Indigenous and community conserved area


ICCAs are territories and areas conserved by Indigenous Peoples and local communities, i.e., natural spaces de facto governed by Indigenous peoples or local communities with evidently positive outcomes for the conservation of biological and cultural diversity. ICCA is an abbreviation for "territories and areas governed, managed and conserved by Indigenous Peoples and local communities". Since about 2020, a term commonly used intercheangebly with ICCAs is 'territories of life'. In ICCAs, the continuation, revival, or modification of traditional practices and/or new initiatives succeed in protecting and restoring natural resources and cultural values in the face of new threats or opportunities. Some ICCAs are situated in remote ecosystems that have had minimum human influence, while others encompass areas of various regulations and magnitudes within regions strongly affected or modified by human occupation. ICCAs may or may not fit the IUCN definition of “protected area” but, when they do, they can fall into any IUCN protected area categories.
The following three characteristics are used to identify an ICCA:
  • A strong relationship exists between an Indigenous people or local community and a specific site. This relationship is often embedded in the people's or community's sense of identity and/or dependence for livelihood and well-being.
  • The Indigenous people or local community is the major player in decision-making and implementation regarding the management of the site, implying that a local institution has the capacity to develop and enforce decisions.
  • The people's or community's management decisions and efforts lead to the conservation of habitats, species, genetic diversity, ecological functions/ benefits, and associated cultural values, even when the conscious objective of management is not conservation.

    Definition

The IUCN World Parks Congress of 2003 defined ICCAs as:
natural and/or modified ecosystems containing significant biodiversity values and ecological services, voluntarily conserved by indigenous and local communities, through customary laws or other effective means.

At the 4th World Conservation Congress, indigenous peoples and local communities and supporting NGOs formed the ICCA Consortium, an association that continues to support the global movement for Indigenous Peoples' and local communities' collective territories of life.
This definition is recognised by the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre who manage the , a database dedicated to promoting ICCAs and their custodians conservation practices. The data in the ICCA Registry is voluntarily provided by ICCA custodians, or through their supporting organisations. It is not yet comprehensive but continues to grow each year, providing a much-needed evidence base to promote the recognition and support of ICCAs worldwide.
The ICCA Consortium and UNEP-WCMC are working as part of a broader global effort to highlight the vital contributions that Indigenous Peoples and local communities have made to conservation throughout history and continue to make today.

Dynamics

A crucial feature of ICCAs is their diversity. The conservation practices of indigenous peoples and local communities depend on an astonishing variety of meanings and values underpinned by the relationship between humans and the natural environment, and find their expression in different ICCAs all over the world. While all ICCAs by definition embody precious bio-cultural diversity in a voluntary and self-organised way, the related beliefs, practices, and institutions are all context-specific. Moreover, as lively sociocultural phenomena, ICCAs change in correspondence with history and society. Some disappear, others survive in old or new forms, and some will emerge anew. Most systems by which contemporary indigenous peoples and local communities govern and manage their natural resources are a blending of old and new knowledge, practices, tools and values of different origin.
In the struggle to cope with the scale and pace of sociocultural change, some ICCA institutions have been replaced by state governance or are under threat of being so. Similarly in some cases, change has been powerful enough to affect the community's capacity to manage the local resources in a sustainable way and genuine local ICCAs are just a memory or very much struggling to remain effective. Yet in others, even powerful change has been unable to destroy them: more complex ICCAs, capable of taking advantage of new conditions and establishing new alliances have emerged from the pre-existing ones.
Over the last two centuries, the formal policies and practices that dominate conservation and development have largely ignored ICCAs or actively threatened them. Even today, while neglect and harm give way to emerging recognition and support, the interface between state-based institutions and the customary institutions of indigenous peoples and local communities remains riddled with conflicts. Some relationships are respectful, but many are affected by misunderstandings and mistrust, which may threaten the success of well-intentioned initiatives. In fact, despite the current serious interest on individual ICCAs and community conservation in general, two opposing stereotypes continue to plague conservation: the romantic view of indigenous peoples and traditional communities being in total harmony with nature; and the view of people as "parasites", necessarily degrading the ecosystems in which they live.

Threats

Despite increasing recognition of ICCAs in international conservation policies, there is still great neglect in terms of their effective and appropriate recognition in national policies and practices. When they have no legal recognition within a country, they may also not be recognised or respected by private entities and neighbouring communities. In such cases, ICCAs are vulnerable through land and water being appropriated or "reallocated" for an alternative use. To non-members of the relevant communities, many ICCAs appear as natural, "unmanaged" and "unutilised" ecosystems — all the more coveted for resource extraction. ICCAs may also suffer as a result of changing value systems, increased pressure on natural resources and other internal tensions. In general, ICCAs are exposed to both external and internal threats. A few examples are reported below:
External
  • Imposed development and resource exploitation processes, such as mining and fossil fuel extraction, logging, tree plantation, industrial fishing, sea dredging, land conversion to large-scale grazing or agriculture, water diversions and drainage works, urbanisation and major infrastructure ;
  • Expropriation of community land through nationalisation, privatisation, and conservation initiatives, particularly the creation of state-governed protected areas;
  • War, violent conflicts or movements of refugees;
  • Territorial encroachment by or conflicts with other communities and municipalities;
  • Inappropriate forms of recognition, such as that which imposes top-down institutional arrangements and thereby devalues and de-motivates traditional governance institutions;
  • Imposition of unaffordable taxes and other fiscal burdens;
  • Active acculturation of communities i.e.education programmes disrespectful of local cultures, livelihoods and values, or evangelisation programmes of different faiths;
  • Divisions and conflicts fuelled by party politics or by sudden influx of funds strengthening or creating local inequities;
  • Poaching and unauthorised extraction of timber and plant resources;
  • Air and water pollution through discharge of waste residuals and the spread of invasive or exotic species;
  • Extreme natural events and catastrophes, including droughts, floods, forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes and tsunamis, some of which are related to human transformation of the landscape, waterways and climate.
Internal
  • Changing values, acculturation and integration into dominant society, leading to commoditisation of nature and culture and, ultimately, the loss of traditional knowledge, locally adapted management practices and governance institutions — all with particular impact on the younger generations;
  • Increasing pressure on resources — in particular those that lead to the substitution of local subsistence and solidarity economies with the market economy;
  • Persistent or new inequalities between economic and social classes and gender groups within the community, leading to conflicts about management of natural resources and elite capture of conservation benefits;
  • Depopulation through migration because of new economic opportunities, social conflicts and political pressures;
  • Progressive loss of food sovereignty and traditional medical systems, weakening traditional communities because of poorer health and nutrition.
In practice, threats cannot necessarily be segregated into “external” and “internal” categories, as community members may be active participants in external processes, and exogenous forces may drive internal processes. For instance, a main driver of change that powerfully combines external and internal threats are new opportunities to access and use natural resources for profit-making activities. These may bring in welcome funds for a variety of development needs but can also be a door for corruption and mis-governance, ushering divisions, conflicts and social disruption. As the disparity of power in modern societies increases exponentially, many indigenous peoples and local communities, at the bottom of the ladder, have fewer and fewer chances to resist. In some countries they are even denied legal existence as “peoples” and “communities”, and denied the chance of owning or possessing land rights and natural resources collectively, one of the last barriers to individual weakness and greed. In theory, the recognition of the many values of ICCAs will help in the broader struggles for human rights and indigenous peoples’ rights, and contribute to foster more equitable and sustainable societies.