Report on Protected Areas discussions and TGER/TILCEPA activities at CBD COP 9
May 2008, Bonn
TGER and TILCEPA activities at COP 9
Several members of TGER and TILCEPA attended the CBD COP 9, following mainly the issue of Protected Areas. TGER/TILCEPA participated in the Protected Areas contact group, and contributed to convincing parties to include decisive language on the implementation of PoWPA Element 2, the key role and possibly different types of Protected Area Governance and the engagement of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in PA management.
TGER and TILCEPA organized two side events and several smaller meetings, and facilitated a dialogue between Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities and Conservation NGOs on conservation and Protected Areas.
TGER/TILCEPA also liaised with civil society organizations and the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, participated in the Civil Society coordination meetings organized by the CBD Alliance, and assisted the Alliance in formulating a Civil Society opening statement on Protected Areas, as well as to organize a press conference on the issue.
TILCEPA was consulted by the German Government about the Life Web initiative (a new web-based initiative to bring together donors and Protected Areas in need of funding, see and gave input concerning the inclusion of Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas into Life Web. In this context, TILCEPA and other civil society organizations expressed that Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities should be able to participate directly in the initiative; and that when facilitating funding of Protected Areas, the initiative should ensure that certain principles (concerning human rights, the rights of Indigenous Peoples to their territories, participation and Free, Prior and Informed Consent) are upheld, and that there should be a way to monitor the implementation of these principles.
TGER/TILCEPA side events and meetings
The first side event was entitled “ICCAs: from ‘oldest secret’ to crucial avenue for the conservation for biodiversity…” and provided participants with a space to discuss Indigenous and Community Conserved areas and their potential to further the implementation of the CBD. After an introduction to the concept and history of ICCAs, speakers presented case studies from Italy, Iran and Peru; the national situation of ICCAs in India was described, as well as the significance of ICCAs for traditional fishing communities. The brief presentations were followed by an intense discussion among the roughly 150 participants, several among them representatives of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. The scope, diversity and challenges of ICCAs were explored, and the usefulness of the ICCA concept for securing community governance of natural resources was debated.
The second TGER/TILCEPA side event took a broader look at governance as key for effective and equitable systems of Protected Areas. It was organized in collaboration with the UNDP GEF Small Grants Programme, and reviewed the concept and practice of governance of protected areas — one of the less understood and more useful entry points for successful implementation of the Programme of Work on Protected Areas of the CBD. The event was co-chaired by Taghi Farvar, CEESP chair, and Ashish Kothari, TILCEPA c-chair. Introductory presentations by Sarat Babu Gidda of the CBD Secretariat, and Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, TILCEPA co-chair, reviewed progress in implementing Element 2 of the CBD Programme of Work, which deals with governance, participation, equity and benefit sharing. This was followed by concrete examples from France, Australia, Madagascar, Nepal and Latin America. The event explored how more appropriate governance can help expand the coverage of protected areas, address gaps in protected area systems, improve biological connectivity at landscape level, increase the flexibility and responsiveness of protected area systems, enhance public support for conservation and, ultimately, improve overall sustainability of protected areas and strengthen the ties between people and nature.
The ICCA side event was followed up by two smaller, ad-hoc meetings to discuss the concept of Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas and steps forward.
The first one was an evening meeting among some participants of the side-event, where they had the occasion to deepen their exchange and share experiences and perspectives. The interventions from participants showed the vast range of realities on the ground. Participants stressed that the success or failure of ICCAs are intimately linked to the issue of rights of indigenous peoples and communities to their lands and resources. Several intervention from participants recounted how indigenous peoples and local communities were evicted from their territories and ICCAs as these were taken over by the state to create formal conservation areas. Overall, the discussion about the opportunities and challenges of ICCAs to implement the PoW will have to continue: this type of meetings will take place throughout this year, culminating at a ICCA workshop and exchange space at the Community Poble at the World Conservation Congress in Barcelona.
The second meeting was an information exchange between TILCEPA and the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity. The concept of ICCAs was presented by Ashish Kothari and Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, and the concept of Indigenous Biocultural territories was explained by Alejandro Argumedo. The discussion centred around whether indigenous territories and biocultural areas can fit under the ICCA concept and how the perspectives and conservation efforts of Indigenous Peoples and Local communities can best be recognized and supported within, or outside of, the IUCN framework of Protected Areas.
A crucial outcome of these and other discussions at the COP 9 is that some changeswill be taken into effect in the new IUCN Protected Areas Category Guidelines, which are still being discussed at this stage. One major change is the renaming of the ogvernance type of CCAs (Community Conserved Areas) into ICCAs (Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas). This governance type will encompass Indigenous Peoples’ conserved areas and territories, and areas conserved by local communities.
TILCEPA and TGER members meeting
World Conservation Congress
A key point discussed at this very brief meeting was the preparation towards the World Conservation Congress.
Three major events are being prepared, and were discussed briefly.
a)Alliance workshop on human rights and conservation.
b)A workshop on ICCAs, together with a permanent “ICCA space” at the community Poble in cooperation with the Equator Inistiative
c)Alliance workshop on Governance as the level of the landscape.
Also discussed were the possibilities of presentations on governance across all the workshops of the two commissions, CEESP and WCPA. There is also a possibility of one presentation with the Commission on Environment Law.
It was also mentioned that this will be the last and perhaps best opportunity to forcefully voice concerns about IUCN and it’s Business partnership strategies. Even if there is a partnership, it needed to be substantive and ensure that the behaviour of the company is improved. So far, there is not real assessment of the promises of the corporate partners. A resolution to this effect has been proposed in the form of a positive proposal laying down the guidelines for Business partnerships such as transparency, radical change, independent assessments, rights of IP and LCs, and the option to terminate relationships with businesses who are not complying.
Selection of new co-chairs
As Grazia and Ashish are both stepping down as co-chairs, there needs to be a process for selecting their replacements. A small group will be formed to seek candidates, and Grazia and Ashish will send out a brief profile of the co-chair tasks.
Dialogue on protected areas and conservation, amongst indigenous peoples, local communities, and conservation NGOs
On Sunday, May 25th, TILCEPA facilitated a meeting between Indigenous Peoples and Local Community representatives, and representatives of conservation NGOs, in order to begin a dialogue process to find a common understanding of various perspectives on conservation and protected areas, and to work towards common principles and common actions. A similar meeting had taken place in a rather ad-hoc manner at the WGPA-2 in Rome, as concern arose about the continued disagreements between groups about Protected Area policy within the CBD and in general.
The meeting was very well attended by representatives form Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities and representatives of several large conservation NGOs. Members of IUCN CEESP and WCPA, including of TGER and TILCEPA, were present, as well as the IUCN Senior Social Policy Advisor.
Participants gave brief summary statements on their key positions on protected areas and conservation and listed existing international and regional dialogue processes relevant to this topic. They then discussed the key needs and expected outcomes of the dialogue, such as:
-Improved trust
-Understanding of mutual perspectives
-If possible, a common set of principles
-A common voice at international fora
-Joint actions on key threats
-Processes for redressal and conflict resolution
-Reports on good and bad practice on the ground
The dialogue will continue to be facilitated by TILCEPA and a small group of focal points from conservation NGOs and IP/LC representatives. Benchmarks for progress in the dialogue process will be COP 10 in 2010, and the next World Parks Congress in 2013.
Protected Areas discussions among civil society and Indigenous peoples
Civil society organizations and Indigenous Peoples made several statements concerning Protected Areas during the deliberations, and held a press conference on the matter. The following summarizes the key positions spelled out in these statements:
Civil society organizations pointed out in various statements that some of the most effective means to halt biodiversity loss are contained in the PoW PA, especially in Element 2 on governance, participation, equity and benefit sharing. But reporting and implementation remains weak overall, and especially Element 2 is systematically neglected. Moreover, the reporting on implementation of the PoW is not being done in participatory ways in most countries – civil society has to be better involved in preparing reports. Civil society also has to make an effort to provide stronger, independent reporting.
There was also concern over the rush to meet the targets of creating new Protected Areas by using only narrowly defined “scientific” criteria, without sufficiently considering social and cultural aspects, without paying sufficient attention to diversifying Protected Area governance (especially by recognizing and supporting Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas), and without taking the sufficient time to genuinely involve Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in the creation of new PAs.
Civil Society organizations pointed to the recently adopted UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and argued that the rights enshrined in this declaration should guide the implementation of the PoW and all other aspects of the CBD. This is crucial as in many countries, PAs continue to be established and managed in violation of the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.
Further, PA schemes and poverty/livelihoods schemes are still delinked, creating artificial shortages in finance and driving governments towards private sector funding and management of PAs, even further undermining Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ rights. The so-called “innovative financing mechanisms” for PAs such as carbon trade and biodiversity offsets also attracted serious concern, as they are seen as an “escape route” for those most responsible for ecosystem destruction and can lead to a further loss of control of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities over their lands and resources – Governments should commit public funds first and foremost, and when relying on market-based mechanisms, ensure their ecological sustainability and the full respect of rights and participation of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.
Overall, civil society groups expressed concern over the continued loss of biodiversity and called for a moratorium on extractive and other industries in areas considered important for biodiversity conservation.
Several discussions took place on the need for further financial resources for Protected Areas – many of these focused on the Life Web initiative of the German government. Such initiatives are welcome, but must take place within a framework of principles such as the ones spelled out by Element 2 of the PoW and the UN Declaration. This means that an initiative such as Life Web should be available for direct participation by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, and there should be a monitoring system in place that ensures that projects financed through Life Web adhere to the principles mentioned above.
The International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity expressed concern about the continued expansion of Protected Areas. They called for the recognition of Indigenous Bio-Cultural Territories and Community Conserved Areas and of their importance for the maintenance of cultural and biological diversity. The strongly stated that they do not want the establishment of any new national protected areas on indigenous land and territories until their rights to their lands, territories and resources are fully recognized and respected.
They further asked parties to give priority to the implementation of Element 2 of the PoW and urged them to address the issue of restitution of lands and territories taken for Protected Areas without free, prior and informed consent.