groups may be concerned about the same territory and their combined
management practices may be effective for conservation. In other words, a territory or marine area may
simultaneously be an ICCA for many communities.
This section in the final manual will also discuss about similarities and differenced between the
characteristics of ICCAs of indigenous peoples and of local communities.
first draft outline for comments Page 11
Are ICCAs also “protected areas”?
The quick answer is: it depends. Whether or not an ICCA is recognised as a protected area (i.e. whether it is
recognised by the government or listed on the World Database on Protected Areas) depends on many
things including: the wishes of the indigenous peoples and communities involved; the attitude of the
government; the capacity of the legislation to accommodate ICCAs; and the relevance and importance of the
site to nature conservation.
The longer answer, which we can only hint at here, is that we need to clarify the dichotomy between the
rights claimed by indigenous peoples and the coercive nature of the governmental laws for the conservation
of nature. The key is to clarify both the rights/ responsibilities of the state to establish protected areas for the
benefits of all, and the recognition that part of its territories are under autonomous jurisdiction, for instance
as a consequence of the application of the ILO 169 Convention. Both are valid rights, but often a missing
exercise is the analysis of whether both such rights cannot – in fact – fully and productively coexist. In this
sense, the legal “recognition” of autonomous territories as protected areas would benefit society as a whole,
and incite it to work for the protection and respect of different cultures. But it is different to speak in terms of
“designation” or “recognition” of an area than to speak in terms of “declaration” by the state of an area as a
protected area, which appears indeed to diminish any existing autonomous rights of its peoples.
There are several options:
 Full recognition of the ICCA as a protected area and incorporation within the national system and listing
on a special Registry in the World Database on Protected Areas and the UN List of Protected Areasviii

Recognition of the ICCA as a land or water management system associated with protected areas but
still separate (for example a buffer zones, conservation corridor or a so-called “stepping stone”; i.e.
habitat used periodically by migratory species)

Recognition as an ICCA, outside the protected areas system

No official recognition at all but a tacit recognition of the values of the ICCA by conservation planners
There are reasons for choosing any of the above, depending on individual circumstances. Recognition as a
protected area can sometimes bring additional funding, legal protection and sources of income. For example
some Australian indigenous peoples have “self-declared” protected areas for the additional protection it
affords their traditional lands. Recognition, however, can also bring unwanted attention or attempts to control
the area from outside, which is why some communities choose to keep their ICCAs in effect “hidden”: for
instance to maintain the privacy and sanctity of a sacred natural site. For example the Baka people in the
Congo Basin will not tell non-Baka where their own sacred sites are, as this sanctity is part of the belief
system.
We also need to recognise that not all ICCAs, just like official PAs, are likely to survive. Some governments
are unaware and uninterested in community conservation initiatives, or feel that these are less important
than other forms of development and will fail to protect, or in some cases actively discourage or undermine,
ICCAs. This issue is returned to below in the section on threats.
 Possible steps to determine whether an indigenous peoples’ territory or ICCA is a “protected
area” and to recognise it in a national protected area system, once a indigenous peoples’ group of
local community has decided that this is the desired option
Before we embark in any process, we recommend establishing a clear, inclusive and shared definition of the
concept of “indigenous territory” and/or “community territory” (“terroir”, “dhuar”) and corresponding coastal
first draft outline for comments Page 12
and marine areas. This would prevent annihilating the autonomous territorial taxonomies through an
imposing western language system. It should also be seen what part of such territories can be identified as
ICCA (following the three conditions mentioned when defining ICCAs) including – in particular – whether
current uses of natural resources are compatible with conservation.
IUCN has proposed a series of steps to identify whether or not an ICCA is also a protected area. [These
remain draft and will need to be tested.] These steps assume that the indigenous peoples and/or
communities involve wish the site to be so recognised.

Find out if the site is a protected area as recognised by IUCN: Determine whether the area and its
current governance system fits within the protected area definition of IUCN.

Find out if the site is a protected area as recognised by the government concerned: Determine
whether the area also meets the criteria of a protected area under national legislation and policy.

Find out if the site already fits into a country’s protected area designation: If so, determine
whether it fits within the existing protect areas law and typology of protected area categories. Could the
area qualify as one of the existing protected area categories. Importantly, if it did so, does national
legislation and policy allow for the community’s own governance system to continue or will recognition
as a protected area result in loss of control by the community? Does it allow management objectives
that may be conceptually and/or practically different from conservation per se?

Recognise the site if it meets all requirements: When national legislation and policies are fully
compatible with local practice and when the relevant indigenous peoples and local communities have
expressed their prior free and informed consent, conservation agencies should grant, or formally
recognise, that authority and decision-making powers for the establishment and management of the
area should rest with the concerned indigenous peoples and/or local communities. Importantly, this may
help them to enforce their own decisions (as in the case in which an ordinance for the control of fishing
may provide the needed legal backing to a community-declared marine sanctuary).

Make adjustments as necessary: When there is incompatibility between indigenous peoples or
community governance of a valuable area and national protected area laws and regulations, legal and
policy adjustments might be required to the current statutory provisions so that the relevant indigenous
peoples and local communities can retain their governance systems. This does not preclude interaction
and/or proposition of changes and improvements from the part of governmental agencies or other
actors. Often, what the indigenous peoples or local communities request is a guarantee of customary
tenure, use and access rights sanctioned through a demarcation of territories and resources. For that to
happen, however, it may be necessary that the institution governing the area be recognised as a legal
body. As this can affect the ways indigenous peoples and local communities organize themselves and
manage their areas and territories, it is important that they determine such matters.

Negotiate contractual agreements with the indigenous peoples and/or communities: After
incompatibilities are removed, the agency may embark on a process of negotiation, which may end in a
contractual arrangement between concerned indigenous peoples and/or local communities and national
or sub-national authorities. Such a contractual arrangement could recognise the area and provide to it
some form of legal protection or technical and financial support, including inclusion as an autonomous
part of a national protected area system. It could also deal with mutually acceptable conservation
outcomes.

Clarify and publish associated agreements, rules and regulations: Once agreement has been
reached, the relevant rules and regulations may need to be clarified and made public. This may involve
first draft outline for comments Page 13
the mere recording of existing customary rules, without interference from the state agencies, or the
incorporation of new advice, methods and tools into these rules. It may be useful to clarify and record
the subdivision of rights and responsibilities among the concerned indigenous peoples and local
communities themselves and to specify provisions against the misuse of rights and power on the part of
authorities at all levels.

Work out protection mechanisms: As part of the governance process, the ICCA needs to be effectivel
protected against external threats. What kind of customary and local surveillance and enforcement
mechanisms are recognised by the state? For instance, can members of the concerned indigenous
peoples and local communities apprehend violators? Is government help needed? Who judges in the
event of controversies? Who is responsible for the information campaigns needed for the general public
to respect ICCAs and indigenous protected areas? The answers to these questions are important for
such areas to remain effective as protected areas through time.

Agree on monitoring mechanisms: It is also important to know if the ICCA is working as intended: are
cultural and livelihood goals being achieved; is conservation being achieved? Agreeing on what will be
monitored is a way of identifying – and agreeing upon – what is important and can itself be a key stage
in the negotiation process. Monitoring should wherever possible involve members of the local
community, who will know most and understand best the site, but may also involve external specialists
as well.
At present this is a list of key steps. Many of the steps summarised in a single sentence here would require
vast effort, resources and expertise. In the full manual we will need much more detail, including examples of
how different indigenous peoples and local communities have addressed this issue in real life, the problems
they faced and successes they achieved.
first draft outline for comments Page 14
How effective are ICCAs for biodiversity protection?
The systematic study of ICCAs and their potential for conservation is only emerging, and as is the case with
all types of protected areas, measurable evidence of their effectiveness is still sparse. However, a review of
published literature reveals growing evidence of the contribution of community conservation across the
world. For instance, a meta-study by Molnar et al. 2004 estimates that there is at least as much forest area
under community conservation, 370 million hectares, as is under conservation in forested public protected
areas. The actual area could be double or triple this estimate if traditional agro-forestry or agro-pastoral
systems and forest areas in Soviet Russia, Europe and the Middle East are included. The authors included
the following types of community-conserved forests:
 Tribal forests and traditional territories of first nations in North America
 Latin America: Indigenous lands in the Amazon, indigenous and community ejidos in Merxico,
indigenous forests and pàramos of the Andean region and forest-agriculture mosaics in South America
 Africa: Village and collective forests, forest agriculture mosaics and sacred groves
 South Asia: Joint Forest management in India, doubled by unrecognized community managed forests
on state forest areas, sacred groves in India and Nepal, Community forests accross the region
 East Asia: Community forests, collective forests and forest agriculture mosaics
While not all of these areas would necessarily qualify as ICCAs according to the stringent definition above,
these figures give an impression of the importance of conservation efforts of Indigenous Peoples and Local
Communities worldwide.
 Examples of conservation outcomes of ICCAs
A further review of the literature provides some evidence of the conservation effectiveness of various types
of ICCAs. (Note: the flowing studies are only a preliminary sample; a more thorough literature review is
underway and will be included in the final version of these Guidelines).

Brazil: A study of satellite-imagery of land cover and fire occurrence in the Brazilian Amazon by
Nepstad et al (2002) compared the performance of uninhabited federal reserves and inhabited
indigenous reserves. The authors found no significant differences in the rate of deforestation or loss of
forest cover in the two types of protected areas. Moreover, indigenous reserves are located in areas
with much more intensive colonization pressure (federal protected areas are mostly located in areas
remote from the agricultural frontier) and many prevented deforestation completely despite high rates of
deforestation along their boundaries. Also, the authors found that the effectiveness of these reserves is
not lost over time through acculturation of Indigenous residents or population growth, as previously
postulated.

Australia: Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) in Australia are areas of land and coastal waters
voluntarily declared as Protected Areas by the Indigenous Peoples who are the custodians and
manaers of the area. Since the first declared IPA in 1998, 64% of all new PAs in Australia have been
IPAs, which now comprise about 20% of the terrestrial PA estate across the country.ix Studies of the
firs IPAs, such as Nantawarrina and Deen Maar in souther Australia, show that what were once
significantly denuded farm and pastoral land areas are now significantly regenerated, prompting the
return of native species of flora and fauna.x For example, 36 species of waterbirds have been recorded
at the Yambuk Wetlands in Deen Maar, and after restoration of the ecosystem, migratory birds are
returning to the area.xi

Mexico: it has been estimated that as much as 80% of Mexico’s forests are in the hands of
communities with collective land grants. In the state of Quintana Roo, 64 communities declared over
500,000 ha to be “permanent forest areas”. Satellite images of individual communities show a significant
expansion of the forest canopy, and several communities have declared hunting bans and/or strict
protection areas to for the conservation of certain species.xii
first draft outline for comments Page 15

Namibia: while not all Community Based Resource Management (CBNRM) initiatives qualify as ICCAs
(mostly because many of these projects are still managed in a top-down manner without real devolution
of authority to local communities) the Communal Conservancies of Namibia are an example where such
initiatives have created well-functioning ICCAs. The communities forming the conservancies have de
facto but also de jure rights on wildlife as a resource and take wildlife management decisions. Studies
show that resources across most rural areas are now better managed, and game populations, habitats,
biodiversity and the environment in general have improved under the conservancy management
regime.xiii Game populations have notably increased over the years; for example plain game in northwestern Namibia has shown an increase from 1,000 Springbok, 1,000 oryx and 1,000 Hartmann’s Zebra
in 1982 to over 10,000, 35,000 and 14,000 respectively by 2002.xiv

Pacific Islands: Johannes (2002) describes the recent upsurge of the centuries-old Pacific Islands
practice of community-cased marine resource management, which includes the establishment of areas
of limited entry, marine protected areas, and seasonally closed areas that qualify as ICCAs. In many
Islands of the South Pacific, governments have legalized Customary Marine Tenure and therefore
transferred the governance of coastal resources to local communities. Conservation benefits from these
“new” regimes include improved management of fish stocks and local recovery or protection of
vulnerable species such as large food fish or marine turtlesxv

India is probably the first large country where a detailed picture begins to emerge, and findings suggest
the presence of thousands of ICCAs (with or without…mostly without… official recognition and support)
spread over all kind of ecosystems.xvi At Mendha (Lekha), Maharashtra, the community is protecting
1600 hectares of forest; at Jardhargaon, Uttar Pradesh, it has regenerated and conserved a diverse
Forest Oak and Rhododendron mixed forest with considerable wildlife value. In the Arvari catchment
area of Rajasthan, several hundred hectares of previously degraded forest has been revived and
zealously protected by villagers. Herbivores are reported to have increased, and the occasional
presence of leopards is reported. At Kokkare Bellur village, Karnataka, Kheechan village, Rajasthan and
Seelaj Pond, Gujarat, nesting or wintering birds are protected in tanks or trees located in the heart of the
human settlement. Several high-altitude grasslands of the Indian Himalayas are conserved, with grazing
strictly regulated.

Saudi Arabia: The traditionally conserved rangelands of Saudi Aribia, or hemas, represent refuges for
endemic and local plants and animals that have been displaced elsewhere. Many hemas are located in
areas of high species diversity, or support forests and other key biological habitats. Their role as
geneplasm reserves will become more critical as development pressures increase. As sources of
seeds, himas can play a vital role in the rehabilitation of degraded rangelands. xvii
 Sacred sites - some preliminary conclusions
By far the best documented types of ICCAs are Sacred Natural Sites. Until recently, the belief that sacred
natural sites protected biodiversity was mainly a matter of personal observation and some assumptions.
There was also some criticism of this from conservationists who asked for hard data to back up the claims.
Over the past five years, a series of quantitative studies have been published that help to provide the
evidence. Importantly, it should be noted that sacred sites are not necessarily un-inhabited or strictly
preserved and that many sacred sites provide a variety of benefits to people, mixing the sacred / spiritual
with the profane (e.g. food),
A meta-study of over 100 individual research projects in sacred natural sites has built up a much clearer
picture of what such areas offer to biodiversity. There are some clear conservation benefits emerging, but
also signs that many sacred natural sites have some limitations in terms of what they provide. Sacred groves
are often the only natural or semi-natural habitat in cultural landscapes and thus harbour relatively high
levels of biodiversity: many studies find sacred groves providing the only sites for particular species in a
first draft outline for comments Page 16
locality. Because sacred natural sites are often relatively small, their biodiversity is generally less than for
larger protected areas or forest reserves, even in the case of relatively small species such as butterflies.
However, in some situations the biodiversity of sacred groves can exceed even reserves that are in theory
more strictly protected: for example if particular care has been taken to maintain certain groups such as
medicinal plants or if habitat condition is more important than the overall area. Sometimes sacred groves
within protected areas contain proportionately richer biodiversity or more intact habitats because they have
been protected long before the protected area was gazetted by the government. The presence of sacred
groves in cultivated landscapes can also act as important corridors for species. The sacred groves of a
region can, as a network, preserve a sizeable portion of the local biodiversity in areas where it would not be
feasible to maintain large tracts of protected forests.
 Examples of sacred natural sites protecting biodiversity: the following are a small sampling of a rich
and growing literature from around the world.

India: More studies on sacred natural sites and biodiversity come from India than anywhere else.
Detailed surveys in the Jaintia Hills of NE India found a sacred grove containing 82 tree species in 0.5
ha and higher than average levels of vascular plant diversity in three further sacred groves, including 54
endemic species and 31 rare species. In Manipur valley, 166 sacred groves were inventoried and
detailed studies carried out in four. 173 plant species were recorded, 96 per cent of which had some
form of medicinal uses and several of which were confined to the groves. Comparable high diversity
was found in south India near Pondicherry, with sacred groves containing tree species not found
elsewhere in the region. Comparison of sacred groves with government forest reserves in the Western
Ghats found density of regenerating medicinal plants approximately twice as high in sacred groves, and
40 per cent of medicinal plants found there were unique to sacred groves. In this region fungi were also
richer in species in sacred groves. The 90 km 2 Silent Valley National Park has 960 species of
angiosperms compared to 722 species in 1.4 km2 area occupied by sacred groves. Sacred groves in
Kodagu shelter some threatened tree species, endemic bird species and unique species of macrofungi
not found elsewhere.

Bangladesh: The only surviving population of Trionyx nigricans, the freshwater turtle, is found in
Bangladesh in a sacred pond dedicated to a Muslim saint.

Indonesia: A study of ten sacred sites in West Timor revealed that 189 different plant species grow in
the there; far more than in surrounding areas. The “secret sites” of the Dani in Irian Jaya have a floristic
composition that is almost identical to that of the primary forest and a study of sacred forests among the
Iban people of West Kalimantan, found that sacred sites played an important role in conservation.

China: Sacred groves occur in many ethnic minority areas of Yunnan. A field survey of sacred groves of
the Yi nationality found that the total species and endemic species were higher than those in the nature
reserve and managed forest nearby. Tibetan sacred sites are found around Mount Kawa Karpo had
higher overall species richness than random plots sampled outside, with sacred sites particularly
protecting old-growth trees and forest structure. An investigation of 28 holy hill forests of the Dai people
in Xishuangbanna found 268 plant species, 15 of which are Red List species. Moreover, about 100
species of medicinal plants and more than 150 species of economically useful plants are found on the
hills. The only forests older than 60 years below 500m in Hong Kong are Feng Shui woods. A rich tree
flora (360 species) survives in these woods, which have a comparatively complex structure and contain
some tree species not found in other forest types.

Japan: Evergreen broad-leaved forests once covered most of the lowland of south-western Japan;
today small remnants of old growth stands are only found around Shinto shrines. Mount Tatera, for
first draft outline for comments Page 17
example, is regarded as holy and the 100 ha Tatera Forest Preserve has been strictly preserved since
ancient times

Ghana: Many sacred groves survive in southern Ghana, where they are often inaccurately regarded as
degraded relics of natural forest. Comparison of four sacred groves and eight unprotected tree stands
found far fewer tree losses in the former, along with higher plant species richness and lower numbers of
invasive species. However, studies of mammal populations comparing sacred groves with legally
protected forest reserves found that while the sacred groves had higher densities of mammals, they
held less species diversity. Similarly, sacred groves contained lower densities of fruit-eating butterflies
than forest reserves, although both were far richer than surrounding areas.

Togo: Studies of riverside and sacred forests of Togo in general showed that several of these forest
fragments are relics of old and disappearing plant communities. Some plants are not found outside of
the forest fragments and plant diversity is higher than found in the surrounding vegetation communities.
56 species were recorded for the first time in Togo. Research over 10 years showed that local
communities have a greater respect for riverside and sacred forests than for government protected
areas which are being degraded.

Kenya: Botanical surveys of coastal forests in Kenya over a number of years have continued to unearth
rare plant species in the sacred “Kaya” forests. These sacred forests are the only known location of
several plant species. Seven out of the 20 sites with the highest conservation value in coastal Kenya
are Kaya forests. In 2008 the Mijikenda Kaya Forests, 11 separate forest sites spread over some 200
km, were inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage list as bearing unique testimony to a cultural
tradition and living tradition.

Tanzania: Eight sacred groves of the Uganda chieftaincy of the Wanyamwezi in central Tanzania, when
compared to forest plots in a state managed Forest Reserve, showed greater woody species richness
and taxonomic diversity, despite their relatively smaller size.

Zimbabwe: Aerial photographs of the Zambesi Valley of northern Zimbabwe spanning over three
decades show that forest loss is dramatically less in forests that are considered sacred.
The final text will look at other types of ICCAs drawing on a meta-study currently being prepared for
publication in a book arising from workshops at the 2008 World Conservation Congress. But note that
information from ICCAs is general is nothing like as rich as that for sacred natural sites and this section will
therefore probably remain fairly skewed towards the latter.
first draft outline for comments Page 18
How effective are ICCAs in providing for peoples’ needs?
ICCAs are closely integrated into the long-term livelihoods and land management strategies and the cultural
identities of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. In this they differ fundamentally from the “modern”
approach of designating Protected Areas with the exclusive aim of conservation, managed as islands in the
productive landscape. Even where recently, integrated Conservation and Development projects have aimed
to generate social and economic benefits for local communities, this is often an afterthought, and the double
aim of conservation and livelihoods generation is rarely achieved. ICCAs, on the other hand, form an integral
part of a community’s productive, social and cultural life. They can therefore successfully integrate
conservation with sustainable livelihoods, social safety, political empowerment and cultural survival.
 Livelihoods
ICCAs provide local populations that depend on natural resources for their survival with direct access to and
decision power over the benefits and services generated by these resources. ICCAs thereby contribute to
the livelihoods of some of the poorest and most marginalized sections of society and play an important role
in poverty alleviation.xviii ICCAs can contribute to sustainable and stable livelihoods through:
Food benefits
 Maintenance and enhancement of marine and freshwater fish stocks (e.g. Pacific, Borneo)
 Hunting reserves for game (e.g. Namibia, parts East Africa)
 Maintenance of traditional pastoral systems (e.g. the Oromo/Borana territories of Ethiopia)
 Voluntary protection of crop wild relatives and traditional land-races (e..g the potatoe park in Peru,
micro-reserves in Armenia)
 Protection of upland forests and cloud forests to help to maintain irrigation water (e.g., Guatemala)
 Maintenance of fodder for livestock (e.g. northern India)
Ecological services:
 Provision of water, productive soil, and microclimatic stabilization
Protection against climatic disaster
 Flood protection (flooded forests in the Amazon, voluntary reforestation above Malaga, Spain)
 Coastal protection (e.g. community protection of mangroves in Vietnam)
Health benefits (besides maintenance of food supply and prevention of disasters)
 Preservation of water in good quality and quantity for human consumption and use
 Preservation of natural regulators of vectors of diseases
 Medicinal plants (e.g. tembawang in Kalimantan, kaya forests in Kenya)
 Community reserves as places for people to exercise and find recreation (e.g. Wales, UK)
Access to economic opportunities including natural-resource enterprises and employment:
 Hunting reserves for sport hunting (e.g. Namibia)
 Collection of valuable materials (e.g. collection of birds nest from a cave in a protected forest in Sabah,
Malaysia)
 Ecotourism (e.g. turtle beaches in Turkey)
 Sale of plants of medicinal value
 Empowerment
ICCAs often provide an opportunity for empowering marginalized section of society. They encourage
communities and individuals to participate more confidently in social and political processes, and to confront
and resist sources of exploitation.xix Especially when ICCAs and the customary institutions that govern them
are recognized, communities have the opportunity to improve decision-making processes, link to other
organizations and institutions, and influence policy development.xx This process can lead to a political
first draft outline for comments Page 19
recognition and empowerment of local communities that go well beyond the realm of natural resource
management. Moreover, when recognized and supported, community institutions for natural resource
management can be used for other purposes or be adapted to handle other types of endeavours. Maybe no
less important is the sense of pride that communities take in successfully managing their natural resources,
and in the recognition of these achievements by the larger society.
 Cultural diversity
While “territories” are simply essential for the cultural survival of indigenous peoples, most if not al ICCAs
are tied to a community’s sense of identity and culture. The establishment of an ICCA is usually linked to the
collective purposes and aspirations of the concerned community, and most ICCAs are managed as part of a
community’s ethical norms and cultural features.xxi For example, many of them have a strong spiritual role,
as is the case with sacred sites and other taboo areas. The recognition and continued use of traditional
natural resource management measures and knowledge can slow the loss of valuable aspects of a
community’s culture (and improve management success at the same time). ICCAs therefore often become a
tool for the protection not only of biodiversity, but of bio-cultural diversity. In keeping out destructive external
forces of “development”, or in providing a forum for
self-assertion, they help to protect languages,
traditions, knowledge and practice that may
otherwise be threatened.xxii This is part of the
“common good” to whom ICCAs are intrinsically
related.
In the final version of the guidelines there will be a
succinct distillation of information, wherever
possible from refereed scientific sources, on
wellbeing benefits from land and water managed by
local communities.
first draft outline for comments Page 20
Threats to ICCAs
Unfortunately, just when ICCAs are finally being recognised for their ecological, socio-cultural and economic
benefits, and are gaining important support from at least some governments and from the international
community, they are also facing accelerating levels of threats. Because they frequently have no legal
recognition within a country, and indeed may not be recognised by governments or even by neighbouring
communities, ICCAs are vulnerable through land and water being appropriated or “reallocated” to alternative
uses. To non-members of the relevant community, many ICCAs resemble at first sight natural, “uncultivated”
and unutilised ecosystems. Because of that, they are thus frequently undervalued, unrecognised or ignored.
Within indigenous peoples’ groups and traditional communities, ICCAs may also suffer as a result of
changing value systems, increased pressure on natural resources and other internal tensions. Threats can
be divided into a number of levels; we look at each in turn:




Global or international threats
National threats
Sub-national or municipal threats
Internal threats
 Global threats to ICCAs: the traditional territories of indigenous peoples and local communities, including
ICCAs, are in many places under attack from the forces of globalised business, often working with or
supported by powerful actors in the state machinery. More generally, ICCAs may be negatively affected by
more indirect sources such as pollution, in particular climate change. Key threats can include:

Mining and fossil fuel extraction: the huge profits to be made from minerals, including particularly
fossil fuels, are driving legal, semi-legal and illegal land grabs in many countries around the world. For
example, the Philippines show impressive overlaps between the ancestral domains of its indigenous
peoples, its watershed heads and its mining exploration areas, often transformed into actual mining
extraction areas, legally or illegally; many indigenous reserves in the Amazon basin identify the potential
for petroleum drilling as a major threat, as in the indigenous territory of the Yuracarés people in Isiboro
Sécure National Park in Bolivia, a rich area of rainforest. Similar problems have been identified in
Ecuador, Peru, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela and neighbouring states. A fact of particular importance for
CCAs is that, even when state governments agree on assigning land rights to indigenous peoples and
local communities, they usually reserve for themselves the use of sub-soil resources (this is also true of
state-recognised protected areas and indeed most other land uses). This amounts to a structural
menace to ICCAs, particularly insidious because the extracted resources and pollution are only part of
the damage inflicted to indigenous peoples. The actual “violation of land” is equally if not more important
concern for indigenous peoples and traditional communities when the land in question is considered to
be sacred.

Logging: many forested ICCAs have been lost to logging operations, often as a result of a small, oneoff payment or simply through illegal logging. The 8000 ha forests of the Taravelata Community on
Lauru Island in the Solomon Islands are successfully protected by traditional tabu and are extremely
rich in biodiversity with many endemic species, including rare and endemic bat species living in caves
underneath the forests. But the community identifies logging as a major threat and guards have already
ejected a Korean logging company from their forest estate and destroyed their bulldozer.

Tree plantations: conversely, some ICCAs are under threat from establishing tree plantations.
Although this often goes together with logging (in fact establishing plantations has been used as an
excuse for rapid logging), plantations are also established on grassland and savannah in the absence of
prior tree cover.
first draft outline for comments Page 21

Conversion to large-scale grazing or agriculture, including agrifuel plantations: foreign companies
own or lease large areas of land for agriculture in many countries and some of these overlap or envelop
traditional ICCAs. As the market for biofuels increases rapidly governments are rushing to cash in on a
new market and many traditional systems are being swept away; this currently represents a major threat
to many traditional management systems. For example, huge tracts of Ethiopia are being sold off for
biofuel development. In the Omo valley, traditional mixtures of crop production and grazing have been
practised for centuries in riverside communities that are also high in biodiversity, but local communities
are likely to be forced off much of this land and the social and wildlife benefits will be lost.

Water-diversions: major projects such as dams and irrigation schemes have altered immense
ecosystems throughout the world, including the ICCAs that existed there, sometimes even when
resources were specifically earmarked to address potential problems for resident populations. At times
even apparently benign schemes, such as new major water points provided in very dry areas, attract so
much attention and use (e.g. by huge numbers of cattle, or by agriculturalists keen to use the land close
to the water point) that the ecosystem and any existing ICCAs are severely affected. [Example: major
hydraulic words created ecological havocs in nomadic migration territories at the border between Mali
and Burkina; the new huge pumps had finally to be shut.]

Tourism developments: major tourism operators, often based outside a country, can impact on ICCAs
in several ways: both through permanent changes, such as the construction of tourist accommodation
and facilities such as golf courses; and as a result of increased visitation and the associated damage
and disturbance. In Tanzania, the sealing of the road from Arusha to Ngorogoro Crater, which is
managed by the community as a wildlife sanctuary, has resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of
tourists visiting to the extent that some of the site’s unique wildlife values were threatened. Similarly Van
Longh Nature Reserve in Vietnam, is managed in association with local communities and is a critical
habitat for duc langurs, the most threatened primate species in the world. It also has very important
wetland and forest habitats. Increased visitation is putting the natural resources under pressure and
there are also an increasing number of tourist facilities being constructed at the edge of the fragile
wetlands

War, violent conflict and refugee movements: sudden, violent social disruption caused by war or
other major forms of society breakdown also result in losses to traditional land and water use patterns,
including ICCAs. The Marsh Arabs in Iraq, driven out of their lands and waters by the Iraqi government
and the two Gulf Wars are a case in point. Another case is the damage to indigenous territories, in
Colombia, caused by the fights between guerrilla groups, paramilitaries and the army.
 National threats to ICCAs: all the same problems can arise from the actions of national companies (and
the line between international and national influences is sometimes hard to determine) but in addition
governments and local institutions can degrade or destroy ICCAs as a result of:

Poaching of animals and plants by outsiders: The Igmale’ng’en sacred forests of Portulin are part of
the ancestral domain conserved by the Talaandig Peoples of Mindanao, Philippines. These forests are
of extreme importance to the Talaandig and they ensure the community’s continued existence and
survival. It is believed that rules for the interaction with the sacred forests are defined by the forest
spirits and are then passed on (whispered by the spirits through dreams according to some elders) to
the Bailan or shaman. The existence of the sacred forests plays a vital role in the conservation and
protection of the biodiversity of Mt. Kalatungan. However they are now under pressure from nonindigenous migrants. Illegal logging and the poaching of flora and fauna poses the biggest threat to the
continued existence of the sacred forest of the Talaandig. Declaring the area a national park has to
some extent strengthened the protection for the site but also risks undermining the Talaandig and
reducing their control over traditional lands and its long-term impacts remain unknown. The Mendha
first draft outline for comments Page 22
(Lekha) community conserved area in India is one of the best known ICCAs in the world, where local
tribal people voluntarily protect forest that they have no legal title to in order to secure vital supplies of
timber, fodder and other materials. The total area of the village is around 1900 hectares and which
nearly 80 per cent is forested. There are approximately 400 people in the village, all of the Gond tribe.
So far 25 mammal species have been recorded along with 82 bird species and 20 reptiles: important
species include wolf (Canis lupus), leopard (Panthera paradus), sloth bear (Melursus ursinus), Central
Indian giant squirrel (Ratufa indica centralis) and Indian peafowl (Pavo Cristatus). Yet even in this rather
iconic ICCA, some pressures remain from hunting and forest resource extraction by government and
neighbouring communities.

Land invasions by other communities or by landless people: The Pilon Lajas Biosphere Reserve
and Indigenous Territory, located 350 kilometres northeast of La Paz, in the Department of Beni, is
managed in cooperation with local indigenous people. Biological diversity and endemism are believed to
be considerable: the reserve’s floristic richness is for instance extremely high, estimated between 2,000
and 3,000 vascular plants. Threats identified for the area relate to oil and hydrocarbon exploration and
exploitation and human settlements from colonist migrating to the area from other regions, particularly
from the Highlands, and political instability. Heavy pressure for land and natural resources in the
surrounding areas has made land invasions the principal threat to the Reserve.

Conservation including creation of protected areas: As mentioned above, many protected areas
have also been imposed on traditional lands of indigenous peoples or other local communities, often
without consultation or compensation. This often includes ICCAs, precisely because the management of
such areas has resulted in rich habitats for wildlife. In Sumberklampok, Indonesia, the local community
has now been excluded from a large part of its lands. First under Dutch colonial rule and later under the
national government, forest management rights were taken away from local communities and
plantations were established, although upland forests were still accessible (and regarded as important
sacred sites). Later, Sumberklampok was included in the West Bali National Park, which affected the
community even more by restricting their access with respect to the marine and coastal areas as well.
The national park managers announced plans for resettlement in 1991, but these were successfully
resisted by the villagers; the issue of land rights, however, remains unresolved.

Active and passive acculturation: legal and education systems that are biased against traditional
lifestyles, which are often regarded as “primitive”, increase pressures on ICCAs as younger people tend
to lose touch with them, both philosophically and in terms of practical understanding about land and
water management. Some ICCAs that have existed successfully for centuries are simply declining
because values have changed. Acculturation is identified as a major threat to the indigenous territory of
Uma-Kaja Yepa in Vaupés, Colombia, a 150,000 hectare area of humid tropical forest rich in
biodiversity. Children leaving the community to go to boarding school lose their knowledge of traditional
land management practices and change their livelihood perspective, as the school syllabus does not
even refer to traditional management systems. A survey in 2006 found that only 26 out of 286 children
first draft outline for comments Page 23
in the territory have a thorough understanding of traditional management practices. Beside active
acculturation in schools, also passive acculturation— the unconscious and often collective acceptance
of foreign values and concepts – is a powerful problem.

Lack of official recognition: The threats mentioned above are exacerbated by an intrinsic weakness
that the ICCA may have, namely its lack of governmental recognition. This amounts to making the
ICCA “invisible” from a legal perspective and allowing other, stronger players to force their way into the
area and take the resources. To begin with, many governments still have problems in understanding the
concept of “governance of protected areas”, distinguishing between individual and collective property or
giving legal recognition to collective bodies such as an indigenous people or a local community. All of
these are essential conditions to official recognition of ICCAs. In other places, even when local
communities are recognised, they are pressurised into adopting management structures that fit more
neatly into government conceptions and may not be effective in local conditions. Local institutions are
rarely allowed to be autonomous decision making bodies, also running local economic matters.
The Jardhargaon Community Conserved Area in Uttarakhand, India grew out of the Chipko movement
that used non-violent means to oppose logging. A Van Suraksha Samiti (peoples’ forest protection
committee) of 10-11 members of the village council, elected by consensus, set rules prohibiting the
felling of green wood and stripping bark from pine trees and also controls other forest and pasture use.
The initiative has resulted in the successful regeneration of large areas of previously degraded forest
land, but the committee has recently identified lack of official recognition as the single greatest
challenge for its future development. In Casamanche (Senegal), village societies used to subdivide
resources into sectors related to specific clans, who regulated their use and shared the benefits of their
wise use with the whole community, as a matter of pride. The state of Senegal , however, refuses to
recognise the power of the clan heads over the natural resources (e.g. the periodic fishing bans in
coastal inlets) and has actually jailed the elders who attempted to get those rules respected. As a result,
the coastal waters re now severely over-fished and much less productive than they used to be. In
Nepal, the Sherpa people who managed for centuries the many ICCAs included in the Khumbu
landscape (which overlaps with Sagarmatha National Park (Mt. Everest), have recently “declared” such
ICCAs to the world, to find themselves reprimanded and forced to withdraw their statement, even in the
absence of any offence to existing legislation. This is not likely to impress or encourage the Sherpa
youth to maintain their traditional caring interaction with the land.

Inappropriate recognition: Some ICCAs have been recognised and incorporated into a national
scheme to obtain legal rights, but the scheme called for the establishment of a specified local institution
to manage the natural resources, and those institutions, staffed by “educated” people and “elected”
leaders, proved incapable of maintaining the care and respect for the natural resources ensured by their
uneducated and unofficial predecessors. Clear examples of this exist in Madagascar. In other cases,
the perceived need to demarcate territories creates unnecessary tensions among neighbouring
communities who use the same areas at different times or for different purposes, under long-standing
agreements.
 Regional or municipal threats to ICCAs also exist, in addition to some or all of the above:

Conflicts between local communities and municipal bureaucracy: Three community forests in the
dry forest zones of south-western Madagascar -- Etrobeke, Vohibe and Ranomay -- offer an example of
the many forests managed directly by local people:. The dry forests have rich biodiversity and, as is the
case throughout the island, high levels of endemism. They have been under the control of local
communities (fokonolona) since at least the nineteenth century. They contain ancestral forests, sacred
sites and taboo areas and are being managed as community conserved areas. There are now efforts to
get them officially recognised within the enlarged protected areas system of the country, although the
first draft outline for comments Page 24
short time seemingly available to do this is proving to be a challenge. However, different parts of the
state have different views on the development of the region; while one department is supporting the
ICCA there is also pressure from local government for mineral mining in the area, which could
undermine many of the advances made.

Imposition of taxes and other financial problems. If the value of an ICCA is recognised, it may
paradoxically create problems through the government trying to extract taxes or fees. Alternatively, lack
of official recognition means that many ICCAs are unable to make use of grants or other assistance
from national sources or donor agencies: accessing such assistance is one important motivation for
seeking to have an ICCA recognised as a protected area. Problems are not confined to developing
countries. For example the Frieze Hill Community Orchard Group in the UK is managed through a
series of one-year licenses and most grant funding requires at least a 25 year lease.

Active destruction by vested interests: In Ghana, sacred groves have existed for centuries, often
including some of the remaining biodiversity in thoroughly transformed landscapes. Some ministers of
various religious denominations have been known to cut down trees in the sacred grove, and otherwise
damage and destroy them, just to demonstrate that the pagan deities of the groves are less powerful
than their own deity.
 Internal threats to ICCAs: arising from changes in the immediate society of the indigenous or traditional
peoples there are intrinsic elements of vulnerability and weakness that are politically extremely sensitive:

Changing values: many indigenous peoples and other traditional societies are currently undergoing
rapid social change and sometimes also a degree of social breakdown. ICCAs may come under
pressure because younger people are no longer interested in them, or have lost the skills needed to
maintain them, or positively reject ICCAs as being out of date. Although interest is often rekindled later,
the values of the ICCA may already have been lost in the interim and many communities are currently
struggling to keep their ICCA viable and maintained during rapid cultural shifts. The weakening of
traditional governance systems (based on clan, tribe, monarchies, hereditary authority or religious and
shamanic powers) weakens the capacity of the IPs or local communities to keep managing their ICCAs
and weakens the capacity of the local culture to maintain itself. In this sense, losing traditions means
losing culture, losing the traditional systems of natural resource management and ultimately losing the
territories themselves. In Bijagos islands of Guines Bissau, the local youth has to make a choice
between modern education – available only on the motherland, and the traditional education imparted
by the elders, a fact that is diminishing the local culture at its roots. Clearly, the effectiveness of
managing ICCAs is closely related to local cultural integrity and strength, but it is possible for traditional
governance to operate side by side and actually synergistically with more “modern” forms on the basis
of mutual respect and collaboration. A perfect example is the situation of Colombia, where the
autonomy of traditional territories governed by customary institutions is fully recognised by the state.

Increasing pressure on resources and breakdown of traditional systems: if populations grow, or
expectations change, what were once sustainable management systems may come under pressure and
start to decline. In Nepal, the Chepang Indigenous People have long maintained forests of chiuri trees
(Diploknema butvracea or the Indian butter tree) that are native to the country. The area is a cluster of
five hill tracts in the Kankada Village Development Committee located in Makwanpur District, in central
Nepal. There is no formal institutions governing or managing the area, but over time local norms have
developed with respect to the use of natural resources and conservation of forests which are passed
down through the generations. In fruiting season, the chiuri trees attract large numbers of bats, which
the villagers trap. However now the chiuri trees are starting to decline in terms of fruit production due to
the trees becoming too old while regeneration is slow, despite efforts to protect saplings. There is
first draft outline for comments Page 25
currently some argument about whether or not too many bats are being hunted, with the effect of
reducing pollination of the trees and hence regeneration potential.

Inequalities and the politicisation of village life: as everywhere, inequalities come and go within
communities and problems can arise if traditional distribution systems break down and one person,
family or group attempts to usurp all or most of the values for themselves. Unfortunately, although the
net gains from maintaining an ICCA may be greater when spread across a whole community, the
immediate gains to small groups and individuals can often be greater through actions that result in its
destruction; for example logging the area and selling the timber or selling rights to oil and gas extraction.
The politicisation of village life (e.g. through the entrance of party politics mostly concerned with the
grabbing of power) has also created new internal splits in many villages and towns throughout the
world, setting one group against the other and, in general, promoting conflicts between “modern” and
traditional institutions and local insecurity.
 Extent of the threats to ICCAs: Given that there is no global survey or “list” of ICCAs, there is similarly
no hard data on the number that are under threat or where these occur, but anecdotal information suggests
that it is in most places already severe and often becoming worse. Research in Xishuangbanna, China, for
instance found 400 holy hills (sacred natural sites),
accounting for a total area close to 50,000 ha.
However, it was also reported that only 10-15 per
cent of the hills were in a pristine state. One plot in a
holy hill forest surveyed originally in 1959 and again
in 1991 revealed that 21 tree and shrub species were
lost over the three decades. Surveys in India and
Ghana have found similar losses. Surveys in the
Philippines testify of the tremendous pressure
suffered by their ancestral domain.
first draft outline for comments Page 26
Recognising and securing ICCAs: what do communities want?
ICCAs vary enormously in their management approaches; the details of governance; traditions and values;
sizes and habitats; length of existence and future prospects. Trying to develop common policy approaches is
clearly impossible and responses to ICCAs need to be tailored closely to the individual context. Nonetheless,
when people responsible for managing ICCAs get the chance to give an opinion about what they need – as
during the grassroots discussions we promoted --- some common threads emerge that apply in many parts
of the world. Keeping in mind that only a very small section of the ICCAs that likely exist has been
documented or contacted, this section summarises some of those threads and discusses their implications
for ICCA recognition and support.
 Common needs amongst indigenous peoples and local communities responsible for ICCAs:
1.
Formal recognition of land, water and natural resource rights. This is basic and essential: most
indigenous peoples and local communities see some measure of formal recognition of their rights to
land, water and other natural resources as a critical building block in securing their ICCA. The desired
form of this recognition varies considerably, including one or more of the following:
 Formal ownership and title deeds to the land or resources
 Recognition as Indigenous Reserve, Indigenous Territory or Ancestral Domain, implying
inalienability and communal rights of using natural resources
 Various forms of legal recognition of user rights
 Legal recognition of management capacities and rights (e.g., the right to define the migration
season for a transhumance corridor, the rights to define the resource use rules through local bylaws, the right to exclude or regulate the access of ‘outsiders’)
 Recognition of the self-declaration of the ICCA as a protected area, to be formally linked to the
national protected area system and offered various forms of support and protection from external
threats
Steps towards formal recognition of land and resource rights include a thorough understanding of
boundaries including by mapping (which is a welcome activity in many communities, including those
where boundaries shift and change over time or with the seasons) as well as un understanding of the
local conservation values of the area (e.g. , by wildlife inventories) . People in ICCAs as widely
dispersed as India, Solomon Islands, Philippines, Mexico, Kenya and Canada have all identified the
critical importance of their rights and management efforts being recognised by the state. Where
indigenous peoples and local community rights have clear options for state recognition – as in Australia,
Bolivia, Colombia or the Philippines – it is a matter of figuring out the best and most effective overlaps
between such rights and the “protected area” regimes that the state could provide. In Bolivia, the areas
of overlap between the Tierras Comunitarias de Origen and protected areas have recently been
proposed as archetype of ICCAs.xxiii In Australia, contractual arrangements appear very effective in
conserving Aboriginal lands through the Indigenous Protected Area model.xxiv Where such options do
not exist, it is sometimes possible to “invent them”. In coastal Kenya, for instance, local people have
asked the government for help in maintaining traditional kaya forests, which are sacred sites and also
important for biodiversity. Their status as ICCAs is now recognised through recognition of their cultural
heritage value. The local elders manage them in association with the National Museum of Kenya. The
crucial issue is that the official “recognition” enhances and does not detract from or disturb the existing
relationship between communities and their ICCAs.
Interestingly, support for formal recognition is not universal. Uneasiness about processes of
formalisation of their customary rights was expressed by the people managing an ancient and still
greatly performing ICCA in the Sahel Atlas of Algeria. In Nepal, some indigenous people involved in a
local, informal ICCA were sceptical about formalising it, for instance as a “community forest”, because
first draft outline for comments Page 27
they felt this would result in them losing control and having new rules and regulations imposed. Still in
Nepal, however, the Sherpa people of the Mount Everest area powerfully affirmed Khumbu as their
ICCA and were very disappointed when the national park agency did appear to raise objections.
In general, when people do not trust the “recognition” as being in their interest this reflects more on their
lack of trust in a fair relationship with the state, in the process of recognition and in the provisions of the
relevant legislation than on a lack of interest in official recognition per se. It is fair to say that most
people involved in an ICCA see a formalisation of their rights to land and natural resources as a crucial
first step in the process of ICCA recognition by the state. Some go so far as to recommend that rights
are secured first and before anything else. Seeking ICCA recognition without prior recognition of land
and resource rights would mean negotiating with the state from a position of intrinsic weakness. The
communities of Van Long, in Vietnam, know something about it. They have been the caretakers of an
ICCA that succeeded in maintaining the habitat of a rare population of primates (Delacour’s langour)
and is now a spectacular tourism attraction… but the locals can have a relatively small say about the
management of their land, and all main lucrative activities are tightly kept under the control of state
bureaucracies.xxv In sum, ICCA recognition can be a double-edged sword. Not having it may mean – as
expressed by a respondent from Bolivia – “ to maintain the ICCA governance system in a permanent
state of fragility”. Obtaining the recognition, on the other hand, can attract undesired attention and
impose new restriction on situations where customary practices were earlier allowed to prevail.
2.
Recognition and respect for the indigenous and local organisations governing the ICCAs.
Functioning community governance institutions with roots in local culture and traditions are
incomparable assets for the sound management of natural resources and conservation of biodiversity,
as they include local knowledge, skills, organizations, rules, values and worldviews tailored through time
to fit the local context. A major characteristic of such institutions is that they typically act on behalf of a
community and relate to collective entitlements. If a government decides to recognize such institutions,
two options are possible:
 supporting them and leaving them a fair amount of autonomy regarding their own structure and
processes, or
 engaging them in developing and implementing natural resource management agreements and
setting up joint decision-making bodies… (this, however, may transform the ICCA into a shared
governance setting).
Many communities wish the governments to recognize their customary governance institutions without
trying to mould them into blueprint shapes and forms, or diluting their authority. This means avoiding
the imposition of supposedly democratic practices such as “electing” local leaders to “run” ICCAs or
having outside experts descend en masse into an area to “help out” tracing the boundaries of the ICCA,
doing the inventories, “improving” management plans and the like. In Madagascar, some communities
clearly said that that would upset and disempower some of their members, with serious negative results.
They rather wish that their traditional social unit – the fokonolona -- is recognised as social unit capable
of managing natural resources. This is feasible and has proven effective in other countries. In Colombia
the recognition of customary institutions is clearly inscribed into the law: the Cabildo Indigena is the
customary organisation of an indigenous community, fully recognised by the government as a “special
public entity” in charge of representing that community to all effects.
Respect for the local institutions may include social recognition in the form of awards or public exposure
(or willingness to leave the institution alone, if so desired). With that, often goes the recognition of the
historical and cultural origins of the ICCAs and respect for the articulation of elements of religious and
mystical nature. In Australia, some of the reasons that aboriginal peoples have sought to self-declare
Indigenous Protected Areas is to help maintain the cultural and natural values associated with the land,
particularly sacred values linked to the Dreamtime.
first draft outline for comments Page 28
Regarding the possible dilution of authority mentioned above, the Philippines offer an example in point.
In Mindanao, the Igmale’ng’en sacred forests of Portulin are being recognised for their biodiversity
value, and have now been formally included within a larger state declared protected area. In legal
terms, this places decision making in the hands of a Protected Area Management Board where the
indigenous peoples are represented but not a majority. While an extra layer of protection is welcomed
by the Talaandig Peoples, they also believe that imposing a separate authority over their sacred forests
is not culturally acceptable. They believe they have received from their ancestors the role of stewards of
the forests and only their elders and shamans are capable of interpreting the rules given by the spirits.
They are concerned that confusion over authority will mean that illegal activities may soon start in their
sacred forests.
In many countries the current international interest on ICCA is likely to produce government attempts at
developing/ designing some standard “institutional type” meant to represent the communities in ICCA
management. This possibility has been already warned against in Nepal, where Sherpa leaders in
Khumbu recommend that ICCAs are recognised according to their own endogenous organisations,
respecting both ILO Convention 169 and the UN declaration of the rights of indigenous peoples.
3.
Protection against encroachment from outside, and imposed ‘development’ initiatives. Most of
the communities that participated in the grassroots discussions report some level of threat to their
ICCAs, although the sources of pressure vary widely and come both from distant sources, such as
national or international companies and the government,, to local pressures from neighbouring
communities or recent immigrants. Unfortunately, indigenous peoples and local communities are
sometimes in the position of protecting their traditional lands and resources from other people who may
be as poor, or poorer, than themselves. Support is asked for in a number of forms:
 Existence and enforcement of laws protecting traditional rights and management models (as noted
above)
 Wider political backing for such rights, both nationally and internationally in institutions such as the
Convention on Biological Diversity and application of international agreements relating to rights of
indigenous peoples
 Practical support (including financial support for salaries) for guards, local legal structures (such as
community or village councils) and protection form invasion of organised people from outside (such
as “colonos” in Latin America)
 Organisational support, including support by NGOs to help the communities identify and
understand the threats upon them, link with other communities in similar situations and face the
threats successfully (e.g. by legal procedures, political backing, open demonstration and boycott,
civil disobedience, etc.)
Many otherwise successful ICCAs face threats involving loss of ecological and cultural values because
powerful outside forces manage to impose ‘development’ projects such as large dams, mining, roads,
industries and urbanisation. Most often the relevant communities are not strong enough to be able to
resist such developments, and need support from civil society or government in doing so. For instance,
community managed forests in the state of Orissa, eastern India, asked for NGO support to face threats
from proposed mining and steel plants. In Bolivia, indigenous residents of Pilon Lajas biosphere reserve
and indigenous territory identified as major threats to their ICCA hydrocarbons exploration and
exploitation, and “land invasions” by colonists from the highlands. Mining interests are noted as a major
threat for ICCAs all over the Philippines and in Madagascar….
ICCAs that are officially or in other ways recognised, find it easier to obtain support or be able to stop
threats, but even this may work up to a limit. A cement factory is literally destroying the limestone
mountain range from the area neighbouring Van Long Reserve, in Vietnam, which used to be one
contiguous range with the reserve itself. The reserve is greatly impacted by the everyday blasting of
first draft outline for comments Page 29
dynamite, the dust discharged and the noise, which affect people and animals, and have entirely altered
the landscape. The reserve is fully recognised… but the local people have no say in the matter! It is
clear that major ‘development’ challenges can rarely be solved through local negotiations only, and the
political and technical help of state governments is needed.
4.
Support to engage and inspire the community youth: One of the important challenges facing ICCAs
all over the world is local cultural disruption and the change in values imposed on the local youth
through education, advertisements, political propaganda and the ever flowing fiction of media. While
some of the messages they hear may be empowering and positive, many are unfortunately disruptive,
foster the passive imitation of external models and create unhealthy dependencies. As part of this
phenomenon, the local youth may feel detached from their land, resources and institutions at the crucial
moment when they should– on the contrary – learn about them, nourishing their pride and identity link
with their ICCAs. A national government and other concerned actors can do much to counter this
tendency by providing various forms of recognition to the ICCAs that engage the local youth. Effective
initiatives include:
 Joint analyses, study groups, participatory action research on the local environment and society
 Local employment opportunities to prepare inventories and analyses of biodiversity and cultural
diversity,
 Collection of oral and written histories on the ICCA, and development of films, songs, and theatre
pieces
 Local festivals and competitions related to environment and culture
 Local celebrations, declarations of local identity and pride related to the ICCA
 Exchange visits and study visits among the youth of different ICCAs
In Nepal, for example, one of the stated reasons for
the local Sherpa leaders to make a formal
“declaration” about their ICCA in May 2008 was
their intention to inspire and engage their local
youth. In the BIjagos islands (Guinea Bissau) a
most important task for the security of the local
ICCAs was identified as engaging the energies of
the local youth and finding a way for them to
reconcile traditional training by their elders with
modern training in schools (often in the mainland).
5. Support to generate livelihoods: In many
communities, there is a serious inadequacy of livelihoods and employment options, and at times the
younger generation may even question ongoing conservation initiatives that may be seen to be
obstructing development opportunities. Support in generating livelihoods that are linked directly or
indirectly to the conservation initiatives, through the production and sale of natural produce, communityled ecotourism, research and monitoring, and other such activities, would be significant investments in
sustaining the ICCA. As a matter of fact, most ICCAs are so closely related with the life of their related
communities that they live, thrive, fail or perish with the communities alike. In South America, the
indigenous people rely on their territories for livelihoods and economic development and seek help to
develop approaches that are both ecologically and economically sustainable. Needs are similar in the
North. The community orchards – a common form of ICCAs in the United Kingdom -- are appreciated
for harbouring wildlife and contributing to local cultural identify, but also as a plain source of fruits and
vegetables.
In some cases, support to acquiring skills is necessary for the maintenance of ICCAs. The Taravelata
people of Solomon Islands have only relatively recently been able to return to a coastal area that had
first draft outline for comments Page 30
been off limits because of security issues and are now having to re-learn many skills relating to
management of marine areas. The types of community development that are requested and considered
supportive also for the maintenance of ICCAs include:
 Job training, including for new jobs possibly linked to the ICCA, such as tourism.
 Training in skills that may be unknown, formerly unnecessary, or changing – common examples
include fire management and surveying to ensure sustainable harvest (such “re-training” is likely to
increase in importance as climate change alters once familiar conditions)
 Basic infrastructure and health requirements to encourage people to remain in the area
Last but not least, there exist situations of local destitution where government support to create or re-create
an ICCA would powerfully combine anti-poverty and conservation initiatives. An example from Rwanda is the
one of the Rugezi marsh, in the Northern Province close to the Uganda border. The Batwa people are the
Aboriginal inhabitants of these areas and – unlike their relatives in the country forests – enjoyed until
recently unrestricted access to the wetland resources that provided them with wildlife and fish for
subsistence, and grasses, clay and medicinal plants for small-scale marketing. Starting in the 1980s, a
series of ill conceived engineering works and conservation initiatives has destroyed a large part of the
wetland habitat and severely impoverished local communities by prohibiting access to the resources they
traditionally used. A feasibility analysis is being developed to examine whether a series of “local ICCAs”
could be encouraged and accepted by the government and the local Batwa communities.
6.
Support to meet the conservation challenges of the ICCA: Maintaining ICCAs in good ecological
conditions may be a challenge, today, for a variety of reasons, including large-scale climate changes
that do not originate locally and are difficult to understand. Indigenous peoples and local communities
are candid about the need for help to maintain and in some cases reclaim or regenerate their ICCA.
Support can come financially (e.g. to pay for seedlings in a reforestation initiative in a microwatershed in
Ecuador) or technically (e.g. to understand management challenges, such as working out the reasons
why the chiuri trees are declining in the Chepang villages of Nepal and supporting inventories) or
culturally (e.g., to maintain a local language by supporting new curricula and adapted training in
schools). Something that several communities are also asking is full information and transparency from
the part of conservation agencies and the government, as well as recognition of the value of their work.
7.
Networking: many people involved in ICCAs see the importance of working together with other similar
bodies and with sympathetic individuals and groups although, as with the issue of legal recognition, the
situation is not straightforward. Networking can take place at four scales:

Within the ICCA, and with its immediate surroundings. This can include contacts with nearby
communities and protected areas. These contacts can be a source of tension; most ICCAs are
influenced by neighbouring communities, municipal authorities, managers of neighbouring lands
and managers of protected areas that overlap or include the ICCA. Positive relationships here are
very important and, albeit conflicts are common, many positive examples of collaboration exist.
One such example is among the 6 communities united through the Potato Park ICCA in Peru.
Another example is the one of the many communities that manage together Guassa ICCA, in the
Ethiopian highlands, and tax themselves to be able to support a set of community guards.

Between ICCAs. This can happen through formal or informal networks to share ideas and
experiences, both within a country or between countries. Most people who participated in the
grassroots discussions expressed support for this but also some caution, as communities need to
go through some internal strengthening before being able to benefit from exchange visits and
connections with others, as suggested in India. Communities are also daunted by the time needed
to both travel to and take part in meetings, as mentioned in the Solomon Islands.
first draft outline for comments Page 31


Between an ICCA and other supporting institutions, such as social and environmental NGOs,
collaborative businesses and other actors. Many communities point to successful collaboration with
NGOs and sympathetic government departments in developing the kind of ICCA support structures
and capacity needed for them to survive.
Among ICCAs all over the world. Several communities, but not all, mention and seem to
appreciate this idea. The variety of languages, cultures, ecosystems, governance structure and
representative institutions makes this a
daunting challenge. Commonalities,
however, abound, and they are barely
being discovered at the international level.
The benefits from networking and the forms of
networking that are both feasible and effective
remain to be worked out. Further work is
needed to identify the best means of
communication among ICCAs
first draft outline for comments Page 32
The future
The future of ICCAs depends as much on the actions carried out by the indigenous peoples and local
communities that govern and manage them, as on the external context of regional, national, and
international forces. In a rapidly changing physical, social, economic, and political context, ICCAs face their
biggest challenges. Perhaps at no other point in their history is it crucial for civil society at large to recognise
and support ICCAs, to meet these challenges.
 The Global Context
A series of global forces impact ICCAs in myriad ways. The revolutionary spread of communication and
information technology, the availability of new research or mapping methods, the spread of decentralised
governance policies, growing support by international environmental treaties, and the rapidly growing public
concern regarding ecological issues, are major opportunities that ICCAs could benefit from. However, in at
least the near future the global factors that are negatively impacting ICCAs could remain dominant, including
climate change, the reach of global markets and corporate forces, homogenisation of cultures and spread of
consumerism, and others. Civil society and government agencies that are genuinely concerned about the
future of ICCAs, or indeed about the future of conservation and communities in general, will have to provide
whatever sensitive support they can to indigenous peoples and local communities to maximise the use of
positive opportunities and reduce the impact of the destructive forces.
One example of this is the attempt by conservation networks within IUCN to facilitate the engagement of
ICCA communities in global forums such as the CBD. Such networks are also helping to spread awareness
of new policy opportunities amongst these communities, and to help in international lobbying against major
threats from inappropriate ‘development’ and economic processes.
At the international level, some key steps (amongst many others) that would help ICCAs are:
1.
Greater facilitation to ICCA communities to participate in international forums, not only of
environmental treaties but equally important, of economic and political treaties and institutions; of
particular relevance would be the climate negotiations leading up to the next convention in 2012.
2.
Appropriate recognition (with full consent of the relevant communities) in global forums. This
includes as the UNEP/WCMC World Database on Protected Areas, which has already agreed to
include ICCAs, and the UN List of Protected Areas. Particulary important are supportive
mechanisms under the climate change negotiations that ICCA communities find acceptable.
Considerable work is needed in gaining recognition of ICCAs in bodies such as the Convention on
Desertification, International Strategy on Disaster Reduction, Food and Agricultural Organisation of
the UN and within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The IUCN World
Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) and the IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic
and Social Policy (CEESP) can continue to facilitate such recognition.
3.
An ICCA ‘threat-watch’ by civil society organisations, to raise effective alerts and take global
action relating to various threats emanating from international economic and political forces.
4.
Continued guidance, through international forums such as the CBD, to countries that are taking
steps to recognise and support ICCAs, to ensure that these steps are taken in ways that do not
undermine community initiatives.
first draft outline for comments Page 33
5.
Social recognition at international levels, e.g. through appropriate conservation awards, greater
integration of ICCAs into the programmes and curricula of international organisations, and sensitive
public exposure in the media.
6.
Exchanges programmes between countries can be helpful, though quite expensive. It is
important to make the conditions comparable enough for the visit to be meaningful to the
communities.
7.
A global network or forum for ICCA communities and their support groups, non-heirarchical
and open-ended, could be evolved over time, to provide the forum for many of the above activities.
 The National Context
While considerable progress has been made at the international level towards recognising ICCAs (and in
particular in the CBD and through IUCN’s forums), there is still a long way to go in most countries. A broad
survey suggests that very few countries have as yet gone towards meaningful implementation of the CBD
Programme of Work on Protected Areas as it pertains to ICCAs. On the other hand there are also a number
of countries, some examples of which are given in the preceding chapters, that have moved substantially in
this direction.
At the national level, therefore, some key steps (again, amongst others) needed are:
1.
There is still much to learn about ICCAs and their management and effectiveness. For
instance the excellent academic work on links between sacred natural sites and biodiversity
conservation has not been applied more widely to other ICCAs. We still have surprisingly little
understanding of their histories, little quantitative data on their social and economic benefits, very
inadequate understanding of the diverse institutional dynamics that make ICCAs work, poor
knowledge of internal equity issues, and many other aspects. In most countries even the presence
of ICCAs may not be known other than to the conserving communities. Additionally, people
involved in ICCAs have much to offer in terms of traditional and contemporary knowledge and
practices, and this should be, with their permission, collected and disseminated for other
communities and formal sector conservationists to learn from.
2.
Policy backing is crucial, not only in terms of the recognition of ICCAs in their own right or as
protected areas, but also for some pre-requisites to successful ICCAs such as secure tenurial
rights. Conservation or related laws and policies in most countries have a long way to go before
they fully integrate and support ICCAs in ways that do not undermine community authority and
capacity. Civil society groups within each country will need to engage in considerable lobbying and
guidance of government for this, and could be helped by international networks where appropriate.
3.
Various other forms of support, determined individually for each site by or with the conserving
communities, could be crucial. This includes technical inputs such as ecological studies and
mapping, information about government schemes and policies, political support for policy changes,
training and capacity enhancement opportunities, human-wildlife conflict management, and
finances. ICCAs often need greater resources, and traditionally this has been hard to find in part
because of their unofficial nature. Work on financing of protected areas has developed a suite of
many dozen options for raising money, ranging from gate fees to payment for environmental
services (PES) schemes. Many of these have their critics and can backfire if poorly applied, but
also have the potential to support the ICCA if carefully and responsibly applied. Additional support
is available in terms of some best practice guidelines (for example regarding PES for communities)
first draft outline for comments Page 34
that can help avoid getting trapped into exploitative and unsatisfactory arrangements. Particularly
useful are exchange visits between communities and supporting organisations.
4.
National and sub-national networks of ICCAs, or of ICCAs linking with other conservation
initiatives, could provide powerful forums of information exchange, joint lobbying, fund-raising and
management, tackling key threats, and others.
None of the above steps are likely to completely secure the future of ICCAs. But they will considerably
enhance the ability of indigenous peoples and local communities to sustain and spread their conservation
initiatives, a task that is of significance to the future of the planet itself.
Notes
i
Fortunately there exist fundamental rights that, in the international agenda, appear to be at the same level. One is the
right to the existence of different cultures – which includes the right to culture-specific lifestyles and autonomy in the
relationship with the “territory”. The other is the right to a healthy environment, for which the duty bearer may indeed
be state governments. In this sense these complementary rights and the fact that we are part of the same biosphere,
compel us to seek the “common good”.
ii
This is important given that conservation systems are strictly related to intangible perception and regulations of nature
as part of traditional systems of knowledge and governance. This juridical intercultural instrument can be very useful
to protect governance systems that may be incomprehensible across cultures.
To be sure, this is modern terminology and tends to carries the connotation of a particular objective and function…
something rather far from the original concepts of many “territories”. ICCA is, in fact, a sort of syncretic construction,
an effort to pull together the experiences and concepts of different cultures.
iii
Since the ICCA definition is “de facto”, and since the three main characteristics of the definition are satisfied by the
“territories” of many indigenous peoples, the potential application of the definition is simply immense.
iv
v
Asatrizy and Riascos de la Pena, 2008.
The protected area was explicitly declared with the objective of guaranteeing the survival of that tribe “without
contacts with the rest of society”.
vi
vii
This protected area is destined to the conservation and material as well as immaterial use of medicial plants by
indigenous shamans. The uses are explicitly recognised in the law.
viii
ix
Noticeably, being able to register in the WDPA does not need prior recognition as a formal PA.
Smyth 2006
x
Langton and Palmer 2005
Krishnapillai 2000
xii
Bray et al 2003
xiii
Skyer 2003
xiv
Skyer and Saruchera 2004
xv
See Hoffmann 2002, Johannes and Hicker 2004, LMMA 2006, McClanahan et al 2006
xvi
Kothari 2006; Pathak in press
xvii
Grainger and Llewellyn 1994
xviii Pathak et al 2005
xix Pathak et al 2005
xx Govan 2008.
xi
first draft outline for comments Page 35
xxi
Borrini-Feyerabend et al 2004.
Pathak et al 2005, Govan 2008
xxiii Zambrana, 2008.
xxiv Kennedy, 2008.
xxv Nguyan, 2008.
xxii
first draft outline for comments Page 36