What Does CBD COP17 Mean for the Recognition of Territories of Life?

First published on 11/04/2026

By Neema Pathak Broome
International Policy Coordinator, ICCA Consortium

---

While almost all agenda items discussed at COP17 were crucial for Indigenous Peoples and local communities and their conserved territories and areas (ICCAs)–territories of life[1], the negotiations related to updating the Programme of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA) and those regarding the proposed elements for the guidelines related to Tasks 1.1 and 1.2 of the programme of work on Article 8(j) and other provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity related to indigenous peoples and local communities to 2030 (ITT guidelines, hereon) were particularly critical. The collective outcomes under these two agenda items were highly anticipated, as they could translate the intention of Target 3 of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF) to recognize three clear pathways: protected areas (PAs), other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs), and indigenous and traditional territories (ITTs), where applicable, to bring 30% of global land and water under conservation by 2030 into concrete actions on the ground supported by legal, financial, and institutional means.

The outcomes of the negotiations were a mixed bag. While the outcome on PoWPA fell short of expectations, important advances were made under the ITT guidelines. In this article, we examine what these outcomes mean for territories of life.

On Guidance Related to Indigenous and Traditional Territories (ITTs)

After advocacy and negotiations led by the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB) caucus (which included representatives from the policy team and members of the ICCA Consortium, alongside other Indigenous Peoples and local community organizations), the ITT guidelines incorporated a vital provision: Paragraph 26.

Paragraph 26 includes three key components:

1. It recognizes that ITTs contribute to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
2. It affirms that ITTs can be complementary to, and recognized separately from, PAs and OECMs.
3. Where ITTs overlap with PAs and OECMs, the management measures in such cases must be applied in accordance with the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), respecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

This marks a significant advancement since 2022, when the KM-GBF was adopted. It is the first decision of the CBD that explicitly recognizes that ITTs (or ICCAs–territories of life) can be recognized as complementary and separate pathways without needing to be subsumed within PAs or OECMs. This provides a clear policy framework at the national level to recognize ITTs or ICCAs–territories of life as distinct conservation mechanisms.

Significantly, other paragraphs of the guidelines reinforce the rights of custodian Indigenous Peoples and local communities over their traditional territories, customary sustainable use, management and governance systems, and cultural practices. Additional provisions emphasize the need for direct funding for ITTs and mandate monitoring and reporting on their recognition, governance, and conservation contributions. They also acknowledge the role of community-based monitoring and the importance of data sovereignty.

These provisions could significantly boost financial support for resource-constrained ICCAs–territories of life, support their strategies to defend lands and waters against destructive development processes, and enable communities to continue using their traditional knowledge and governance systems. Although questions remain about how ITTs and ICCAs–territories of life will be formally reported or counted under Target 3 in national reports and global platforms, these details will be clarified in the lead-up to COP18 in 2028 in Ecuador.

On the Updated Programme of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA)

In contrast to the advances in the ITT guidelines, the negotiations on PoWPA fell far short of expectations. To understand what was lost, context is helpful: PoWPA was first adopted at CBD COP7 in 2004 to guide countries in planning, establishing, and strengthening protected area systems. At the time, PAs were viewed as the primary pathway to achieve conservation goals. The work plan in PoWPA was organized around four interlinked elements, including Element 2 on governance, participation, equity, and benefit-sharing.

Since 2004, global coverage of protected areas has expanded substantially (from approximately 12% terrestrial and 0.7% marine to roughly 17% terrestrial and 10% marine PAs, alongside emerging OECMs). However, implementation of commitments under Element 2, specifically regarding the recognition of the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, their full inclusion, FPIC in designating PAs, and their central role in decision-making, has consistently lagged behind. Consequently, Element 2 remains one of the least reported elements of PoWPA in national reports submitted to the CBD by Parties.

Indigenous Peoples and local communities whose territories overlap with PAs continue to face displacement, exclusion from decision-making, restrictions on customary livelihoods, inadequate recognition of their governance systems, and the criminalization of land defense efforts, all without accountable grievance redress mechanisms.

National conservation policies have continued to prioritize PAs and OECMs, with few countries establishing dedicated legal frameworks to recognize the self-determined conservation stewardship of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

Updating PoWPA presented a critical opportunity to align the framework with the targets of the KM-GBF and reflect two decades of progressive international policy development. This should have meant explicitly recognizing ITTs and ICCAs–territories of life as a distinct, equal pathway alongside PAs and OECMs. Because PoWPA serves as a primary guide for national conservation legislation, including ITTs would have ensured policy coherence with the decision under the ITT guidelines and helped address persistent implementation gaps regarding human rights and governance diversity.

However, despite sustained advocacy by Indigenous Peoples and local communities and support from several governments, opposition from a small group of Parties prevented ITTs from being included within the overall scope of the updated PoWPA or recognized as a distinct pathway. The final scope of the revised program was expanded only from “PAs” to “PAs and OECMs,” omitting the key clause of Target 3 that emphasizes “…recognizing indigenous and traditional territories, where applicable.”

Furthermore, the PoWPA negotiations missed an opportunity to strengthen essential safeguards for rights-based and equitable conservation within PAs and OECMs or to bridge the long-standing implementation gap around Element 2.

What Does This Mean for ICCAs–Territories of Life?

The decision to exclude ITTs from the primary scope of PoWPA carries practical consequences. At the national level, it risks perpetuating a narrow focus on state-designated PAs and OECMs, where ICCAs are either subsumed or left out entirely. It may also limit the degree to which standalone ICCAs–territories of life can access the technical and institutional support frameworks established under PoWPA.

For example, the updated PoWPA outlines supportive activities across several KM-GBF targets:

• Target 1: Integrating PAs and OECMs into wider landscape and seascape spatial planning.
• Target 4: Strengthening capacities to address human–wildlife conflict and foster coexistence.
• Target 7: Mitigating pollution impacts on conserved areas.
• Target 15: Encouraging financial institutions and businesses to assess, disclose, and reduce biodiversity risks across supply chains.

These initiatives address pressures that directly affect ICCAs–territories of life, particularly Target 15 measures that could help mitigate threats from industrial mega-projects. The exclusion of standalone ITTs from these scope areas limits their formal inclusion in state-supported programming under PoWPA.

On a positive note, for ITTs and ICCAs–territories of life that do overlap with existing PAs and OECMs, the updated PoWPA includes specific provisions:

• Target 3: Calls for strengthening guidance on the recognition, respect, promotion, and protection of ITTs, including specialized approaches for Indigenous Peoples in voluntary isolation and initial contact.
• Target 19: Addresses accessible financing for Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including women and youth, within PAs and OECMs.
• Target 22: Incorporates provisions on access to information, full and equitable participation in decision-making, access to justice, and protection for environmental human rights defenders.

Important Safeguards Remain Unresolved

Key structural concerns surrounding rights and governance in PAs and OECMs remain unresolved:

1. Human Rights-Based Approach: Parties failed to adopt an explicit, binding commitment to a human rights-based approach in implementing PoWPA. The text retains only a general reference to Section C of the KM-GBF, missing an opportunity to place human rights at the core of conservation implementation.
2. Access to Justice and Grievances: Provisions on access to justice and effective grievance mechanisms remained bracketed in the final negotiated text, indicating a lack of consensus. This is a critical gap given that CBD COP17 reviews identify access to justice as one of the least implemented components of global biodiversity governance.
3. Governance Recognition in Overlapping Areas: Explicit recognition of the customary governance systems of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in areas overlapped by PAs and OECMs remained bracketed. This risks imposing external administrative arrangements on traditional territories, undermining local self-determination and customary law.
4. Direct Finance: Stronger, operationalized commitments are still required to ensure direct, accessible finance reaches Indigenous Peoples and local communities based on their self-determined priorities.

Next Steps

The outcomes under Article 8(j) provide a strong policy foundation for advancing the national recognition of ICCAs–territories of life as distinct conservation pathways. The key priority now is translating these gains into national legal frameworks while addressing the gaps remaining in PoWPA. Achieving equitable and effective conservation requires coherence across all CBD programs of work, strong human rights safeguards, accountable access to justice, and direct support for Indigenous Peoples and local communities as leading stewards of biodiversity.

[1] Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2018). Glossary of relevant key terms and concepts within the context of Article 8(j) and related provisions (p. 9). https://www.cbd.int/doc/guidelines/cbd-8j-GlossaryArticle-en.pdf