Between Global Frameworks and National Challenges: IPLC Still Sidelined as Conservation Actors
By: Alaysha Yahya Maulina, Lasti Fardilla Noor
Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC) are key actors in biodiversity conservation whose roles and contributions are often overlooked. Although they possess traditional knowledge and sustainable practices that have proven effective in maintaining ecosystem balance, IPLC's position remains sidelined in formal conservation policies. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF), as a global biodiversity framework officially adopted at the 15th meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2022, seeks to change this reality by positioning IPLC as strategic partners in global conservation.
Affirmation of IPLC's Role and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF)
The 16th Conference of the Parties (COP) recently held in Cali, Colombia, from October 21 to November 1, 2024. COP-16 is the first biodiversity conference since the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF) in 2022. In the context of CBD, KM-GBF marks a new history, setting a much more ambitious path to achieve the global vision of a world living in harmony with nature by 2050 through a transformative approach. This framework includes four main goals for 2050 and 23 targets to be achieved by 2030.
Some important mandates outlined in KM-GBF: first, is the ambitious goal to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 both qualitatively and quantitatively. The second mandate is transformative efforts that emerged in response to the failure to achieve the previous Aichi Targets. The efforts to achieve the Aichi Targets were too heavily burdened on governments, which have many limitations, such as complex bureaucratic processes and budget constraints. Sometimes, there are even deviant conservation practices that contribute to the reduction of biodiversity.
Thus, KM-GBF mandates more transformative efforts through a whole government and whole society approach so that efforts to counter biodiversity loss on the brink of extinction are not only borne by the government but also involve the roles of various other parties, including indigenous peoples and local communities. This transformative effort also includes recognizing the important role and contribution of indigenous peoples and local communities as conservation actors and guardians of biodiversity.
The third mandate of KM-GBF is inclusivity, where in preventing and countering biodiversity loss, KM-GBF emphasizes a human rights-based approach and contributions from all elements of society, including youth, women, NGOs, local communities, and other elements. The implementation of KM-GBF must ensure that the rights, knowledge—including traditional knowledge related to biodiversity—innovation, views, values, and practices of indigenous peoples and local communities are respected. Furthermore, this knowledge must be documented and preserved with their free, prior, and informed consent. This aims to ensure that indigenous peoples and local communities become an integral part of biodiversity conservation efforts, maintaining control over their resources and knowledge.
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework brings a fresh breeze of change for the bargaining position of indigenous peoples and local communities, whose roles and contributions have often been ignored. The KM-GBF mandate clearly emphasizes that communities, especially indigenous peoples and local communities, must be actively involved in biodiversity conservation because they inherently have traditional knowledge in sustainably utilizing natural resources in their living spaces. The governance they have implemented for decades or even centuries has proven effective in maintaining the remaining biodiversity, as revealed in various global reports. One example is the 2019 report by the Director-General of IUCN, which states that 80% of the world's remaining biodiversity is located in areas inhabited by indigenous peoples. Additionally, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the Fund for the Development of The Indigenous Peoples of Latin America and The Caribbean (FILAC) report that indigenous peoples living in South America can manage forests very well, resulting in a 50% lower deforestation rate in indigenous areas compared to other places. Research in Bolivia, Colombia, and Brazil also reports that deforestation and carbon emissions rates in areas managed by indigenous peoples are 73% lower than in areas managed by others.
Of the 23 KM-GBF targets, some relate to indigenous peoples and local communities, namely conservation practices and models by indigenous people and local community (IPLC), one of which is ICCA–Indigenous Peoples and Local Community Conserved Territories and Areas, or the OECM–other effective area-based conservation measures model. This target also emphasizes that IPLC rights should be recognized as part of the important contribution to achieving the overall target of protecting 30% of the Earth's land and sea areas by 2030.
Unfortunately, this target is often misinterpreted by governments as an expansion and increase in the number of conservation areas. However, with the increase in the number and size of conservation areas, the chances of conflict between communities and area managers are higher. This is because most conservation area designations are made without involving communities and without the FPIC process. This situation is complicated by policies that have not fully accommodated the human rights dimension and have not favored indigenous peoples and local communities.
Although the global framework has strengthened the bargaining position of indigenous peoples and local communities, the situation at the national level is still far from expectations. Law No. 32 of 2024 concerning Amendments to Law No. 5 of 1990 on the Conservation of Biological Natural Resources and Their Ecosystems reflects that policies made by the government still "half-heartedly" recognize the role and contribution of indigenous peoples and local communities. This policy also arbitrarily includes Community Managed Conservation Areas (AKKM) into the "Preservation Area," which still leaves ambiguity in its regulation.
This ambiguity of the Preservation Area opens up room for interpretation that can lead to the appropriation of natural resources under the guise of conservation or environmental protection, known as "green grabbing." Article 9 paragraph (2) states that "If the land rights holder in the Preservation Area is unwilling to carry out Conservation of Biological Natural Resources and Ecosystems (KSDAHE) activities, then the land rights must be relinquished with compensation." Some parties, including WGII, consider that this article has the potential to be a basis for the government to take over indigenous peoples and local communities' territories deemed not to carry out KSDAHE activities.
The practice of green grabbing often harms indigenous peoples because it can lead to displacement, land loss, loss of livelihoods, and trigger both vertical and horizontal conflicts. In the long term, the impact of green grabbing includes the loss of indigenous cultural identity, neglect of their human rights, and damage to the complex relationship between humans and nature that has formed over centuries.
In the regulation, the preservation area is used to refer to other effective area-based conservation measures (OECM) or areas with high biodiversity value but located outside conservation areas, where buffer zones of conservation areas that serve as living spaces for communities are included in this terminology. However, the interpretation of the preservation area concerning OECM is not very clear. This is because an area can be designated as OECM due to conservation practices carried out by non-state actors based on social, cultural, and other local functions, so it does not have to serve only for preservation but should emphasize traditional values. Meanwhile, the term preservation area comes from the word preserve, which implies conservation, making this term less appropriate to refer to OECM as it would degrade other values such as culture, spirituality, and sustainable use by IPLC.
This lack of clarity indicates the need for a more comprehensive understanding and regulation so that recognition of community-based management by indigenous peoples is not just a formality but is supported by policies that are implementable and respect and guarantee their rights and local knowledge. This policy should also not complicate the recognition of IPLC and their rights, including in managing their living spaces.
This article is inspired by and references discussions held in the webinar "Peace with Nature: Human Rights-Based Conservation of Indigenous Peoples for Biodiversity Protection and Climate Resilience" (19/10/24) and the article titled "RUU KSDAHE Passed, Regulating Preservation Areas and Indigenous Forests: What's Inside?"
other references:
https://iucn.org/news/secretariat/201908/iucn-director-generals-statement-international-day-worlds-indigenous-peoples-2019
THE ROLE OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION – Center for Environmental Studies UGM
https://www.cbd.int/history
Join Our Newsletter
Berlangganan buletin kami untuk mendapatkan pembaruan terbaru, berita, acara, dan aktivitas komunitas langsung ke kotak masuk Anda.
We respect you privacy, your email is safe with us.