Compiled by: Tom Griffiths, Jannie Lasimbang and Maurizio Farhan Ferrari

Contents:

Part I:    Background

I A   Objectives and goals of IPCC:

The purposes of the IPCC are two-fold. First, its members aim to undertake activities to follow up gains made on indigenous peoples’ rights issues in relation to protected areas secured at the V World Parks Congress (WPC) and at CBD COP7. The IPCC also intends to track progress in implementation of the new ‘paradigm’ on protected areas, including the CBD work programme on protected areas, which was adopted by governments in February 2004 and included a whole element (element 2.0) on governance, participation, equity and benefit sharing (Annex I). As part of this follow-up process, the IPCC, with support from the FPP and NCIV organised and successfully raised funds to attend both meetings of the CBD Ad Hoc Open Ended Working Group on Protected Areas to be held in June and December 2005.

I B   CBD Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Protected Areas (WGPA):

The CBD COP7 adopted in its decision VII/28 a programme of work on protected areas. The Conference of the Parties decided to establish an Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Protected Areas (WG-PA) to support and review the implementation of the programme of work and report to the Conference of the Parties. COP-7 set out five tasks to be undertaken by the Working Group as follows:

·         To explore options for cooperation for the establishment of marine protected areas in marine areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction...

·         To explore options for mobilizing as a matter of urgency through different mechanisms adequate and timely financial resources for the implementation of the programme of work...

·         To contribute to the further development of tool kits for the identification, designation, management, monitoring and evaluation of national and regional systems of protected areas ... with special regards to indigenous and local communities and stakeholder involvement and benefit sharing mechanisms;

·         Review progress in implementation of the programme of work on protected areas

·         Make recommendations to the COP on how to improve implementation of the programme of work on protected areas.

The first meeting of the CBD WGPA in Montecatini, Italy, in June 2005, tasked the first gathering of the working group to:

n       Address the first 3 elements mandate set by COP i.e., marine protected areas beyond national jurisdiction, finance and toolkits

n       Consider a process for the working group’s review of progress in implementation of the programme of work i.e., review of national and other reports on implementation

The purpose of this IIFB report is to summarise IPCC inputs to the first CBD WGPA meeting and note achievements and remaining challenges. Section II provides a brief note on IPCC activities and agreements reached at its preparatory workshop, which was held over two-days prior to the official CBD meeting. Section III summarises events and IIFB inputs to the official meeting. Section IV provided a brief summary analysis of outcomes and lessons learned and remaining work to be done.

Part II   IPCC Preparatory Meeting, 11-12 June, 2005

Thirty members of the IIFB travelled to Monecatini for a preparatory meeting that was held in the Tonfoni Hotel on 11^th and 12^th of June 2005 (Annex II). IIFB members were selected through a process of self-selection coordinated by the IIFB focal points in each region (Africa, Latin America, Asia, Northern Europe and Central Asia). Two Forest Peoples Programme staff and 1 staff person of the Netherlands Centre for Indigenous Peoples (NCIV) also attended the meeting to provide technical support, orientation presentations and background briefings. IIFB also contracted a French translator (Emily Caruso) and Spanish interpreter (Cassandra) to support the preparatory meeting and the following official CBD meeting.

Day One (11th June):

IPCC participants introduced themselves and IIFB members new to the CBD process (from the Pacific region - from Australia, New Zealand, Palau and Hawaii) were welcomed. It was noted with regret that one participant from the Central Africa Region was refused a visa by the Italian authorities and was unable to attend (Sinfasi Makelo). Apologies from Joji Cariño were also shared and an email note from Joji with suggestions for possible IIFB-IPCC priorities for the week was also copied for all participants.

At the start of the meeting Cecilio Solis of Mexico was elected caucus chair along with Stephen Schnierer (Australia) as a support chairperson.

Participants were then given two background briefing papers prepared by the FPP. Before lunch and in the early afternoon the participants also received two Powerpoint presentations prepared by the FPP and IIFB on the background to the meeting, a gap analysis of the CBD documents and possible IIFB-IPCC goals and objectives. Participants expressed their warm appreciation of the orientation material and the background presentations. It was agreed that in interventions and written statements the group should use the name of the IIFB to avoid confusion and take advantage of the official status of the IIFB as an advisor to the COP on matters relating to Article 8(j) and related provisions. It was agreed that related provisions encompass Article 8(a) on protected areas.

All participants commented that the background documents prepared by the CBD secretariat (SCBD) had failed to capture key issues and did not take account of existing COP7 commitments already made by governments with regard to indigenous and local communities. Several participants expressed concerns about the gaps and problems with the Secretariat’s documents. They noted that such shortcomings indicate that regrettably the Secretariat staff still do not seem to have adopted the “new paradigm” on protected areas. It was also agreed that the peer review process for amending draft documents prior to the next WGPA meeting and other meetings attended by the IIFB must be improved. It was agreed to ask for a meeting with the SCBD on Sunday and with the Executive Secretary at some stage during the week, to address this issue and request that the secretariat take steps to ensure that indigenous issues are better addressed and mainstreamed in future official documents. It was noted that John Scott appears to be isolated within the SCBD and it was not reasonable for one SCBD staff person to guarantee all processes mainstream indigenous issues and are consistent with the Convention decisions and work programmes. It was agreed that the whole Secretariat must work on mainstreaming. It was stressed that this point should be made to the Executive Secretary if a meeting could be arranged.

Several participants had not brought with them the official background documents for the CBD meeting and it was agreed these should be printed and copied for everyone.

At the end of the afternoon sub-action groups were formed to comment on each background document and suggest text to be agreed by the IPCC-IIFB group as a whole (See Annex III).

Copies of all official documents were circulated by 7 pm. Participants then worked late into the night in each sub-action group to spot gaps, potential problems and develop text proposals for each agenda item.

Day Two (12^th June):

On the second day, the meeting was joined by Arlen Ribeira of AIDESEP and COICA and Audhild Schanche of Norway (Saami). The morning was spent with each sub-action group reporting back to the plenary to receive comments and reactions to their analysis and text proposals. Participants asked that the reports and suggested text be copied for scrutiny by all members of the group prior to Monday.

In the afternoon, a CBD secretariat staff person (Jo Mulongoy) attended the meeting for a brief while to answer questions from the IPCC. Jo acknowledged that the peer review process had been flawed and that only one indigenous person in Canada had been sent the draft documents. He apologised for the problems with peer review. Alejandro and Jannie asked that the SCBD ensure that prior to the next meeting, documents are sent to a wider list. Joe asked for this list and it was agreed it would be given to him before the end of the week. On queries regarding participation in the meeting, Jo indicated, that the IIFB would be given the floor and be allowed to speak to text until the pen-ultimate day. On the last day it is normal for governments to adopt the report and so IIFB speaking to text might be more limited then. The IIFB asked that spokespersons be allowed to intervene in a timely manner on any text that directly related to indigenous peoples throughout the meeting, not just after governments. There was no clear response to this request. However, Joe stressed that if the IIFB feels its concerns are not been taken into account, they should advise the SCBD and efforts will be made where possible to address the issues. The SCBD then left the meeting.

Four staff members of WWF then arrived to talk to the meeting. This was somewhat of a surprise, as IPCC members had understood that just one WWF person would visit briefly to explain why WWF is interested in a dialogue with the IIFB and indigenous peoples in general. They had agreed the previous day to giving Jenny Springer a ten-minute slot. As it turned out, the meeting lasted 1.5 hours and one or two IIFB-IPCC members expressed some frustration that their preparatory work had been interrupted. During the discussion with WWF, on behalf of the IPCC Alejandro Argumedo pressed the issue of the truth and reconciliation commission and whether WWF agreed for the need for such a mechanism and would participate in it (whatever body it were formed under) to learn lessons and enable redress for past wrongs. WWF was evasive, and the WWF person from Brasil (Leonardo) proceeded to alienate many participants by saying directly that there was not so much a need to look at the past, but look toward the future....though he tried to back-track - it did not go down well. One IIFB member walked out at that point.

Though the meeting was somewhat tense, at the end several participants did express their gratitude that WWF is committed to addressing criticisms. WWF then left the meeting.

A drafting committee for the compiling the opening statement was then elected (Annex III). The plenary then discussed general strategy, objectives and key issues to include in the statement.

General Analysis and Strategies:

The IIFB/IPCC analysis and objectives under each agenda item as broadly discussed and agreed as follows.

General Strategy:

1)      There is a need to open space for Indigenous Peoples to implement what has already been agreed at COP7 and to promote the adoption of the new paradigm on protected areas on the ground e.g., proactive measures such as a technical workshop under CBD to review progress in implementation of Prog. Element 2.0 of the PoW (governance and equity) and develop toolkits.

2)      Ensure that governance, equity and participation issues become a fully cross-cutting issue in all CBD deliberations, including preparation of SCBD documents (balanced implementation)

3)      There is a need to bring communities affected by protected areas and those with their own conservation and sustainable use initiatives/proposals to any review workshops and the second meeting of the Working Group to be held in Montreal on 5-9 December, 2005.

4)      The IIFB/IPCC should ensure that it organised and holds side events at the second meeting in December.

Specific Strategies for influencing the 1^st WGPA meeting:

Marine Protected Areas – beyond national jurisdiction

• Need for language on participation and rights
• Need for clear language on traditional knowledge where scientific knowledge is mentioned
• Need for support for indigenous evaluation on this complex issue and its implications for indigenous peoples prior to SBSTTA-11 and the second meeting of the WGPA
• Indigenous peoples should be involved in any scientific research, particularly research on potential livelihood impacts

Financial Resources

• Language on participation and rights must be inserted
• Need text on the need to targeted support for indigenous peoples’ initiatives
• Language on “high revenue” extractive industries must be deleted
• Any existing or emerging text promoting the CDM, debt-for nature swaps, bioprospecting and payment for ecosystems services must be deleted or at least conditioned re. rights
• Any problematic language on economic activities in and around protected areas to raise finances must be deleted or at least use the term “socially and environmentally sustainable”
• Language on the review of GEF protected area policies and practice in relation to indigenous peoples must be inserted [cf. recommendations of 2004 Biodiversity Program Study, GEF Local Benefits Study]
• Need to insert language on the need for “timely support for indigenous and local community participation in activities due for 2006 [PoW Activities 1.1.1-1.1.5 inclusive, 3.1.1, 3.2.1 and 4.2.1]”

Toolkits

• Add language on the need for gap analysis to address rights issues, cultural and spiritual values and full and effective participation
• Add language on land rights, land tenure security and demarcation tools
• Add language on indigenous peoples and community conservation areas
• Secure commitment to support development of indigenous peoples’ own toolkits
• Ensure full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities in the elaboration of the list of toolkits and in the development of toolkits

Process For Implementation Review

• Need language that invites indigenous and local communities to contribute information needed for the review of implementation
• Need space for indigenous peoples to undertake their own review or at least make inputs to any evaluation processes (i.e., CBD evaluation matrix and technical workshops)
• Include language in Annex II on assessment criteria language that includes:

-          Impacts of protected areas on indigenous peoples

-          Data on the situation, coverage and emerging tendencies of existing and proposed protected areas on the territories of indigenous peoples

• Insert “Indigenous peoples’ organizations” and “International human rights instruments” in the column on Information Sources [Goal/Target 4.5]
• Need for indigenous peoples to peer review and scrutinise country reports
• May be useful to assess to what extent Indigenous Peoples have or have not been involved in compilation of 3rd national report to the CBD?

At the close of the plenary, Fiu Elissara from the Pacific region was elected to read the opening statement the next day.

Part III:   Summary of proceedings of the First Meeting of the CBD Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Protected Areas (WGPA)

Synopsis of main issues and IIFB inputs:

The IIFB was able to read its opening statement on the first day and make several general and specific text interventions in each sub-working group during Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday (sub-working group I [SWGI] on marine protected areas and toolkits; and sub-working group II [SWGII] on finances and process for review of implementation). However, in both sub-working groups the IIFB was repeatedly relegated to comment last after all governments had spoken. This meant that in some critical cases text was closed by the chairpersons before the IIFB was given the floor. Several strong objections by the IIFB in both working groups did finally allow better interventions in SWGI by Thursday, but this was never achieved in SWGII – which was chaired by a representative of the Cuban government who was not very receptive to IIFB interventions (although one IIFB intervention on the GEF objecting to a proposal by Norway to delete language on the need for the GEF to review and revise its policies on indigenous and local communities, was accepted on the floor after the IIFB explained the reasoning behind the text).

Despite these serious obstacles effective lobbying with text passed to the secretariat on Monday and to governments in the subsequent days did enable some (but not all) IIFB text to be included in the final drafts. Especially successful lobbying was undertaken in SWGII by the IIFB with the governments of Ecuador, Mexico and Guatemala. It was clear that these governments had read a general IIFB statement circulated about indigenous peoples’ concerns on financing options under discussion. These governments, and others including Russia, made interventions asking for deletion of language on high revenue extractive industries, before the IIFB had been able to take the floor on this issue. When the IIFB did take the floor it was able to back these previous interventions, and the text was deleted.

On Tuesday night, the IIFB held a reception that was attended by around thirty governments and NGOs, including Spain, Malaysia, the USA (Chip Barber) and several African countries, along with IUCN members of TILCEPA, among others.

Towards the end of the week, all the recommendations of the whole working group were put in jeopardy by Australia acting inside SWGII, backed behind the scenes by the USA, Canada and New Zealand. These governments challenged the power of the working group to make specific recommendations to the Parties without being first agreed upon by the next COP.

At one point, all the recommendations contained in the documents concerning financial resources and the review of implementation of the programme of work were in risk of being left in brackets for complete review by COP8. This threw the negotiations into crisis as the EU and other governments were resistant to a weakening of the working group’s mandate and language. The result was that delays in the negotiations meant the Chairperson closed much of the substantive text in SWGII and blocked any further comments on the second draft of the documents, other than text in brackets. As a result, several inconsistencies unacceptable to the IIFB were not rectified e.g., language asking only NGOs and the private sector to provide financial support to indigenous conservation and sustainable use initiatives – and not donors in general. Specific language on the need for dedicated funds to enable indigenous peoples to participate in implementation of the 2006 PoW targets and activities was also disregarded.

Little time was given to discussing the implementation review process in SWGII. Most of the limited time dedicated to this agenda item was occupied by disagreements between governments on the need for an evaluation matrix. In the end this was accepted with language that allows for inputs by indigenous peoples. However, more specific points could not be addressed by the IIFB from the floor. Although IIFB written texts did influence the draft recommendations and managed to secure some participatory language to open space for indigenous inputs to the review process, text proposals for improving the draft implementation evaluation matrix were disregarded.

Many governments, including the EU, were unhappy about the chairing procedure, but were forced into closed contact groups to resolve the crisis on the working group mandate under CBD rules of procedure. These contact groups met on Thursday night and again at the end of the last day when the working group was supposed to adopt the reports of both sub-working groups.

The IIFB was not invited to participate in the contact groups and did not press for this as it was considered that it was technical issue confined to governments. This assumption proved to be incorrect as the compromise reached late on the last day (around 8.30 pm) involved weakening hard-won language on indigenous peoples’ rights and participation in the document on financial resources. Agreed IIFB text on the need to ensure all finance related activities guaranteed to participation of, and full respect for the rights of, indigenous and local communities was changed with empty language advising the COP simply to take note of this requirement.

Unfortunately, the speedy adoption of the reports at the close of the meeting meant the IIFB was not present when the last minute changes to the text were read out (IIFB members were 20 minutes late in attending the last session, which they did not realise had already started). Even if the IIFB had been present, it is not clear if they could have rejected the text change.

Nonetheless, the closing statement of the IIFB expressed bitter disappointment that unbracketed text on indigenous peoples’ participation and rights had been weakened at the last minute. A protest was also made about this by the IIFB directly to the Secretariat, but to no avail. The IIFB was advised that it could make a formal complaint to the Secretariat within 20 days, but it would not be likely to change anything.

Part IV   Outcomes and achievements of the CBD meeting, and remaining challenges

Despite this last minute setback, several notable achievements were made during the week that can be summarised as follows.

IV A    Marine Protected Areas:

Most of the IIFB participants, except those from the Pacific were very keen on the issue of Marine Protected Areas beyond limits of natiobal jurisdiction. There were some disagreements on the merit of establishing such Protected Areas with the sub-action groups, but nevertheless, it was agreed that a number of people should participate and monitor the discussions. There were only a few interventions made, which were mainly to ensure participation of indigenous peoples.

Positive aspects – achievements

·         The need to make a distinction that indigenous and local communities were not stakeholders in marine protected areas (para 4(j))

·         Include indigenous and local communities in verifying database of biodiversity in marine areas

IV B   Mobilising Finance (UNEP/CBD/WG-PA/1/L.4):

Positive aspects - achievements:

• Explicit language on large-scale extractive industries was deleted
• Language (though weakened at the last minute) on the rights and participation of indigenous and local communities was inserted
• The need to undertake specific evaluations and document the impacts of existing finance mechanisms on indigenous and local communities was inserted (para 1(c))
• Language (though again slightly weakened) inviting the GEF to review its protected area policies in relation to indigenous and local communities was inserted
• Language on the need for financial and capacity building support to indigenous peoples was inserted (though in the wrong place – see below)
• IFIs are invited to incorporate guidelines on the ecological and social sustainability of protected areas in their investment projects

Gaps and negative aspects:

• It is still recommended that financial plans for protected areas include funds from ecosystem services and debt-for-nature swaps
• Language on the CDM has not been deleted [though it was left in brackets and there is a high probability it will be deleted at COP8 as several governments opposed it]
• Language on indigenous participation and rights was weakened and made ambiguous, so it no longer relates clearly to the proposed financing planning activities
• A call for targeted support for indigenous and local community initiatives and capacity building was made only to international NGOs and the private sector (not more generally to donors) [para. 2(f)(iii)]
• No specific recommendation on the need for funds to support the participation of indigenous peoples in the implementation of activities due for 2006 under the PoW
• IIFB proposals to include text on the need for balanced approach to implementation of the PoW taking account of programme element 2.0 (on governance etc) were not accepted

IV  C    Toolkits:

Positive aspects - achievements:

• Addition of following issues in the section on gaps in the existing toolkits (final negotiated text): (a) respecting the rights of indigenous and local communities; (b) cultural and spiritual values; (c) social participation and co-management of protected areas; (d) Eco and cultural tourism
• Recognition that capacity building is required in the application and/or development of regional, national and local toolkits with the goal of refining the list of toolkits, especially by indigenous and local communities
• Recognition that capacity building is required for the translation and availability of toolkits in diverse, including local, languages
• The working group invites the Executive Secretary to requests Parties, other Governments, other Conventions, IGOs, NGOs, indigenous and local communities and others to submit additional information in order to improve the list (the IIFB already started to identify areas of the list that necessitate the participation of indigenous and local communities and areas where indigenous peoples should develop their own toolkits; this work should proceed in preparation for the 2^nd meeting of the working group)
• The working group invites the Executive Secretary to develop and implement mechanisms to involve the participation of indigenous and local communities in the development of the list
• The working group invites the Executive Secretary to establish a list of experts, including at the national level and from indigenous groups, on protected areas
• The working group recommends that COP8 urges Parties, funding and other relevant organisations to provide adequate financial resources and other support for: (a) the development of toolkits…including toolkits at the local level, in local languages and those developed or used by indigenous and local communities; (b) workshops to focus on the use and further development of available toolkits, in particular in relation to co-managed protected areas and community conserved areas
• The EU and Spain have expressed a willingness (funds permitting) to support and indigenous-led international workshop on toolkits [this willingness was shown in a side meeting with the EU in the middle of the week]

Gaps and negative aspects:

• There are very few references on work by indigenous and local communities in the toolkits, and with tendencies to refer only to published materials

IV  D    Process for Implementation Review (UNEP/CBD/WG-PA/1/L.3):

Positive aspects - achievements:

• Indigenous peoples are invited to contribute information to the review of implementation (Draft Recommendation 5)
• Agreement on the importance of undertaking consultation processes on national and thematic reports on implementation of the Programme of Work...including with indigenous and local communities (Draft recommendation 7.)
• The working group requests the Secretariat to organise (subject to funding) “a regionally balanced workshop, possibly in September 2005, for pre-review of implementation of the Programme of work prior to the 2^nd meeting of the working group in December 2005, including participation by indigenous and local communities
• The Secretariat is requested to collect the views of indigenous and local communities on the proposed content of the implementation evaluation matrix (Recommendation 8(b))
• The Secretariat is requested to notify indigenous peoples (as well as governments and relevant organisations) that they seek their views on the main elements on implementation to be reviewed at COP8

Gaps and negative aspects:

·           Explicit language on the need to review progress on rights and participation issues was not included in the working group recommendation nor in the annexed guidelines for monitoring progress in implementation (Annex I) (at odds with PoW)

·           Criteria for assessing progress on equity and benefit sharing in the draft evaluation matrix lacks language on avoidance of social costs. Assessment criteria are confined to mitigation and compensation mechanisms (at odds with PoW)

·           No requirement for peer review of national reports by indigenous peoples and civil society (only “consultation”)

·           Proposed assessment criteria on the impacts of PAs on indigenous lands and territories were not included in the draft evaluation matrix

·           Language on human rights instruments country reports as possible sources of information were not included in the draft CBD evaluation matrix for reviewing implementation (Annex II)

Part V   IIFB plans and Action Points for Second meeting of the CBD WGPA

The final IIFB/IPCC caucus held on Thursday evening (16^th) was used to plan for the next CBD WGPA to be held in Montreal in September. FPP reported to the caucus that due to non-attendance of some IIFB members due to visa problems and other reasons, a budget surplus of around E16,000 Euros was available for IPCC work and activities and inputs to the second meeting, subject to prior approval by the donors (e.g., Swedbio).

Agreements:

Ø      If donor approval can be obtained, some excess funds will be used to enable a core group of six experienced IPCC members to travel to SBSTTA-11 at the end of November. These people will also attend the 2^nd meeting of the WGPA, which is back-to-back with SBTSTTA.

Ø      Also subject to donor approval, other excess funds will be used to finance several brief indigenous peoples’ implementation review reports at the country and/or regional level. These will be brief and assess national progress in implementing elements and activities of the PoW of relevance to indigenous peoples (e.g., 3-page summaries of main successes and remaining obstacles to implementation)

Ø      Funds will likewise be used to finance attendance by six local indigenous representatives directly affected by protected areas and extractive industries and bioprospecting etc e.g., Huaorani from Yasuni National Park in Ecuador, Native Communities impoverished by parks in Peru, plus examples to be identified from Africa (e.g., communities affected by Campo Ma’an National Park) and Asia

Ø      There will be another two-day IPCC preparatory meeting in Montreal

Ø      Another 25 IIFB/IPCC members will be supported to travel to the 2^nd meeting of the WGPA

Ø      Maurizio Ferrari of the FPP will take over budget logistics from Emily Caruso, but travel logistics will this time be organised internally by IIFB focal points in reach region (with prior transfer of funds before the meeting)

Possible Action Points

Ø      Identify IIFB and/or other local indigenous authors for implementation reports and invite them to compile a short assessment on implementation

Ø      Draft a short terms of reference for the IIFB/indigenous reviewers

Ø      Identify six locally affected indigenous representatives to travel to Montreal to present in side events (on controversial and harmful financing options and continuing poverty-creating PA policy and practice)

Ø      Identify potential IIFB members to take forward initiative on indigenous peoples’ toolkits

Ø      Follow-up links with donors willing to finance indigenous workshop(s) on toolkits

Ø      Start drafting summary toolkits on rights issues, land demarcation and community conservation areas etc

Lesson Learned:

The last minute weakening of text in the 1^st meeting of the WGPA confirms again that IIFB members must be sure to be present at all times until text is finally adopted.

The IIFB should also consider the need to press governments for involvement in contact groups even if the group discussions do not seem directly relevant to IIFB concerns (because other issues may emerge in these groups and result in loss or dilution of IIFB inputs)

Annex I:   Some Key Gains at the 5^th World Parks Congress and CBD COP 7

At the 5^th WPC held in September 2003 in Durban, South Africa, conservation organisations acknowledged that the costs of protected areas are often borne by indigenous peoples. The ‘Durban Accord’ announced a ‘new paradigm’ under which best practice protected area laws, policies, governance and management must ensure the participation of indigenous peoples in decision-making on a fair and equitable basis in full respect of their human and social rights. [1]

In its message to the CBD, the Congress also noted that:

...protected areas may have a negative impact on indigenous peoples, including mobile indigenous peoples, and local communities, when their rights and interests are not accounted for and addressed and where they do not fully participate in and agree to decisions that affect them. It further noted the importance of securing indigenous peoples' rights to their lands and territories as an imperative to guarantee sustainable protected areas. [2]

The Congress also adopted the Durban Action Plan to implement the new paradigm in which one major expected “Outcome” is that: The rights of indigenous peoples, including mobile indigenous peoples, and local communities are secured in relation to natural resources and biodiversity conservation [Outcome 5]

Other points for action and recommendations include, among many others:

l       No forced resettlement or sedentarisation (FPIC)

l       Participatory mechanisms for the restitution of indigenous peoples’ traditional lands and territories that were incorporated in protected areas without their free and informed consent, established and implemented by 2010 [create Truth and Reconciliation Commission – 5.24(j)]

l       A review of laws and policies that impact on indigenous peoples

l       Advise on reforms of national laws and retrain local conservationists

l       Reform of the policies of international agencies like the World Bank and GEF

l       Respect indigenous peoples and to support local, sustainable management and conservation of natural resources in Protected Areas

l       Support indigenous peoples’ initiatives aimed at revitalization of indigenous knowledge

The 7^th conference of the Parties of the CBD officially welcomed the outcomes of the World Parks Congress. After much lobbying by the IIFB, some elements of the World Parks Congress were incorporated into the CBD Decision on Protected Areas and the Programme of Work on Protected Areas.

Decision VII/28 Protected Areas, at para. 22:

“…the establishment, management and monitoring of protected areas should take place with the full and effective participation of, and full respect for the rights of, indigenous and local communities consistent with national law and applicable international obligations (emphasis added)”

Work programme on protected areas (2004): [3]

Other keys elements in the Programme of work include, among many others:

l      Emphasis on active participation of Indigenous and Local Communities (ILCs)

l      Facilitate legal recognition and effective management of community conserved areas

l      To ensure that any resettlement of ILCs as a consequence of establishment or management of PAs will only take place with the Prior, Informed Consent of ILCs

Annex II: IIFB-IPCC members attending the 1st Meeting of the CBD Working Group on protected Areas, Montecatini, June 2005

List of Participants

Annex III:   IIFB/IPCC – Sub-Action Groups: Montecatini, June 05

Each focal point must report back to caucus each day.

Caucus: 1815 hours each evening – in Conference Centre AND 0830 – in Hotel Tonfoni IF specific tasks and issues must be addressed

A. Marine Protected Areas:

Focal Point: Sandy Gauntlett

Group members: Clarence, Onel (later Isaac and Stephen)

B. Financial Resources:

Focal Point: Banie

Group members: Banie, Tom, Hindou, Mikail

C. Toolkits:

Focal Point: John

Group members: Jannie, Pravit, John, Maurizio, Isaac, Stephen, Olga, Alexander

D. Implementation review:

Focal Point: José

Group members: Goutam, Chachu, Cecilio, José

Person to read Opening Statement WGPA: Fiu

Drafting Committee (Political statement):

Alejandro

Jannie

Support: Maurizio, Cassandra, Emily and Miriam (translation)

General interventions should be approved first by IPCC, to avoid diversion from consensus

Lobbying strategy:

Contact Group to liaise with SCBD: Jannie, Cecilio

Indigenous reception commission: Olga, Emily and Miriam

Press work: FPP

Liaison with TILCEPA: Sandy Gauntlett

[3] See full work programme at: http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.aspx?m=COP-07&id=7765&lg=0