Draft_Res_CCA

WCC Resolution on Community Conserved Areas/ Indigenous territories/ Sacred Sites

Background (not to be included in the final draft)

For instructions on how a motion should be submitted to the IUCN, please check the Motions manual

After the CBD Rome meeting we circulated questions to people who may be interested in developing an IUCN resolution or recommendation. Regarding the broad topics of Restitution of rights/ Indigenous territories/ Recognition of governance systems and practices of IP/LCs on IP/LCs territories / Legislations to empower IP/LCs to manage and use of their own resources. Process of negotiation concerning new protected areas/ recognition of the ‘life plans’ of indigenous peoples and local communities/ vulnerability of indigenous people as first consideration in external interventions, including conservation Community Conserved Areas/ Indigenous territories/ Sacred Sites.

Proposed by IUCN member:
CENESTA (Iran)

Seconded by IUCN members:
RESOURCE AFRICA (pending confirmation)

Promoting the Appropriate Recognition of Indigenous Bio-cultural Territories and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs)

draft resolution

AWARE that a considerable part of the Earth’s surviving biodiversity is located on territories and sites under the ownership, control, and/or management of indigenous peoples and local communities, including

mobile peoples;

NOTING that such peoples and communities exercise their governance through both customary laws and other effective means, and that their territories and sites add considerably to humanity’s efforts to protect and conserve biodiversity; shape diverse landscapes and seascapes that contain both wildlife and agricultural diversity; and often serve as examples of how to reconcile the objectives of conservation, livelihood, food sovereignty, and local sustainable development and sustenance of precious cultural diversity;

RECALLING Resolution 49 of the 3d World Conservation Congress on Community Conserved Areas (CCAs) which refers to CCAs as “natural or modified ecosystems, including significant biodiversity, ecological services, and cultural values, voluntarily conserved by indigenous peoples and local communities through customary laws or other effective means”, and provides a clear direction on the need to recognize and support CCAs;

STRESSING that the Programme of Work on Protected Areas, adopted by decision VII/28 of the 7th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Kuala Lumpur in 2004 and recalled in numerous subsequent CBD meetings, recommends the Parties to the Convention to recognize and support Community Conserved Areas;

CELEBRATING that the UN (add details)…approved the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which recognizes …. [add here the specifics on the recognition of rights over natural resources]

ACKOWLEDGING the untiring work carried out by TILCEPA—a joint Theme of the IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic, and Social Policy (CEESP) and the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) to support inventories and participatory action research studies of CCAs in various parts of the world; to guide relevant national and international bodies on issues at the interface of CCAs and livelihoods, equity, poverty eradication and food sovereignty; and to facilitate innovative thinking on the subject leading to improved policies and practices;

CONSCIOUS that, as a consequence of that efforts of TILCEPA and partners, in particular the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, CCAs are now been referred to as ICCAs (Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas) and described as part of the new IUCN Guidelines on Protected Areas Management Categories as one of the main governance types in protected areas systems, comprising both Indigenous Bio-cultural Territories and Community Conserved Sites;

ACKNOWLEDGING that a tremendous variety of situations exists on a regional and sub regional basis—some governments having fully recognized territorial rights to their Indigenous Peoples, others providing limited rights of access to local resources through “Community-Based Natural Resources Management Programmes”, and still others denying entitlements and governance roles even to the peoples and communities that provided resource stewardships for centuries;

CONCERNED that in many countries recognition measures have not gone far enough to restore the essential rights needed to develop local adaptability and resilience in the face of emerging threats such as climate change, food shortages and new diseases;

NOTING that robust local governance can only be realised when people have secure authority and responsibility for their resources; and are allowed to define the structures and rules of the local institutions for their management and conservation, with appropriate external facilitation where required and requested;

AWARE that—while most ICCAs remain unrecognized in national and international conservation systems and are largely outside official protected area networks— national “recognition” of ICCAs is on the rise and, at times, unfortunately relying on hastily developed or otherwise inappropriate mechanisms that include the top-down imposition of homogenised institutional structures, rules or governance mechanisms;

ALSO AWARE, on the other hand, that a number of countries have recognised ICCAs in appropriate ways within or outside their protected areas systems, including through laws and policies that give full recognition to indigenous peoples’ and local community rights;

UNDERLYING that many CCAs are facing on going and imminent threats, including from unsustainable development projects, unclear and insecure tenure arrangements, de-legitimization of customary rights, inequities of a social, economic and political nature, loss of knowledge, cultural change, and commercialization of resources and – most recently – the mentioned inappropriate forms of recognition and attention by governmental agencies and conservation organizations;

RECOGNIZING that indigenous peoples and local communities need support to be able to respond to these threats in ways that are both effective and equitable;

The World Conservation Congress, at its 4^th Session in Barcelona, Spain 11-14 October 2008:

REAFFIRMS the conservation significance of Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs) and the role of indigenous peoples and local communities, including mobile peoples, in declaring, governing and managing them;

URGES IUCN to provide leadership and supportive roles in local, national, and international recognition of ICCAs as a legitimate form of biodiversity conservation, through:

(a) fully acknowledging the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on their territories and natural resources, as well as recognising that their unique knowledge and institutions can be brought to bear on the governance and management of biodiversity;

(b) providing assistance to CBD members in the implementation of the relevant elements of the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas within a broad framework of respect of human rights in conservation;

(c) promoting their inclusion within national and sub national systems of protected areas only after indigenous peoples and local communities agreed upon it and offered their free and Prior Informed Consent;

(d) supporting the restitution of traditional and customary rights, consistent with conservation and social objectives and as considered appropriate by the indigenous peoples and local communities governing existing ICCAs and/or interested in establishing new ones;

(e )Add truth and reconciliation mechanisms to redress past injustices??? (cite a WPC recommendation on this???)

(f) advocating support to indigenous peoples and local communities to protect ICCAs against external threats, by applying the principles of free and Prior Informed Consent, participatory environmental impact assessments, and other measures as elaborated in CBD decision VII/28 or other international agreements; and

(g) facilitating self-monitoring and evaluation of ICCAs by relevant communities, participatory

monitoring and evaluation by outside agencies/actors, and the establishment of effective mechanisms of internal and external accountability;

REQUESTS WCPA and CEESP to renew and strengthen support to their joint Theme TILCEPA, possibly enlarged to include members of other IUCN Commissions, to continue work in:

(a) understanding the ICCA phenomenon in its regional and national dimensions and identifying examples of mechanisms and safeguards that can ensure appropriate and non destructive national and international recognition;

(b) promoting the recognition of ICCAs, within or outside legal systems, as local governance types unique to the concerned indigenous peoples and local communities and possessing institutions with the authority and responsibility to take necessary measures to: protect their natural resources; take decisions on the use of such resources; collaborate with neighbouring institutions when issues of scale demand a wider consideration; retain income and non-monetary benefits from management; and decide on the distribution of such income and other benefits;

(c) supporting the CBD Secretariat in regional workshops or other processes to enhance capacities and promote appropriate policies and practices for the full implementation of the Programme of Work on Protected Areas

(d) guiding relevant bodies in the updating of the World Database on Protected Areas, the UN List of Protected Areas, the State of the World’s Protected Areas and any other such databases or documents to ensure appropriate inclusion of ICCAs.

References

IUCN Resolution 3.049 Community Conserved Areas
Bhutia, T. (2005). Capacity building for mountain ecosystem management. Paper submitted for Shimla Uttar Anchal India. The Mountain Institute (TMI), Nepal.
Mountain Spirit ( 2007). Socio-economic base line survey: Kanchenjunga Conservation Area Project ( KCAP)The report prepared for WWF Nepal program.
Pokharel, K. & Sigdel, P. (2008, May 2,) Need to policy of Community Forest: Ghanasyam Pande (interview). Annapurna Post. p.4
Sherpa, P.D (2008, March 17).Indigenous rights for a peaceful world. Newsfront, p.10.
Stevens, S. (2008). National Survey of CCA in Nepal. Univestiy of Massachuetts: Department of Geosciences, USA.
Tourism for Rural Poverty Alleviation Program (TRPAP). (2006). Sagarmatha National Park and Buffer Zone Management Plan (2006-2011). The report is prepared for Department of National Park and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC), Nepal.

Comments

From: "Judithe Bizot" <judithe.bizot@free.fr>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 13:54:14 +0200
I understand thoroughly what you are aiming at in this resolution. I think however that, although the Nepalese situation is important, you could address the issue diffently for all the high mountain people and their sacred sites (--including so many, but Tibet, Bhutan the Latin American Andes, and yes the North American Indian continent--all these come to mind)
Also perhaps you would want to put into a separate para the importance of the protection of the sacred sites and indigenous local communities rights and ceremonies and knoledges.

Draft_Res_Carbon and REDD

WCC Resolution on Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD)

Background (not to be included in the final draft)

For instructions on how a motion should be submitted to the IUCN, please check the Motions manual

After the Rome CBD meeting we circulated questions to people who may be interested in developing an IUCN resolution or recommendation. Regarding this broad topic:

Improving livelihoods of local communities and indigenous peoples by recognizing their rights to land and natural resources and providing financial support to them through REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) mechanisms and direct payments for their role in maintaining ecological services and conserving biodiversity. Is it possible? Is it desirable? Will it ever work? How? What advantages? What pitfalls? What to recommend? How can we clearly distinguish issues of rights from issues of market-valued environmental services?

Proposed by IUCN member:


Seconded by IUCN members:

Social safeguards for REDD initiatives

Proposed IUCN Resolution version 03.06.08

RECALLING that the mission of IUCN is to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable,

RECALLING FURTHER IUCN Recommendation 2.94 "Climate change, mitigation and land use", adopted by the World Conservation Congress at its 2nd session in Amman, Jordan, 4-11 October, 2000, which calls for

1. the involvement of relevant stakeholders including local communities and indigenous peoples in the design and implementation of projects; and
2. sustainable development activities that provide economic benefits to local communities, and recognize the rights of indigenous peoples";

AWARE of the new and “ineluctable” economic opportunities offered by the creation of a carbon market resulting from binding agreements and incentives to reduce green house gas emissions and of the potential extension of these economic opportunities to activities that reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD);

BEARING IN MIND that a properly designed and appropriately regulated climate change mitigation funding mechanism, for REDD can provide new sources of funding for biodiversity conservation, for maintenance and enhancement of ecosystem services and for rural development;

CONSIDERING, however, that in absence of effective design and regulations, such an incentive system can have perverse effects such as an increase in deforestation and forest degradation at other sites by ‘leakage’, and social marginalization from resource capture by privileged and powerful actors, possibly resulting in the net impoverishment of forest-dependent, vulnerable communities;

INFORMED that the carbon market, in its current architecture, has failed to adequately address the concerns listed above, and that some perverse effects are already observed on the ground in Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry projects financed by the carbon market;

INFORMED that the architecture and rules presently discussed concerning the REDD modality risk the replication and extension of these perverse effects, causing serious and fully justified concerns among indigenous people and local communities living within and around forests;

INFORMED that indigenous people and local communities are actively mobilizing for the recognition of their land and resource use rights and to receive an equitable share from the any incentives to reduce green house gas emissions on their land,


The IUCN World Conservation Congress at its 4th Session in Barcelona, Spain, 5-14 October 2008:

REQUESTS the IUCN Director General to position the Union at the forefront of international institutions seeking to ensure that initiatives providing incentives for REDD are carried out with full social safeguards to protect the interests and rights of indigenous peoples and local communities with particular attention to more vulnerable groups

URGES the IUCN Director General to harness the knowledge and skills of its members, Commission members and secretariat to actively pursue policies and mechanisms to:

* secure the land and resource rights of indigenous peoples and local communities that historically held use rights on the land where the carbon is stored, ensuring their free, prior and informed consent to any initiatives providing incentives for REDD on their land and/or that affect their rights, and
* to ensure that indigenous peoples and local communities receive an equitable share of incentives for REDD, and that such benefits are equitably shared within communities.

FURTHER REQUESTS the IUCN Director General to report to Council before end of 2009 about recommended policies and mechanisms to ensure the above, including an analysis of the regulations, monitoring and enforcement that would ensure adequate social safeguards for market-based approaches and fund-based approaches to provide effective and equitable incentives for REDD. This report should evaluate the relative advantages and disadvantages and risks of market-based mechanisms versus fund-based mechanisms and the proposal for a moratorium on market-based REDD mechanisms.

Comments:

From: "Jacques Pollini" <jacques.pollini@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:20:42 -0400

Dear colleagues,

Thanks for the comments on the resolution. But reading it, I felt now that I opened a pandora's box (well, actually it was already open anyway) that gives me some regret to have draft that resolution. I agree when Grazia did
some cut because it seemed that details were not at the stage of being discussed yet, nor could be matter of IUCN resolution. But now that new kind of details are added, I start to dislike this new version.
....
....
To conclude, I have to say that I feel quite uncomfortable with the resolution now, and that I would not support it if I was IUCN member. I was ready to defend Grazia's early version, even if the fact that it gave little details was a risk (I accepted this risk in the name of realpolitik !!). But the new "details" added seem to bring it now precisely in the direction I wanted to avoid. In sum, Simone Lovera was right and I may have been naive to think that it was possible to "play" with market forces.

Jacques Pollini


From: "Franks, Phil" <phil@ci.or.ke>
Subject: RE: Resolution on social safeguards fro REDD initiatives
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 18:42:42 +0300

Dear all,

I have added some comments. These cover two main issues:
1. social safeguards should explicitly make reference to more vulnerable social groups to make sure that such safeguards go beyond the community level to address distributional issues within communities
2. moratorium – I don’t think this resolution will pass if it looks like it is set up to justify a moratorium which many IUCN Members will not at this point support. I think a more balanced approach is needed.

My view is that it IS possible to regulate markets to deliver on equity as well as efficiency criteria (as seen in some other social sectors). Certainly this will be a tough fight but there is at least a reasonable chance of success, whereas I believe that there is no chance of getting a moratorium.

Best regards,

Phil

Phil Franks
Poverty, Environment & Climate Change Network Coordinator,
CARE International, Nairobi , Kenya
Tel (off): +254 20 2807141
Tel (mob): +254 735 491943

From: simone lovera simonelovera@yahoo.com
Sent: 03 June 2008 18:00

... I still feel the resolution is based on a number of rather important misunderstandings and misperceptions:

1) The resolution seems to suggest it is almost certain REDD projects will be included in the carbon market after 2012, but it is very unlikely the outcome of the current REDD negotiations will lead to the inclusion of individual forest projects in the carbon market....

2) As such, it is not very logic to call for a role of IUCN in this, and even less logic to call for a Global Forest Trust Fund....

3) Considering the fact that some 90% of the IPOs participating in the last session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues were highly critical of REDD, I do not think it is appropriate to state: "INFORMED that indigenous people and local communities are actively mobilizing for the recognition of their right and to receive a fair share from the sale of carbon stored on their land," The majority of organizations is NOT asking for a fair share as it is against their spiritual believes to "sell carbon on their land"...

4) People keep overlooking the fact that GEF was establised to reward developing countries (and, through their small grants fund, IPOs and NGOs in those countries) for the incremental costs of biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation projects that provide global benefits. We better improve that wheel instead of reinventing it....

I would like to make an alternative proposal. .... I found the attached resolution on integrating human rights concerns in conservation efforts. ...


From: "Alain Karsenty" <alain.karsenty@cirad.fr>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 14:40:29 +0200
My suggestion would be to focus on the current debate about possible alternative architectures for REDD. To simplify, one can see three big options (with variants):
(1) Market-based rewards to governments actors for reduction of deforestation/degradation against a national baseline, with (hopefully) subsequent financial support of local initiatives by the recipient government;
(2) Fund-based rewards to governments or local actors for reduction of deforestation/degradation against national or local baselines;
(3) International Fund (sustained by international taxation schemes, ideally on carbon/energy or proceeds of the emission permits auctioning) against deforestation oriented toward conditional financing of policies & measures and PES schemes to be designed as part of comprehensive programs addressing agricultural practices & land tenure issues.
As you know, I advocate the third option..
...In any case, I consider the idea of giving indigenous populations property rights over carbon stocks as (i) unrealistic giving the fact most governments are currently reaffirming their “ownership” on forest (to maximise their chances to be the recipient of carbon money), (ii) would lead to unmanageable and possibly violent conflicts amongst local claimers

From: "anastasia pinto" <anarchive.anon@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 20:40:27 +0530
I am convinced that if we do not learn, the earth and the climate will teach us. Being taught is in no way as pleasant an experience as learning.
...I do not support or even see the need for any subsidies to maintain or re-forest most land that ought to be reforested. It must really simply revert to the rightful trust holders who will be delighted as part of their spiritual and moral trust as well as their daily roots and berries to revive these thereby performing a vital service to all humanity. What money needs to be spent on is making others keep their grubby little shopkeepers hands off these territories.
...Demanding money for these preservation or conservations is like saying to a corporation: pay me for looking after my mother.

From: "Jacques Pollini" <jacques.pollini@gmail.com>
To: "anastasia pinto" <anarchive.anon@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 6:42 PM
I agree with you that conservation is not only a matter of money. Most indigenous people have a deep understanding of what conservation means and a genuine commitment to do it. But the problem is that they don't always have the material possibility to do it.
...So, the question that I am concerned in is: how to stop that movement that pushes indigenous people always farther in the remaining forests and destroy their resources?


Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 09:00:27 +0530
From: "anastasia pinto" <anarchive.anon@gmail.com>
[CORE BRIEF: REDD MONEY IS BLOOD MONEY]
May 8, 2008
REDD IS THE COLOUR OF BLOOD
REDD MONEY IS BLOOD MONEY
REDD: Reducing (carbon) Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation
We are being offered blood money
We are being offered blood-price for extermination of our
brothers and sisters
We are being offered money to sell out humanity’s last defence
and protection: our stewardship of all that our Mother Earth
nurtures and cherishes
What is the price of the free and uncontaminated breath of a
single healthy child?
What the price of a single exterminated species?
What is the price of identity, honour, sacred trusteeship?
REDD IS ASKING US TO NAME IT
Get full document


At 04:39 AM 5/16/2008, Alain Karsenty wrote:
... la perception du fonctionnement actuel du marché du carbone me paraît incorrecte : il n’y a pas (encore ?) de marché pour les stocks de carbone, mais seulement pour des réductions d’émissions (par rapport à des objectifs ou un scénario de référence) ou de la séquestration du carbone dans des plantations additionnelles.
... Rémunérer (les gouvernements) pour les forêts sur pied indépendamment des politiques menées serait extrêmement coûteux, inéquitable, et d’une efficacité douteuse.
... Autant je suis pour des systèmes de paiements pour services environnementaux intégrés dans des programmes cohérents visant à modifier les pratiques agraires et à sécuriser le foncier autant je suis contre toute forme de rémunération inconditionnelle (des rentes déstructurantes pour les sociétés qui les recevront ) qui, de plus, vont provoquer des conflits violents pour leur appropriation (et en Afrique entraînera des risques de génocide sur les Pygmées) du fait de l’imbroglio foncier. Autant je suis d’accord pour plaider pour un système dans lesquels les acteurs de terrain sont les premiers bénéficiaires de mécanismes de réduction de la déforestation, autant je pense qu’il faut faire très attention avec cette idée de subventions inconditionnelles.


from Jacques Pollini <jacques.pollini@gmail.com>
the carbon market is already there, will expand, and resource capture will occur. The only realistic answer,
in my view, is to oppose resource capture, not to oppose the carbon market.... ...the profits generated by carbon sale should be directed toward the communities that are using the resources where the carbon is found, in the form of direct payments.
...the payment would constitute a subsidy to sustainable resources extraction, not a subsidy to fortress
conservation

From Elke Mannigel At 06:23 PM 5/15/2008, Elke Mannigel wrote:
I agree with your point, that payments to local communities should be conditioned to nothing except "not clearing the forests" and that the payments should mirror opportunity costs. I have a little difficulties to imagine the implementation of a global fund (which I do think is a good idea) passing the financial resources to the individual households - although I thing a way you mention is through "local, regional and national government bodies and NGOs and other actors serving as intermediaries or facilitating the process".