First published on 12/14/2014, and last updated on 07/19/2022
The 12th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP 12), held in Pyeongchang, Republic of Korea, in 2014, further entrenched ICCAs in a number of different Decisions, including on resource mobilisation, poverty eradication and sustainable development, Article 8(j) and related provisions, and ecosystem conservation and restoration. (For the first time since at least the adoption of PoWPA in 2004, the COP did not adopt a Decision on protected areas.) These Decisions arguably contributed to the normative development of ICCAs as important for achieving the CBD as a whole (rather than only provisions on protected areas), of the need for ‘appropriate’ recognition and support of ICCAs, and of the importance of supporting indigenous peoples and local communities to define, implement and monitor their own plans for conservation.
First, regarding financial reporting, transparency and accessibility of information, the Parties recognised the role of collective action by indigenous and local communities and non-market-based approaches – including (inter alia) through ICCAs – for mobilising resources for achieving the objectives of the Convention (Decision XII/3, para 29). In the same Decision’s Annex on actions for implementing Aichi Target 20 and associated financial targets, Parties are to encourage and support collective action and non-market-based approaches for mobilising resources for achieving the objectives of the Convention, including by promoting ICCAs and community-based natural resource management (Decision XII/3, Annex IV/II/F, para 36). Echoing COP 8’s references to ICCAs in the context of protected area financing , these provisions arguably illustrated a normative development that recognises ICCAs in a much broader light, namely, as forms of collective action and non-market-based approaches that help achieve the CBD as a whole. The reference to collective action invoked the extensive work on collective action and the commons by Nobel Laureate Elinor Ostrom. The reference to non-market-based approaches underscored the voluntary and non-monetary systems upon which ICCAs are often based – an important alternative to mainstream market-based approaches, which are often actively promoted in the Rio Conventions but tend to undermine the complex social and cultural systems underpinning ICCAs.
Second, COP 12 acknowledged that many currently poor communities have traditionally been very effective at conserving nature and biodiversity, including through ICCAs, and further committed to taking into account ICCAs in the Decision on biodiversity for poverty eradication and sustainable development (Decision XII/5, preamble). The same Decision recognised the role of collective action in the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (Decision XII/5, para 10) – invoking the same term as above – and encouraged Parties, other governments, international organisations and relevant stakeholders to support (inter alia) ICCAs and ensure the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities in decision-making processes (Decision XII/5, para 11). The relatively progressive Annex to the same Decision (“Chennai Guidance for the Integration of Biodiversity and Poverty Eradication”) contained an important reference to ICCAs and also referred to several other terms and concepts of close relevance to ICCAs – including collective action (Decision XII/5, Annex, Section 1, para (d)(iii)) and non-market-based approaches (Decision XII/5, Annex, Section 3/A, para (c)(ii)). COP 12 recognised:
“Consistent with Article 10(c) on customary use … and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples … the need to appropriately recogni[s]e indigenous and community conserved territories and areas and their traditional knowledge and conservation practices as the basis for local biodiversity conservation plans without interfering in their customary governance systems (helping to meet Aichi Biodiversity Target 11) …” (Decision XII/5, Annex, Section 3/B, para (b))
The same provision concluded by identifying local biodiversity conservation plans as the basis for (inter alia) achievement of sustainable development goals, linking ICCAs to the then-forthcoming post-2015 development agenda. This provision contained several important elements for the first time and it arguably amounted to the strongest recognition of ICCAs and fundamental aspects thereof up until that point in the CBD and, by extension, in international law. In particular, explicit reference to ICCAs in relation to UNDRIP underscored the linkages between ICCAs and respecting and realising indigenous peoples’ rights. In stating that recognition of ICCAs and their traditional knowledge and conservation practices should be appropriate and should not interfere with customary governance systems, it responded directly to the recommendations of the two reviews of legal and non-legal forms of recognising and supporting ICCAs launched at COP 11 (see Kothari et al., 2012, and Jonas et al., 2012 ). Recognition of ICCAs and traditional knowledge and conservation practices as the basis for local biodiversity conservation plans alluded to the importance of indigenous peoples and communities exerting the right to self-determination and defining conservation plans and priorities for themselves. Finally, this Decision made a clear link between appropriate recognition of ICCAs and achievement of Aichi Target 11, practicalities of which are being actively discussed in IUCN and the CBD.
Third, in the Decision on Article 8(j) and related provisions, COP 12 invited Parties to request donor support for indigenous and local communities to organise themselves to develop community plans and protocols to document, map and register their ICCAs and to prepare, implement and monitor their community conservation plans (Decision XII/12/B, para 5). In a similar vein as the Decision discussed above on poverty eradication and sustainable development, this further underscored the importance of targeted support – on indigenous peoples’ and communities’ terms – for their self-determined plans and priorities. The same provision also invited Parties to request donor support for countries to strengthen recognition of ICCAs.
In describing the rationale for the Plan of Action on Customary Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity set out in the Annex, Parties stated that customary sustainable use of biological diversity and traditional knowledge can contribute to the effective conservation of important biodiversity sites, either through shared governance or joint management of official protected areas or through ICCAs (Decision XII/12, Annex/IV, para 9). This provision not only acknowledged the contributions of ICCAs to effective conservation, but also distinguished between ICCAs and ‘official’ protected areas, thus furthering implicit recognition of ICCAs as ‘other effective area based conservation measures’ under Aichi Target 11. Lastly, in the section on guidance for possible actions, the Annex suggested that Parties and other relevant stakeholders draw on existing international initiatives, references materials and tools for best practices, including (inter alia) the CBD Technical Series No. 64 (Decision XII/12, Annex/VI, Task 3). Specific reference to this review indicated its prominence as a leading international reference for best practice in recognising and supporting ICCAs.
The fourth and final COP 12 Decision that specifically referenced ICCAs focused on ecosystem conservation and restoration. It recognised the contribution of ICCAs (inter alia) in the conservation of biodiversity (Decision XII/19, para 2). It also invited Parties and others to promote ecosystem conservation and restoration in ICCAs, with the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities (Decision XII/19, para 4(b)), and to provide support and incentives to indigenous and local communities in their efforts to conserve biodiversity in ICCAs, with a view to contributing to Aichi Targets 11-14, 16 and 18 (Decision XII/19, para 4(f)). It also reaffirmed the importance of public awareness of the role of protected areas and ICCAs in achieving Aichi Target 11 and other relevant Targets (Decision XII/19, para 7). Lastly, it noted the cumulative benefits that small-scale restoration activities can collectively contribute to biodiversity conservation, climate change adaptation and mitigation and reducing desertification (Decision XII/19, para 4(d)), albeit without explicitly mentioning ICCAs. Together, these provisions confirmed expert commentary that ICCAs contribute not only to Aichi Target 11 but to several other Targets as well, and that the collective action of indigenous peoples and local communities, particularly through ICCAs, contribute to conservation and restoration and indeed to achieving all three Rio Conventions.
As an important complement to the COP 12 negotiations, the CBD Secretariat hosted a two-day event on biological and cultural diversity, which included a launch of a policy brief on the contributions of ICCAs to each of the Aichi Targets. The preparatory process of this policy brief and the 2012 reviews on legal and non-legal forms of recognising and supporting ICCAs (also launched at COP 11), both of which involved close collaboration with the CBD Secretariat and a number of state Parties, arguably contributed to the strong recognition of ICCAs and other supportive provisions in the COP 12 Decisions.
All COP 12 Decisions are available online.
