Meanings and more...
Policy Brief of the ICCA Consortium

Issue No. 7

Produced in collaboration with Cenesta
Series Sponsors: The Christensen Fund, UNDP GEF SGP and SwedBio

page 1

In 2018 the Council of the ICCA Consortium decided to develop a lexicon of meaningful, and at times
complex, concepts and terms frequently used in its work, policies and relations with its Members andPartners. A few specific papers had been commissioned and prepared before, but no attempt had been madeto collate working definitions of frequent use, while many felt a need for such a reference compendium.
This need was evident also because the Consortium has highlighted and adopted new ways of referring tophenomena that, historically, had not been conceptually analysed. First among these phenomena are thevery ICCAs—territories of life at the heart of the Consortium’s work.
This document is the result of the Council’s decision. It is a rich beginning, expected to evolve and be
further integrated and enriched in the years to come. We decided to publish it as part of our Policy Brief
Series, as many of the concepts and terms collected here are crucial in the policies of the Members, Partners
and international institutions that the Consortium is hoping to positively influence through its work. Mostof all, this document is meant to stimulate thinking, debate, joint analysis, learning and action within theConsortium’s membership. It is only as a result of these collective discussions and concrete initiatives that the‘meanings’ of our collective language will emerge (and evolve).
The concepts and terms collated here are relatively few. We thus decided to list them not in alphabeticalorder but in our suggested order of reading or glancing through (one of the many possible ones). Kindly
consult the index below to reach the desired items.
We encourage all readers to offer comments and propose additions and corrections by writing tothomas@iccaconsortium.org and gbf@iccaconsortium.org, placing ‘Meanings and more...’ comments toversion 16 November 2019 as reference subject.

Contents
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ICCAs—territories of life

4
5

Indigenous peoples

10

Do territories of life need ‘recognition’?
Examples of defined, disrupted and desired ICCAs—territories of life
Cases of over/under-inclusiveness

Local communities

Is it important to distinguish between indigenous peoples and local communities? A matter of recognised rights
Is it straightforward to distinguish between indigenous peoples and local communities?

6
6

10

12
13
14

Traditional communities
Traditional knowledge
Custodians/Stewards/Guardians

15
16
17

Rightsholders

19

Recognition of custodians of ICCAs— territories of life
Spirituality, mainstream faiths and conservation
May only human beings be rightsholders?
Indigenous peoples, local communities and their territories of life— rightsholders because of property
titles?

Stakeholders
Tenure and security of tenure
Collective rights

Are local communities holders of collective rights?
What is a ‘person’?

page 2

17
18

20
21

22
23
24

24
25

Collective responsibilities

26

Self-determination

27

Sustainable self-determination

28

Sustainable use of biodiversity

29

What promotes communities’ sustainable use of biodiversity?

29

Sustainable livelihoods

30

Conservation

31

Can ICCAs-territories of life deliver conservation results on a pair with ‘fortress conservation’?

31

Biocultural diversity

33

Biocultural rights

34

Can biocultural rights promote ICCAs—territories of life and the sustainable self-determination of
their custodians?

34

Indigenous customary law and community protocols

35

Protected areas

36

Protected areas overlapping with ICCAs: negotiating borders and governance types

37

Can protected areas work in isolation?

38

Conserved areas

39

Management

41

Governance

42

What is governance diversity?

43

What is governance quality?

43

What is governance vitality?

43

Governance institutions

45

Should ICCAs—territories of life fear the ‘tragedy of the commons’?

Appropriate recognition

45

47

An international ICCA Registry for appropriate recognition of territories of life48

Are relevant laws and policies ‘appropriate’? From legal fragmentation to comprehensive legal support48

Appropriate support
Where does the ICCA Consortium come from?

49
49

Self-strengthening processes for community custodians of territories of life

51

Networks focusing on ICCAs– territories of life

52

Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)

53

Gender54

A gender perspective for ICCAs—territories of life

54

References

55

Useful links and websites

59

page 3

Abbreviations and Acronyms
CBD – Convention on Biological Diversity
COP – Convention of the Parties
CSOs— Civil Society Organizations
DRC – Democratic Republic of Congo
GEF-SGP – Small Grants Program of Global Environment Facility
GSI – Global Support Initiative (to ICCAs)
ILO – International Labour Organization
IUCN – International Union for the Conservation of Nature
NGOs – Non-governmental Organizations
OECMs – Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures
UN – United Nations
UNDRIP – UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
WCMC – World Conservation Monitoring Centre (of UN Environment)
WDPA – World Database of Protected Areas
WWF – World Wide Fund for Nature

Cover picture:
Datu Hawudon Tinuyan exploring the territory of life of the Manobo people of Soté (Mindanao, The
Philippines) – Courtesy Glaiza Tabanao.
Back-cover picture:
Dr. M. Taghi Farvar and other representatives of Members of the ICCA Consortium addressing a press
conference during CBD COP 11 (Cancun, Mexico, 2016). Courtesy Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend.

page 4

qICCAs— territories of life
For the ICCA Consortium, the term ‘ICCAs—territories of life’ stands for “territories and areas governed, managed and conserved by custodian indigenous peoples and local communities”.1 Thisrefers to an age-old, widespread, diverse and dynamic phenomenon that has many different manifestations and names around the world. Examples include: wilayah adat, kaw, himas, agdals, tagal, yerli
qorukh, faritra ifampivelomana, oran, ili, asang, rumak, qoroq, qoroq-e bumi, sapari, baldíos, crofts, regole,
aschii... In diverse political contexts, they may be referred to as ‘commons’ and ‘greens’, ancestral domains, ‘country’, community conserved areas, territorios autonomos comunitarios, comunales, territorios devida, territorios del buen vivir, sacred natural sites, locally managed marine areas and fishing grounds,
and many more. For the custodians of such ‘territories of life’, the connection between their community and territory is much richer than any single word or phrase can express. It is a bond of livelihood,energy and health. It is a source of identity and culture, autonomy and freedom. It is a link among
generations, preserving memories from the past and connecting to the desired future. It is the groundon which communities learn, identify values and develop relationships and self-rule. For many, it isalso a connection between visible and invisible realities, material and spiritual wealth. With territoryand nature go community life and dignity, and self-determination as peoples.
Territories of life are at the core of the purpose of the ICCA Consortium and its Members. Drawing a
synthesis from their worldwide characteristics and existing analyses,2 the Consortium has adopted aworking definition:
An ICCA—territory of life exists wherever:u There is a close and deep connection between a territory or area and its custodian indigenous
people or local community. This relationship is usually embedded in history, social and cultural
identity, spirituality and/or people’s reliance on the territory for their material and non-material
wellbeing.3
u The custodian people or community makes and enforces4 (alone or together with other actors) decisions and rules about the territory or area through a functioning governance institution5 (which
may or may not be recognised by outsiders or by statutory law of the relevant country).
u The governance decisions and rules6 (e.g., regarding access to, and use of, land, water, biodiversity and other gifts of nature)7 and the management efforts of the concerned people or community
overall positively contribute to the conservation of nature (i.e., the preservation, sustainable use
and restoration, as appropriate, of ecosystems, habitats, species, natural resources, landscapesand seascapes),8 as well as to community livelihoods and wellbeing.
1

As explained in the text, the term ICCAs is not an acronym but an abbreviation. Two decades ago the term was actually‘CCAs’, an acronym for ‘Community Conserved Areas’ (IUCN, 2004). It was later completed with an I to emphasize the role ofindigenous custodians, who also highlighted they have ‘territories’ rather than mere ‘areas’. The more recent formulation ‘territories of life’ was later adopted by many custodians in the Consortium to express the rich and multi-dimensional characterof the environments they care for. ICCAs, however, is retained as the formulation has entered international policy, providing
visibility to the phenomenon.

2

These include Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2004a; 2010; IUCN, 2004; Kothari et al., 2012.

3

The strong relationship may refer to the entire territory or only special places within it.

4#Governance Institutions.

5

Throughout this lexicon, the term ‘gifts of nature’ is used in place of ‘natural resources’ to describe both living and non-living
natural elements with value beyond the purely economic.

6

Decisions and rules may or may not be written, and at times simply merge with what is culturally perceived as proper andacceptable behaviour.

7

Throughout this lexicon, the term ‘gifts of nature’ is used in place of ‘natural resources’ to describe both living and non-living
natural elements whose values are perceived beyond the purely economic.

8

Importantly, conservation is achieved as a result of management practices... but may not reflect a stated objective of the custodians.

page 5

Territories of life across diverse contexts and regions demonstrate these three key characteristics tovarying degrees. Their community custodians have called attention to their importance, wishing forthem to be maintained and strengthened. Defined ICCAs—territories of life fulfil these three characteristics, while disrupted ICCAs—territories of life are known to have fulfilled them in the past but
are unable to do so today because of historical processes and disturbances that can still be reversed orcounteracted. Desired ICCAs—territories of life have the potential of developing the three characteristics, and their custodian communities are ready to work for this.

Do territories of life need ‘recognition’?
Separate from being ‘defined’, ‘disrupted’ or ‘desired’ is the element of recognition of the ICCAs—territories of life. This has to be, first and foremost, self-recognition by the custodian
community itself—a matter of internal discussion and self-awareness and pride.9 Then recognition
can take place by peers, such as other indigenous peoples and local communities, who are often
essential in providing support and advice. Further steps involve the recognition10 by local authorities, the concerned municipality(ies), regional government(s), national government(s),11 international organisations or other social actors, such as court(s).12
While it is rare that a thriving ICCA is not self-recognised, ICCAs can flourish while being fullyrecognised, partially recognised, or not recognised at all by peers, by various levels of government or by other external actors. A case for concern is when ICCAs— territories of life are badly
or inappropriately recognised.
ICCAs Registries are lists of mutually recognised territories of life, which are establishedthrough peer-support and review processes, which vary in diverse situations and cultures. Theinternational ICCA Registry held by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) of the
UN Environment agency was started by gathering a disparate set of individual cases.13 It is being
enriched, and will also be reviewed, with the help of peer-support and review processes in various countries. ICCAs—territories of life are also listed in less specific databases, such as the World
Database of Protected Areas (WDPA), also hosted by WCMC.
Beyond being appropriately or inappropriately recognised, ICCAs—territories of life can be appropriately or inappropriately supported. Again, inappropriate support is a cause for concern. The ICCA Consortium has devoted much attention to understanding ways by which ICCAs—territories of life can beappropriately recognised14 and supported15— at the heart of its statutory mission and reason to be.

Examples of defined, disrupted and desired ICCAs—
territories of life
A defined ICCA
u A self-recognized ICCA— the Yapú ‘Umu-Kaya Yepa’ Resguardo (Vaupès region, Colombia).16
Colombia recognizes political and administrative autonomy of indigenous lands framed under
the Resguardos title. Indigenous peoples are recognized as having collective land rights that are
9

Corntassel notes that focusing primarily on self-recognition allows communities to bypass the reproduction of colonial, racist
and patriarchal practices embedded in a ‘politics of recognition’ by settler states (see Coulthard, 2014).

10 Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2010. See also #Appropriate recognition.
11 Several territories of life are trans-boundary, and particularly so those of mobile indigenous peoples.
12

An important judgement of the Supreme Court of India has recently concerned the recognition of orans in Rajasthan.

13 #Conserved areas. See also UNEP-WCMC, 2016.
14 #Appropriate recognition.
15 #Appropriate support.
16

Asatrizy and Riascos de la Peña, 2008.

page 6

inalienable, non-seizable and held in perpetuity. All this guarantees long-term security of tenure.17
Moreover, they receive funds to autonomously develop their own health and education systems.
The 150000-hectare tropical forest of the Yapu territory of life has historically been governed andmanaged by local spiritual leaders (Kumuã), applying customary laws according to traditional
values (though the establishment of the Resguardo dates back only to 1982). The Yapu ICCA is notpart of the national protected areas system and thus would not be protected should the Colombian government agree to mining, oil and gas concessions on its subsoil – which could be highly
destructive. The custodian community, however, possesses collective land rights. Its customary
institution can proclaim and enforce customary norms and its people have the freedom to live according to their traditional knowledge, values and rites. All this has so far allowed for the territory
to remain well conserved while its biodiversity is sustainably used by its custodians.

Disrupted ICCAs
u ICCAs destroyed by ‘development’— the territories of life of indigenous pastoralists in Southern
Ethiopia.18 For centuries, the pastoral and agro-pastoral communities of Ethiopia’s drylands have
lived in a harsh environment by making careful use of several complementary natural resources—
water, pasture, forests, land, and wildlife. Access to such resources was based on individual and collective customary rights, variably exercised at different levels in society at different times, combinedwith mobile lifestyles, mechanisms of mutual assistance and solidarity within and across groups, andspecific norms to protect trees and other key environmental features. The territories of pastoral communities included areas of high biodiversity value that remained well conserved for centuries, such as
the juniper forests and tulaa wells areas of the Oromo Borana, the wet plains of the Daasanach in the
Omo Delta, the oxbow lake forests of the Kara and gallery forest of the Mursi, in the upper reaches of
the Omo Valley. When the territories of these communities were incorporated within the EthiopianState, in the late 19th Century, their systems of communal rights and governance by customary institutions were not recognized. Furthermore, ‘development’ initiatives undermined the food systems andoverall livelihoods of the communities, which resulted in food-scarcity. Today, the communities stillwish to reinstate their governance institutions and land-based practices.19 But the construction of theGibe 3 dam has blocked the regular flooding of the Omo River, drying up the territories of all traditional communities of the lower Omo Valley. As if this was not enough, other large portions of theirterritories, including parts that were under official conservation in national parks, have been confiscated or leased out for irrigated agriculture. As a result, the ancient territories of life of the lower Omo
Valley can no longer sustain the traditional livelihoods of their custodian communities.

A disrupted ICCA seeking restorationu An ICCA that was and today cannot fully be— the Herero of the Ehi-rovipuka Conservancy, Namibia.20
In Northern Namibia some Herero communities have recently established the Ehi-rovipuka Conservancy
as an area where, according to Namibia law, wildlife can be sustainably managed by a custodian community. The Conservancy borders with Etosha National Park, one of the most important protected areas of
Namibia and the ancestral land of Herero communities, who were evicted from their homelands a century
ago. The communities are currently asking to obtain certain access and use rights over the park lands andresources to re-create their original ICCA and restore the integrity of their sustainable land-based practices.
While the road for recognition is long, the existence of the ICCAs—territories of life movement can support their claims with the Namibian government.
17

One of the principles identified by E. Ostrom as needed for well-functioning commons. See also Robinson et al., 2018;#Governance Institutions.

18

Bassi 2002; Bassi and Tache, 2011.

19 See the ‘Yaaballo Statement on the Borana Conserved Landscape’ and the attempt to establish the Mursi-Bodi Community
Conservancy http://coolground.org/?page_id=163.
20

Hoole and Berkes, 2009; Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2010.

page 7

From a disrupted towards a restored ICCA
u The ‘engineered’ restoration of a sacred ICCA— the Warriparinga Wetlands, Australia.21 The
Kaurna Aboriginal People of the Adelaide Plains have lived and celebrated their dreaming traditionin Warriparinga, a sacred natural site, for thousands of years. Today, the Warriparinga comprises
0.035 km2 of wetland running along the Sturt River (Warriparri) and is part of a regeneration project. The initiative was developed by a collaboration between the Kaurna and the City of Marion,
applying novel engineering tools to reduce the pollution of the Patawalonga river system andrestore native vegetation and wildlife. The project worked in tandem with the establishment of the
Living Kaurna Cultural Centre, engaged in the conservation and transmission of Kaurna heritage
and the Dreaming Story of the Land to new generations. The centre develops indigenous cultural
tourism, education and training activities in the spirit of reconciliation between Aboriginal andEuropean communities.

From a disrupted to a fully restored ICCA
u Back to the future—Kawawana Community Conserved Area.22 At the beginning of the new millennium, the territory of life of the eight Djola communities of the Mangagoulack Rural Municipality (Casamance region, Senegal) had been thoroughly disrupted. Overfishing, rising salinity and deforestation of mangroves had contributed to the degradation of the estuarine environment, closely
accompanied by a downward spiral in the local economy. Both fish biodiversity and overall catches
had plummeted. All this took place as fishers from outside the area had been coming for years withpowerful motor engines and destructive gear, exhausting the local fisheries. The local communities
wanted to go back to their traditional territorial governance and management practices... but had
no way to enforce any fishing rules. Based on their local knowledge and spiritual world view, they
were convinced they could restore plentifulness to their ecosystem and their lives... but, would
they be allowed? In fact, they manage to do just that, and their hopes proved fully justified. In 2009,
empowered by the knowledge that Senegal is Party to the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD)
and that the CBD encourages the recognition of ‘community conserved areas’, they managed tore-create their own governance structure and management plan for the territory they considered
their “local heritage to be preserved by us all” (in Djola language kapoye wafwolale wata nanang,abbreviated as Kawawana). Though feats of patience and diplomacy, and also by stressing their adherence to Senegal’s Decentralisation Law– they then succeeded in getting Kawawana recognisedby their Rural Municipality, the Regional Council and the Governor of Casamance.23 By 2010, they
were again able to enforce their restored fishery rules. And today their riverine ecosystem is again
full of fish, oysters and wildlife... and their livelihoods and food systems have been fully restored.

From a disrupted to a defined ICCA
u An ICCA in Europe— the Froxán Common Woodland, Galicia, Spain.24 The Froxán community
has a long history of life and cultural development in the Galician municipality of Lousame,
Nordwest Spain. Although the community commons is reflected in manorial deeds dating 1409,
1527 and 1709, the land was usurped by the State in the 1930s. In 1977, the community was again
recognized as legitimate holder of the Froxán Common Woodlands –100 hectares over which
they were granted governance rights. The area had previously been subjected to mining and theintroduction of exotic tree species by state forest services. Once in control, the Froxán community
began restoration activities (e.g., refilling mine pits and shafts to stop acid drainage, restoring native
21 http://www.iccaregistry.org/en/explore/Australia/warriparinga-wetlands—living-kaurna-centre.
22 https://www.iccaconsortium.org/index.php/2014/12/15/an-icca-in-casamance-the-story-of-kawawana/; http://kawawana.iccaconsortium.org/
23 The recognition refers to a Community Conserved Area (Aire du Patrimoine Communautaire) established within the fluvial publicdomain.
24 Cidrás et al., 2018; Serrano et al., 2018.

page 8forest species and habitats, eradicating invasive species and recovering a peat-land that had been
drained in the 1970s) while continuing its traditional use (such as gathering firewood, using springwater and collecting chestnuts and mushrooms) and cultural-spiritual practices (using aromatic
herbs and medicinal plants in festivities such as Midsummer Solstice or Mayday). Moving beyond
traditional activities, the community also engaged in educational activities in nearby schools andwith adults and non-governmental organizations, mobilizing hundreds of volunteers through theBrigadas deseucaliptizadoras. The community has also participatorily developed a biodiversity
inventory and a management plan for wetland restoration that was selected as a national pilot casefor climate change adaptation experiences. Today, the Froxán Common Woodland is listed in the
ICCA Registry25 and the World Database of Protected Areas.

A desired ICCA that emerged via a democratic processu An island important as bird habitat adopted by local communities in Lake Victoria (Uganda).26
Musambwa islands have long been an important bird habitat and nesting site in Lake Victoria.
In recent years, the collection of bird eggs by visiting fishermen had become excessive and hadengendered severe environmental consequences. The concerned communities responded to thisby submitting resolutions to their sub-county Councils, which were then consolidated at District
Council level in a few local rulings (by-laws) and an ordinance establishing Musambwa islands asa bird sanctuary. This is an example of conservation initiative from the grassroots up... which madeexcellent use of democratic processes and the possibility of decentralised decisions responding to
the desires and needs of the local communities. The initiative was supported by a GEF SGP project,
but the impulse was genuinely local.

Towards a ‘secured’ ICCA?
u An ICCA in the Thar Indian desert— the Aain Mata Oran.27 The Thar Desert of India is one of themost densely populated deserts in the world. The village is Sodakore—comprising 236 households
dedicated to animal husbandry and agriculture—is custodian of the Aain Mata Oran, dedicatedto the Jagdamba / Kumtarai Jogmaya deity. The oran is viewed as both common property and asacred area, used for grazing but where tree felling is forbidden. The vegetation in the oran, in fact,
is in much better conditions than in its surroundings, which are unfortunately very degraded. In India, a legislative provision for the formal recognition of community conserved areas exists with theForest Rights Act. In 2018, the Supreme Court has declared all orans as ‘deemed forests’, hopefully
providing protections from pressures of encroachment and mining. The implementation procedures of this ruling, which is not yet available, should secure all orans under the governance andstewardship of their custodian communities. This is very much the hope for the Ain Mata Oran.
Key references
Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2010 (reprinted 2012); Kothari et al., 2012; Borrini-Feyerabend and Campese,
2017; Farvar et al.
See also: ICCA Consortium web site; ICCAs and the ICCAs Consortium—Conserving the Territories of Life – short movie; Emblematic ICCAs descriptions from the ICCA Website; ICCA
Registry.

25 #Appropriate support.
26 John Stephen Okuta, quoted in Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2010, page 55.
27 Aman Singh, personal communication, 2019.

page 9qIndigenous Peoples
In the words of a representative of a federation of indigenous peoples Member of the ICCA Consortium: “Indigenous peoples live in nearly all countries on all continents of the world and form a spectrum of humanity, ranging from traditional hunter-gatherers and subsistence farmers to legal scholars.
Indigenous peoples number between 300-500 million, embody and nurture 80% of the world’s culturaland biological diversity, and occupy 20% of the world’s land surface”.28 Descriptions in UN websites
are similarly broad: “Indigenous peoples are inheritors and practitioners of unique cultures and waysof relating to people and the environment. They have retained social, cultural, economic and politicalcharacteristics that are distinct from those of the dominant societies in which they live”.29 A precise
estimate of the number of indigenous peoples alive today is, thus, rather problematic.
In 1986, the United Nations Commissioner on Human Rights30 proposed to identify indigenous peoples
as peoples having “historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on
their territories”. Following the 1989 International Labour Organization Convention No. 169, Concerning
Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, the ‘time factor’ has been further emphasized and indigenous peoples
have been noted as traditional peoples “who hold an unwritten corpus of long-standing customs, beliefs,
rituals and practices that have been handed down from previous generations”.31 The 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) suggests a set of guiding characteristics that may
assist in the identification of indigenous peoples, which include: self-identification as indigenous nations
and/or peoples; a shared history of suffering injustices, colonization and land dispossession; a complex
web of place-based relationships; language, traditional practices, knowledge, and legal and cultural institutions distinct from those dominant in the national state where they reside;32 and knowledge, culture
and practices that contribute to sustainable governance and management of human relationships with
the natural world and beyond. Additionally, some stress the following characteristics as clear indicators of indigeneity: “having preserved the customs and traditions of their ancestors which are similar
to those characterized as indigenous” and “being, even if only formally, placed under a state structure
which incorporates national, social and cultural characteristics alien to their own”.33
UNDRIP refers to indigenous peoples (versus people singular), since peoples are recognized as subjectsof international law, whose collective right to self-determination are upheld by two International Covenants of 1966— the one on Civil and on Political Rights and the one on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights. Regardless of the international recognition of their collective rights, at the national level, not all
indigenous peoples are today recognised as holders of collective rights to land and natural resources.34

Cases of over/under-inclusiveness
The Philippines
The definitions of indigenous peoples listed above include a range of criteria for inclusion or exclusion, which may result in over/under-inclusion. Under a definition solely based on link to pre-colonial
28

Reyes, 2017. The figures quoted by Reyes are reported by several other authors. It is difficult, however, to trace them back to robust analyses beyond the claims made by Sobrevila (2008, page 5 and 50), which refers to WRI (2005) where the supposed backing cannot be traced. The ICCA
Consortium has no reason to believe that the figure quoted is incorrect, but it suggests referring to the work of Alden Wily (2011) and Garnett
et al. (2018) to corroborate it. For what regards cultural diversity, the reference to Sobrevila (2008, page 3 and 52) is similarly clear but scarcely
referenced (Sobrevila actually speaks of 95% of cultural diversity being represented by the 5000 ethnic groups that represent only 4 percent of
the world population).

29

United Nations website on indigenous peoples, https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/about-us.html.

30

In its 1986 Study of the Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations.

31

Mugabe, 1998.

32

This notwithstanding the fact that in some countries (like Papua New Guinea and Bolivia) indigenous peoples constitute the majority of the
population (Reyes, 2017).

33

Reyes, 2017.

34#Collective rights.

page 10societies, all the people living in colonized countries would be considered indigenous (apart from
immigrants or those who are the direct descendants of the colonizers). For example, in the Philippines,
all Filipinos would be indigenous since they are “existing descendants of the peoples who inhabitedthe present territory”.35 However, colonisation led many Filipinos to abandon their cultural traditions,become disconnected from their territories of life and part of a majority population that can evenbe insensitive toward indigenous minorities... This is not, however, the case for many Igorots of theCordillera and Lumad of Mindanao. Unlike most of the rest of the Philippines’ population, the Igorot
have “preserved intact the customs and traditions of their ancestors”36 and, in fact, according to Reyes(2017): “such peoples are the groups generally entitled to specific rights of indigenous peoples underinternational law”.37

Nepal
Contextual factors are especially important in order to distinguish the indigenous versus non-indigenous population. James Anaya, former Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, notedthat “it is difficult to divide the population of Nepal into indigenous versus non-indigenous sectors
if the term ‘indigenous’ is taken in a general sense and without regard to certain contextual factors”.
Nepal, for example, does not have a past of colonization by foreign power, hence either all or no partof the population, regardless of their strong sense of connection and belonging to their land, may beformally identifiable as indigenous. Yet, Anaya identified the Adivasi Janajati, unlike the majority ofother Nepali people, as indigenous peoples on grounds of their self-identification, historical exclusionfrom the dominant social and religious hierarchy, and distinct language and traditional customs.38
The ICCA Consortium emphasizes self-identification as a necessary element of indigenous identity
and recommends referring to indigenous peoples by their self-designated nation name.
Key references
United Nations Commission on Human Rights, 1986; Mugabe, 1998; Corntassel, 2003; Niezen, 2003;
UNDRIP, 2007; Reyes, 2017; Carino and Tamayo, 2019.
See also: IWGIA International Working Group for Indigenous Affairs; United Nations website
on indigenous peoples; Indigenous navigator.

35

Reid, 2009.

36

Ibid.

37

Reyes, 2017.

38

Anaya, 2009.

page 11

qLocal communities
One of the first and foremost questions that arises when dealing with an ICCA—territory of life
concerns the ‘who’. Who has singled it out and established it as a special place? Who has given it aname? Who has kept governing, managing and caring for it through time? At times the answer involves distant historical origins and sacred narratives of indigenous peoples... but when the answer is‘the local community’, it may appear vague. Yet, ‘local community’ has crucial significance not onlyin anthropological, social and economic terms but also, and increasingly so, in legal terms. The definitions of ‘local community’ available in the literature are numerous and diverse. In the ICCA Consortium, we use the working definitions and understand the differences between ‘local communities’ and‘indigenous peoples’, which are described briefly below. In general, we consider local communities
those communities that do not identify themselves as indigenous (at times even for strategic reasons,to avoid the marginalisation and stigma associated with indigenous peoples in some countries). For
some commentators, however, there exist objective distinctions and a local community differs from anindigenous people as it “does not fit a strict test of indigeneity”.39 In some countries, including countries signatories of UNDRIP, indigenous peoples are even generically referred to as ‘local communities’ to avoid having to respect procedures such those included in ILO 169.40
In 2011, the CBD Conference of the Parties convened an ad-hoc expert meeting to shed light on the useof the term ‘local communities’.41 The CBD report stated that the term is ambiguous and differently
interpreted by different state legislations (e.g., a group of people with collective legal personality or agroup of people legally represented by a CSO or NGO). The report stressed self-identification as themost appropriate way to establish who may be indigenous and local and/or traditional communities
and highlighted that, in international law, a definition is not a pre-requisite for protection. Wherever
CBD uses the term ‘local communities’ it thus refers to communities with a long association with thelands and waters that they have traditionally lived on or used, whose collective rights should be recognised regardless of the existence of a universally accepted definition.
As a working definition used by the ICCA Consortium, a local community is: “a self-identified humangroup that acts collectively in ways that contribute to defining a territory and culture through time.”
A local community can be long-standing (‘traditional’) or relatively new, can include a single ethnic
identity or multiple ones, and it usually ensures its own continuity by natural reproduction and carefor kinship and its life environment. Communities can be permanently settled or mobile. While their
attachment to specific localities may be as strong as that of settled communities, mobile communities42
are usually not referred to as ‘local’, as their locality may change dramatically with the seasons.
The members of a local community have frequent opportunities of direct (possibly face-to-face) encounters and usually possess shared social and cultural elements, such as common history, traditions, language, values, life plans and/or sense of identity that bind them together and distinguishthem from other sectors of society.43 It is usually clear who is part of the community and contributes
and/or responds to its governance system, and who is and does not. Most members of a community possess clear and strong (historical, cultural, spiritual, etc.) links with a specific territory or area,
which typically derive from a history of settlement and use of natural resources (permanently, seasonally, in transhumance patterns or nomadically) combined with cultural and spiritual attachment andsense of responsibility.
A community’s economic organization also reflects its common interest in the local environment and39

Bessa, 2015, page 332. Noticeably, there is an important difference between self-definition and specific test requirement.

40

Ghanimat Azhdari, personal communication, 2019.

41

Convention on Biological Diversity, 2011a.

42

Farvar, 2003.

43

Some modern communities, on the other hand, pride themselves of including a rich variety of languages, cultures and backgrounds.

page 12

resources, with locally adapted rules for common pool resource management,44 and rules to allocate
resources adapted to local conditions. A sense of cohesion, common identity and shared interests isessential for community members to be able to “act collectively to enhance mutual interest”.45
A functional community possesses local ‘administrative’ institution(s) and a ‘political’ leadership
perceived as legitimate by its members. Through those, it can usually foster compliance with agreed
rules and practice conflict-resolution. Many community members also recognize themselves as sharing a common political identity, which enables them to exercise, and/or claim for, collective rights andresponsibilities with respect to their territory and neighbors.46 Leadership, legitimacy, and cohesion
generally also require the demarcation of communities’ jurisdictional boundaries, either spatially or
through inclusion/exclusion rules on access to resources.
Community institutions, rules and even their territories of reference are dynamic, adaptable andevolving—a fact that fosters their relevance and resilience through time.

Is it important to distinguish between indigenous peoples and local communities?
A matter of recognised rights
While indigenous peoples and local communities share many features, their self-identification as
one or the other brings along important legal consequences. Indigenous peoples are recognized as
subjects in international law. Furthermore, in international and often also in national law, they arerecognised as holders of collective rights. Such collective rights are centred upon their self-determining authority and grounded on their indigeneity. These rights, which are usually not accorded to local
communities, are not conditional to ‘living sustainable lives’.47
Interestingly, the Inter-American Court on Human Rights recently treated two cases of local communities as holding the same rights as indigenous peoples. Specifically, in the 2005 Moiwana Village v.
Suriname case, and in the 2007 Saramaka People v. Suriname case, the Court recognized two local
communities, composed of descendants of former African slaves, as legitimate owners of their ancestral lands regardless of their lack of legal title. This followed the same rationale applied in the case of
the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua (2001) which, instead, focused on indigenous peoples.48
Despite these court rulings, international law still appears to distinguish between local communities
and indigenous peoples in terms of recognised collective rights. On the other hand, echoing principle
22 of the Rio Declaration,49 the concept of ‘local communities’ has been acknowledged in international law by article 8j of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and has surfaced in many otherinternational agreements, conventions, resolutions, policy documents and guidelines50 issued by UN
bodies, UN treaties and other international organizations.50 Noticeably, in all these international documents, local communities are considered because of their relationship with the environment, rather
44

Ostrom, 1990. #Governance Institutions.

45

Barrow and Murphree, 2001.

46#Collective Rights; #Collective Responsibilities.

47

Jonas, Makagon and Shrumm, 2013.

48#Rightsholders.

49

Principle 22 of the Rio Declaration states that: “Indigenous people and their communities, and other local communities, have a vital role inenvironmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognize and duly support
their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development.”

50

Example include: the Nagoya Protocol; the International Tropical Timber Agreement; the Food and Agriculture Organization’s International
Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture; the Agreement for the Implementation of the UN Convention on the Law of theSea; the Convention to Combat Desertification; Resolutions of the Conference of the Parties and Guidelines of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands; Resolutions, policy documents and guidelines of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the World Wide
Fund For Nature (WWF); and, recently, the UN Declaration on Peasants and other People Working in Rural Areas.

page 13than simply because of their existence as communities.51
The ICCA Consortium respects the self-definition as indigenous people or local community. Regardless of such definition, it strives towards securing their tenure of the territories of life for which they
act as custodians.

Is it straightforward to distinguish between indigenous peoples &local communities?
Distinguishing between Distinguishing between indigenous peoples and local communities may be
important, but at times difficult. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) offers an example of suchdifficulties and complications.52 In the DRC, only Pygmies groups are legally recognized as indigenous peoples, while all others are regarded as local communities. The rationale stands on the fact that
the Pygmies are considered as the first inhabitants of the DRC. Some non-Pygmies, however, claim tohave occupied certain forests before the arrival of the Pygmies. The national law, on the other hand,does not foresee different treatment for indigenous peoples and local communities, disregarding the
mandate of international law to recognise the special rights of indigenous peoples. In addition, there
are strong cultural bonds between Pygmies and other ethnicities living together in the same localities.
And yet, in mixed communities, roles may be asymmetrical and exploitative, ranging from disrespect
to virtual enslavement of Pygmies. There are also cases in which non-Pygmies claim to be Pygmies inorder to share some of their traditional spiritual powers and roles, in particular those related to territories and natural resources.
Key references
Ostrom, 1990; Becker and Ostrom, 1995; Barrow and Murphree, 2001; Borrini-Feyerabend, Kothari andOviedo, 2004; Antkowiak, 2013; Jonas, Makagon and Shrumm, 2013; Bessa, 2015.
See also: La Via Campesina; Rangeland Initiative of ILC; International Collective in Support of
Fishworkers.
Court casesu Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, Inter-American Court on Human Rights,
No.79, Ser. C (2001).
u Moiwana Village v. Suriname, Inter-American Court on Human Rights, No 124, Ser. C (2005).
u Saramaka People v. Suriname, Inter-American Court on Human Rights, No. 172, Ser. C (2007).

51

Jonas, Makagon and Shrumm, 2013, page 26. See #Biocultural rights for further info on the difference between rights of local communities andindigenous peoples.

52

Bikaba, 2013.

page 14

qTraditional communities
Traditional is a term used to characterise those communities or peoples that maintain livelihoods,
beliefs and values, knowledge, languages and institutions in some continuity with the past.53 Whatis traditional is most often perceived as symbolically close to the past, or as the ancestors used topractice, live, believe, know. It can refer to all sorts of aspects of cultural, social, spiritual or economic
practices (such as customs, ceremonies, customary laws, stewardship role for the territory of life…).
The term ‘traditional’, however, should not be equated with ‘static’, pre-determined and never changing, in particular referring to knowledge, practices or beliefs that indeed adapt over time to varying
circumstances even for very traditional communities or peoples. Traditional thus stands for linked tothe past, as in a continuum that binds the past to the present but that has seen, and will continue tosee, changes to respond to the evolving history of the community.
The concept of cultural continuity similarly highlights the continuum of experiences from past topresent, onward and into the future. Continuity combines innovation with convention54 and has beenfound to have direct impacts on the communities’ sense of wellbeing, including health, as measured
by both social and economic indicators.55 Cultural continuity also has been used to describe a “culture[...] potentially enduring or continuously linked through processes of historical transformation with
an identifiable past of tradition”.56
Communities that have a strong bond with their past generally also have a strong bond with their territories. When they stress that they are traditional, they tend to reclaim both their past and its values,
but also their traditional knowledge and rich relationship with their territories.57
Key references
Wagner, 1981; Chandler and Lalonde, 1998; Posey, 1999; Kirmayer et al., 2007; Oster et al., 2014; Raymond-Yakoubian, Raymond-Yakoubian and Moncrieff et al., 2017.

53

A similar term, mostly used to underline the existence of historical rights to lands, water and other gifts of nature is historical community.

54

Wagner, 1981.

55

See, e.g., Chandler and Lalonde, 1998; Oster et al., 2014; Foggin, 2011; Foggin, 2014.

56

Kirmayer et al., 2007, cited in Oster et al., 2014.

57#Traditional Knowledge.

page 15

qTraditional knowledge
Traditional knowledge58 is a living body of knowledge, usually held by traditional custodian communities, which explains both the universe and everyday life59 and can “provide information, methods, theory and practice for sustainable ecosystem management.”60 Traditional communities pride
themselves of maintaining their traditional knowledge alive and strong, with ethical and practical
implications for social relations and relations between humans and nature. The metaphor of ‘being
in a cultural tradition’ resonates strongly with many traditional communities, even when they daily
successfully provide new answers to new challenges.61
Many definitions of traditional knowledge have been offered by international organizations andscholars. While with time they appear to converge, there is not yet a consensus definition. A list of recognised main features includes: developed and transmitted in a traditional context – where traditional does not refer to antiquity but to the way it is acquired and used;62 place-based; experience-based;
constantly adapted to the local culture and environment (and often associated with genetic resources);63 attached to a specific spiritual, cultural, ethno-medical or legal system; often collectively held
within a community and among communities; most often orally transmitted from generation to
generation.64
In the context of ICCAs—territories of life, traditional knowledge constitutes one of the strongest
fibres of the bond between a community and its territory, embodying memories of the past andcultural continuity with the future, while providing guidance for the effective governance and management of the territory.
The Convention on Biological Diversity and its Nagoya Protocol65 state that indigenous peoples andlocal communities are entitled to the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of
their traditional knowledge and associated resources, the right to prior informed consent before theaccess and use of the traditional knowledge, and the right to negotiate mutually agreed terms on its
access and use.66 Traditional knowledge is valuable in bioprospecting— the development of products
from biodiversity components (from drugs and cosmetics to beverages and foods). The misappropriation and unagreed use by someone external to the community custodian of that knowledge is referred
to as biopiracy.
Key references
Scott, 1996; Berkes, 1999; Posey, 1999; Carneiro de Cunha, 2009; Scott, 2013; Morgera, Buck and Tsioumani, 2014; Raymond-Yakoubian, Raymond-Yakoubian and Moncrieff et al., 2017.

58

Also referred to as ‘traditional ecological knowledge’, ‘indigenous knowledge’ or ‘bio-cultural knowledge’.

59

Raymond-Yakoubian, Raymond-Yakoubian and Moncrieff, 2017.

60

IPBES Glossary, definition of Indigenous knowledge/local knowledge systems, available online at https://www.ipbes.net/glossary

61

Scott 1996; Scott, 2013.

62

Carneiro de Cunha, 2009, page 82.

63

Berkes, 1999.

64

These characteristics, while being often present, are not to be considered as mandatory for the identification of traditional knowledge.

65
66

Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (ABS); see

https://www.cbd.int/abs/about/default.shtml/
Morgera, Buck and Tsioumani, 2014.

page 16

qCustodians/Stewards/Guardians
Many indigenous peoples and local communities around the world act as custodians, stewards andguardians of the land, water, sky, soil, mineral deposits, natural resources and biodiversity traditionally occupied or used by them. The idea of custodianship/stewardship/guardianship67 builds ontheir relationships with their territories, which include cultural, spiritual, and social practices directed
towards the protection of natural cycles, ecosystems, species and landscape features. For the CBD
Tkarihwaié:ri Code of Ethical Conduct to Ensure Respect for the Cultural and Intellectual Heritageof Indigenous and Local Communities custodianship68 recognises “the holistic interconnectedness ofhumanity with ecosystems and obligations and responsibilities of indigenous and local communities,
to preserve and maintain their traditional role as traditional guardians and custodians of these ecosystems through the maintenance of their cultures, spiritual beliefs and customary practices”.
The custodianship role of indigenous peoples and local communities is fundamentally different fromthe mechanism whereby authorities designate areas to be officially ‘protected’ constraining the use ofnatural resources by regulatory means alone. Acting as custodian means “conserving nature willingly, while living with it and from it, and holding it in trust for future generations.69 In many ways being custodian of a territory is synonymous with governing it – de facto if not also de jure – for the longterm, with a sense of responsibility and care. Indigenous or local community custodianship may
include the use of state legislation and regulatory instruments, and state authorities may enter intoshared governance custodianship arrangements with indigenous peoples and local communities. The
custodian role generally adapts to the context, and it needs to be understood in context.
The custodianship role of indigenous peoples and local communities has been noted by states at theinternational level. The 1992 Rio Declaration acknowledged for the first time the communities’ specialand ‘vital role in environmental management and development, thanks to their knowledge and traditional practices’. Since then, international law has increasingly recognized the need to support community custodianship. These recognitions build on the understanding that, in order to maintain suchrole, indigenous peoples and local communities need to exercise their capacities and rights related toknowledge, practices and natural resources.70

Recognition of custodians of ICCAs— territories of life
For a territory to qualify as ICCA—territory of life it is necessary that an indigenous people or local
community acts as custodian of its lands, waters, biodiversity and other gifts of nature. The custodianship role of indigenous peoples and local communities is essential both to protect and perpetuate theterritories of life that are well defined and to seek to improve the condition of those that are disrupted
or desired. It might be the case that the people or community is no longer, or not yet, able to fulfil its
desire to take care of the territory. The desire and commitment to act as custodians, however, might be
impaired by conditions that are external to the community or people. Examples of those problematicconditions range from polluting factors or poachers originating from outside the territory to conflicts
with state or private agents that impede the community governance institutions from implementing
and applying rules.71 If this is the case, some legal recognition, or even just some social recognition by
the State, neighbouring communities, civil society, and/or international organizations of the role and67

We acknowledge that different peoples and communities use different terms not only for their territories of life but also for their own roles
related to those (e.g., ‘custodians’, ‘stewards’, ‘guardians’ and others). The ICCA Consortium has historically used the term ‘custodians’ and it
mostly employs it here for simplicity. In various contexts, other terms are more appropriate and should be used.

68

Convention on Biological Diversity 2011b.

69

Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2010.

70#Biocultural rights.

71#Governance institutions.

page 17

self-determining authority can offer valuable support.72 In general, secure collective tenure73 to land,
water and natural resources (e.g. by the recognition of biocultural rights74) is a powerful pathway to
encourage, protect, recreate and enhance the collective capacity, will and self-assumed responsibility
to act as custodian of an ICCA-territory of life.

Spirituality, mainstream faiths and conservation
More than 80% of world population identifies itself as having religious/spiritual beliefs75 and many
world faiths share the idea, expressed in distinctive but compatible ways, that human beings havecustodianship duties and collective responsibilities76 towards the environment. This may be because
nature is perceived as a divine gift, or because it is the very incarnation of the creator god/god(s) or
spirits.
Local spiritual beliefs are often better described as indigenous than as mainstream, or as “folk variantsof mainstream religions”.77Many of them have developed and transmitted traditional environmental
knowledge, practices and customs— such as a profound respect for specific places and ‘sacred sites’,or the prohibition to damage or eat certain species— that promote sustainable lifestyles and nourish asense of belonging to a territory.
Several mainstream faiths (such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism) call the faithful tofulfil their stewardship/custodianship duties and contribute to support them in caring for their environment— locally and globally. Mainstream faiths, however, have highly diverse ‘streams of thought’.
The values of hierarchical elites may not be embodied by lower clergy and believers. And the custodianship/stewardship duties may not be easily translated into practice.78
Since the 1986 Assisi Meeting of Prayer for Peace where leaders of all major world religions expressed
their views on the importance of protecting the environment, recognition of the role of faiths for environmental collective actions has been increasing. As an example, the UN Faith for Earth Initiative aims
at inspiring faith-based conservation and the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals. The
Alliance of Religions for Conservation also supports environmental initiatives by faith communities.79
Opportunities to support territories of life seem to exist at the interaction between faith initiatives andindigenous peoples struggles (see, for instance, the Interfaith Rainforest Initiative, the Vatican Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, the Laudato Sí Encyclica of 2014).

Key references
Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2010; Verschuuren et al. (eds.), 2010; Convention on Biological Diversity,
2011; Ruiz and Vernooy, 2012; Mcleod and Palmer, 2015; Frascaroli, 2016; Frascaroli and Fjeldsted,2017.
See also: Pope Francis, 2015; and a short film on Culture, Spirituality and Conservation by the SCB Religion and Conservation Biology Working Group and the IUCN CEESP Theme on Culture, Spirituality
and Conservation at https://vimeo.com/349593871.

72#Appropriate recognition.

73#Tenure and security of tenure.

74#Biocultural rights.

75

Verschuuren et al., 2010, page 2.

76#Collective responsibilities.

77

The distinction between mainstream and indigenous faiths is useful but also problematic, as many mainstream faiths are indigenous to certain
places and cultures, such as Zoroastrianism, Daoism, and Jainism (Verschuuren et al., 2010, page 3).

78

Frascaroli and Fjeldsted, 2017.

79

http://www.arcworld.org.

page 18

qRightsholders
In judicial language, a rightsholder is a subject who holds a right. This implies that the subject’s interests are sufficiently important to raise a legal/moral duty (or set of duties) on the part of one or moreother subjects. In other words, the rightsholders’ wellbeing and interests have an intrinsic value, they“are a sufficient reason for holding some other person(s) under a duty”.80
In the context of protected and conserved areas and territories of life, we can refer to ‘rightsholders’ as“actors socially endowed with legal or customary rights with respect to land, water and other natural
resources”.81 This means that land, water and other natural resources are so important for the needs,interests or desires of the right-holders that it would be morally and/or legally wrong to deny accessto them, regardless of the advantages or disadvantages to someone else.82 Naturally, who is entitled tocount as a ‘rightsholder’ is often hotly disputed. And increasingly, there are demands to recognize asrightsholders even non-human beings (see below).
Importantly, rights are constructed by States and often do not reflect the deeper relational accountabilities and responsibilities that many indigenous peoples and traditional communities feel towards one
another, the natural world, and more-than-human relations. In this sense, the qualities that make somepeople rightsholders have to do with their perceived cultural and spiritual connection with nature morethan anything else. The Consortium stresses that rights should be grounded in responsibilities.

May only human beings be rightsholders?
Subject, when referred to the right-holder, may be a person, a group of persons, but also, depending on the legal or moral system of reference, a juridical person (such as a corporation), as well as an
animal, plant, natural element, nature itself (Mother Nature), or a sacred natural site. However, theability of such various subjects to be considered rightsholders is still very contested, based on theanthropocentric beliefs that only human beings or groups composed of human beings may be considered legal subjects, i.e. may be recognized to have subjectivity. Nevertheless, jurisprudence, laws andconstitutions around the world (such as the Ecuador’s and Bolivia’s Constitutions, court cases andActs in India, Colombia and New Zealand)83 are paving the way for the recognition of intrinsic value,
subjectivity and rights to more than human beings alone.
The extension of legal subjectivity to natural elements, and hence the ability to regard them as rightsholders, may be used as a means to promote the conservation of ICCAs—territories of life, further
justifying their importance not only for the protection of nature as a human interest (instrumental
value), but also for the protection of nature (or elements of it) as holder of intrinsic value and rights.
The case of Whanganui river (2017, Aotearoa/ New Zealand), clearly shows how it may also further
the worldviews, relationships, and interests of indigenous peoples. The Te Awa Tupua Act recognizes
the Whanganui River, all its tributaries, and their beds, as an indivisible and living whole possessing
legal personality, and as one of the ancestors of the Whanganui iwi (tribes) which is to be protected,
respected and guarded upon for their physical, cultural and spiritual survival. The river now holds all
the powers, rights, duties, and liabilities of a legal person (it is a rights-holder as well as a duty-holder) and exercises them through a joint action of the Whanganui Iwi and the Crown.84
80Raz, 1988, page 116.

81

Borrini-Feyerabend and Hill, 2015, page 180.

82

The fulfilment of the duty may also benefit other subjects (which may be called beneficiaries). However, the fact that they benefit from thefulfilment of the duty does not justify the existence of the right (and consequently, of the duty).

83

For a collection of cases, see: www.naturerightswatch.com.

84

Other cases include Te Urewara in New Zealand, which is a region (mountains, lake, forests) recognised as having personhood and status as‘conserved area’ by the Te Urewara Act of 2014, and the Atrato river in Colombia.

page 19

Indigenous peoples, local communities and their territories of life—
rightsholders because of property titles?
When referring to ICCAs—territories of life, the governance rights of the people or community mostoften do not derive from a property title. Instead, their rights originate from even stronger factors ofsocial, economic and environmental nature. Those include ‘collective use and occupation from time
immemorial’, ‘historical rights’, ‘customary rules’, special de facto governance, commitment to govern a given territory, charter myths and forms of social consensus built over centuries.
In the 2001 case of Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, the InterAmerican Courtof Human Rights stated, that “in the case of indigenous communities who have occupied their ancestral lands in accordance with customary practices – yet who lack real title to the property – merepossession of the land should suffice to obtain official recognition of their communal ownership”. In
the 2007 case of Saramaka People v. Suriname, which dealt with local communities, the same Court
explained that it is “because they share distinct social, cultural, and economic characteristics, including a special relationship with their ancestral territories”. Such land and resource rights may clash (asin the mentioned court cases) with current national laws, or with state concessions to external actors(such as corporations) based on processes of nationalization or privatization of land and resources.

Key references
Stone, 1972; MacCormick, 1976; Kramer,1988; Raz, 1988; Berry, 1996; Mejido Costoya, 2013; Kauffman
and Martin, 2017; Kotzé and Calzadilla Villavicencio, 2017; Surrallés, 2017; Studley and Bleisch, 2018;
Kauffman and Sheehan, forthcoming.

Court casesu Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, Inter-American Court on Human Rights,
2001. No.79, Ser. C.
u Saramaka People v. Suriname, Inter-American Court on Human Rights, 2007. No. 172, Ser. C.
u Mohd. Salim v State of Uttarakhand and Others, 2017. Writ Petition No. 210 of 2017 (M/S). Uttarakhand High Court.
u Parliament of Aotearoa New Zealand, 2017. Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement)Bill.
u Plurinational State of Bolivia, 2009. The Constitution of the Plurinatonal State of Bolivia.
u Plurinational State of Bolivia, 2010. Ley de Derechos de la Madre Tierra – No. 071.
u Republic of Ecuador, 2008. The Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador.

page 20

qStakeholders‘Stakeholders’ possess direct or indirect interests and concerns about a certain asset or situations,but do not necessarily enjoy a morally, legally or socially recognised entitlement to them.85 They arepotential rightsholders86 who hold interests that may or may not be considered as sufficiently important to raise a right, and its consequent duties, on someone else. The evaluation concerning whether astakeholder should or should not be recognized to be/become a rightholder may be moral/social, as
well as purely legal. It could be argued, in a certain case, that a stakeholder is also a moral rightholder
but the local (or national or international) competent legal authority has refused to give legal recognition to such moral right turning it into a legal right. In this case, it may be politically convenient torefer to the stakeholder as rightsholder in order to advocate for such missing legal recognition.
Indigenous peoples and local communities traditionally living in a territory, sustainably using its natural resources, and exercising collective responsibilities over it, might sometimes be considered by anational government as stakeholders with respect to activities to be undertaken in the area. However,considering them as mere stakeholders denies and neglects the rights recognized to them by international law and, in some cases, also by national law. This is particularly true for indigenous nations andpeoples but also for local communities who can demonstrate their role in conserving the territory andits biodiversity through time. Hence, it is important to determine when the concept of ‘stakeholder’ isinappropriately used, in particular when dealing with governing, managing, recognising and supporting ICCAs—territories of life. At other times it might instead be important to state the mere stakeholder role of certain actors, such as a corporation interested in using a certain land for crop production. Insummary: the distinction between stakeholders and rightsholders is important and should be treatedwith great care.

85

Borrini-Feyerabend and Hill, 2015, page 180.

86

#Rightsholders.

page 21

q Tenure and security of tenure
Tenure is ‘the holding of something of value for a length of time’. Tenure can be by private, communaland public actors (the government at various levels). Communal tenure can be legal (based on statelaws and registries) or customary (based on local legitimacy87 and oral history).88 Tenure comprises
a bundle of rights that normally include access and use (for subsistence or income generation), management and exclusion of others. Only certain types of tenure (e.g., private property) also include theright of alienation, due process and compensation (e.g. subdividing the unit under tenure, selling therights, claiming for compensation). In general, exercising tenure means governing, managing andregulating access and use, and it can go with or without a formal title. Many indigenous peoples andlocal communities are more interested in securing the exercise of their tenure than in legally owningland, fearing all sorts of problems with the latter (property taxes, gender inequality, debt traps andexposure to unwanted investors, conflicts among communities with overlapping claims for the same
territory, etc.).
For many indigenous peoples and traditional communities, customary land tenure without a formal
title is the main form of land regulation, including access, use and transmission of tenure itself.89 Landtenure is deeply entrenched in social and cultural customs and implemented through collective (community, group, family) arrangements. In the last centuries, colonial powers, national governments
and businesses have commonly ignored (or mis-recognized) customary tenure rights. This has led tothe extensive dispossession of indigenous peoples and local communities from their territories, lands,
waters and biodiversity (land and water grabbing), including for the creation of protected areas (green
grabbing). At the base of this misrecognition and dispossession stands the colonial doctrine of theconquered ‘no-men’s land’ (terra nullius), which is only slowly being supplanted by more appropriate
understandings.90
Still today, when State agencies meet customary land tenure situations, they commonly suppress
customary tenure rights or distort them in ways that endanger their long-term viability (for example,
transmission rules are changed, large commons are subdivided into smaller privately-owned parcels,etc.). When they do allow for the formalisation of tenure, this usually requires complex and costlytransactions, poorly accessible to indigenous peoples and local communities.
In at least two cases, the recognition of community tenure rights encounters further additional challenges. The first is the one of mobile indigenous peoples, who generally need vast territories for theirtranshumance or nomadic mobility patterns and, in particular, secure access to the wetlands necessary
for their herds. The situation of mobile indigenous peoples has been plagued by lack of recognitionof collective rights—a fact sustained and compounded by a variety of myths about mobility,91 and by
a general lack of understanding regarding its crucial benefits for nature conservation and sustainable
livelihoods.92 The second case is the one of customary sea tenure of indigenous peoples and local
communities. Notwithstanding the obvious ecological integration of land and sea and the connectedness embedded in customary systems of territorial governance and livelihoods, most regimes of stateand international law treat coastlines as hard jurisdictional divides. As a result, indigenous and community tenure in offshore areas is subject to conditions and rules even more restrictive than those that
apply in terrestrial areas.93

87

E.g., visual signs placed ceremonially in determined places.

88

E.g., elders’ promises and agreements.

89

Alden Wily, 2011b.

90

High Court decision in the Mabo v. Queensland (No.2), Australia, 1992.

91

Farvar, 2003.

92

Chatty and Colchester, 2002. See also Dana Declaration.

93

Mulrennan and Scott, 2000; Scott and Mulrennan, 2010.

page 22

We speak of security of tenure when the tenant of land, waters or other natural resources believes thatits tenure will be upheld and defended by society. When tenure is secure, neither the grabbing of land,
waters and natural resources nor the eviction of peoples and communities from their territories cantake place. Tenure security is fundamental for the rights to life, food and culture, including traditional knowledge and local sustainable use practices that prevent land degradation and poverty.94 Whilefor much of history customary tenure has probably felt relatively secure,95 contemporary changes inpolitical economy—from trade globalisation to the resurgence of authoritarian and populist regimes—
appear to foster and spread tenure insecurity all over the planet. Indigenous peoples and local communities are thus seeking ways to apply for formal tenure rights that could integrate (or ‘double-lock’)
their customary rights and strengthen their capacity to protect their land and sea.96
It has been estimated that 65% of the terrestrial surface— mostly forests, rangelands, grasslands,
savannas and shrublands— consists of ‘commons’, i.e., lands possessed and used collectively byrural communities in accordance with their customary norms.97 The extent of lands legally owned
by communities or officially designated for community use, however, is much smaller, amounting to
only 18% of global terrestrial surface.98 Mapping and registration of land generally involve laborious
and costly processes that do not always end up guaranteeing tenure security. Custodian communities
are nevertheless increasingly embarking on the process, considering that benefits may outweigh thecosts.99 Formal titles and documents appear more convincing than social legitimacy, especially whencommunities need to negotiate with companies and state agencies.
The process of providing some official recognition of land tenure (which is not to be equated to landownership only), is likely to strengthen the bond between human communities and their territories
of life, provided that internal and external conflicts can be avoided. In turn, one can expect that thebonds of tenure will foster the sound governance, management and care of the land, contributing toconserving nature and supporting community livelihoods and wellbeing. Conversely, if communities
can demonstrate that their territories show a good conservation status, this is likely to strengthen theirdemands for tenure rights. This is a major reason why the ICCA Consortium promotes the ‘appropriate recognition’ of territories of life: to secure the collective tenure of their community custodians.100
Key references
Mulrennan and Scott, 2000; Chatty and Colchester, 2002; Farvar, 2003; Scott and Mulrennan, 2010;
Alden Wily, 2011b; FAO, 2012; Rights and Resources Initiative, 2015; Alden Wily, 2017.
See also: WRI page on indigenous and community land rights; The Tenure Facility; Landmark;Indigenous navigator; International Land Coalition; La Via Campesina; Rangeland Initiative of
ILC; The Dana declaration website;94

In 2012 FAO has issued the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of
National Food Security.

95

The exception made of episodes of wars, conflicts and foreign invasions.

96

Alden Wily, 2017.

97

Alden Wily, 2011a.

98

Ibid. See also: Oxfam, International Land Coalition and Rights and Resources Initiative, 2016.

99

Notess et al., 2018.

100 #Appropriate recognition.

page 23

q Collective rights
Most human rights treaties and covenants protect individual rights, and only a few protect collective rights. Among the latter are the UN instruments that protect languages and cultures, ensure
the right to association and religion, and—notably—the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Collective rights are rights held by a community, a people or a grouprather than single individuals. They should not be confused with the rights held by the members ofa certain category of individuals and not by the rest of humankind (such as woman rights, which
are held by women severally, not women as a group). Collective rights are both overlapping andinterdependent with the individual rights of the single members of a group, such as an indigenous
people, not as an alternative to them.
Some confusion may arise over which groups are or should be entitled to be holders of collective
rights. Not all groups of people (e.g., those attending a concert or those with green eyes) may be considered to have a value worth of legal protection through the instrument of rights. Collective rights
are, in fact, justified on the protection of the group per se because it is perceived to have intrinsic
value. Indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities are the groups most commonly argued to be holders of collective rights.101 On the one hand, their collective rights stem from their capacity to hold,maintain and let flourish cultural diversity in society. On the other, they often find themselves inparticularly vulnerable positions. The “effective realization of equality requires in many instances
differential treatment of ethnic groups in ways not necessary for, or even relevant to, other types ofgroups”.102
For what concerns the ICCA Consortium, among the most interesting collective rights are the customary and/or legal tenure rights to a territory, implying access, use, management and the power of
excluding others.103

Are local communities holders of collective rights?
Indigenous peoples are now widely considered by international law and several national laws as
holding intrinsic value collectively (not only as an aggregation of single members). In contrast, local
communities are still struggling to see their collective rights recognized. Local communities, it is attimes argued, are not per se holders of intrinsic value, hence they do not have collective rights per
se. The debate on the recognition of rights to local communities has currently reached the stage ofrecognizing local communities as holders of collective rights only insofar as their lifestyles contributeto achieve internationally agreed values, such as conserving biodiversity or securing the right to life,
food or culture. An important step towards such increased recognition is the adoption by the UN General Assembly of the Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas(UNDROP). Acknowledging their role for food security and sovereignty, UNDROP aims at promoting
specific collective ways of life, as well as their contribution to conserving biodiversity.
The ICCA Consortium is keen to understand and highlight all the instances by which local communities could argue for their collective rights to territory on the basis of customary tenure as well as
contributions to broadly agreed international values, such as the conservation of biodiversity104 but
also the right to life, food105 or the preservation of cultural diversity.

101 Some indigenous peoples are vehemently opposed to being referred in any way as ‘ethnic minorities’.
102 Anaya, 1997, page 223.
103 #Tenure and security of tenure.
104 #Biocultural rights.
105 Pimbert and Borrini-Feyerabend, 2019.

page 24

What is a ‘person’?
What makes or constitutes a ‘person’, or an ‘individual’, is not as straightforward as one might think.
Western predominant view has considered, and entrenched into law, the fact that individuals are biophysical beings detached from one other. It has focused on their single isolated concerns, needs, rights
and duties.
Non-Western cultures and worldviews have often reflected a wider and less mono-centred view of‘person’. As expressed by Torrance:106 “Just as the words ‘father’, ‘mother’, ‘husband’, ‘wife’, ‘brother’,‘sister’ are relational terms, so could be the word ‘person’.” In this sense a person would be “someone who finds his or her true being in relation, in love, in communion [with others]”. If ‘persons’ areperceived in a symbiotic relationship with one another and the world at large, there are profound implications for what society is and what social wellbeing implies.107 For instance, this symbiotic vision
would much more easily conceive territorial rights and responsibility as residing in custodian communities rather than individual landowners.
Key references
Torrance, 1996; Anaya, 1997; Holder and Corntassel, 2002; Waldron, 2002; Stevens, 2010; Jonas, Makagon and Shrumm, 2013; Foggin, 2014; Reyes, 2017.
For more info on the collective rights of indigenous peoples see UNDRIP and for the Declaration on
the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas, see: La Via Campesina

Figure 1. The definition of ‘society’ and its farreaching impact on the outcomes ofdevelopment. (Foggin, 2014).

106 Torrance, 1996.
107 From Foggin, 2014.

page 25

qCollective responsibilities
Collective responsibilities are essential to characterize ICCAs—territories of life. The ability and willingness of a community to uphold its collective responsibilities towards its territory generate the very
relationship that defines an ICCA—territory of life. Governance and management of land, water, air,biodiversity and all other gifts of nature within a territory of life are guided by the sense of common
responsibility that the community shares, transmits to future generations, and reflects in its institutions and cultural, social and spiritual norms.
Collective responsibilities prompt the community to maintain its practices that are beneficial for nature as well as for its own livelihoods and wellbeing and ground their request for appropriate recognition and support of their role as custodians. The perpetuation of collective responsibilities highlights the relevance of ICCAs—territories of life for conservation, while offering a radical alternative
to those approaches that are based on dispossession, and the consequent removal of responsibility of
local communities. Reserving conservation action to the state (government, protected area agencies),
holders of concessions, or private landowners alone is surely a waste of opportunities and capacities.108
The ICCA Consortium aims at promoting the conservation of nature while nurturing the livelihoods
and wellbeing of indigenous peoples and local communities through their sustainable self-determination and full respect of their collective rights and responsibilities.
Key references
Corntassel, 2008; Corntassel, 2012; Corntassel J. and C. Bryce. 2012.

108 #Sustainable self-determination.

page 26

q

Self-determination

The right to self-determination is “the right of a cohesive national group (‘people’) living in a territory
to choose for itself a form of political and legal organization for that territory. It is a collective right ofindigenous peoples to freely determine their own social, political, cultural and economic status.”109
Self-determination has frequently been associated with the will of a people to obtain secession fromthe state it resides in.111 For this reason, states have often been reluctant to recognize the right toself-determination of indigenous peoples.110 However, indigenous peoples have often called for forms
of self-determination that do not entail secession.112 They called for forms of autonomy that include‘internal self-determination’, predominantly aimed at asserting nationhood, perpetuating indigeneity,preserving languages and cultural practices, honouring place-based relationships, respecting territorial integrity and maintaining traditional governance structures.113
The right to self-determination of indigenous peoples is the core precept and principle that all otherindigenous rights are based on. Both the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples andConvention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the International Labour Organization describe
the right to self-determination as the right of indigenous peoples to “exercise control over their own
institutions, ways of life and economic development and to maintain and develop their identities,
languages and religions, within the framework of the States in which they live”, and as the prerequisite for the realisation of the right to be equal but different: i.e. the right to maintain cultural, religious and economic traditions and social institutions separate from those of the dominant part of thesociety.
The right to self-determination entails the right to free, prior, informed consent (FPIC)114 in all cases
when lands, water, air, biological diversity and all other gifts of nature might be affected by externalmeasures, projects and public policies. This also concerns other sectors such as education, justice, or
social security programmes that may affect indigenous peoples. An insightful elaboration of the concept of ‘self-determination’ is described below as ‘sustainable self-determination’
Key references
Anaya, 1996; Xanthaki, 2007; Anaya, 2009; Tomaselli, 2016.

109 Reyes, 2017.
110 Anaya, 1996, page 98, note 4.
111 Xanthaki, 2007, page 140.
112 Ibid, page 146; Anaya 1996, page 111.
113 This, however, is “more than merely choosing among what is on offer from one political or economic position only.” (Cassese 1995, page 101).
114 #Free, Prior and Informed Consent.

page 27

qSustainable self-determination
Claims of self-determination of indigenous peoples (and local communities) are generally dealt with bystate governments and international human rights lawyers. They depend in many ways on the presence and role of state governments and/or international systems of law, such as UN Conventions andtreaties. The nuanced concept of ‘sustainable self-determination’ provides a profoundly diverse understanding of indigenous peoples and their complex relationships to place and the natural world. The
concept, developed by the Cherokee scholar Jeff Corntassel and readily welcomed and adopted by the
ICCA Consortium, proposes an alternative to state-led processes of ‘allowing self-determination’ thatremain entrenched in patterns of colonialism (the State – perpetuator of violence – supposedly becomes
the saviour that provides solutions to indigenous struggles; these solutions are based on liberalism andfragmented rights frameworks, detached from indigenous identities and custodianship roles).
Sustainable self-determination proposes to regain sight of the centrality of relational responsibilities, as
opposed to a strict focus on a rights-based system where nature and people – the community, family,clan, kinship, homelands – are detached one from the other, taken for granted, and only used to respondto the needs of individuals. According to Corntassel, the transmission of indigenous and local knowledge to future generations, and the generation of new forms of community knowledge – something that
happens, or should happen, in the daily relations of maintaining livelihoods – are the necessary groundto express sustainable self-determination. Importantly, such responsibilities extend beyond humans
alone, to the rest of nature. Such relational responsibilities, rooted in place and kinship and often contained or expressed through customs and norms rather than codified in legal statutes and/or court decisions, characterise mature communities, ready to both command respect for their rights and fulfil their
responsibilities.115
The concept rebalances attention towards the local, the community, the reality of the lives and identityof indigenous peoples and local communities rather than towards national and international fora, which
are not part of the history, institutions or culture of many such peoples and communities. The process ofsustainable self-determination focuses on the myriad ways in which indigenous nations and local communities act every day to protect and perpetuate their territories of life while nurturing and strengthening their own community health and well-being. In this sense, sustainability, care for the environmentand care for future generations are at the same time goals and means of regeneration and renewal.
The re-discovery and implementation of customary law may lead to a resurgence of indigenous peoples and local communities beyond the state, as distant as possible from the processes of assimilation
into mainstream culture that currently endangers indigenous and community identities and sustainable ways of life. Sustainable self-determination means regaining vision and control of indigenous andcommunity cosmo-visions, livelihoods, sacred sites and rites, languages, culture and economic systems.
By maintaining (or regenerating) the ability to transmit them to future generations, it sets in motion avirtuous cycle of thriving nature through responsibility and care. In this sense, sustainable self-determination is at the very heart of the concept and practice of ‘territories of life’ and of the ICCA Consortium
as an organisation devoted to their appropriate recognition and support.
Key references
Corntassel, 2008; Corntassel, 2012; Corntassel and Bryce, 2012; Farvar et al., 2018.

115 Importantly, as stressed by Kothari et al. (2012) such mature communities should also be open to enhance their own internal equity, including
regarding classes of age, socio-economic status and gender (#Gender).

page 28

qSustainable use of biodiversity

According to the Convention on Biological Diversity, sustainable use entails the “use of biodiversity
components in a manner in which ecological processes, species and genetic variability remain above
thresholds needed for long-term viability”.116
Article 10(c) of the same Convention calls on Parties to: “...protect and encourage customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices that are compatible with conservationor sustainable use requirements”. The use of biological resources may concern grasslands establishedand maintained to allow seasonal grazing of livestock, which also provide habitats for other species. It
may relate to fisheries managed as to maintain fish biodiversity, or to agricultural practices that conserve traditional crop diversity. In all these and many other cases, sustainable uses are “developed overgenerations, based on experience with specific places and species within the territory, the seasons andclimate” and are “closely linked both to traditional knowledge as well as to a particular territory”.117

Many ICCAs—territories of life embed communities’ cultural and spiritual values that guide practices
for the sustainable use of the various gifts of nature they contain. Such practices are rooted in the past inorder to fulfil present responsibilities towards the environment and guarantee the well-being of future
generations (intergenerational equity). They are a powerful tool to meet many of the UN Sustainable
Development Goals,118 including eradication of poverty and hunger, and the promotion of sustainablecommunities, which conserve and restore biodiversity because of the social, cultural and economic benefits they derive from it.

What promotes communities’ sustainable use of biodiversity?
Sustainable uses and practices are greatly supported whenever custodian indigenous peoples and local
communities are effectively engaged in decision making, have security over the long-term tenure of
their territory and biodiversity,119 and remain capable of exercising their self-determining authority overthem.120 The presence of local governance institutions and their ability to create and enforce rules responding to changing circumstances is essential to secure sustainable use.121
When communities do not hold, or are not perceived to hold, long-term rights to their territories of life,
when they are denied or unduly limited in the use of its natural resources and/or when they are denied
access to their traditional lands, the sustainable practices they hold are in danger of being impaired,forgotten or replaced by resentment and unsustainable attitudes. The important role for state governments is to make sustainable uses more locally beneficial than unsustainable ones. When communities
are entrusted with local governance and when the benefits arising from local resources are fairly andequitably shared, sustainable use is more likely to occur.122
On a global scale, indigenous peoples and local communities find themselves embedded in the current
capitalist economic system, whose main goal is the rapid maximization of economic profits, driving ecologically unsustainable growth. At the core of the disregard for the social and environmental impacts ofprofit maximization stands the occupation and colonization of collective lands and waterways and theunsustainable exploitation of gifts of nature in territories of life. All this discourages, when it does not
impede, sustainable uses, even in the case of well-established communities.
Key references:
Convention on Biological Diversity, 2004b; Bélair et al., 2010; Forest People Programme, 2011; Hodges
et al., 2014; Tengö et al., 2017; Wittman et al., 2017; Cooney et al., 2018; Robinson et al., 2018; Child andCooney, 2019; Dacks et al., 2019.
116 Convention on Biological Diversity 2004b, Addis Ababa Principles.
117 Forest Peoples Programme, 2011, page 6.
118 The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are the United Nation’s set of 17 goals for a sustainable future, each with its respective targets(on poverty, inequality, climate, etc.), to be reached by 2030; see: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/
119 Cooney et al., 2018.; see also #Appropriate recognition, #Land Tenure.
120 This latter point has been highlighted by Marshall Murphree (Murphree, 2009) and stressed by Jeff Corntassel (Corntassel, 2012).
121 #Governance vitality.
122 Cooney et al., 2018.

page 29

qSustainable livelihoods“A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources), andactivities required to secure the means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope withand recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now
and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base”.123 Living sustainably (‘having
a sustainable livelihood’) is an important component and indicator of individual and community
wellbeing.
Understanding whether sustainable livelihoods are in place requires a holistic approach, able tolook at the interactions between biodiversity and the ecological functions of the natural environment
and the cultural, social, institutional and economic practices of the relevant community. The assets,
capabilities and activities required to secure the means of living generally include natural resources(e.g., farmland, water, livestock, forests, wildlife – including pollinators and fisheries – minerals...),
economic resources (e.g., buildings, stored goods, machineries, utensils, equipment, cash...), intangible
assets (e.g., institutional capacities, knowledge and know-how, respect...), social resources (e.g.,
networks, relationships, social cohesion...) and communal practices (e.g., enforcement of rules,
surveillance activities...).
In the context of ICCAs—territories of life, sustainable livelihoods comprise all those assets,
capabilities and activities that a community requires to be able to maintain its own livelihoods but
also to maintain the web of relationships that promote its well-being and ensure the exercise of its
collective responsibility towards the local environment – including the conservation of ecosystem
functions and biological diversity. For that, ‘sustainable livelihoods’ requires the maintenance of thediversity of life – human as well as not human. It requires the functioning of governance institutions
that regulate access to, and use of, land, water, air, biodiversity and other gifts of nature.124 And
it requires national and international policy regimes that are favourable and not detrimental to
livelihoods. Sustainable livelihoods demand the engagement of the custodian communities, orrepresentatives trusted by them, at all these levels.125
Key references
Chambers and Conway, 1992; Singh, 1996; Krantz, 2001; Cooney et al., 2018.
See also: Sustainable Development Goals

123 Chambers and Conway, 1992.
124 #Governance.
125 Cooney et al., 2018.

page 30

q

q Conservationq

The ICCA Consortium has adopted the definition of ‘conservation’ established by the World Conservation Strategy of 1980, namely: “…[conservation is] a positive endeavour including: maintenance of
ecological process and life-support systems; preservation of genetic diversity; sustainable utilization of
species and ecosystems; restoration and enhancement of the natural environment”.126 While the practice of conserving nature is as old as people, the concept of ‘conservation’ is relatively recent, has gone
through profound changes, and remains today diverse and contested. The beginning of the concept
may be found in royalist and colonial attitudes, aimed at creating areas with abundant wildlife that
could be easily hunted by a privileged few.127 The nascent tourism industry brought the promotion ofa ‘nature wilderness’ mystique, with national parks as its beacons, accessible only to privileged customers.128 And, throughout the last century, conservation has been shaped by anthropocentric approaches oriented towards “efficient, scientifically informed management of natural resources”129 andthe preservation of wildlife by professionalised agencies and dedicated policies.
Today, the idea of pristine ecosystems untouched-by-humans has mostly been abandoned, but thenotion and practice of ‘fortress conservation’130 unfortunately remains relatively frequent.131 Morecomprehensive attitudes can also be found in both literature and practice. In the last few decades,
community- and rights-based conservation has become more popular among governmental agencies
and conservation organisations – in name if not always in deeds.132 Although translation between theconcept of conservation and indigenous outlooks is not straightforward,133 some indigenous peoples
and local communities have even been willing to appropriate the concept for themselves and adapt
it to their own practices. In this sense, conservation by indigenous peoples and local communities(‘indigenous conservation’)134 is self-determined, rooted in local contexts, and has led to sustaining
innumerable territories of life throughout the world. This is what many indigenous peoples andlocal communities have been practicing for generations, applying their adaptive knowledge and skills,
and negotiating, deciding and enforcing their customary laws and collective rules about access to anduse of land, water, biodiversity and other gifts of nature.
Indigenous conservation does not distinguish between conservation and community wellbeing,as setting them in opposition would undermine the social relations and cultural norms that havesuccessfully conserved nature through time. Indigenous conservation is not technocratic nor
implemented through state institutions and laws. It is conservation based on local collective capacities
and rights, and the free assumption of collective responsibilities as part of cultural, spiritual and social
practices.135 Indigenous conservation and the perpetuation of relationships that sustain a community’s
territories of life are central to territories of life and sustainable self-determination.

Can ICCAs-territories of life deliver conservation results on a pair with‘fortress conservation’?
Fortress conservation approaches and conservation by indigenous peoples and local communities maylead to similar results, but their means and objectives are radically different. While fortress conserva126 IUCN, 1980.
127 Adams, 2004.
128 Colchester, 2002.
129 Sodhi and Ehrlich, 2010, page 10.
130 Brockington, 2002.
131 Wilshusen et al., 2002. For the current debate on resurging strict conservation actions, see Wilson (2016) and the critiques raised, among theothers, by Fletcher and Büscher (2016).
132 See, for instance, Gavin et al., 2015.
133 Nadasdy, 2005; Feit, 2007.
134 Farvar et al., 2018.
135 Berkes, 1999.

page 31tion requires the fencing-off of peoples and communities from designated territories, indigenous andcommunity conservation acts through the maintenance of equilibrium and synergy between humanand natural elements, or their re-creation when disrupted. While in fortress conservation management is delegated to professional experts and guards, in indigenous and community conservation theconcerned people themselves define and implement conservation measures. There are innumerable
examples of territories of life where the management practices are very similar to those that pertain
to conventional protected areas. These include: securing strict protection levels that avoid any type ofdisrespect, disturbance or change to specific sites; securing sustainable use of resources while guaranteeing the preservation of large ecosystems; conserving specific natural features, species or habitats.136
These examples of management practices in indigenous and community conservation are found insacred sites, the territories of peoples in voluntary isolation, community-based wildlife sanctuaries
and the many areas where customary rules regulate access and use of biodiversity. Overall, the contribution of territories of life to conservation, both within and outside protected areas, is today undisputable and broadly recognised.137
Key references:Muir, 1901; IUCN, 1980; Stevens, 1997 (and Nietschmann quoted therein); Berkes, 1999; Posey, 1999;
Colchester, 1994; Chatty and Colchester, 2002; Wilshusen et al., 2002; Murombedzi, 2003; Adams, 2004;
Nadasdy, 2005; Feit, 2007; Sodhi and Ehrlich, 2010; Kothari, Camill and Brown et al., 2013; Gavin etal., 2015; Oldekop et al., 2015; Jonas, Makagon and Roe, 2016; Corrigan et al., 2018; Farvar et al., 2018;
Garnett et al., 2018; Büscher and Fletcher, 2019.

136 Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2010. For similarities and differences between types of ICCAs and types of protected areas, see: Kothari et al., 2012.
137 Corrigan et al., 2018 and Garnett et al. 2018, and references therein.

page 32

qBiocultural diversity
A long-term sustainable and mutually beneficial relationship with their life environment characterizes theexistence of many indigenous peoples and local communities.138 Such inextricable link between their cultural
diversity and biological diversity was framed by Darrel Posey under the term ‘biocultural diversity’. Based on
Posey’s work, the Code of Ethics of the International Society of Ethnobiology defines biocultural heritage as “thecultural heritage (both tangible and intangible, including customary law, folklore, spiritual values, knowledge,
innovations and practices) and biological heritage (diversity of genes, varieties, species and ecosystem provisioning, regulating, and cultural services) of Indigenous Peoples, traditional societies and local communities”. It further recognises that the cultural and biological heritage “are inextricably linked through the interaction between
peoples and nature over time and shaped by their socio­ecological and economic context”.
The term ‘biocultural diversity’ denotes the idea that “maintaining and restoring the diversity of life means
sustaining both biodiversity and cultures, because the two are interrelated and mutually supportive”.139 Collectively held and transmitted from one generation to the next, biocultural diversity is the foundation and essential
feature that makes ICCAs—territories of life possible. The very role of indigenous peoples and local communities as custodians of their life environment is entrenched in the existence of biocultural diversity, the diverse governance and management practices and institutions that sustainably use and conserve nature in the long-term.140
Key references:Posey (ed.), 1999; Borrini-Feyerabend, MacDonald and Maffi, 2004; Maffi, 2007; Maffi and Woodley, 2010;
Kothari et al., 2012; Wilson, 2016; First North American Dialogue on Biocultural Diversity, 2019.
See also: IIED page on Cultural Heritage; International Society of Ethnobiology

138 Garnett et al., 2018; Corrigan et al., 2018.
139 Maffi, 2007, page 1. See also Borrini-Feyerabend,MacDonald and Maffi, 2004 and First North American Dialogue on Biocultural Diversity,
2019.
140 #Sustainable use #Conservation #Sustainable self-determination.

page 33

qBiocultural rights

The term ‘biocultural rights’ has been introduced relatively recently. It describes a bundle of collective rights of indigenous peoples and local communities grounded in the recognition of their custodianship of the environment.
The concept of biocultural rights “denote(s) all the rights required to secure the stewardship role of communities over their lands and waters [...] irrespective of whether or not they have a formal title to it”.141 Bioculturalrights are not, as yet, part of international law, but are the result of the interpretation of international multilateralenvironmental agreements, court cases and policies – such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Nagoya Protocol, the Endorois Welfare Council v. Kenya, the UN Forum on Forests, and documents of the UN Foodand Agriculture Organization (FAO) and International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Biocultural rights are a bundle of rights with a double foundation. On the one hand, we find the promotion andconservation of the cultural identity and self-determination of indigenous peoples and local communities. On
the other hand, we find the conservation of nature. Since each people or community has different needs depending on chosen lifestyle and livelihoods, the biocultural rights bundle can hardly be conceptualised as a static
set of pre-defined rights. Nevertheless, rights may be clustered under four categories: 1. protection of cultural
integrity; 2. self-determination; 3. access to, and use of, lands, waters and other gifts of life;142 and 4. relevant procedural rights. Their double foundation, i.e. the fact that conservation of nature acts as one of their justifications,
makes biocultural rights a sui generis category of emerging human rights, one by which the same actors— indigenous peoples and local communities— are not only recognised as holders of collective rights but also as
collective holders of the duty to maintain their role as custodians of nature. In other words, when rights are recognized because of a custodianship role, such role needs to be maintained for the relevant actor to remain holderof biocultural rights. Interestingly, Gandhi used to stress that rights follow responsibilities and not the other way
round: we hold rights only insofar we fulfil responsibilities towards other humans and the rest of nature.143

Can biocultural rights promote ICCAs—territories of life & thesustainable self-determination of their custodians?
With regard to some specific ICCAs—territories of life, the custodian indigenous peoples or local communities may find it useful to ask for the recognition of the right to fully govern and manage their lands andterritories because they demonstrate their capacity to achieve, or move towards, the conservation of ecosystems, habitats, species and genetic diversity. In such specific cases, the concept of biocultural rights could
well suit their needs. This is particularly true for local communities. As yet, local communities144 are notsubjects of international law, but their recognition as collective rightsholders145 could be linked to their roleas custodians of the environment. Hence, the concept of biocultural rights is suitable to apply to their case.
The case of indigenous peoples is more complex. Indigenous peoples are already holders of rights recognized by international law and by many (though not yet all) states. Such rights are grounded on their indigeneity, not on their role as environmental custodians. Thus, biocultural rights are to be considered withcaution vis à vis indigenous peoples, as they require an environmental conditionality that they may not be
ready to accept. Because of this conditionality, some would consider them as a ‘second-best option’, to be
strategically adopted only if indigenous rights are denied. On the contrary, many in the ICCA Consortium
believe that the collective responsibility freely assumed by local communities and indigenous peoples
to care for their environment of life is a privileged choice, assumed willingly and proudly and one of themain pathways to ‘decolonise’ themselves in sustainable self-determination.146 Claiming bio-culturalrights per se or, as the case may be, in addition to indigenous rights is a strategic choice increasingly considered by indigenous peoples and local communities aiming at sustainable self-determination.147
Key references
Jonas, Makagon and Shrumm, 2013; Bavikatte, 2014; Bavikatte and Bennett 2015; Sajeva, 2018.
See also: Biocultural Community Protocol; John Knox message to the ICCA Consortium
141 Bavikatte, 2014, page 16 and page 143.
142 …what some would call ‘natural resources’.
143 Ashish Kothari, personal communication, 2019.
144 #Local Communities.
145 #Collective rights.
146 #Sustainable self-determination.

page 34

147 See the case of the Integral Autonomous Territory of the Wampis
Nation, Peru. Lacking ownership titles for core parts of its

ancestral territory, the Wampis Nation now claims collective
rights over its ‘integral territory’ (including all lands, waterbodies,
underground, and the sky), based on the right to maintain theirlifestyle and spiritual relationships with non-human beings. In
addition to international law, this claim is also justified throughthe custodian role that these beings, and the Wampis themselves,
are assuming for the conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity.
See: https://www.servindi.org/actualidad/144577; Surrallés,
2017; Niederberger, forthcoming.

qIndigenous customary law & community protocols
Indigenous customary law has been defined as “that body of customs, norms and associated practices, which have been developed or adopted by indigenous peoples or local communities, whether
maintained in oral or written format, to regulate their activities and which they consider to be binding upon them without the need for reference to national or other temporal authorities”.148 Most
indigenous peoples around the world still rely on their customary law and institutions to govern andmanage their lands, territories and environmental resources. Indigenous “customary law serves tobind and strengthen communities and acts as a foil to the erratic toss and turn of state law.”149 Not all
indigenous law – i.e. all norms, institutions, decision making procedures, means of enforcement, etc –are customary, as they may also include laws derived from state sources, from collective deliberations
or from natural law. Customary law in today’s world exists in a condition of ‘inter-legality’.150
International law (e.g., ILO Convention 169, UNDRIP) explicitly recognizes the indigenous right totheir own institutions and legal custom. However, different peoples enjoy different levels of nationalrecognition of customary law, ranging from officially accepted to openly opposed. The relationshipwith state law and with international (human rights) law is complex and often problematic, but it isessential for the protection and thriving of indigenous peoples’ ways of life, as it is intertwined with
their identities, practices and self-determination. Well-functioning and long-lasting ICCAs–territories
of life are often accompanied by some form of state recognition of customary/indigenous law.
One of the many challenges concerning the interaction between customary/indigenous law and state
law is the fact that the first, in order to maintain its adaptive and dynamic character, is often resistant
to be codified (which is, instead, the classic form of statutory law). Thanks to the advocacy by indigenous representatives and NGOs, however, international law has incorporated an instrument to address that reluctance: community protocols.
Articles 12 and 22 of the Nagoya Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity call on parties
to implement their obligations taking into consideration the customary laws of indigenous and local
communities and their community protocols when dealing with the access and use of natural resources and traditional knowledge.151 Community protocols are instruments in the form of documents
in which communities assert specific rules and regulations regarding their territories of life, and theaccess to, and use of, biodiversity based on their rights, goals, and worldviews. These rules can bederived from customary as well as non-customary indigenous law. Community protocols are compiled after extensive internal consultations and legal awareness raising, usually facilitated by NGOsor community-based organizations. Although this entails a certain formalization of rules embedded
in customary practice and oral transmission, such protocols are context-specific and can be revisedby the community itself, unlike statutory laws. They are important as they can increase the capacityof a community to reflect upon and possibly regenerate customary laws, values, principles, needs andcustodianship roles, and can promote local implementation of international and national environmental laws. In a broader sense, protocols are useful to show to others (e.g. local governments or protectedarea managers) that the custodian communities, and their customary/ indigenous law, have importantroles to play in governing and managing territories and conserving nature, which deserve appropriate
forms of recognition and support.
Key references
Santos, 2001; Bavikatte and Jonas, 2009; Shrumm and Jonas, 2012; Swiderska et al., 2012; Tobin, 2013;
Tobin, 2014; Weitzner, 2018.
See also: Biocultural Community Protocols; IIED page on Cultural Heritage.

148 Tobin, 2014, page 10.
149 Ibid, page 1.
150 Santos, 2001; Weitzner 2018.
151 #Traditional knowledge.

page 35

qProtected areas
Protected areas have been identified by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as one of thefundamental instruments for the promotion of in-situ conservation, acting as positive drivers of biodiversity protection, preservation of environmental services, and climate change mitigation. For the
CBD a protected area is a “geographically defined area which is designated or regulated and managed
to achieve specific conservation objectives.” The IUCN has a broadly equivalent, although richer, definition. For IUCN a protected area is “a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated andmanaged, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature
with associated ecosystem services and cultural values”.152
The IUCN also stresses that, in order to qualify as ‘protected’, an area
must be managed with conservationof nature as a conscious management
objective, which “must prevail in caseof conflict with other, equally legitimate, objectives”.153 Protected areas
currently encompass 14.9% of world
land (over 20 million Km2) and 7.3% ofmarine areas (over 6 million Km2),154
under diverse management categories
and governance types. The IUCN has
identified six management categories,
each characterised by a main management objective (e.g., to protect the longterm ecological integrity of an area; toprotect a representative ecosystem ora valuable natural feature; to maintainor restore a species, habitat, landscape,Figure 2. The IUCN Matrix of management categories andor the sustainable use of some natural
governance types (Dudley 2008).
resources; etc.). The IUCN also distinguishes four main governance types
for protected areas, depending on who holds main authority, responsibility and accountability for the
key decisions (government agencies; private or corporate landowners; indigenous peoples and local
communities; or several of them together).155
Regardless of management category, protected areas may belong to any governance type. Conversely,
regardless of governance type, they can be managed to fit any management category. The many possible combinations of management category and governance type (see Figure 2 below) add flexibility tothe protected area instrument for different aims and circumstances.156
Territories and areas governed, managed and conserved by their custodian indigenous peoples andlocal communities – in fewer words ‘ICCAs— territories of life’— are today one of the four main
governance types officially recognised for protected areas by both the IUCN and the CBD.157
Given that they were nowhere to be found in the mental landscape of conservationists up to the end
152 Dudley, 2008, page 8.
153 Borrini-Feyerabend and Hill, 2015, page 177.
154 UNEP-WCMC, IUCN and NGS, 2018, page 6.
155 Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013; #Governance
156 Borrini-Feyerabend and Hill, 2015, Box 7.5.
157 Convention on Biological Diversity, 2004a; Convention on Biological Diversity, 2018a; Convention on Biological Diversity 2018b; Dudley,
2008; IUCN, 2003; IUCN, 2014.

page 36

of the past millennium, this recognition is very important. But the requirement of the paramountconservation objective is an obstacle for some custodians. They may be conserving their territories, but
the objective may be their own livelihoods or spiritual fulfilment or anything else they chose. In thissense they may have ‘conserved territories or areas’ but do not fit in the protected area label under the
IUCN definition. This very fact is in good part responsible for the coming to prominence of the term
‘conserved areas’ in conservation circles.158
CBD Aichi Target 11 requires protected areas to be equitably managed (a fact that should be better
expressed as ‘equitably governed’).159 CBD decisions at various COPs have explained that this entails
recognition and respect for the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities as well as theirpositive involvement in governance and management. This is expected to ensure that their knowledge, capacities and institutions do contribute to conservation, while they also receive fair benefits
from it. In line with this, the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Area recommended enhancing
diversity of governance in protected area systems, thus recognising and supporting ICCAs. And CBD
COP 14 has recently approved a Voluntary guidance on effective governance models for managementof protected areas, including equity.160 While steps forward have been made, a policy-to-practice lagremains and emerging international principles struggle to be translated in domestic legal systems.
The historical ‘command and control’ approach to protected areas is still too often reflected in current
processes of establishment and implementation. Most protected areas have been set-up by imposition,
excluding pre-existing rightsholders and custodians. Today, even in the countries that have tried toovercome past negative approaches, one can still perceive a nature-culture dualism161 at odds with thevalues and conservation practices of many indigenous peoples.162
Importantly, even though they are widespread and encompass very diverse areas, protected areas are under serious pressure,163 and certainly do not encompass all areas valuable for the conservation of nature.164

Protected areas overlapping with ICCAs: negotiating borders & governance types
Frequently, protected areas have been established over pre-existing ICCAs—territories of life.165 In
such cases of ‘overlaps’, the local customary governance and management practices that achieved conservation through time are at risk of being undermined or impaired, and particularly so when there islittle recognition of the value of the role of their custodian indigenous peoples or local communities.
These problematic practices can be improved through dialogue and negotiated agreements and arrangements between governments and ICCA custodians, often as a result of affirmation of indigenous
peoples’ and local communities’ collective rights and responsibilities and possible revisions of national laws and administrative rules and regulations.166

158 #Conserved areas.
159 The 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets are to be reached by 2020, in order to achieve the 5 strategic goals of the CBD. See: https://www.cbd.int/sp/
targets/
160 Convention on Biological Diversity, 2018b.
161 ‘Nature-culture dualism’ is the understanding that human culture is separate from, and superior to, nature. This believe is foundational forWestern modernism and enabled colonialism, i.e., the dominance over the ‘natural world’ as well as peoples considered ‘close to nature’. See
Blaser, 2013.
162 Lee, 2016.
163 Jones et al., 2018.
164 #Conserved areas.
165 Stevens et al. 2016. ICCAs can be overlapped not only by protected areas but also by concessions granted by the State to extractive industries,
even within protected areas. All ICCAs are vulnerable to overlap of extractive industrial concessions and State promotion of large-scale infrastructure projects. Some indigenous peoples and local communities have sought protected area status for their territories and lands in the hopeof preventing these external impacts on their ICCAs. But in many countries even protected areas are not necessarily safe from these threats(Stevens et al., 2016 and Stevens, Pathak Broome and Jaeger, 2016).
166 See, for example, Mulrennan, Scott and Scott, 2019.

page 37

Overlapped ICCAs can be recognised through diverse means. An ICCA can be recognised as aprotected area governed by its custodians, with their free, prior and informed consent and, where
needed, by providing assistance to local governance institutions, as in the case of the Indigenous
Protected Areas of Australia.167 A shared governance arrangement could be developed for the entire
protected area with provisions ensuring respect for the overlapped ICCAs, as in the case of Yapoporis
National Park of Colombia.168 The custodians may be recognised an official governance role in a given
section of the protected area. Or the protected area borders may be modified to exclude the ICCA
territory.
IUCN has adopted multiple policies calling for recognition and support for ICCAs,169 which include
ICCAs within protected areas as stressed by IUCN Resolutions,170 the World Conservation Congress of
2016171 and CBD Decisions.172 Guidelines are now in development by IUCN and the ICCA Consortium
to provide best practice guidance for recognising and respecting overlapped ICCAs in protected areasof all governance types and management categories.173

Can protected areas work in isolation?
Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2010-2020 calls the Parties to the Convention to achieve the following: “By 2020, at least 17% of terrestrial and inland water areas and 10%of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystemservices, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative andwell-connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, andintegrated into the wider landscape and seascape”.174 The CBD thus calls for the promotion of systems
of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures – recognising that isolated areas are unable to fulfil meaningful conservation objectives. One can also interpret ‘systems’ as
referring to a desirable multiplicity of management categories and governance types in the landscape/seascape.
Key references
IUCN, 2003; Dudley, 2008; Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013; IUCN, 2014; Stevens et al., 2016; Stevens,
Pathak Broome and Jaeger, 2016; World Conservation Congress, 2016; Convention on Biological Diversity 2018a; Convention on Biological Diversity, 2018b; Garnett et al., 2018; UNEP-WCMC, IUCN and
NGS, 2018. Mulrennan, Scott and Scott, 2019.
See also: Protected planet

167 See: https://www.environment.gov.au/land/indigenous-protected-areas.
168 See: http://www.parquesnacionales.gov.co/portal/es/parques-nacionales/parque-nacional-natural-yaigoje-apaporis/.
169 IUCN, 2004.
170 IUCN, 2012.
171 IUCN, 2014.
172 Convention on Biological Diversity, 2016.
173 Steven et al., forthcoming. Two ICCA Consortium publications already provide some guidance: the ICCA Consortium Policy Brief no. 4, whichsummarises concerns and discussions related to ICCAs overlaps with protected areas, and an in-depth report that includes greater attention to
relevant international law and policy (Stevens et al. 2016; Stevens, Pathak Broome and Jaeger, 2016).
174 Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010; see also Convention on Biological Diversity 2011c.

page 38

qConserved areas
In an intuitive sense, ‘conserved areas’ are territories or areas that achieve conservation de facto. They
were defined in 2015 as areas that “regardless of recognition and dedication, and at times even regardless of explicit and conscious management practices, achieve conservation de facto and/or are in a positive conservation trend and likely to maintain this trend in the long term”.175 In this sense, conserved
areas are clearly not one and the same with protected areas, but they have overlaps, e.g. wherever aprotected area manages to achieve its conservation objectives. In some cases, however, protected areas
do not achieve their conservation mission – i.e. they are protected but not conserved. In other cases,
however, areas that are not listed as protected do achieve conservation. Many ICCAs—territories if life
are examples of the latter situation: they conserve nature de facto, as part of biocultural systems, without being listed in an official protected areas system (other ICCAs are included in the protected areas
system, with or without the consent of the original custodians).
Since 2010, the Convention on Biological Diversity has used the term ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ (OECMs), which are defined as “geographically defined areas other than protected areas, which are governed and managed in ways that achieve positive and sustained long-term
outcomes for the in situ conservation of biodiversity, with associated ecosystem functions and services
and, where applicable, cultural, spiritual, socio–economic, and other locally relevant values”.176 ‘Conserved areas’ should not be used as synonymous for OECMs for more than one reason. As conservation happens also in areas that are not at all governed or managed, the overlap cannot be complete.
But conservation also happens in protected areas, and OECMs are defined as being entirely separate
from protected areas. Thus, equating OECMs with ‘conserved areas’ would have the paradoxical consequence that the terms ‘protected’ and ‘conserved’ would be incompatible in CBD parlance. A morelogical conceptual arrangement is shown in figure 3 and 4 below:
Figure 3. Schematic overlap ofconserved areas, protectedareas and other effectivearea-based conservation
measures (OECMs).
(The size of shapes is notreflecting estimates ofcoverage).

Figure 4. Schematic overlap ofconserved areas, protectedareas, other effectivearea-based conservation
measures (OECMs) andICCAs—territories of life.
(The size of shapes is notreflecting estimates ofcoverage).

175 Borrini-Feyerabend and Hill, 2015, page 178.
176 Convention on Biological Diversity, 2018b.

page 39

In Figure 4, ICCAs— territories of life are shown as fully overlapping with conserved areas but alsowith protected areas or OECMs. It is up to the community custodians of the specific territories of life
to decide whether they wish to be recognised as protected areas, as OECMs or do not wish any such
recognition and overlap. Conserved areas whose borders, governance institutions, and management
practices are not recognised could be more vulnerable, but inappropriate recognition may be worse
than no recognition at all. The ICCA Consortium strives for the appropriate recognition of ICCAs—
territories of life at local, national and international levels, and for providing them with appropriate
support.177
Despite the crucial role of conserved areas, their total extent on our planet is currently not known ormonitored. The organisation dedicated to monitor global conservation (World Conservation Monitoring Centre of UN Environment, or WCMC) has focused for decades only on data about protected areas submitted by state governments178 and only recently opened-up to listing various forms ofgovernance of protected areas and OECMs. Interestingly, it accepts today data on ICCAs—territories
of life and encourages directly submission by their community custodians. In association with the
ICCA Consortium, WCMC has been recommending that community custodians organise their own
peer-support and peer-review networks to provide data comparability and quality control.179
Of major value for understanding both conserved areas and territories of life is the question of theextent of their overlap. In her pioneer analysis, Liz Alden Wily (2011a) spoke of up to 8.54 billion hectares being under some form of communal, collective control or legitimate claim (‘commons’). Alden
Wily stressed that this, which represents 65% of terrestrial surface, includes most of the world’s forests(woodlands and mangroves), wetlands, and rangelands. Logically, the commons include most of thebiodiversity and ‘conserved areas’ on our planet. If we reduce her estimate and take a very conservative value of only 6 billion hectares of commons existing on our planet and an even more conservative estimate that only half of that possesses an active local governance institution, we still obtain an
estimate of 3 billion hectares (about one quart of planetary terrestrial surface) of territories of life or‘conserved areas’ governed by their custodian indigenous peoples and local communities. Recently,
Garnett et al. (2018) have confirmed these estimates. They noted that indigenous peoples alone havetenure rights over at least 3.8 billion hectares in 87 countries, intersecting with about 40% of all terrestrial protected areas and ecologically sound landscapes (for example, boreal and tropical primary
forests, savannas and marshes). More analyses are needed but it is today impossible to doubt thesignificance of territories of life for both conservation of nature and human cultures, livelihoods andwellbeing.
Key references
Alden Wily, 2011a; Jonas et al., 2014; Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2014; Borrini-Feyerabend and Hill, 2015;
Convention on Biological Diversity, 2018; Garnett et al., 2018; UNEP-WCMC, IUCN and NGS, 2018.
See also: Landmark; WRI page on indigenous and community land rights

177 #Appropriate recognition, #Appropriate support.
178 In this way it was relatively easier to gather data, and the data reflected the power base of UN agencies: state governments. See UNEP-WCMC,
IUCN and NGS, 2018.
179 #Networks focusing on ICCAs—territories of life.

page 40

qManagement
Management and governance – while closely intertwined in practice – are best understood as separate
activities. Management pertains to using the means and carrying out the actions to achieve a certain
objective, i.e. “the process of assembling and using sets of resources in a goal-directed manner toaccomplish tasks in an organization”.180 For example, a given territory can be managed to ensure themaintenance of its ecological functions through various steps: planning; organising; budgeting andallocating resources; carrying out various activities, including surveillance and enforcement of rules;
monitoring results; evaluating and re-adjusting plans according to lessons learned; etc. The necessary resources may include human resources with relevant capacities, experience and skills; financial
resources; various types of information (e.g., legislation, ecological data, financial markets); as well as
natural resources (e.g., land, water, seeds, animal and plant species, pollinators).
In the context of processes by which ICCAs—territories of life are maintained and strengthened bytheir custodians, management usually includes mapping the territory of life; demarcating its borders
and essential features; understanding, as a group, what is needed to achieve the goals identified by thecommunity; enforcing the rules of access and use agreed by the community (possibly compiled into
a community protocol);181 carrying out surveillance to secure respect of the rules; stopping and retributing violators; gaining some income for the community to sustain surveillance and other on-goingnecessary activities; etc.
While a community governance role is necessary to have an ICCA—territory of life, a managementrole is not. Thus, if a state ‘delegates’ the management of a territory of life to an indigenous people orlocal community, or proposes a co-management arrangement to them, this generally falls short of truerecognition of their rights of self-determination.
Some custodian peoples and communities chose not to directly manage their territories and areas andthe natural resources found therein. This could be for technical reasons (lack of technology or equipment), legal reasons (safety requirements) or practical reasons (lack of manpower). Their custodianship role is exercised through their governance, while the implementation of the decisions (management) is entrusted to others.182
Key references
Hitt, Black and Porter, 2011; Kothari et al., 2015; Worboys and Trzyna, 2015.

180 Hitt, Black and Porter, 2011, page 4.
181 #Indigenous customary law and community protocols; #Appropriate support.
182 For instance, they may not be the ones who cut or harvest trees, leaving such activities to hired professionals, or they may sign a landstewardship agreement with an NGO in charge of monitoring key species in their territory.

page 41

qGovernanceIf management is what is done, in a given environment, to reach desired results based on given means
and resources, governance is about who decides about the management activities (and budget), howthose decisions are taken, and whether they are ultimately implemented (which includes ensuring that appropriate and sufficient resources are available).
Governance has more roundly been defined as the process of “interactions among structures, processes and traditions that determine how power and responsibilities are exercised, how decisions
are taken and how citizens or other stakeholders have their say”.183 Practically, for a given territory
or area, governance is about “holding authority and responsibility and being accountable for the key
decisions according to legal, customary or otherwise legitimate means”.184 It is about “taking decisions
and ensuring the conditions for their effective implementation”, i.e., “the process of developing andexercising authority and responsibility over time [...], including in relation to learning processes andevolving institutions in society”.185
Governance is possibly the most crucial element necessary to define ICCAs—territories of life. Rather
than depending exclusively on property rights and titles (which are important but not essential), territories of life are rooted in the effective capacity and will of indigenous peoples and local communities togovern their territories. In ICCAs—territories of life we find indigenous peoples and local communities
that, through their own governance institutions,186 do (or strive to) make decisions, implement their own
rules of access and use, achieve goals, learn, share, live and embody their own values and sense of identity in relation to nature, other humans and other spiritual (more-than-human) beings.
The CBD and IUCN distinguish four broad governance types for protected and conserved areas187
according to which actors have main authority and a responsibility to make and enforce decisions.
Those types are: (A) governance by government (as for a conventional national park, run by a government agency); (B) shared governance by various actors together (e.g., for a protected landscape, where
decisions are taken by a board that includes national ministries, local municipalities, universities andconservation NGOs); (C) governance by private individuals or organizations (e.g. for a private protected area, where decisions are taken by the landowners); and (D) governance by indigenous peoples
and/or local communities (e.g. for an ICCA—territory of life, where decisions are taken by the relevant people or community). The recognition of a specific type of collective governance by indigenous
peoples and local communities in international conservation policy is extremely important, because
it pays tribute to their crucial role in conserving nature and maintaining biodiversity on our planet –with benefits for the entire humankind.
The ‘appropriateness’ of a given governance type depends on the history of occupancy and rights ofeach territory or area, as well as in the nature of place-based relationships and practices of sustainableself-determination of their possible custodian communities. As noted in the voluntary guidelines
adopted by CBD Parties in 2018, the type should be “tailored to the specific context, socially inclusive,
respectful of rights, and effective in delivering conservation and livelihood outcomes”.188 In the last
decades, the IUCN and the Parties to the CBD have increased their recognition of the “multi-facetedvalues of collective governance by indigenous peoples and local communities”189 and identified‘good governance’ principles and values to be respected and fostered. These include: “ appropriate
procedures and mechanisms: for the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and local
communities; […] for the effective participation of and/or coordination with other stakeholders; for [therecognition and accommodation of] customary tenure and governance systems […]; for transparency
183 Graham, Amos and Plumtre, 2003.
184 Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013.
185 Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2014.
186 #Governance institutions.
187 #Protected area; #Conserved area.
188 Convention on Biological Diversity, 2018b.
189 Almeida, 2015.

page 42and accountability; for equitable sharing of benefits and costs, [and for] consistency with Articles 8(j)and 10(c) [of the CBD] and related provisions, principles and guidelines”.190 In other words, decisions
about protected and conserved areas should be taken and implemented “legitimately, competently,
inclusively, fairly, with a sense of vision, accountably and while respecting rights”.191
According to the Centre for First Nations Governance,192 there are five pillars for effective (and likely appropriate) governance: 1. People (joint strategic vision, sharing of meaningful information andparticipation in decision-making); 2. Land (territorial integrity, economic realization, respect for the
spirit of the land); 3. Laws and jurisdiction (expansion of jurisdiction and rule of law); 4. Institutions(cultural alignment of institutions and effective inter-governmental relations, results-based organizations, transparency and fairness); and 5. Resources (human resource capacity, financial management
capacity, performance evaluation, accountability and reporting, and diversity of revenue sources).

What is governance diversity?
We speak of governance diversity when a variety of actors are engaged in a conservation system. For
instance, a national system of protected areas that includes areas governed by different types of actors(e.g., municipalities, private entities, indigenous peoples, associations, NGOs, diverse ministries andagencies) under different arrangements (e.g., shared governance, delegated management) is more diverse than a system that, let us say, includes only national parks under the same park agency.
A system of diverse territorial units can be identified also within a single protected area, such as when
the area was established in overlap with pre-existing territories of life under their own governance authorities. Promoting and recognising and the collaboration of diverse governance actors in such overlaps
can also be considered as ‘enhancing governance diversity’.193
Systems with high governance diversity require concerted and systematic efforts to coordinate amongplayers. They are, however, more inclusive and generally perceived as more legitimate. As they may
devise and implement a larger variety of solutions to problems, they are also likely to be more resilientand sustainable.

What is governance quality?
We speak of governance quality or ‘good governance’, when decisions are made while respecting a
number of principles enshrined in the constitution, legislation, policies, cultural practices and customary laws of a given country, and/or internationally agreed as part of international decisions and conventions. The IUCN principles of good governance for protected areas comprise: legitimacy and voice;direction; performance; transparency; accountability; and fairness and respect of rights.194 ‘Quality’is a property that can refer to the governance of a system of territorial units, but most often refers to thegovernance of single territories or areas.

What is governance vitality?
Recently, discussion has gone beyond governance diversity and quality to explore the concept of governance vitality.195 The concept was introduced as the ability of a governance setting “to learn, evolveand meet roles and responsibilities in ways that are timely, intelligent, appropriate and satisfactory foreveryone concerned”.196 The term ‘vitality’ comes from the Latin word vita, which means life. In some
190 Convention on Biological Diversity, 2018b.
191 Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013, quoted in Convention on Biological Diversity, 2018b.
192 National Centre for First Nations Governance, 2013.
193 Stan Stevens, personal communication, 2019.
194 #Governance and references therein.
195 The discussion on the concept was initiated around the 2014 Sydney World Parks Congress (see IUCN, 2014 and Borrini-Feyerabend et al.,2014). A succinct volume dedicated to governance vitality for protected and conserved areas is currently in preparation.
196 Borrini-Feyerabend, and Hill, 2015, page 192 and following.

page 43

way, it links the agency of people with the agency of the rest of nature… the vitality of nature itself. A
governance system that has vitality maintains functionality through time and changing circumstances. It has stamina (capacity to persist) and is resilient in facing problems and challenges, but is also
resourceful and pro-active, showing the will and capacity to seize opportunities in any given context
or set of circumstances. Vitality of governance is very apparent in such positive agency—action taken
autonomously towards meaningful, purposeful goals. This, if necessary, reaches the capacity for transformative change.
A vital system of governance generates and circulates knowledge relevant to the decisions at stake. At
least two types of knowledge appear fundamental to well-informed governance for conservation: local
traditional knowledge,197 at times passed-on among generations and knowledge produced by relevant
purposeful research and technological innovation (not last, sophisticated means such as remote sensing
and geo-spatial observation of change).198 Drawing from knowledge of different type and origin, a vital
governance system prevents problems and threats and derives benefits from opportunities. This implies
that it is well-informed, discerning regarding the meaning and importance of diverse types of information— strategic and timely.
Further, a governance system that manifests strong vitality needs to be capable of remaining steadfast
in the face of appeals (e.g., short term gains, easy and selfish choices, corrupting factors, etc.) that would
spell out disaster in the long run. In other words, the decisions it makes are meaningful and positive inthe long term, as appropriate to the context. A possible interpretation of this sees vitality of governanceas necessarily rooted in a system of ethics, or at least a worldview capable of drawing from and offering
inspiration and moral guidance to society about the decisions to be taken for the territory or area atstake. Some of us refer to this as being ‘life-affirming’, where life refers to nature and biodiversity but
also to society in general, and to the persistence and wellbeing of custodian communities in particular.
Finally, another element of vitality of governance that may not be immediately apparent and rarely fully
present, is the capacity for empathy and care. Agents of decisions that are knowledgeable and morallysound can be functioning well, but a deep appreciation of nature and people adds something intangible
but extremely powerful to their will and capacity to collectively conserve nature. Beyond ‘governinga territory or area’, becoming its custodians199 means cherishing and nurturing in that specific place arespectful and enduring relation between humans and non-humans— something more akin to an umbilical connection or a bond of love than a scientific or economic relationship. Drawing from its capacity
to function, being resilient, pro-active, creative, well informed, discerning, meaningful, life-affirming
and caring, a vital governance system is likely to make sound choices, that deliver positive outcomes forboth nature and people.200 Through that, it should normally gain a measure of social trust and respect,solidarity and collective support. Yet, what may be locally positive may not be appreciated at a different
geographical scale, or vice-versa. This is why even governance that has gained a measure of institutional
strength at a particular level needs to be secured at diverse levels.
Key references
Graham, Amos and Plumtre et al., 2003; Dudley (ed.), 2008; Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013; National Centre for First Nations Governance, 2013; Almeida et al., 2015; Borrini-Feyerabend and Hill, 2015; Convention on Biological Diversity, 2018a; Convention on Biological Diversity 2018b.
For a synthesis of rapid consultation on governance of protected and conserved areas, see: Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2014. See also: Governance for the Conservation of Nature – three short films; IUCN

page on Governance, equity and rights

197 #Traditional knowledge.
198 This is clearly fundamental with regard to climate change and other global change impacts, and for that governance vitality requires ongoing
monitoring, adaptation, and information gathering for near and long-term planning and action, besides the wisdom and capacity to work with
communities to support decisions and implement adaptation measures.
199 #Custodians/ stewards/ guardians.
200 At least in the long term, when immediate sacrifices are necessary to achieve long term goals.

page 44

qGovernance institutions
One of the characterizing features of ICCAs—territories of life is the presence of functioning governance institutions able to make and enforce decisions and rules about access to the territory and use of
its natural resources. Local institutions in charge of ICCAs—territories of life are very diverse, ranging
from councils of elders to elective committees and village assemblies, from traditional to modern institutions or combination thereof, from small informal user groups born to care for a single specific resource to organisations with formal headquarters, large staff and multimillion dollar annual budgets.
Governing institutions are part of the biocultural heritage of any community and, when well-functioning, promote the conservation and sustainable use of its life environment. Without a functioning
governance institution, the sustainable use of local natural resources would often not be possible, as
there would be no collective body capable of expressing and implementing the shared desires, needs,
concerns and interests of the community.
Local governance institutions may or may not be officially recognized by the state (or states) where the
ICCA—territory of life is placed; they may find themselves overpowered by other governance institutions (including because of action by police and the military); or they may work in collaboration withthem. For a well-functioning ICCA—territory of life, external recognition can be important. Nothing,
however, is possibly more important than a governing institution that is fully self-recognised, i.e. perceived as legitimate by its relevant community/people. Such an institution is likely to exhibit governance vitality201 and be an integral part of the shared identity of the community.

Should ICCAs—territories of life fear the ‘tragedy of the commons’?
Indigenous peoples and local communities generally hold the land, water and natural resources intheir territories of life as commons, under a collective governance institution. In 1968, Garret Hardin
made commons (in)famous by linking them to what he called the ‘tragedy of the commons’. According to him, natural resources managed as commons – or common pool resources – were doomed to beoverexploited and exhausted by the members of their own communities because of a combination ofindividual greed and free-rider’ attitudes. His theory and the remedies he suggested – transforming
commons into private property or state-controlled systems – were extensively used to justify the eviction of indigenous peoples and local communities from their lands to create privately owned parcels
or government holdings for both productive use and conservation purposes.
Hardin’s case was based upon a-historical, self-serving and politically-driven limitations. His assumption was that commoners cannot talk or achieve agreements and that they are unable to implement
rules or demand fines from violators. In fact, Hardin’s so-called ‘commons’ were deprived of whatmakes the commons meaningful, i.e. the social bonds that create governing institutions and agreed
rules. His ‘commons’ were a strawman, a caricature, a criminally sour account that owed its fortune toa memorable title and generated untold misunderstanding and misery.202 In the 1990s, the work of Elinor Ostrom showed that Hardin’s analysis was not only inaccurate, but utterly mistaken.203 She paved
the way to the recognition of the governance institutions of real ‘commons’, where local communities
and indigenous peoples are not doomed to devastate natural resources but, on the contrary, can use
them sustainably and conserve them through time. Through the study of the relationship between

201 #Governance.
202 Significantly, Hardin was also a white nationalist, considered as “one of the intellectual pillars of modern scientific racism”, with a mission of“transforming environmentalism into a weapon to use against immigrants, minorities and poor nations.” See: https://www.splcenter.org/

fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/garrett-hardin

203 Others also discussed this, in particular McCay and Acheson, 1987.

page 45

indigenous peoples and local communities and their commons around the world (nowhere featured
in Hardin’s paper), Ostrom identified the conditions (or principles) that allow governance institutions
to rule long-surviving resource pools: clearly defined boundaries; rules adapted to local conditions
that allocate resources to users; resource-users participation in the decision-making processes; external
authorities recognition of rules; accountability of the users; systems of graduated sanctions; local andlow-cost conflict-resolutions mechanisms; and long-term tenure rights. These conditions encompass
what many Members of the ICCA Consortium aim at achieving or maintaining to promote the goodfunctioning of ICCAs—territories of life.
Key references
Hardin, 1968; Ostrom, 1990; Becker and Ostrom, 1995; McCay and Acheson, 1997; Ostrom, 2005;
Kothari et al., 2012; Borrini-Feyerabend and Hill, 2015; Farvar et al., 2018.

page 46

qAppropriate recognition
Many ICCAs—territories of life have been seriously damaged or are under threat from a variety of factors:
expropriation of land, waters and natural resources; imposed forms of resource exploitation; encroachment by newcomers and migrants; cultural assimilation (e.g. by education programmes, missionaries, themedia), as well as imposed changes in institutions, economic burdens and conflicts. At the root of these
problems and threats often lies a lack of appropriate recognition of their existence and values. Appropriate
recognition, however, is not trivial nor a one-size-fits-all set of procedures. Regardless of good intentions,inappropriate recognition may be worse than no recognition at all, and approaches to recognition should
be as much as possible tailored to the context. For example, a government that recognizes an ICCA as a‘protected area’ may provide some financial support and better respect of the ICCA rules, but it may alsousher a loss of control and weakening of the community governance institution. In particular this is true
when the institution is forced to comply with generic structures and procedures that undermine its own
governance traditions and values.
The recognition of an ICCA—territory of life needs to be directed at a coherent socio-ecological unit, i.e. a territory identified on the ground of history, ecology and the cultural and social characterises of the relevant communities. Any external recognition should be based on the prior recognition (self-recognition) by the communities who are legitimate custodians. If recognition responds only to an external rationale (political, economic
or for conservation), the chances of failure and conflicts increase. Given the diversity, complexity and sensitivity
of issues regarding territories of life and their governance institutions, their appropriate recognition should bebased on the consent of the custodian community— fully informed about the consequences, modifiability, andpotential economic, political, social and cultural impacts of the form of recognition proposed.
For what concerns ICCAs—territories of life, even though flexibility and fitness to the context remainparamount, the most appropriate form of legal recognition has been proposed as “inalienable, indivisible
and imprescriptible collectively-held rights”204 to an “integral territory” held by the legitimate autonomous governance institution.205 Interestingly, these rights do not necessarily involve formal property but
security of collective governance and tenure through time.206 Ownership is just one of the several waysby which governance can be achieved in territories of life, and often it is not possible or even desired, as it
introduces rigidities that block the social and convivial practices of communities. This is true, in particular,when the territories of life of communities concerned with potentially complementary natural resources(e.g. pastoralists and agriculturalists) do overlap.
Collective governance rights that cannot be lost or prescribed free the governing institution from pressures forsale and division of the territory and foster a vision for the long term and the good of present as well as future
generations. Ideally, they are combined with various forms of social recognition, in particular for the conservation benefits stemming from the work of governing, managing and conserving nature in the territory of life.
Social recognition can be understood as appropriate public attention, acknowledgement and praise. It cantake the form of official mentions and inscriptions, honours and awards, and media exposure for desired
visibility. Social recognition is very important for many indigenous peoples and local communities and canprovide a variety of platforms to make their territory of life initiatives publicly known, if desired, and better
respected. But social recognition can also be damaging, as when it engenders unwanted exposure or generates or exacerbates tensions. For instance, this may happen when some communities, or individuals within acommunity, are singled out for prize and honours over equally deserving others.207
Ultimately, recognition in practice is the most important and effective form of social recognition. Recognition in practice means that the rules and regulations decided by the custodian community are honoured,
respected and appreciated by the state administrative authorities, the police and judicial powers. This is
crucially effective when the community enforcement of its own rules and regulations is actively backedup and supported by such state powers.
204 Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2010.
205 Borrini-Feyerabend at al., 2010. The concept of integral territory implies rights to : “...not just land but also water and other gifts of nature,from the centre of the Earth to the top of the Sky...” as stated by Wrays Perez Ramirez for the Integral Autonomous Territory of the Wampis
Nation (communication at the XIII General Assembly of the ICCA Consortium, Bishoftu, Ethiopia, 2018).
206 #Security of tenure. The need to secure tenure and governance rights and not necessarily property right is stressed by European Members of
the ICCA Consortium (Sergio Couto, personal communication, 2019).
207 Kothari, Camill and Brown, 2013.

page 47

Much of the work of the ICCA Consortium is about promoting and/or enhancing the appropriate recognition of ICCAs—territories of life by a variety of actors in local, national and international contexts.
Recognition that does not honour the capacity, dignity and self-determining authority of the custodians as
indigenous nations and unique communities is likely problematic and can be harmful. Most countries lackspecific legislation about ICCAs, but many do have sets of norms, such as those concerning indigenous
peoples’ rights, nature conservation, communal forests, or tourism, which can be interpreted as relevant
to ICCAs and useful to recognise them. In order to transform these options of recognition into appropriate
instruments to promote the flourishing of ICCAs—territories of life and to overcome the ‘legal fragmentation’ of landscapes (see below), appropriate support is usually also needed.208

An international ICCA Registry for appropriate recognition of
territories of life
As an instrument to promote appropriate recognition to ICCAs—territories of life, the ICCA Consortium
has been working for many years with the World Conservation Monitoring Centre of the UN Environment and the UNDP GEF SGP to develop and populate a global ICCAs Registry209 and to include ICCAs
in the World Database of Protected (and Conserved) Areas.210 By properly documenting them, the Registry aims at enhancing national and international political and public awareness on the value of ICCAs—territories of life for conserving biodiversity, ecosystem functions and nature in general, as well as
for maintaining cultural diversity and combating climate change. Started as a disparate set of cases thatwere informally and individually submitted, the Registry is being reviewed with the help of peer-support and review processes in various countries.

Are relevant laws and policies ‘appropriate’? From legal
fragmentation to comprehensive legal support
In contemporary states (whether adopting civil law or common law systems), legislation is essentiallyfragmented or compartmentalized211 in many different topics/issues/realms. Regarding indigenous peoples and local communities and their territories of life, legislation often remains unable to coherently andcomprehensively address existing challenges. Often, such challenges are, de facto, scattered among many
unrelated pieces of different legislation. For example, in many national legislations, agriculture andreligion are ruled by separate sets of laws that hardly interact one with the other and may, even, require
to abide to different courts. On the contrary, for indigenous peoples and local communities the ‘sacred’
may be embedded in agricultural practices: seed custodianship undertaken by religious leaders, sacredceremonies aimed at crop development, taboos on unsustainable practices, and the likes.
More integrated approaches are needed to bring appropriate attention to the interconnection between
spiritual, linguistic, cultural and economic aspects of the different biotic and a-biotic elements of landscapes. Following Darrel Posey’s Traditional Resources Rights approach, the ICCA Consortium is
promoting global and national overviews of laws and policies that are relevant for the recognition andsupport of territories of life, and its Member Natural Justice has developed The Living Convention, acompendium of international binding and non-binding laws relevant for the protection of indigenous
peoples. The aim is to guide indigenous peoples, local communities and their representatives to deal
with different laws together, and thus respond to challenges in a more comprehensive way.
Key references
Posey, 1995; Corntassel, 2008; Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2010; Jonas, Kothari and Shrumm, 2012; Jonasand Shrumm, 2012; Kothari et al. (eds.), 2012; Jonas, Makagon and Shrumm, 2013; Jonas, Jonas and
Makagon, 2014.
See also: www.iccaconsortium.org ; ICCA Registry
208 #Appropriate support.
209 www.iccaregistry.org.
210 https://www.protectedplanet.net/. See also UNEP-WCMC, 2016.
211 Jeff Corntassel points out that the focus on rights discourse “has resulted in the compartmentalization of indigenous powers of self-determination by separating questions of homelands and natural resources from those of political/legal recognition of a limited indigenous autonomy
within the existing framework of the host state(s).” (Corntassel, 2008, page 107).

page 48

q

Appropriate support

Besides appropriate recognition, the custodians of territories of life need various types of political,
social, legal, economic and other forms of ‘appropriate support’. Many relevant actors in society,such as governments, private industry, NGOs and activists are generally willing to offer it... but is that
support always what the custodians need or see as a priority? The providers of support may be powerful and determined enough that the custodians may find it difficult to refuse what they offer, andthus end up receiving support that is undesired or inappropriate. Unfortunately, most support organisations have rigid programmatic lines to follow and are usually poorly equipped to deal with theidiosyncratic governance institutions and culturally-diverse approaches of the custodians of territories
of life. Due to strong power differentials, even the best-meaning interventions risk resulting in someforms of social engineering and can have unintended detrimental impacts. Therefore, it is essentialthat actors willing to support ICCAs intervene in response to requests by the custodian communities
and treat them with respect and care. Actors willing to support ICCAs should intervene in responseto requests by the custodian communities and treat them with respect and care. Obtaining their Free,
Prior and Informed Consent (as international law requires for indigenous peoples) is the first step
towards a fair relationship between a community and the actors offering ‘appropriate support’.212

Civil society organizations often support communication and negotiation processes between communities and governments, private corporations and others. Acting as ‘translators’, moderators,
information providers and legal advisors, they may reduce the power-gap between the parties andbuild capacities and self-confidence within the communities. They can also help communities to be
fully informed, in a language they can understand, about projects or processes that affect them, andprovide experts’ information on the possible consequences of accepting this or that initiative. Suchsupport may also mean help in interpreting relevant legal norms, such as about indigenous peoples’
rights, local communities conserving nature,213 customary law and use, the commons, protected areas,
decentralization and subsidiarity, as well as agriculture, tourism, mining, forestry, fisheries, financeand economic development. In case of lack of specific ICCA norms, appropriate support may alsomean promoting the recognition of ICCA-friendly legislation and policies at the governmental level.
Legal support can also take the shape of appealing for the respect of states’ international obligations
towards ICCAs—territories of life.214 The negotiation of projects giving application to international
programs, such as the Global Support Initiative to ICCAs (GSI) implemented by UNDP GEF SGP215
and various initiatives involving payments for ecosystem services may provide useful contexts. Allinterventions involving financial support to ICCAs—territories of life need to be treated with extra
care not to fuel internal conflicts or promote the abandonment of traditional livelihoods with associated knowledge, practices and institutions. The custodian communities should be well aware of thepros and cons of initiatives, capable of internally discussing those and taking decisions without undue
intimidation or pressure.

Where does the ICCA Consortium come from?
For more than two decades, the main global experiment to provide appropriate support to ICCAs—
territories of life has been an international movement for equity in conservation that coalesced firstaround the IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy216 and later created the212 #Free, Prior and Informed Consent.
213 #Biocultural Rights.
214 Which can be derived/ interpreted from, among others: the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Man and the Biosphere program of
UNESCO, the ILO Convention no.169, the Aarhus Convention, the Ramsar Convention, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, theConvention on Cultural and Natural Heritage, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
215 See: https://sgp.undp.org/about-us-157/partnerships/icca-gsi.html
216 This took place in 2000-2008 and is reflected in the experiences and debates published in Policy Matters (especially volumes 10, 12, 13, 14
and 15 – all available at https://www.iucn.org/commissions/commission-environmental-economic-and-social-policy/resources/
policy-matters).

page 49

ICCA Consortium.217 The movement has been working at various levels, fostering at the same time
supportive international policy, capacity building at regional level, enhanced visibility for emblematic ICCAs—territories of life and, at national level, the generation of a critical mass for advocacy
and change in as many countries as possible.
The movement is today a membership-based civil society organisation with Members representing
indigenous peoples, local communities and their supporters spanning all continents. With no property and no offices, staffed by volunteers and semi volunteers and commanding a minimal budget,the ICCA Consortium has achieved a number of results, including: a growing number of recognised
emblematic ICCAs (visibility, international listing by the UN Environment WCMC, awards, grants
for self-strengthening); hundreds of people with enhanced self-awareness of their roles as custodians,
as well as enhanced capacities and mutual support; more than thirty ICCA-related national networks
functioning in very diverse countries;218 and relevant issues articulated and technically backed in avariety of publications, videos and on-line resources.219 The Consortium has also actively promoted asuite of international policies220 that recognise the values of governance of nature by indigenous peoples and local communities, and of ICCAs—territories of life in particular.
Since mid-2015 a Global Support Initiative for ICCAs (GSI), implemented by UNDP GEF SGP withfunding from the German government, has provided some support to the ICCA Consortium. In turn,
the Consortium has provided technical backing to the initiative. Small grants have been disbursed
to national catalytic organisations and communities in a variety of countries, with very diverse engagements and results. The international ICCA Registry hosted by WCMC221 was supported to foster
communication and experience sharing among different ICCAs around the world. The IUCN was
supported to provide technical backing in assessing governance of protected and conserved areas atnational level in a few countries. And Natural Justice was supported to coordinate reviews of national
legislation vis-à-vis ICCAs. While assisting all partners, the Consortium has focused on a strategic approach of facilitating processes of ‘self-strengthening’ of ICCAs—territories of life from local enhanced
self-awareness to national advocacy for recognition and support.222
Key references
Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2010; Jonas, Kothari and Shrumm, 2012; Kothari et al. (eds.), 2012; Jonas,
2017; Borrini-Feyerabend and Campese, 2017.
See also: www.iccaconsortium.org; ICCA Registry

217 www.iccaconsortium.org.
218 https://www.iccaconsortium.org/index.php/creating-a-critical-mass-of-support/.
219 https://www.iccaconsortium.org/index.php/category/publications-en/key-resources-en/consortium-key-resources-en/.
220 Jonas, 2017; ICCAs in international policy.
221 See #Appropriate recognition.
222 Borrini-Feyerabend and Campese, 2017.

page 50

q

Self-strengthening processes for community
custodians of territories of life

Throughout history, custodian communities have done all they can to strengthen themselves andcare for the territories that underpin their livelihoods and identity. Their on-going self-strengthening
efforts are, and have long been, part of the flow of everyday life, shaping socio-cultural, economic anddiplomatic approaches to the betterment of each community and its environment. Today, custodian
communities and their ICCAs—territories of life face unprecedented stresses and threats arising fromsocio-ecological changes sweeping the world. Concerns for the conservation of nature merge withconcerns for the conservation of cultural diversity, knowledge and wisdom still found (albeit diminishing) in human communities living close to nature.
The ICCA Consortium is determined to support custodian communities in their efforts to strengthen
their capacity to govern and manage their conserved territories. These efforts usually begin by increasing self-awareness and knowledge about their territories of life’ significance, which usually involvean enhanced appreciation and documentation of one’s own history, culture and governance institutions. Further, the journey may lead to an analysis of issues, trends, opportunities and threats. It may
lead to enhanced communication with other communities, partners and allies. It may lead to joiningor establishing new relevant networks223 and collective advocacy efforts for improved national policies and appropriate support. If the process is successful, the communities become not only stronger
but also wiser, more united, responsible and active. As a consequence, their territories of life are better
conserved (e.g., protected, sustainably used and/or restored) and provide better support for the custodian communities’ livelihoods and well-being. Finally, and importantly, self-strengthening processes
are expected to enhance the connection between the custodian communities and their territories.
While specific approaches vary, for the ICCA Consortium a self-strengthening process is necessarily
grounded in one main method: grassroots discussions. These are discussions that provide occasions
for collective reflection and analysis, which take place in ways consistent with the everyday life of acommunity. Examples include a traditional general assembly, gatherings among elders or in existing
women’s groups or youth associations. Such discussions can be initiated spontaneously, stimulated
by a new problem or opportunity or encouraged by facilitators from within or outside the community.
Grassroots discussions need to find a meaningful balance between letting the discussion flow freely
and keeping it focused to ensure that the key issues at stake are covered in an exhaustive and meaningful way. Ideally, they are an integral part of community life and of the institutions that govern
territories of life.
Key reference
Borrini-Feyerabend and Campese, 2017.
See also: www.iccaconsortium.org

223 #Networks focusing on ICCAs—territories of life

page 51

q

Networks focusing on ICCAs– territories of life
Networks focusing on ICCAs– territories of life are formal or informal groups of communities, organizations and individuals that decide to collaborate on relevant practices and policies of common concern.224 For instance, diverse organizations and individuals may create an informal working group toshare experiences about their territories of life and pool resources to understand and act upon a topic
of common interest. Several communities may create a formal federation or association of custodians of territory of life and other allies to advocate for a change in policy that concerns them all. Or an
existing federation of indigenous peoples may create a committee to pull together all those ready toact about policies to provide territories of life with effective backing and support. While a working
group or a committee may be flexible and relatively informal, dedicated associations or federations areusually more formal and need to fit national legal requirements.
Coalitions and platforms are other important forms of network, usually created with a specific goalin mind and focused on one or more specific territories of life. Such coalitions are especially useful for
addressing pressing issues, such as opposing a dam or mining project, but could continue after the
primary goal is achieved to take care of underlying issues, such as lack of recognition of customaryland and natural resource rights in the relevant watershed.
The available human and organizational capacities inform the types of territory of life networks thatare possible and desirable in any given context. In general, however, networks at national level areparticularly useful to engage in advocacy for legislation and policy that appropriately recognises andsupports ICCAs—territories of life.225 Another crucial role for such national or sub-national networks
is the provision of peer-support and peer-review for the submission of data to a National Registry ofterritories of life and/or to the international databases and registries hosted by WCMC. In association
with the ICCA Consortium, WCMC has recommended that community custodians organise their own
networks to provide data comparability and quality control.226
At the end of 2019, networks focusing on ICCAs– territories of life exist in more than 30 countries, andpeer-support and peer-review processes are functioning in countries as diverse as Spain, the Philippines, Iran, Ecuador and China.227
Key reference
Borrini-Feyerabend and Campese, 2017.
See also: www.iccaconsortium.org

224 The role of networks in the politics of self-determined territoriality is powerfully illustrated and analyzed in Escobar, 2008.
225 #Appropriate recognition; #Appropriate support.
226 #Networks focusing on ICCAs—territories of life.
227 For on-going reports about the networks focusing on ICCAs– territories of life, see the Yearly report on the work of the ICCA Consortium
available from the Consortium main web site: www.iccaconsortium.org.

page 52

qFree, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)
Being able to say “yes” or “no” to any action or proposal that will impact a community’s lands,
waters, bio-cultural diversity or rights is usually comprised under the expression ‘Free, Prior andInformed Consent’– FPIC for short. If FPIC is ensured, a community can make decisions free fromcoercion, threats, or deceit; prior to any action that anticipates the decision; and based on all relevant information about the various options available, in accessible languages and formats. The decision-making processes should be determined by the community and provide ample time to reachbroad consensus. And communities should have access to legal and technical assistance if requested.228
While consent must be verified before any activities start, FPIC should not be a ‘one-off’ event or a matter of ticking a box. Consent should be maintained over time, including by having processes in place
to check-in or monitor that the agreement is being upheld as expected, and that a community can raise
new concerns or grievances if unexpected developments become apparent.
FPIC is an integral element of self-determination and a collective right of indigenous peoples— recognized in UNDRIP and other international legal instruments. It is also a widely-agreed-upon ethicalbest practice with regard to non-indigenous communities. Unfortunately, the FPIC standard is rarely
honoured in practice. State domestic laws and policies often resort to consultation and accommodation practices that fall short of actual consent. In other words, consent is treated as an aspirational goal
rather than a prerequisite for state-approved interventions on indigenous territories.
Key reference
Hill, Lillywhite and Simon, 2010.

228 See Hill, Lillywhite and Simon, 2010.

page 53

qGenderGender is a set of social, cultural, political, psychological, legal, and economic characteristics that society assigns to each individual as part of its socially constructed and biologically determined identity.
Gender roles and behaviors vary widely within and across cultures, and intra- and inter-gender relationships can be more or less dynamic. While for some, gender is a binomial factor (male/female), forothers, gender refers to a multi-variable continuum of characteristics that enrich and enliven our being
in the world.
Gender equity is realized when no one is dis-favoured because of gender-related prejudices. In thissense, equity is not simply synonymous with ‘having equal opportunities’, as positive opportunities(programs of affirmative or positive action) may be required to correct gender biases. Gender equality
is achieved when women, men and non-binary gender have equal rights, opportunities and life prospects as well as the power they wish and need to shape their own identities and contribute to society.

A gender perspective for ICCAs—territories of life
Understanding gender roles and possible biases is crucial in designing, implementing, monitoring andevaluating policies and projects dealing with territories and natural resources and the environment ingeneral. To adopt a gender perspective means going beyond the ‘no harm’ principle and focusing on
overcoming gender biases. This includes measures to promote gender equality and the empowermentof oppressed genders, such as women may be.
A primary characteristic of ICCAs—territories of life is the strong and profound connection between
a people or community and a territory or area. This characteristic is promoted and strengthened
through the effective engagement in governance of all who feel, live, and demonstrate that connection.
It is linked to the conservation of traditional knowledge229 and sustainable practices230 related to particular ecological contexts. A gender perspective can add to this the enhanced awareness of the specificities of each gender, help to identify biases and, if needed, envision and implement corrections orcompensations. As part of good governance practices, a gender perspective for ICCAs—territories oflife can foster enhanced relations across generations, within communities, and among genders. It canpromote the continuation and evolution of traditional knowledge in all sectors of a community, alongwith stronger capacities, social recognition and respect.
Key reference
Mikkola, 2019.

229 #Traditional knowledge.
230 #Sustainable use of biodiversity.

page 54

References
Adams W.M. 2004. Against Extinction—the story of conservation, Earthscan, London.
Alden Wily L. 2011a. The tragedy of public lands: The fate of the commons under global commercial pressure, CIRAD and ILC, Rome.
Alden Wily L. 2011b. Customary Land Tenure in the Modern World. Rights to Resources in Crisis: Reviewing the Fate of Customary Tenure in Africa – Brief 1, Rights andResources Initiative.
Alden Wily L. 2017. ‘Customary tenure: remaking property for the 21st century’, in Graziadei M. and L. Smith (eds.), Comparative property law: global perspectives, Edward
Elgar, Cheltenham (UK), pp. 458–478.
Almeida F. 2015. Collective Land Tenure and Community Conservation, Policy Brief of the ICCA Consortium, No. 2, The ICCA Consortium in collaboration with Maliasili
Initiatives and Cenesta, Teheran.
Anaya J. 1996. Indigenous Peoples in International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Anaya J. 1997. ‘On justifying special ethnic group rights: comments on Pogge’, in I. Shapiro, W. Kymlicka (eds.), Ethnicity and Group Rights, New York University Press, NewYork – London, pp. 222–231.
Anaya J. 2009. International Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples, Aspen Publishers, New York.
Anaya J. 2009. Report by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Addendum on the Situation of Indigenous
Peoples in Nepal, A/HRC/12/34/Add.3 20 July 2009.
Antkowiak T.M. 2013. ‘Rights, resources, and rhetoric: Indigenous Peoples and the Inter-American Court’, in University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 35(1), pp.
113–187.
Asatrizy and J.C. Riascos de la Peña. 2008. Umu-Kaja Yepa—Territorio de la Asociació de Autoridades Tradicionales Indígenas de la Zona de Yapú, Vaupés, Colombia, Report
for Cenesta, IUCN/CEESP and GTZ.
Barrow E.g.C. and M.W. Murphree. 2001. ‘Community conservation from concept to practice’, in D. Hulme, M. Murphree (eds.), African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promiseand Performance of Community Conservation, James Currey, Oxford, pp. 24-37.
Bassi M. 2002. ‘The making of unsustainable livelihoods. An on-going tragedy in the Ethiopian drylands’, Policy Matters no.10, pages 7-12.
Bassi M. and B. Tache. 2011. ‘The community conserved landscape of the Borana Oromo, Ethiopia Opportunities and problems, in Management of Environmental Quality,
22(2), pp. 174-186.
Bavikatte K. and H. Jonas. 2009. Bio-Cultural Community Protocols. A Community Approach to Ensuring the Integrity of Environmental Law and Policy, Natural Justice,
Captain Printworks, Cape Town.
Bavikatte S.K. 2014. Stewarding the Earth. Rethinking Property and the Emergence of Biocultural Rights, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Bavikatte S.K. and T. Bennett. 2015. ‘Community stewardship: the foundation of biocultural rights’, in Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, 6(1), pp. 7–29.
Becker D.C and E. Ostrom. 1995. ‘Human ecology and resource sustainability: the importance of institutional diversity’, in Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics, 26, pp.
113–133.
Bélair C., K. Ichikawa, B.Y.L. Wong and K.J. Mulongoy (eds.). 2010. Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes. Background to the‘Satoyama Initiative for the benefit of biodiversity and human well-being’, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Technical Series no. 52, Montreal.
Berkes F. 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management, Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia and London.
Berry T. 1999. The Great Work: Our Way Into the Future, Harmony/Bell Tower, New York.
Bessa A. 2015. ‘Traditional local communities: what lessons can be learnt at the international level from the experiences of Brazil and Scotland?’, in Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 24(3), pp. 330–340.
Bikaba D. 2013. Indigenous peoples, local communities and national policy towards the CBD Aichi Targets in the Democratic Republic of Congo, manuscript, ICCA Consortium.
Blaser M. 2013. ‘Ontological conflicts and the stories of peoples in spite of Europe’, in Current Anthropology, 54(5), pp. 547–568.
Borrini-Feyerabend G., A. Kothari and G. Oviedo. 2004. Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas: Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation, IUCN, Gland(Switzerland) and Cambridge (UK).
Borrini-Feyerabend G., K. MacDonald and L. Maffi. 2004. ‘History, Culture and Conservation’, in Policy Matters, 13.
Borrini-Feyerabend G. with B. Lassen, S. Stevens, G. Martin, J.C. Riascos de la Peña, E.F. Ráez-Luna, and M. T. Farvar. 2010 (reprinted 2012). Bio-cultural diversity conserved byindigenous peoples and local communities— examples and analysis, IUCN/CEESP and CENESTA, Tehran.
Borrini-Feyerabend G., N. Dudley, T. Jaeger, B. Lassen, N. Pathak Broome, A. Phillips and T. Sandwith. 2013. Governance of Protected Areas: from understanding to action, Best
Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 20, IUCN, Gland.
Borrini-Feyerabend G., P. Bueno, T. Hay-Edie, B. Lang, A. Rastogi and T. Sandwith. 2014. A primer on governance for protected and conserved areas, Stream on Enhancing
Diversity and Quality of Governance, 2014 IUCN World Parks Congress, IUCN, Gland (Switzerland).
Borrini-Feyerabend G. and R. Hill. 2015. ‘Governance for the conservation of nature’, in G.L. Worboys, M. Lockwood, A. Kothari, S. Feary, I. Pulsford (eds.), Protected Area
Governance and Management, ANU Press, Canberra, pp. 169–206.
Borrini-Feyerabend G. and J. Campese. 2017. Self-Strengthening ICCAs – Guidance on a process and resources for custodian indigenous peoples and local communities,
draft for use by GSI partners, The ICCA Consortium, March 2017.
Brockington D. 2002. Fortress Conservation. The Preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania., James Currey, Oxford.
Büscher B. and R. Fletcher. 2019. ‘Towards convivial conservation’, in Conservation and Society, 17(3), pp. 283-296.
Cassese A. 1995. Self-determination of Peoples. A Legal Reappraisal, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Carino J. and L. Tamayo. 2019. Global Report on the Situation of Lands, Territories and Resources of Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous Peoples Major Group for Sustainable
Development.
Carneiro de Cunha M. 2009. “Culture” and Culture: Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Rights, Prickly Paradigm Press, Chicago.
Chambers R. and G.R. Conway. 1992. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st Century, Institute for Development Studies, Discussion paper 269.
Chandler M.J. and C. Lalonde. 1998. ‘Cultural continuity as a hedge against suicide in Canada’s First Nations’, in Transcultural Psychiatry, 35(2), pp. 191–219.
Chatty D. and M. Colchester. 2002. Conservation and Mobile Indigenous Peoples: Displacement, Forced Settlement and Sustainable Development, Bergahan Books, New Yorkand Oxford.
Child B. and R. Cooney. 2019. Local Commons for Global Benefits, Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel to the Global Environment Facility, Washington, DC.
Cidrás D., R. Lois-González and V. Paül. 2018. ‘Rural governance against eucalyptus expansion in Galicia (NW Iberian Peninsula)’, in Sustainability, 10, pp. 3396.
Colchester, M. 1994. Salvaging Nature Indigenous Peoples, Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation, Discussion Paper, UNRISD, Geneva.
Convention on Biological Diversity. 2004a. Protected Areas. COP Decision VII/28.
Convention on Biological Diversity. 2004b. Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity, CBD Guidelines, Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, Montreal.

page 55

Convention on Biological Diversity. 2010. Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. COP Decision X/2.
Convention on Biological Diversity. 2011a. Report of the Ad-hoc Expert Group Meeting of Local Community Representatives on the identification of common characteristics of
local communities. UNEP/CBD/AHEG/LCR/INF/1.
Convention on Biological Diversity. 2011b. Tkarihwaié:ri Code of Ethical Conduct to Ensure Respect for the Cultural and Intellectual Heritage of Indigenous and Local
Communities.
Convention on Biological Diversity. 2011c. Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020: Further Information Related to the Technical Rationale for the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
Including Potential Indicators and Milestones. UNEP/CBD/COP/10/INF/12/Rev.1. XIV/03.
Convention on Biological Diversity. 2016. Progress towards the achievement of Aichi Biodiversity Targets 11 and 12. COP Decision XIII/2/Sect.7.
Convention on Biological Diversity. 2018a. Protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. COP Decision XIV/8.
Convention on Biological Diversity. 2018b. Protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. COP Decision XIV/8, Annex II: Voluntary guidance on
effective governance models for management of protected areas.
Cooney R., D. Roe, H. Dublin and F. Booker. 2018. Wildlife, Wild Livelihoods: Involving Communities in Sustainable Wildlife Management and Combatting the Illegal Wildlife
Trade, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.
Corntassel J. 2003. ‘Who is Indigenous? “Peoplehood” and ethnonationalist approaches to rearticulating indigenous identity’, in Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 9(1), pp. 75100.
Corntassel J. 2008. ‘Toward sustainable self-determination: rethinking the contemporary indigenous rights discourse’, in Alternatives, 3, pp. 105–132.
Corntassel J. 2012. ‘Re-envisioning resurgence: indigenous pathways to decolonization and sustainable self-determination’, in Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society,1(1), pp. 86-101.
Corntassel J. and C. Bryce. 2012. ‘Practicing sustainable self-determination: indigenous approaches to cultural restoration and revitalization’, in Brown Journal of World Affairs,
18(2), pp. 151-162.
Corrigan C., H. Bingham, Y. Shi, E. Lewis, A. Chauvenet and N. Kingston. 2018. ‘Quantifying the contribution to biodiversity conservation of protected areas governed byindigenous peoples and local communities’, Biological Conservation, 227, pp. 403–412.
Coulthard G. 2014. Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Dacks R., T. Ticktin, A. Mawyer, S. Caillon, J. Claudet, P. Fabre, S.D. Jupiter, J. McCarter, M. Mejia, P. Pascua, E. Sterling and S. Wongbusarakum. 2019. ‘Developing biocultural
indicators for resource management’, in Conservation Science and Practice, 1(6).
Dudley N. (ed.). 2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories, IUCN, Gland.
Escobar A. 2008. Territories of Difference: Place, Movements, Life, Redes, Duke University Press, Durham (NC) and London.
FAO. 2012. Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security.
Farvar M.T. 2003. ‘Mobile pastoralism in West Asia: myths, challenges and a whole set of loaded questions’, Policy Matters, 12, pp. 31-41.
Farvar M.T., G. Borrini-Feyerabend, J. Campese, T. Jaeger, H. Jonas and S. Stevens. 2018. Whose ‘Inclusive Conservation’?, Policy Brief of the ICCA Consortium no. 5., The ICCA
Consortium and Cenesta, Tehran.
Feit H.A. 2007. ‘Myths of the Ecological Whitemen: Histories, Science, and Rights in North American - Native American Relations,’ in M.E. Harkin and D.R Lewis (eds.), Native
Americans and the Environment: Perspectives on the Ecological Indian, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 52-92.
Fletcher R. and B. Büscher. 2016. Why E. O. Wilson is wrong about how to save the Earth (available online).
Foggin J.M. 2011. ‘Rethinking “ecological migration” and the value of cultural continuity – a response to Wang, Song & Hu’, in AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment,
40, pp.100-101.
Foggin J.M. 2014. ‘Managing shared natural heritages: towards more participatory models of protected area management in Western China’, in Journal of International Wildlife
Law & Policy, 17(3), pp.130-151.
Forest People Programme. 2011. Case Studies and Synthesis Paper on Customary Sustainable Use of Biodiversity by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. Examples,
Challenges, Community Initiatives and Recommendations Relating to CBD Article 10(C), Forest Peoples Program.
Frascaroli F. 2016. ‘Shepherds, rituals, and the sacred. A biocultural view of the non-modern ontologies of folk shrines and devotions in Central Italy’, in Worldviews, 20, pp.
272–285.
Frascaroli F. and Fjeldsted T. 2017. ‘From abstractions to actions: re-embodying the religion and conservation nexus’, in Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture,
11(4), pp. 512-534.
Garnett S.T., N.D. Burgess, J.E. Fa, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, Z. Molnár, C.J. Robinson, J.E.M. Watson, K.K. Zander, B. Austin, E.S. Brondizio, N. French Collier, T. Duncan,
E. Ellis, H. Geyle, M.V. Jackson, H. Jonas, P. Malmer, B. McGowan, A. Sivongxay and I. Leiper. 2018. ‘A spatial overview of the global importance of indigenous lands forconservation’, in Nature Sustainability, 1(7), pp. 369–374.
Gavin M.C., J. McCarter, A. Mead, F. Berkes, J.R. Richard Stepp, D. Peterson and R. Tang. 2015. ‘Defining biocultural approaches to conservation’, in Trends in Ecology &Evolution, 30(3), pp. 140–145.
Graham J., B. Amos and T. Plumptre. 2003. Governance Principles for Protected Areas in the 21st Century, discussion paper. Institute on Governance in collaboration with Parks
Canada and Canadian International Development Agency, Ottawa.
Hardin G. 1968. ‘The tragedy of the commons’, in Science, 162(3859), pp. 1243–1248.
Hill C., S. Lillywhite and M. Simon. 2010. Guide to Free Prior and Informed Consent, Oxfam Australia.
Hitt M.A., S. Black, and L.W. Porter. 2011. The Nature of Management, in A. Jayawardana (ed.) Management and Organisations, Pearson Australia, Sydney, pp. 4–28.
Hodges J., M. Foggin, R. Long and G. Zhaxi. 2014. ‘Globalisation and the sustainability of farmers, livestock-keepers, pastoralists and fragile habitats’, in Biodiversity, 15(2-3),
pp. 109-118. Hoole A. and F. Berkes. 2009. ‘Breaking down fences: Recoupling social–ecological systems for biodiversity conservation in Namibia’, in Geoforum, 41, 304-317.
Holder C. and J. Corntassel. 2002. ‘Indigenous peoples and multicultural citizenship: bridging collective and individual rights.’, in Human Rights Quarterly, 24(1), pp. 126-151.
Hoole A. and F. Berkes. 2009. ‘Breaking down fences: recoupling social–ecological systems for biodiversity conservation in Namibia’, Geoforum, 41, pp. 304-317.
IUCN. 1980. World Conservation Strategy. Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development, IUCN, UNEP and WWF.
IUCN. 2003. Durban Accord and Durban Action Plan.
IUCN. 2004. Resolution 3.049 on Community Conserved Areas.
IUCN. 2012 Resolution 094 Respecting, recognizing and supporting Indigenous Peoples’ and Community Conserved Territories and Areas.
IUCN. 2014. The Promise of Sydney – Vision.
Jonas, H. C., 2017. “The evolution of indigenous peoples’ and community conserved territories and areas (ICCAs) in international biodiversity law”, Chapter 10 in Biodiversity
and Nature Protection Law, Elgar, Northampton (Mass. USA).
Jonas H., A. Kothari and H. Shrumm. 2012. Legal and Institutional Aspects of Recognizing and Supporting Conservation by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities,
Natural Justice, Delhi.
Jonas H. and H. Shrumm. 2012. Recalling Traditional Resource Rights: An Integrated Rights Approach to Biocultural Diversity, Natural Justice.

page 56

Jonas H., E.J. Makagon and H. Shrumm. 2013. The Living Convention. A Compendium of Internationally Recognised Rights that Support the Integrity and Resilience ofIndigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ Territories and Other Social-Ecological Systems, second edition, Natural Justice.
Jonas H., H. Jonas and E.J. Makagon. 2014. ‘Introducing the Living Convention and the landscape approach to legal empowerment’, in W. Littlechild, E. Stamatopoulou (eds.),
Indigenous Peoples’ Access to Justice, Including Truth and Reconciliation Processes, Columbia University, Institute for the Study of Human Rights, New York, pp. 390–406.
Jonas H., V. Barbuto, H. Jonas, A. Kothari and F. Nelson. 2014. ‘New steps of change: looking beyond protected areas to consider “Other Effective Area-Based Conservation
Measures”’, in Parks, 20(2), pp. 111–128.
Jonas H., E.J. Makagon and D. Roe. 2016. Conservation Standards. From Rights to Responsibilities, IIED Discussion Paper, London.
Jones K.R, O. Venter, R.A. Fuller, J.R. Allan, S.L. Maxwell, P.J. Negret, J.E.M. Watson. 2018. ‘One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure’, in Science
360(6390), pp. 788-791.
Kauffman C.M. and L. Sheehan. forthcoming. ‘The rights of nature. Guiding or responsibilities through standards’, in S. Turner, D. Shelton, J. Razaqque, O. Mcintyre, J. May(eds.), Environmental Rights. The Development of Standards, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kauffman C.M. and P.L. Martin. 2017. ‘Can rights of nature make development more sustainable? Why some Ecuadorian lawsuits succeed, and others fail’, in World
Development 92, pp. 130–142.
Kirmayer L.J., G.M. Brass, T. Holton, K. Paul, C. Simpson and C. Tait. 2007. Suicide among Aboriginal People in Canada, Aboriginal Healing Foundation, Ottawa.
Kothari A., C. Corrigan, H. Jonas, A. Neumann and H. Shrumm (eds.). 2012. Recognising and Supporting Territories and Areas Conserved by Indigenous Peoples and Local
Communities: Global Overview and National Case Studies, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, ICCA Consortium, Kalpavriksh, and Natural Justice,Technical Series no. 64, Montreal.
Kothari A., P. Camill and J. Brown. 2013. ‘Conservation as if people also mattered: policy and practice of community-based conservation’, in Conservation and Society, 11(1),pp. 1–15.
Kothari A., R. Cooney, D. Hunter, K. MacKinnon, E. Muller, F. Nelson, K.P. Oli, S. Pandey, T. Rasheed and L. Vavrova. 2015. ‘Managing resource use and development’, in G.L.
Worboys, M. Lockwood, A. Kothari, S. Feary and I. Pulsford (eds.), Protected Area Governance and Management, ANU Press, Canberra, pp. 789–822.
Kotzé L.J. and P. Calzadilla Villavicencio. 2017. ‘Somewhere between rhetoric and reality: environmental constitutionalism and the rights of nature in Ecuador’, inTransnational Environmental Law Journal, 6(3), pp. 1–33.
Kramer M.H. 1988. ‘Rights without trimmings’, in M.H. Kramer, N.E. Simmonds, H. Steiner (eds.), A Debate over Rights. Philosophical Enquiries, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, pp. 7–111.
Krantz L. 2001. The Sustainable Livelihood Approach to Poverty Reduction. An Introduction, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.
Lee E. 2016. ‘Protected areas, country and value: the nature-culture tyranny of the IUCN’s protected area guidelines for Indigenous Australians’, in Antipode, 48(2), pp. 355374.
MacCormick N. 1976. ‘Children’s rights: a test-case for theories of right’, in Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, 52(3), pp. 305–317.
Maffi L. 2007. ‘Biocultural diversity and sustainability’, in J. Pretty, A.S. Ball, T. Benton, J.S. Guivant, D.R. Lee, D. Orr, M.J. Pfeffer and H. Ward (eds.), The SAGE Handbook ofEnvironment and Society, SAGE Publication Ltd, London, pp. 267–277.
Maffi L. and E. Woodley, 2010. Biocultural Diversity Conservation: A Global Sourcebook, Earthscan, London.
McCay B.J and J. M. Acheson (eds.). 1987. The Question of the Commons: The Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Mejido Costoya M. 2013. ‘Latin American Post-Neoliberal Development Thinking: The Bolivian ‘Turn’ Toward Suma Qamaña, in European Journal of Development Research,
25(2), pp. 213-229
Mikkola M. 2019. ‘Feminist Perspectives on Sex and Gender’, in Zalta E.N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Mcleod E. and M. Palmer. 2015. ‘Why conservation needs religion’, in Coastal Management, 43(3), pp. 238–252.
Morgera E., M. Buck, and E. Tsioumani (eds.) 2014. Unraveling the Nagoya Protocol - A Commentary on Access and Benefit-Sharing to the Convention on Biological Diversity,
Brill, Leiden and Boston.
Mugabe J. 1998. ‘Intellectual property and traditional knowledge: an exploration in international policy discourse’, in Intellectual Property and Human Rights. A Panel
Discussion to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva.
Mulrennan M. and C. Scott. 2000. ‘Mare Nullius: Indigenous Rights in Saltwater Environments’, in Development and Change, 31(3), pp. 681-708.
Mulrennan M., C. Scott and K. Scott (eds.). 2019. Caring for Eeyou Istchee: Protected Area Creation on Wemindji Cree Territory, University of British Columbia Press,
Vancouver.
Muir J. 1901. Our National Parks, Gibbs Smith, Leyton (Utah).
Murombedzi J.C. 2003. Pre-colonial and Colonial Conservation Practices in Southern Africa and Their Legacy Today, ICCA Consortium.
Murphree M. 2009. ‘The strategic pillars of communal natural resource management: benefit, empowerment and conservation’, in Biodiversity and Conservation, 18, pp. 25512562.
Nadasdy P. 2005. ‘Transcending the Debate over the Ecologically Noble Indian: Indigenous Peoples and Environmentalism’, in Ethnohistory, 52(2), pp. 291-331.
National Centre for First Nations Governance. 2013. The Five Pillars of Effective Governance.
Niederberger T. forthcoming. Autonomy in the Amazon: The emergence of the ‘Gobierno Territorial Autónomo de la Nación Wampis’. PhD Thesis, University of Bern,
Switzerland.
Niezen R. 2003. The Origins of Indigenism. Human Rights and the Politics of Identity, University of California Press, Berkeley, USA.
First North American Dialogue on Biocultural Diversity. 2019. The North American Regional Declaration on Biocultural Diversity: Declaration and Recommended Actions,
Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), the Centre for Indigenous Conservation and Development Alternatives (CICADA), et al., Montreal, May 5-8, 2019 https://www.cbd.int/
portals/culturaldiversity/docs/north-american-regional-declaration-on-biocultural-diversity-en.pdf.
Notess L., P.G. Veit, I. Monterroso, Andiko, E. Sulle, A.M. Larson, A. Gindroz, J. Quaedvlieg and A. Williams, 2018. The Scramble for Land Rights. Reducing inequalities
between communities and companies, World Resources Institute, Washington DC.
Oldekop J., G. Holmes, W. Harris and K. Evans. 2015. ‘A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas’, in Conservation Biology, 30(1), pp.
133–141.
Oster R.T., A. Grier, R. Lightning, M.J. Mayan and E.L. Toth. 2014. ‘Cultural continuity, traditional Indigenous language, and diabetes in Alberta First Nations: a mixed
methods study’, in International Journal for Equity in Health, 13(92).
Ostrom E. 1990. Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ostrom E., 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity, Princeton University Press, Woodstock (UK).
Oxfam, International Land Coalition, Rights and Resources Initiative. 2016. Common Ground. Securing Land Rights and Safeguarding the Earth, Oxfam, Oxford.
Pimbert M. and G. Borrini-Feyerabend. 2019. Nourishing Life—Territories of Life and Food Sovereignty, ICCA Consortium Policy Brief no.6, The ICCA Consortium incollaboration with Coventry University (UK) and CENESTA (Iran).
Pope Francis. 2015. Encyclica Laudato si’.
Posey D.A. 1995. ‘Indigenous Peoples and Traditional Resource Rights: A Basis for Equitable Relationships?’, in Workshop on Indigenous Peoples and Traditional Resource

page 57

Rights, The Green College Centre for Environmental Policy & Understanding, Oxford.
Posey D.A. (ed.). 1999. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. A Complementary Contribution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment, Intermediate Technology
Publication, Nairobi.
Raymond-Yakoubian J., B. Raymond-Yakoubian and C. Moncrieff. 2017. ‘The incorporation of traditional knowledge into Alaska federal fisheries management’, in Marine
Policy, 78, pp. 132-143.
Raz J. 1988. The Morality of Freedom, Clanderon Press, Oxford.
Reid L. 2009. ‘Who are the indigenous? Origins and Transformations’, in The Cordillera Review: Journal of Philippine Culture and Society, 1(1).
Reyes G. 2017. Can the recognition of the unique value and conservation contributions of ICCAs strengthen the collective rights and responsibilities of indigenous peoples?
Manuscript prepared for the ICCA Consortium.
Rights and Resources Initiative. 2015. Who Owns the World’s Land? A global baseline of formally recognized indigenous and community land rights., Rights and Resources
Initiative, Washington, DC.
Robinson B.E., Y.J. Masuda, A. Kelly, M.B. Holland, C. Bedford, M. Childress and D. Fletschner. 2018. ‘Incorporating Land Tenure Security into Conservation’, in Conservation
Letters, 11(2), pp. 1–12.
Ruiz M. and R. Vernooy (eds.). 2012. The Custodians of Biodiversity. Sharing Access to and Benefit Sharing of Genetic Resources, Earthscan from Routledge, International
Development Centre.
Sajeva G. 2018. When Rights Embrace Responsibilities. Biocultural Rights and the Conservation of Environment, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Santos B. 2001. ‘Pluralismo jurídico, interlegalidad e hibridación jurídica’, in B. Santos and M. Villegas (eds.), El Caleidoscopio de las justicias en Colombia, Siglo del Hombre,
Bogotá, pp. 132-150.
Scott C. 1996. ‘Science for the West, Myth for the Rest? The Case of James Bay Cree Knowledge Construction’, in L. Nader (ed.), Naked Science: Anthropological Inquiries into
Boundaries, Power and Knowledge, Routledge, London, pp. 69-86.
Scott C. 2013. ‘Ontology and Ethics in Cree Hunting: animism, totemism and practical knowledge’, in G. Harvey (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Animism, Acumen,
Durham (UK), pp. 159-166.
Scott C. and M. Mulrennan. 2010. ‘Reconfiguring Mare Nullius: Indigenous Sea Rights and the Divergence of Domestic and International Norms’, in M. Blaser, R. de Costa, D.
McGregor and W. Coleman (eds.), Indigenous Peoples and Autonomy: Insights for a Global Age, University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, pp. 148-176.
Serrano M. (coord.) 2018. ‘Campo de Lamas. Plan de gestión y adaptación al cambio climático’, in S. Castañé, N. Asensio, O. Baena, V. Fàbrega, A. Navarro and P. Carnicero(eds.), Guía práctica: Cómo planificar los proyectos de custodia para adaptarse al cambio climático en las regiones vulnerables de España, Xarxa de Custòdia del Territori,
Barcelona.
Shrumm H. and H. Jonas. 2012. Biocultural Community Protocols: A Toolkit for Community Facilitators. Integrated Participatory and Legal Empowerment Tools to Support
Communities to Secure Their Rights, Responsibilities, Territories, and Areas, Natural Justice, Cape Town.
Singh N.C. 1996. Community Adaptation and Sustainable Livelihoods: Basic Issues and Principle, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg MB.
Sobrevila C. 2008. The Role of Indigenous Peoples in Biodiversity Conservation: The Natural but Often Forgotten Partners, The World Bank, Washington DC.
Sodhi N.S. and P.R. Ehrlich (eds.). 2010. Conservation Biology for All, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Stevens S. 1997. Conservation through Cultural Survival, Island Press, Washington DC.
Stevens S. 2010. ‘Implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and International Human Rights Law through the Recognition of ICCAs’, in Policy
Matters, 17, pp. 181-194.
Stevens S., N. Pathak Broome and T. Jaeger. 2016. Recognising and Respecting ICCAs Overlapped by Protected Areas: A Report for the ICCA Consortium, ICCA
Consortium, Teheran.
Stevens S. et al. forthcoming. Recognising ICCAs Overlapped by Protected Areas, IU CN WCPA Best Practice Protected Areas Guidelines Series.
Stevens S., T. Jaeger and N. Pathak Broome, with contributions from G. Borrini-Feyerabend, C. Eghenter, H.C. Jonas, G. Reyes. 2016. ICCAs and Overlapping Protected Areas:
Fostering Conservation Synergies and Social Reconciliation, Policy Brief of the ICCA Consortium, Issue No.4, ICCA Consortium, Tehran.
Stone C. 1972. ‘Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects’, in South California Law Review, 45, pp. 450–501.
Studley J. and W.V. Bleisch. 2018. ‘Juristic Personhood for Sacred Natural Sites: A Potential Means for Protecting Nature’, in Parks Journal, 24, pp. 81–96.
Surrallés A. 2017. ‘Human rights for non-humans’, in Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 7(3), pp. 211–235.
Swiderska K., A. Milligan, K. Kohli, H. Jonas, H. Shrumm, W. Hiemstra and M.J. Oliva. 2012. ‘Biodiversity and culture: exploring community protocols, rights and consent’, inParticipatory Learning and Action, 65, International Institute for Environment and Development.
Tengö M., R. Hill, P. Malmer, C.M. Raymond, M. Spierenburg, F. Danielsen, T. Elmqvist and C. Folke. 2017. ‘Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond–lessons
learned for sustainability’, in Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, pp. 17-25.
Tobin B.M. 2013. ‘Bridging the Nagoya compliance gap: the fundamental role of customary law in protection of indigenous peoples’ resource and knowledge rights’, in Law,
Environment and Development Journal, 9(2), pp.142–162.
Tobin B.M. 2014. Indigenous Peoples, Customary Law and Human Rights – Why Living Law Matters, Earthscan from Routledge, London and New York.
Tomaselli A. 2016. Handbook of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, London, Routledge.
Torrance J.B. 1996. Worship, Community, and the Triune God of Grace, Paternoster Press, Carlisle.
UNDRIP. 2007. United National Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
UNEP-WCMC. 2016. Global Databases to Support ICCAs: A Manual for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge (UK).
UNEP-WCMC, IUCN and NGS. 2018. Protected Planet Report 2018, UNEP-WCMC, IUCN and NGS, Cambridge (UK), Gland (Switzerland) and Washington, D.C. (USA).
United Nations Commission on Human Rights. 1986. Study of the Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations.
Verschuuren B., R. Wild, J.A. McNeely, and G. Oviedo (eds.). 2010. Sacred Natural Sites. Conserving Nature & Culture, Earthscan, London and Washington.
Wagner R. 1981. The Invention of Culture, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Waldron J. 2002. ‘Taking group rights carefully’, in Litigating Rights. Perspectives from Domestic and International Law, G. Huscroft, P. Rishworth (eds.), Hart Publishing,Portland (Oregon), pp. 203–220.
Weitzner V. 2018. Economía Cruda/Derecho Crudo: Pueblos Andestrales, Minería, Derecho y Violencia en Colombia/ Raw Economy/Raw Law: Ancestral Peoples, Mining,
Law and Violence in Colombia, PhD Dissertation, Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologia Social (Centre for Research and Higher Studies in Social
Anthropology, CIESAS-CDMX), Mexico City.
Wilshusen P.R., S.R. Brechin, C.L. Fortwangler and P.C. West. 2002. ‘Reinventing a square wheel: critique of a resurgent “protection paradigm” in international biodiversity
conservation’, in Society & Natural Resources, 15(1), pp. 17–40.
Wilson E.O. 2016. Half-Earth. Our Planet’s Fight for Life. Liveright Publishing Corporation, New York and London.
Wilson K. 2016. ‘Flourishing at twenty: on context and foundations in the rise of the concept of biocultural diversity’, in Terralingua Langscape, 5(2), pp. 10–15.
Wittman, H., Chappell, M.J., Abson, D.J., R. Bezner Kerr, J. Blesh, J. Hanspach, I. Perfecto, J. Fischer. 2017. ‘A social-ecological perspective on harmonizing food security
and biodiversity conservation’, in Regional Environmental Change, 17(5), pp.1291-1301.

page 58

Useful links and websites
Biocultural Community Protocols
Coalition against Land Grabbing
Convention on Biological Diversity
The Dana declaration website
Emblematic ICCAs descriptions from the ICCA Website
Forests Peoples ProgrammeFoundation for Ecological Security
Global Diversity Foundation
Global Forest Coalition
Governance for the Conservation of Nature – three short films
ICCA Consortium
ICCAs and the ICCAs Consortium—Conserving the Territories of Life – short movie
ICCA Registry
IIED page on Cultural Heritage
Indigenous navigator
International Collective in Support of Fishworkers
International Land Coalition
International Right of Nature Tribunal
International Society of Ethnobiology
IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature
IUCN page on Governance, equity and rights
IWGIA International Working Group for Indigenous Affairs
John Knox message to the ICCA Consortium
La Via Campesina
Landmark
LMMA International
Maliasili
NAMATI
Natural Justice
NTFP-EP
Protected planet
Rangeland Initiative of ILC
Rights & Resources Initiative
Snowchange
Survival International
Sustainable Development Goals
The Global Support Initiative to ICCAs of the GEF Small Grants Programme
The Tenure Facility
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
United Nations website on indigenous peoples
WRI page on indigenous and community land rights

page 59

Authors

Prepared by Giulia Sajeva, Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend and Thomas Niederberger with contributions from Ghanimat
Azhdari, Shrishtee Bajpai, Tsiorisoa Mihanta Bakoliarimisa, Marco Bassi, Jessica Campese, Jeff Corntassel, Marcos
Celeiro, Sergio Couto, Joám Evans Pim, Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares, Marc Foggin, Fabrizio Frascaroli, Ted Karfakis,
Ashish Kothari, Jeremy Ironside, Holly Jonas, Emma Lee, Thomas Moore, Denis Ruysschaert, Trevor Sandwith, Colin
Scott, Aman Singh and Stan Stevens.

Citation Sajeva G., G. Borrini-Feyerabend and T. Niederberger, 2019. Meanings and more... Policy Brief of the ICCA
Consortium no. 7. ICCA Consortium in collaboration with Cenesta.
Ordersinfo@iccaconsortium.org

ISBN: 978-2-9701386-0-0

Design, layout and publication supervision
Note

Jeyran Farvar (jeyran@cenesta.org)

The views expressed in the Briefing Note do not necessarily reflect those of all the Members of the ICCA
Consortium.

Policy Brief of the ICCA Consortium

Issue No. 7

Produced in collaboration with Cenesta
Series Sponsors: The Christensen Fund, UNDP GEF SGP and SwedBio

page 60