Key opportunities for follow-up to the 5th WPC
are found in Programme Element 4 of the Programme of Work, which suggests
that Parties develop minimum standards for protected
area systems. Should governments develop such standards, indigenous
peoples’ organisations may engage in standard-setting processes to
advocate the inclusion of social, equity and rights-based standards
in any norms or guidelines developed at the national or regional level.
In the same way, Programme element 4.0 suggests that Parties develop
and adopt a monitoring
system to assess progress in implementation of the Programme
of Work. Again, indigenous organisations may well wish to engage in
participate in this process at the national level to ensure social
and human rights indicators are included in the formulation of criteria
and indicators.
Specifically, the relevant goal and target are as follows:
Goal 4.1:
To develop and adopt minimum standards and best practices for national
and regional protected area systems
Target: By 2008, standards,
criteria and best practices for planning, selecting, establishing,
managing and governance of national and regional systems of protected
areas developed and adopted.
Suggested
activities:
q
Parties should collaborate with the IUCN and other relevant organisations
on the development of voluntary protected area standards;
q
Develop and implement and efficient, long term monitoring system
of the outcomes being achieved through protected areas in relation to the goals and targets
of the work programme (i.e., indicators should enable assessment
in achieving goals and targets under programme element 2.0).
2.6 Social goals and
targets must be implemented across the whole work programme
Crucially, indigenous interventions ensured
that the Scope and Purpose of the Programme of Work establishes
that: “The programme of work consists of four interlinked elements
intended to be mutually reinforcing and cross-cutting
in their implementation.” This makes it clear that Parties
may not simply pick and choose from the core elements, targets and
goals (though the programme does make clear they may pick and choose
from suggested activities). Hopefully this should prevent Parties
implementing any one activity without due consideration of the social
and equity goals and targets under Element 2.0 of the Work Programme.
3 Evaluation
of COP 7 outcomes on Protected Areas
As
expected, not all demands were achieved at COP 7 [see more detailed
account of negotiations in Part II]. The most significant gap in
outcomes is the absence of any recognition of the right of indigenous
peoples to free prior and informed consent (FPIC) in relation to
the establishment of new protected areas affecting their traditional
territories. FPIC was opposed by both Northern and Southern government
delegations, including Sweden, UK, Finland, New Zealand, Australia,
Malaysia, among others. Intense advocacy by the IIFB pressed on
the FPIC issue until the penultimate day of negotiations. As a result,
the text on FPIC remained bracketed in the Decision right up until
19 February – thanks mainly to the Brazilian and Colombian government
delegations, who rejected attempts by New Zealand and others to
delete FPIC language throughout the two weeks.
On
the positive side, it is very significant that governments agreed
on PIC (prior and informed consent) in relation to resettlement,
which is a major significant victory for indigenous peoples. Specific
language on land tenure, territorial rights, sacred sites, land
restitution and guarantees on the prevention of poverty were not included in the COP 7 decision, nor in the programme of work.
IIFB members realised from the outset that specific strong language
stemming from the Vth WPC was unlikely to be agreed by the Parties.
The IIFB nevertheless pushed for these elements until the last possible
point in the negotiations. The analysis of IIFB objectives and actual
results can be summarised as follows:
Table 1: A Summary
Analysis of IIFB Objectives and Outcomes at COP 7 in relation to
Protected Areas
|
IIFB
objective at COP 7
|
Achieved
(4)/ Not achieved (8)
|
|
1. Respect for indigenous peoples’ rights
|
4
|
|
2. Re-insertion of language welcoming the outcomes of
the Vth World Parks Congress
|
4
|
|
3. Recognition of Free prior and informed consent for
the establishment of new Protected Areas
|
8
|
|
4. Need for impact evaluation to avoid, mitigate and reduce
negative social impacts
|
4
|
|
5. Specific recognition and respect of land and territorial
rights
|
8
|
|
6. Respect for marine tenure and tenure rights in coastal
and inland waters
|
8
|
|
7. Restitution of lands lost without consent as a result
of past Protected Areas
|
8
|
|
8. Protection from forced resettlement in connection
with protected areas
|
4
|
|
9. Respect and protection for sacred sites
|
8
|
|
10. Guarantees that Protected Areas in no case exacerbate
poverty
|
8/4
- no guarantees, but emphasis on need to reduce poverty and
implement MDGs – activities 1.1.8, 1.4.10 and 2.1.4
|
|
11. Recognition and support for indigenous and community
conserved areas
|
4
|
|
12. Ad Hoc Open ended working group on Protected Areas
|
4
|
|
13. Adoption of special measures to implement article
10c of the Convention in relation to Protected Areas
|
8
[only as a safeguard in activity 1.5.6]
|
|
14. Counter-balancing ecological targets with social
and human rights targets
|
4
|
|
15. Monitoring to measure equity, rights and governance
|
4
[suggested in PoW]
|
|
16. Explicit support for application in all protected
area projects of Draft Akwé:
Kon Guidelines on cultural, environmental and social impact
assessment
|
8
[but will be an obvious choice when impact evaluation is considered
– see 4. above]
|
|
17. Integrated implementation of the CBD PA work programme,
including cross-cutting implementation of programme element
2.0 on Equity, governance and benefit sharing
|
4
|
|
18. Indigenous peoples, where they so consent, shall
be considered potential partners in all aspects of the work
programme
|
4
[listed
as potential partner]
|
|
19. New COP 7 guidance to the GEF on social and rights
issues
|
8
|
4 Review
of IIFB effectiveness at COP 7
The IIFB showed efficiency
in its work with governments in COP 7 and in its work with the press
and media. Notable IIFB achievements in relation to protected areas
and other topics before and during COP 7 included:
q
Timely dialogue with supportive governments (e.g., EU) prior to
COP 7 in January 2004;
q
Publicising Indigenous peoples’ positions in relation to the CBD
and protected areas prior to COP 7 through the Bulletin of the Canadian
Indigenous Peoples Biodiversity Network (IBIN) and in the publications
of key NGO allies, including Eco
and Forest Cover;
q
Effective communication of key issues to friendly NGOs and incorporation
of these issues into NGO statements to the COP (Joint NGO Opening
Statement, Joint NGO Statement on Protected Areas, Friends of the
Earth, WRM, Forest Peoples Programme and Oil Watch Statement on
Protected Areas);
q
Adoption of some key indigenous issues in public statements made
to COP by major conservation NGOs: CI, Nature Conservancy, Birdlife,
WWF, WCS, WRI and Fauna and Flora International and Greenpeace,
including affirmation that protected areas should be planned, established,
and managed with the prior informed consent and in full compliance with the rights
of indigenous peoples (see joint Conservation NGO statement to COP
7).
q
Priority indigenous issues arising at Sabah prep meeting communicated
directly to NGOs in Global Biodiversity Forum (GBF) and NGO Forum
prior to COP 7;
q
Regular written position papers and suggested IIFB text circulated
to friendly government delegations on a daily basis (from the start
of negotiations until the very end);
q
Regular and well-informed press releases, press conferences and
interviews given to the media. This resulted in several newspaper
articles, including one in the
New Straits Times on 12 Feb, 2004 titled
“Rights of indigenous people and communities must be protected’;
q
Numerous face-to-face meetings with supportive governments and officials
including (i) Brazilian Environment Minister (ii) Entire Swedish
delegation (iii) German Minister (iv) EU delegation (v) European
Environment Commissioner (vi) individual government delegation members
(Brazil, Colombia, Philippines, Russia, Mexico, Argentina, Chile)
(vi) Malaysian government delegation;
There
are some elements in the CBD decision and programme of work (support
for private protected areas etc) that pose a potential risk to indigenous
peoples if the
decision and suggested activities are not implemented in a balanced
manner that in all cases takes account of equity, rights and governance
concerns. The main concerns are:
§
The decision and PoW promote the expansion of PAs at all levels,
especially in coastal and marine areas. There is a need to ensure
that programme element 2 on governance, equity and participation
becomes fully integrated in any such expansion in order to safeguard
the rights and interests of indigenous and local communities and
their full and effective participation in conservation policy and
practice. Without intensive and sustained capacity building and
strengthening activities of local organisations there is a risk
that such safeguards might not be implemented.
§
The decision and work programme stress the need for law enforcement
to counter “illegal extraction” in protected areas, which could
in some countries back fire on indigenous and local communities
whose customary uses are classified as “illegal” (paragraph 22 in
the Decision).
§
The work programme promotes commodification of ecosystem services
and incentives and recognition of private protected areas.
With
regard to these concerns, it will be essential for indigenous organisations
to hold governments and international agencies to account where
they seek to accelerate the expansion of protected areas in land,
coastal and marine environments without taking measure to properly
respect the rights of affected indigenous communities.
PART II: COP
7 NEGOTIATIONS ON PROTECTED AREAS
After plenary discussions on February 10th and 11th, more than 70 hours
of contact group negotiations were needed to finalise the decision
on PAs (UNEP/CBD/COP/7/L.32). Several delegates called for participatory
PA management and decision making, especially in reference to indigenous
and local communities. The IIFB stood firm arguing that PA activities
on indigenous territories must comply with prior informed consent
(PIC) requirements.
The Chair of the PA contact group approached the document prepared by SBSTTA-9
(UNEP/CBD/COP/7/15) by dealing with the PoW first, followed by the
decision. The PoW was addressed horizontally, by discussing and
approving the components of the four programme elements in the following
sequence: goals, targets and activities. After the programme elements
were approved, the Introduction and Overall Purpose and Scope of
the PoW, were addressed. Although it may seem awkward, the same
logic is followed in this report in order to reflect how the negotiations
proceeded.
The four elements of the PoW consisted of the following:
1.1 Direct action for planning, selecting, establishing,
strengthening, and managing protected area systems and sites. This element has 5 Goals with related Targets
and suggested activities. The goals are to:
-
establish and strengthen national
and regional PA systems integrated into a global network;
-
integrate PAs into broader land-
and seascapes and sectors;
-
establish and strengthen regional
networks, transboundary PAs and collaboration between neighboring
PAs across national boundaries;
-
substantially improve site-based
PA planning and management;
-
prevent and mitigate the negative
impacts of key threats to PAs.
1.2 Governance, participation, equity and benefit
sharing, with 2 Goals
and related Targets and Activities. The goals are to:
-
promote equity and benefit-sharing;
-
enhance and secure involvement
of communities and relevant stakeholders.
1.3 Enabling activities, with 5 Goals and related Targets and Activities.
The goals are to:
-
provide an enabling policy,
institutional and socioeconomic environment for PAs;
-
build capacity for the planning,
establishment and management of PAs;
-
develop, apply and transfer
appropriate technologies for PAs;
-
ensure financial sustainability
of PAs and national and regional systems of PAs;
-
strengthen CEPA.
1.4 Standards, assessment, and monitoring, with 4 Goals and related Targets and Activities.
The goals are to:
-
develop and adopt minimum standards
and best practices for national and regional PA systems;
-
evaluate and improve the effectiveness
of PA management;
-
assess and monitor PA status
and trends;
-
ensure that scientific knowledge
contributes to the establishment and effectiveness of PAs and PA
systems.
Regarding the goals, delegates approved all the goals as presented in the
draft prepared by SBSTTA-9 but a long discussion ensued on goal
2.1concerning whether indigenous and local communities’ involvement
in PA establishment and management should be “encouraged” or “enhanced
and secured’. Malaysia objected repeatedly to the original text
that used the words “Enhance and secure” arguing that participatory
approaches were difficult to implement in the country and could
therefore not be secured. Malaysia, however, remained isolated in
her position and eventually accepted the following language: