Indigenous and community conserved areas (ICCAs), or Indigenous peoples’ and community conserved territories and areas, are spaces de facto governed by Indigenous peoples or local communities with evidently positive outcomes for the conservation of biological and cultural diversity. In ICCAs, the continuation, revival, or modification of traditional practices (some of which are of ancient origin) 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:[1]
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 (sedentary and mobile) indigenous and local communities, through customary laws or other effective means.[2]
This definition is recognised by the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and is elaborated on in the UNEP-WCMC ICCA Registry Handbook as a type of Protected Area (including Marine Protected Areas) in which native peoples initiate the creation and/or are owners and managers.
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.[3]
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:[4]
External
Internal
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.
It is said that ICCAs cover as much land as government protected areas (as well as existing for much longer), yet tens of thousands of sites are not yet recognised by governments and still face neglect within official conservation systems and government policies and legislation. A lack of political and legal support often hampers community efforts at maintaining ICCAs through traditional means.[5] While the “legitimacy” of ICCAs is rooted in the values and meanings they possess for the most directly concerned peoples and communities, their “legality” and their broad recognition and support by society at large are rooted in a process that takes strength from international conventions and agreements. This process originated relatively recently. At the Vth World Parks Congress (Durban, 2003) conservation professionals systematized for the first time the concept of “governance of protected areas” and clarified that indigenous peoples and local communities – a crucial actor in conservation – should be fully recognized in their governance role. At the same Congress a breakthrough was made by indigenous peoples – and mobile indigenous peoples in particular – effectively arguing that the respect of their rights would actually advance, rather than diminish, conservation outcomes. Shortly after the Durban Congress, the Convention on Biological Diversity, at its COP 7 meeting in Kuala Lumpur (2004), approved the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA). PoWPA supports a “new approach” to protected areas, calling for attention to governance types and quality, equity in conservation, and indigenous peoples’ rights.
Numerous IUCN Resolutions attest to the will of IUCN members to recognize and support ICCAs[6] were approved at the Barcelona World Conservation Congress of 2008, and IUCN publications were developed to back this up technically.[7] WCC4 in Barcelona also approved new IUCN technical guidelines for protected areas, explicitly stating that different governance types – including ICCAs – can fully contribute to developing national protected area systems.
CBD COP 8 and CBD COP 9 reviewed the implementation of PoWPA and stressed the need to engage more forcefully in the element dedicated to 'Governance, Participation, Equity and Benefit Sharing'.[8] This was also reflected in the statement of recommendations that the May 2010 meeting of CBD SBSTTA in Nairobi submitted to COP 10 (Nagoya, October 2010). Noticeably, CBD SBSTTA delegates made specific recommendations about ICCA recognition, clarifying, for instance, that "mechanisms for recognition should respect the customary governance systems that have maintained ICCAs over time".[9]
At CBD COP 10 in Nagoya (2010), decision X/31 stressed again the role of indigenous (peoples) and community conserved (territories and) areas and invited Parties to recognise their organisations and contributions.[10] COP 10 also agreed on a number of biodiversity targets for 2020.[11] CBD Aichi Target 11 foresees that: “By 2020 at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes.” ICCAs clearly have a role to fulfil Aichi Target 11 as both protected areas and as “other effective area-based conservation measures”.