Forest Cover: a Global Forest Coalition newsletter on...

Forest Cover: a Global Forest Coalition newsletter on international forest policy October 2017


About Global Forest Coalition: The Global Forest Coalition

(GFC) is an international coalition of 92 NGOs and Indigenous

Peoples’ Organisations from 59 countries defending social

justice and the rights of forest peoples in forest policies. GFC

organises joint advocacy campaigns on the need to respect

the rights, role and needs of Indigenous Peoples, women and

local communities in forest conservation and the need to

address the underlying causes of forest loss. Its staff and

collaborators work from, amongst others, Paraguay, the

Netherlands, Colombia, Thailand and the UK.

globalforestcoalition.org

Editorial Team: Holly Jonas, Simone Lovera and Mrinalini Rai

Editors: Michael Braverman-Scult, Ashlesha Khadse, Ronnie

Hall and Isis Alvarez

Layout, Graphic Design & Photo Research: Oliver Munnion

About Forest Cover: Welcome to the 53rd issue of Forest

Cover, newsletter of the Global Forest Coalition (GFC). It

features reports on important intergovernmental meetings

by different NGOs and IPOs, and articles from GFC member

organisations. For free subscriptions, please contact:

[email protected]

Donate to GFC here. Twitter: @gfc123

Front & back cover main photo: PACOS Trust

Other front cover photos: Nawalparsi FECOFUN, PACOS

Trust and Simone Lovera/GFC

This Forest Cover was made possible through support

from various GFC member groups and contributors,

including the Christensen Fund and the International

Climate Initiative (IKI) of the German Federal Ministry

for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and

Nuclear Safety (BMUB). The views expressed in this

publication are not necessarily the views of our

contributors.

Community conservation in Nepalcontributes to meeting Aichi BiodiversityTargets and Sustainable DevelopmentGoals by Dil Raj Khanal, Mrinalini Rai & AnilaOnta

In this issue:

3

How to assess the contributions ofIndigenous Peoples and local communitiesto the CBD and its Strategic Plan? Let’sstart by asking them by Holly Jonas, GordonJohn Thomas, Lysandra Chin & BeverlyJoeman

Ensuring community conservation and alocal perspective in the Global BiodiversityOutlook by Jeanette Sequeira, Ken Kinney,Salome Kisenge & Edna Kaptoyo

About mice, elephants, and thegovernance of biodiversity mainstreamingby Simone Lovera

6

9

17

Forest communities’ struggle fortraditional and customary use of forests inIndia by Souparna Lahiri

13

Leaving no one behind: Community rights and biodiversity conservation | 2

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.globalforestcoalition.org/?page_id=70

http://globalforestcoalition.org/


Community forestry by localgroups, along with the practice oftraditional knowledge andcustomary sustainable naturalresource management, is aneffective form of community-ledbiodiversity conservation. In Nepal,these community conservationgroups have been crucial toaddressing threats to biodiversity,and to achieving the relevantinternational targets of theConvention on Biological Diversity(CBD) and the SustainableDevelopment Goals (SDGs).

Numerous community reports, fieldobservations, case studies, andbackground documents aboutgovernment policies, strategies andplans have shown the positiveimpacts of community conservationinitiatives. These initiativesconducted by communityconservation groups - communityforestry groups, water and wetlandmanagement groups, and othercommunity-based natural resourcemanagement groups of IndigenousPeoples and local communities -

have significantly contributed toachieving Nepal’s national goalsand targets on biodiversityconservation, sustainable use andequitable sharing of benefits. [2]Similarly, these communityconservation groups havecontributed to achieving themajority of the Aichi BiodiversityTargets and various other SDGtargets.

The upcoming meetings of theConvention on Biological Diversitythat will take place in Montreal inDecember 2017 (SBSTTA-21 andWG8(j)-10 [3] [4]), will address theimplementation of the 2030Agenda for SustainableDevelopment with particularemphasis on conservation andsustainable use of biodiversity.

In this context, this article brieflyhighlights how communityconservation groups havecontributed to the achievement ofglobal goals on biodiversity andsustainable development.

Over the past three decades Nepal has established itself as apioneering country for securing community forestry rightsthrough legal and policy measures. In Nepal, more than20,000 community forestry groups currently manageapproximately 40 per cent of the country’s forests. [1]

Community conservation inNepal contributes to meetingAichi Biodiversity Targets and

Sustainable Development GoalsBy Dil Raj Khanal, FECOFUN Policy Advisor, Mrinalini Rai, GFC

Indigenous Peoples and Gender Advisor & Anila Onta, FECOFUNGender Facilitator

A community forest managed by community forest user groups inDolakha district of Nepal. Dil Raj Khanal/FECOFUN

3 | Leaving no one behind: Community rights and biodiversity conservation


Contributions toachieving the AichiBiodiversity Targets

Working in the context ofcustomary laws as well asgovernment legislation and policyguidance, community conservationgroups have been mainstreamingbiodiversity conservation in theirforest and ecosystem managementplans. Different groups haveincorporated different provisionsand programmes of action intotheir forest management plans inorder to generate awareness aboutthe values of biodiversity,conservation and sustainable useas well as monitoring and reportingon the outcomes and continuingthreats to biodiversity at thecommunity level. [5]

The 2015 State of Nepal's Forestsreport has shown that communityconservation groups havesignificantly contributed to thereduction of forest degradation andfragmentation after the legal

recognition of community forestryrights were formalised in the ForestAct of 1993. This is evidenced bythe increasing area of forest landand the decreasing area of shrubland documented in Nepal duringthe period 1994-2014. [6]Biodiversity conservation andsustainable utilisation is one of theintegral elements of communityforest management plans. Due tothe effective implementation offorest management plans bycommunity conservation groups,alien species have been controlledand/or eradicated withincommunity forests. Communityforestry initiatives, particularly inthe mid and high hills, haveresulted in the protection of socio-economically and culturallyvaluable species of wildlife. Areasunder community forestmanagement have becomeimportant habitats for wildlife.

The community conservationgroups have been instrumental incontributing to the achievement of

CBD Aichi Targets 14, 15 and 18;one of their main objectives is torestore ecosystem services thatcontribute to local people’slivelihoods and well-being. Theirforest management plans take intoaccount the needs of women,Indigenous Peoples and localcommunities, and the poor andvulnerable. They also value theimportance of traditionalknowledge, innovations andpractices of indigenous and localcommunities in their conservationinitiatives. Similarly, all communityforestry groups have incorporatedspecific provisions in their forestmanagement plans for ecosystemresilience and to enhance carbonstocks in the community forests.

Nepal has recently ratified theNagoya Protocol on Access toGenetic Resources and the Fair andEquitable Sharing of BenefitsArising from their Utilization,though national legislation has yetto be developed. Communityconservation groups have been

Community members assessing threats to their community conservation efforts during a CommunityConservation Resilience Initiative assessment, in Nepal. Dil Raj Khanal/FECOFUN



demanding that the Nepalgovernment follow a participatoryand consultative process to developlegislation on access and benefitsharing.

In 2014, Nepal developed aNational Biodiversity Strategy andAction Plan (NBSAP) for the period2014-2020. This policy documenthas recognised the important roleand contribution of communityforestry to achieving the goals,objectives and strategic actions ofthe NBSAP. The Plan has committedthat Indigenous Peoples and localcommunities will be importantcommunity-level actors for theeffective implementation of theNBSAP. However, due to limitedresources and weak commitmentfrom some government agencies,

the implementation status ofNepal’s NBSAP is weak and moreemphasis has been given tocentralised protected areas ratherthan community conservation,customary sustainable use andtraditional knowledge ofIndigenous Peoples and localcommunities.

Contribution toachieving the SDGs

By mobilising their forest resourcesand income, communityconservation groups have greatlycontributed to food security,renewable/alternative energy,community health and education,poverty alleviation and well-being,employment and incomegeneration. These communities

have also established their owndemocratic systems which includeat least 33-50% representation ofwomen in their decision-makingbodies, and thus contribute toachieving SDG 5 on gender equalityand women’s empowerment inNepal. [7] Community forestrygroups have also made importantcontributions towards achievingSDG 15 on terrestrial ecosystems,including:

• All community forestry groupshave their own managementplan for the sustainablemanagement of forests and tohalt deforestation, forestdegradation and biodiversityloss, as well as conservingecosystems and preventing thespread of invasive alien species.

Members of community forest user groups managing their community forest in Nawalparasi district.Nawalparsi FECOFUN



[1] Department of Forests, Community Forestry Division, July 2017,(http://dof.gov.np/publications/community_forestry_bulletin, 2017)

[2] Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, 2014. Nepal Biodiversity Strategyand Action Plan 2014-2020. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and SoilConservation (MoFSC), Kathmandu, Nepal.http://www.mfsc.gov.np/downloadfile/Strategy%20and%20action%20plan_1426572431.pdf

[3] The twenty-first meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical andTechnological Advice (SBSTTA) established under Article 25 of the Conventionwill be held in Montreal, Canada, 11-14 December 2017.https://www.cbd.int/meetings/SBSTTA-21

[4] Ad Hoc Open-ended Inter-Sessional Working Group on Article 8(j) andRelated Provisions (WG8(j)) was established by Decision IV/9 of the Conference

of the Parties to address the implementation of Article 8(j) and provide theConference of the Parties with advice relating to the implementation of Article8(j) and related provisions. The tenth meeting of WG8(j) will be held in Montreal,Canada, from 13-16 December 2017. https://www.cbd.int/meetings/WG8J-10

[5] Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, 2014. NepalFifth National Report to Convention on Biological Diversity,https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/np/np-nr-05-en.pdf

[6] DFRS, 2015. State of Nepal's Forests. Forest Resource Assessment (FRA)Nepal, Department of Forest Research and Survey (DFRS). Kathmandu, Nepal.

[7] Recognising the Contributions of Women & Local Communities is Requiredto Achieve the SDGs in Nepal, http://globalforestcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/nepal-shadow-report.pdf

•

•

•

The achievements of the localcommunities are significant for therealisation of the SDGs in Nepal.Unfortunately, the country lacks anational database or accountingsystem to document communitycontributions to achieving theSDGs. Therefore, one of the majorgaps in Nepal’s Voluntary NationalReview is that it has neglectedthese community contributions,and ignored consultation and datafrom local communities. Therefore,community conservation groupsare strongly demanding thatcommunity-level contributions toachieving the Aichi BiodiversityTargets and SDGs are recognised.

Community conservation initiativeswill be a strong and sustainableoption for realising the 2050 Visionfor Biodiversity. However, it isnecessary to recognise and supportthe contributions of IndigenousPeoples and local communitiesthrough appropriate laws andpolicy measures at all levels.

Biodiversity is conserved throughcommunity conservationinitiatives, and the localcommunities have developedprocesses for the equitablesharing of benefits arising fromforests and biodiversity.Community forest groups haveestablished and are mobilisinganti-poaching/-trafficking groups,which have been highlysuccessful.All types of ecosystems are beingsustainably managed by localcommunities, however theecosystem services continue tobe utilised by the wider publicand private sector withoutproviding any compensation tothe local communities.


http://dof.gov.np/publications/community_forestry_bulletin

http://www.mfsc.gov.np/downloadfile/Strategy%20and%20action%20plan_1426572431.pdf

https://www.cbd.int/meetings/SBSTTA-21

https://www.cbd.int/meetings/WG8J-10

https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/np/np-nr-05-en.pdf

http://globalforestcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/nepal-shadow-report.pdf


Mastupang belongs to the SungaiTombonuo ethnic group innorthern Sabah, Malaysian Borneo.The Sungai Tombonuo dependupon the dense mangroves in theirtraditional territories for food, fuelwood, medicinal plants andspiritual rituals. They identify andmanage areas for conservation andsustainable use based ontraditional knowledge and

practices. The mangroves are alsohome to a wide variety of plantsand animals, including endangeredand endemic species such asproboscis monkeys, and are crucialbreeding and spawning grounds forfish and shellfish.

A government-backed companyestablishing a large-scale shrimpfarm now threatens the survival of

Mastupang’s village and severalnearby. Since 2012, the company –Sunlight Inno Seafood CompanySdn Bhd – has cleared more than2,000 acres of mangroves vital tothe villagers’ livelihoods and thesurrounding environment. At leastanother 1,000 acres of mangrovesare slated for clearance despiteprotests from the villagers as wellas local and international NGOs. An

acacia plantation,which was allegedlygiven the green lightdespite villagers’ long-standing land rightsclaims to the samearea, places furtherpressure on thecommunities andenvironment alike.

One of the cruel ironiesof these so-called‘development’ projectsis that the governmentis promoting andsupporting them underthe guise of ‘poverty

“For us in Sungai Eloi, there are many challenges,” says Mastupang Bin Somoi, 53, a farmer,fisherman and Native Customary Rights defender from Kampung Sungai Eloi. “The area that wehave been taking care of for nine generations was taken over by the government for the largestshrimp farm in Malaysia... We are not anti-development, but we want balanced development.We do not want to lose our rights as the Indigenous Peoples who are defending our customaryterritories.”

How to assess the contributionsof Indigenous Peoples and local

communities to the CBDand its Strategic Plan?

Let’s start by asking themBy Holly Jonas, CCRI Legal and Advocacy Advisor, Gordon John Thomas,

PACOS Trust, Lysandra Chin, PACOS Trust & Beverly Joeman, JOAS

A Sungai Tombonuo woman gathering shells in the mangrove forest in KampungSungai Eloi in northern Sabah. PACOS Trust



alleviation’ for rural communities.It is true that the governmentclassifies many villages in this partof Sabah as ‘poor’ and ‘hard corepoor’, but this classification isbased on limited economic data. Itdoes not consider the deep andmulti-faceted relationshipsbetween Indigenous Peoples andthe territories and areas uponwhich they depend for theiridentity, survival, livelihoods andwellbeing – or the devastatingimpacts of the industrial shrimpfarm and acacia plantation on thisway of life. It does not consider theinformal subsistence and small-scale economies based on fishing,farming and gathering of shellfishand non-timber forest products,which are not quantified in termsof monetary income. It certainlydoes not consider the manybenefits of the Indigenous Peoples’customary practices for the localforest, mangrove and coastalecosystems, which in turn providethe basis for clean water, wildlifehabitat and fisheries far beyondtheir village boundaries.

This limited and flawedunderstanding of ‘poverty’ and‘development’ does not bode wellfor Indigenous Peoples and otherrural communities as Malaysiastrives to achieve developedcountry status by 2020. Just asmost governments’ economicpolicies fail to capture the truemeanings of ‘poverty’ and‘development’, so too do mostgovernments’ environmentalpolicies fail to recognise the rights-holders who significantlycontribute to biodiversity andgenuine sustainable developmentat the local level. Recent advancesunder the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD) mandate Parties to

the CBD to appropriately recogniseand support communities’contributions to biodiversity,including by recognising territoriesand areas conserved by IndigenousPeoples and local communities(also known as ICCAs).

Mastupang is one of countlessindigenous leaders around theworld advocating for legalrecognition of their ICCAs. Onestrategy they are employing is todemonstrate how their ways of lifecontribute to the conservation andsustainable use of biodiversityacross virtually all ecosystems andhow they embody a viablealternative to mainstream, top-down narratives of ‘sustainabledevelopment’.

Since the 1980s, Partners ofCommunity Organisations in Sabah(PACOS Trust) has been supportingIndigenous Peoples in the state ofSabah to document theircustomary territories (knownlocally as wilayah adat), theirindigenous worldviews, knowledgeand practices, and their self-determined plans and priorities forthe future. In recent years,advances in national and state

policies and laws have affordedsome recognition to communityconservation (for example, thetagal system of inland fisheriesmanagement), though thereremains room for improvementboth on paper and in practice.

The Sabah State Government hasalready protected about 26 percent of its forests (1.87 millionhectares) and has committed toprotecting 30 per cent (2.2 millionhectares) by 2025. If thegovernment undertakes a genuineprocess of participatory mappingand spatial planning, it couldidentify areas that are importantfor biodiversity that also overlapwith wilayah adat and other ICCAs.The work of many communitiesacross the state to document theirterritories and ways of life, with thesupport of organisations such asPACOS Trust, would provide astrong basis for such a process andfor subsequent recognition andsecuring of wilayah adat and otherICCAs. This could also provide animportant counterbalance to top-down forms of ‘development’ and‘poverty alleviation’ that actuallyundermine otherwise sustainableways of life.

Before the large-scale clearance for the shrimp farm, the mangroves inthe Sungai Eloi area were home to a healthy population of endemicproboscis monkeys thanks to the conservation practices of the SungaiTombonuo people. PACOS Trust



Parties to the CBD will discuss anumber of closely related topicswhen they gather in Montreal inDecember 2017 for the 21st

meeting of the Subsidiary Body onScientific, Technical andTechnological Advice (SBSTTA-21)and the 10th meeting of the Ad HocOpen-ended Working Group onArticle 8(j) and related provisions(WG8(j)-10). Among other things,Parties will consider how to assessIndigenous Peoples’ and localcommunities’ contributions to theConvention and the 2011-2020Strategic Plan for Biodiversity(Agenda Item 6, WG8(j)-10).

This topic has been underdevelopment for the past severalyears. In Decision XII/3 onresource mobilisation (2014), theConference of the Partiesrecognised the role of IndigenousPeoples’ and local communities’collective action and non-market-based approaches (includingICCAs) for mobilising resources toachieve the Convention. InDecision XIII/20 on resourcemobilisation (2016), theConference of the Parties adoptedguiding principles on assessing thecontribution of Indigenous Peoplesand local communities.In December 2017,WG8(j)-10 is expected todevelop methodologicalguidance on identifying,monitoring andassessing thecontribution ofIndigenous Peoples andlocal communities tothe Strategic Plan, witha view to its adoption atthe Conference of theParties in 2018.

This methodological guidanceshould draw on good practices andlessons learned from theCommunity ConservationResilience Initiative (CCRI), which iscoordinated by the Global ForestCoalition and involves national andlocal partners in 22 countriesaround the world, including PACOSTrust in Malaysia. Among otherthings, the CCRI methodologyincludes core principles such asfree, prior and informed consent,participation and representation,and women and gender. Ratherthan relying on governmentagencies, academics or large NGOsto assess how Indigenous Peoplesand local communities contributeto biodiversity, the methodologyplaces utmost importance ondocumentation andcommunication by peoples andcommunities themselves of theirknowledge and practices, threatsand challenges, and future visionsand plans, including throughcommunity protocols. This is acrucial factor in such assessmentsand can itself support the re-empowerment and positioning ofIndigenous Peoples andcommunities as rights-holders

rather than mere stakeholders inthe CBD.

Accordingly, as CBD Partiesdevelop methodological guidanceon identifying, monitoring andassessing the contribution ofIndigenous Peoples and localcommunities to the Strategic Plan,they should first and foremost seekthe guidance of peoples andcommunities themselves. Thisprocess provides an additional andimportant opportunity forIndigenous Peoples and localcommunities to take ownershipover how they are defined andrecognised within the context ofthe CBD. It is incumbent upon CBDParties and other stakeholders tosupport them in this effort.

In Kampung Sungai Eloi innorthern Sabah, Mastupangreflects on how much themangrove clearance has affectedhis community and their vision forthe future. “We are the IndigenousPeople of the area. We should begiven the chance to defend ourterritories.”

Community members in Sungai Eloi passing acacia logs. Land use rights wereallegedly granted to the company that runs the plantation, while communities havebeen waiting for decades for their land rights claims to be recognised. PACOS Trust



The Global Biodiversity Outlook(GBO), a flagship publication of theCBD, is a periodic report depictingthe latest status and trends aroundbiodiversity. It also outlines the keyconclusions and analysis on thesteps taken or needed to be takenby the global community for thefurther implementation of theCBD. The preparation of the fifthedition of the GBO (GBO-5) iscurrently being discussed in theCBD. The GBO-4, published in2012, paid too little attention tocommunity conservation and theroles of Indigenous Peoples andlocal communities and women. Itis critical that the upcoming reportincludes community-basedinformation, trends and bestpractices such as communityconservation initiatives byrightsholder groups that are on thefrontlines of local biodiversityconservation and sustainable use.The outcomes from Global ForestCoalition’s CommunityConservation Resilience Initiative(CCRI) – an initiative thatdocuments and reviews thefindings of bottom-up,participatory assessments of theresilience of communityconservation initiatives in 22countries – already demonstratehow important communityconservation initiatives are to

Community conservation initiatives by Indigenous Peoples andlocal communities and women are effective, bottom-up, andlocally-driven approaches to biodiversity conservation. Theirsignificant promise should be recognised and mainstreamed innational and international biodiversity policy, including in theConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

Ensuring communityconservation and a localperspective in the Global

Biodiversity OutlookBy Jeanette Sequeira, GFC Gender Programme Coordinator,

the Netherlands, Ken Kinney, The Development Institute, Ghana,Salome Kisenge, Envirocare, Tanzania &

Edna Kaptoyo, Indigenous Information Network, Kenya

Tree planting in Kahe Community Forest, Tanzania. Simone Lovera/GFC



global biodiversity and the role ofIndigenous Peoples and localcommunities and women in theseinitiatives. [1]

The 2016 Local BiodiversityOutlooks report by Forest PeoplesProgramme, the InternationalIndigenous Forum on Biodiversityand the CBD Secretariat provides anexcellent overview of community-led and -based contributions tobiodiversity conservation in thisrespect. It is important that suchcontributions are incorporated intothe GBO-5 process and also thatParties support the production of asecond edition of the LocalBiodiversity Outlooks (as requestedin Decision XIII/29).

Findings from the CCRI assessmentprocesses in Kenya, Tanzania andGhana already show thatcommunity-based approaches,such as the Community ResourceManagement Areas (CREMAs)approach in Ghana, are an effectiveform of community-basedconservation. CREMAs build uponthe traditional conservationpractices of sacred groves/sites forprotecting critical ecosystems.Communities such as the Kpoetacommunity in Ghana, which isactively engaged in the CREMAprogramme, use GPS to demarcateand protect the Tsii waterfalls (inthe Weto Range of the UpperGuinean Forest of West Africa) andimplement buffer-zone planting toprotect the water bodies. Othercommunities have developed

small-scale energy productioninitiatives that use sugar cane,which is already being producedfor local gin and presents acommunity-based alternative tofuel wood from the forest – aninitiative which communities wantto safeguard from being taken overby large-scale business interests.

In Kenya, a Maasai communityaround Nyekweri Kimintet Forest inTrans-mara undertook the CCRIand found that its conservationefforts have contributedsignificantly to conserving thisimportant forest area. However,they also recommended furthercapacity building throughcommunity exchange visits tosimilar wildlife conservation areasand other practical learning and

Harvesting mushrooms in Zambia. CIFOR/Flickr


www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2016/12/lbo-english-web.pdf


[1] See CCRI global overview report http://globalforestcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/CCRI-Report-1.0.pdf

[2] https://www.cbd.int/sbstta/sbstta-21-wg8j-10/GBO5-ProductionPlan-draft-for%20SBSTTA-review.pdf

skillshares of best practices,including with country and nationalgovernment environmentalauthorities. Financial support fortheir community-based, and oftenfemale-driven, reforestationinitiatives and monitoring ofconservation areas as well asadvocacy targeting local leadershipand environmental authorities ofthe County Government was alsofound to be key. Similarly, in theTanzania CCRI process,communities in the Siha and MoshiDistricts in the Kilimanjaro regionhave made significant efforts toconserve and enrich the remainingforest areas and protect naturalwater springs. Communityinstitutions for the protection oflocal biodiversity and forests, suchas the ones already set up in CCRI-participating communities in Kenyaand Tanzania, are seen as criticalcommunity-based mechanisms thatneed to be strengthened as theyencourage community participationand monitor environmentaldestruction and communityadherence to local villageenvironmental laws.

However, more communityawareness around nationalenvironmental laws and the effectsof climate change is necessary.

The outcomes of these participatoryassessment processes in Ghana,Kenya and Tanzania demonstratethe essential role of communityconservation, encompassing arange of important practices thatought to be recognised in theGBO-5 as key contributions toglobal biodiversity conservation.

More specifically, the draftworkplan, budget andcommunication strategy of theGBO-5 should include using datacollected on community-basedconservation and sustainable useby Indigenous Peoples and localcommunities and women as keyinformation sources, includingthese outcomes from the CCRI.While it is expected thatinformation and case studies ofIndigenous Peoples and localcommunities’ collective action willbe considered critical elements inthe content of the GBO-5, asmentioned in the CBD Secretariat'sPeer Review of the pre-sessiondocument, [2] it is critical that theirparticipation in the preparationprocess is meaningfully facilitatedthrough proper modalities and thatthese rightsholders are consultedas key expert groups on theoversight and peer review as wellas development of thecommunication strategy.

Last but not least, the participationof women as rightsholders,including indigenous women andgrassroots women’s groups, wasdisappointingly not mentioned inthe pre-session document. TheGBO-5 will serve as a final reporton the implementation of theStrategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and as a basis for the post-2020 strategic plan for biodiversityto be reviewed at CBD COP 15.Accordingly, the participation ofwomen, especially indigenouswomen, in the preparation process,and the recognition of trends,experiences and women-led casestudies of biodiversity conservation

and how gender has beenmainstreamed in practice, cannotbe overlooked in the GBO-5. In theCCRI, patriarchy was flagged as anissue in CCRI communities in Kenyaand Tanzania where women do notplay a strong enough role indecision-making even though theirrole in biodiversity conservation, asholders and transmitters oftraditional knowledge, issignificant. The communitiesrecommended that advocacy isneeded on women’s landownership and their increasedparticipation in decision-making.Moreover, the role of women inconservation should bestrengthened through the creationof women's networks forbiodiversity conservation advocacyat the local and country levels,linked to national-level advocacynetworks. It is gender-responsive,community-driven solutions likethese that need to be highlighted inthe GBO-5. The GBO-5 will coincidewith the UN Decade onBiodiversity, and therefore is beingpositioned as a majorcommunication tool; such a reportthat does not address gendermainstreaming in biodiversity orthat excluded the involvement ofwomen, especially indigenouswomen, as experts wouldincompletely and inadequatelydemonstrate the real status ofbiodiversity on the ground.


http://globalforestcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/CCRI-Report-1.0.pdf

https://www.cbd.int/sbstta/sbstta-21-wg8j-10/GBO5-ProductionPlan-draft-for%20SBSTTA-review.pdf


It is to the credit of the forestcommunities that even after 150years of siege and deprivation oftheir rights and access, the Indianforests are still thriving at 67million ha (23.41% of the country’sgeographical area). With an annualdeforestation rate of around35,000 ha – mainly due toindustrial and development

projects – it is due to forestcommunities' traditional ethos andcustoms, and their symbioticrelationship with nature, that Indianforests are still surviving.

India’s annual State of ForestReports indicate that in all of thetribal districts, the current levels offorest cover (over 33%) are

significantly higher than thenational average of 21%. Theavailable statistical data shows thatit is in fact the traditional andcustomary practices of forestcommunities that have sustainedthe Indian forests, wildlife andbiodiversity. This despite living inabject poverty, being periodicallyevicted from their homelands andhaving their crops and homesburnt and destroyed. Most affectedare the women who traditionallyventure into the forests for foodand fuel wood and who participatein agricultural activities in largenumbers.

Recognition of ForestRights

A long history of struggle by India’sforest dwelling communities – fromrebellions to take back homelandsusurped by the colonial empire inthe 19th century, to a radicalmovement emerging in the 1990s –culminated in the Indian

An estimated 147 million villagers in India live in or around forests, and another 275 millionvillagers depend heavily on forests as a source of livelihood. Livelihood security for forestdependent communities is critically linked to their rights, access to, and control over forestresources. Since the British colonial administration promulgated the Indian Forest Act in 1865,Indian forests came under State control and restricted the access and rights of forestdependent communities. The independent Indian Government formally admitted to thishistoric blunder on December 2006 at the Indian Parliament.

Forest communities’struggle for traditional andcustomary use of forests

in IndiaBy Souparna Lahiri, Global Forest Coalition, India

The traditional and customary practices of forest communities havesustained wildlife and biodiversity. Souparna Lahiri/GFC



Parliament being forced to enactthe Scheduled Tribes and OtherTraditional Forest Dwellers(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act inDecember 2006. Known as theForest Rights Act (FRA), thislandmark legislation restored andrecognised the traditional rights offorest communities that weresnatched away in the consolidationof State forests during the colonialperiod as well as in independentIndia. [1]

This Act addresses the long-standing insecurity of tenurial andaccess rights of forest dwellingScheduled Tribes and othertraditional forest dwellers. The FRAensures that both an individual’s

right to agricultural and homesteadlands, that are accorded jointly to awoman and her spouse, as well ascommunity rights over forests arerecognised, recorded and vested.The recognised rights of the forestdwelling communities [2] includethe responsibilities and authorityfor sustainable use, conservation ofbiodiversity and maintenance ofecological balance. The Actstrengthens the conservationregime of the forests whileensuring livelihood and foodsecurity of the forest dwellinggroups. The Gram Sabha (or VillageCouncil) is empowered withgovernance rights to manage,protect and conserve its ownforests in a sustainable manner.

Traditional knowledge is alsorecognised in the FRA. It makesway for forest communities’ rightof access to biodiversity andcommunities' right to intellectualproperty and traditional knowledgerelated to biodiversity and culturaldiversity.

The FRA, therefore, recognises andrespects Articles 8(j) and 10(c) ofthe Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD) and thefree, prior and informed consent(FPIC) provisions of the UNDeclaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). It isalso a step in the right direction interms of achieving the CBD’s AichiBiodiversity Targets.

The recognised rights of forest dwelling communities include responsibility for maintaining ecologicalbalance. Souparna Lahiri/GFC



Changing dynamics,challenges and fall-outfrom the Forests RightsAct

While the FRA, from the beginning,was opposed by a section offoresters in the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests (MoEF)and some big conservationorganisations, the dynamics withinIndian forests were set for achange. In those areas whereforest communities were wellorganised and the socialmovement was strong, the self-initiated declaration of formationof Gram Sabhas and demarcationof their community forestsproceeded quickly. Thesecommunities were able to use the

legislation to their advantage andjump into action quickly.

However, after ten years the gapbetween initial high hopes and poorimplementation of FRA is quitestark. Less than 30 per cent of theclaims filed have been recorded,and the recording of communityforest rights (CFR) has beenminimal. Awareness campaigns onthe legislation and the claimsprocess amongst the forestcommunities has been poor,especially in remote areas. Therules and regulations of the ForestDepartment and draconian forestlaws are still prevalent. This is mostnotable within the National Parksand Tiger Reserves where the ForestDepartment is refusing to settlerights—in complete violation of the

FRA. The National TigerConservation Authority hasrecently issued a memo directingofficials not to recognise and settleany rights in tiger reserves, a movewhich is a violation of Section 4 ofthe FRA.

However, the forest-dwellingcommunities have moved forwardwith their struggles to realise theself-rule of the Gram Sabha andthe right to control and governcommunity forest resources. InNorth Bengal, along the foothills ofthe eastern Himalayas, a numberof Tongya forest villages self-declared their Gram Sabhas andforbade any activities of the ForestDepartment without their consent.These villages stopped the felling oftrees, timber logging, and

Protest calling for community rights to control and govern forest resources. NESPON/GFC



[1] “Historical injustice to the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who are integral to the very survival andsustainability of the forest ecosystem”- Preamble of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights)Act, Para 3

[2] Called Scheduled Tribes in the Indian constitution

plantations within their declaredcommunity forests. The villages inthe Tadoba-Andhari National Parkand Tiger Reserve mapped theirforest resources and filed claimsfor CFR. Similarly, many villages inChhattisgarh have initiatedresource mapping on their ownand claimed CFRs.

In the Menda Lekha forest area ofMaharashtra, around 400 villagesgot CFR titles and framed their ownrules regarding the harvesting ofnon-timber forest produce, minorforest produce and bamboo. Mostof the families residing in thesevillages have actually surrenderedtheir individual land titles to theGram Sabha to be part of thecollective. The communities havealso made attempts at forestrestoration with the help of theNational Employment GuaranteeScheme, but have not received anyfurther support from thegovernment or the ForestDepartment.

In the Baiga Chak forest area ofDindori in Madhya Pradesh, theBaigas – the most vulnerable tribalforest dependent communities –stopped the Forest Departmentfrom taking over their land forplantations, claimed their habitatrights and forced the districtadministration to record theirrights. In Odisha, there are severaldistricts where the forestcommunities have formed theirGram Sabhas, claimed their CFRsand framed their own rules for

sustainable use of forest resources.Women are at the forefront of mostof these struggles, and areparticipating in large numbers inthe meetings of the Gram Sabha.Woman have been taking a leadrole in mapping of forest resources,awareness generation amongstforest communities and negotiatingwith the relevant authorities forclaims over CFR.

Across India, large hydro, industrial,mining and other developmentprojects have been stalled as theplanned diversion of huge tracts offorests could not be completed asthe Gram Sabhas refused to giveconsent. The Government is tryingto dilute the FRA provisions andpowers of the Gram Sabha, therebyundermining the free, prior andinformed consent of thecommunities through office memosand circulars. The Ministry ofEnvironment, Forest and ClimateChange, at the direction of thePrime Minister's Office, has alreadyexempted Gram Sabha consent forclearance of certain linear projectssuch as highways and roadways.

The controversy arising out of theforest clearance for bauxite miningin the Niyamgiri Hills of Odisha byUK-based Vedanta Company is anexample of the tension anddynamics emerging between stategovernments and the forestcommunities in India today.Subsequent to the Supreme Courtof India directing the stategovernment to implement

provisions of the FRA and allow theGram Sabhas of the Dongria Kondhtribe to exercise their rights, theDongria Kondhs were braveenough to withstand the might ofVedanta and the state government,and refused to give consent toforest diversion for bauxite mining.

India’s forest communities, socialmovements and community-basedorganisations are continuing theirstruggle to realise their rights asset out in the FRA. These areconsistent with variousinternational treaties andconventions. For example, non-implementation of CFR is aviolation of Articles 8(j) and 10(c) ofthe CBD. Violating and diluting FRAprovisions related to FPIC leads toan undermining of the UNDeclaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples. Theseviolations need to be taken up atappropriate levels in appropriateinternational fora. The right ofIndia’s millions of forest people,and the right of all Indians tothriving forests, demands it!



About mice, elephants,and the governance of

biodiversitymainstreaming

By Simone Lovera, Global Forest Coalition, Paraguay

There is an old story about a group of mice and a group of elephants playing a soccer match. Inthe enthusiasm of the game one of the elephants accidentally runs over one of the mice, andstamps him into the ground. When he realises what he did, the elephant frantically apologises,upon which the mouse responds “Oh, don’t bother about it, it could have happened to me aswell”. This anecdote is good to keep in mind when we talk about the governance of biodiversitymainstreaming mainstreaming in the upcoming 21st meeting of the SubsidiaryBody on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA-21) of the Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD).

There is broad consensus thatmainstreaming biodiversity intoproductive sectors – like forestry,agriculture, and even tourism – isessential if we want to reach theinternationally agreed target ofhalting global biodiversity loss by2020. It was decided at the latestConference of the Parties of theCBD that big industriesoperating in thesesectors – such as loggingcompanies, soyproducers, hotel chains,etc. – should engage with'multi-stakeholdergovernance structures' todetermine howbiodiversity can bemainstreamed into theiroperations. The term'multi-stakeholder'governance structureimplies that all relevantactors will be involved,from the large andpowerful (transnational

corporations and governments) tothe small and politically andeconomically marginalised(Indigenous Peoples, localcommunities and women).

The latter actors aredisproportionately impacted bybiodiversity loss, and thus are

assumed to be key beneficiaries ofsustainable development policies.Indigenous Peoples, localcommunities and women haveclearly defined rights underinternational law as rightsholdergroups, so involving them ingovernance structures is a logicalfollow-up to the rights-based

Mapping threats to community conservation in Kyrgyzstan. Vladislav Ushakov/GFC



corporations are simply not in aposition to promote policysolutions that limit their economicexpansion or negatively impact ontheir short-term or long-termcommercial interests. In practice,corporations will often be willingto accept qualitative measures thatimprove their production, but areincapable of accepting quantitativepolicy measures that would limittheir growth.

Yet it is precisely these quantitativepolicy measures that aredesperately needed to protectbiodiversity on a planet withclearly defined natural boundaries.

For example, the aviation industryis by far the most rapidly growingsource of greenhouse gasemissions – emissions increased87 per cent between 1990 and2014 [1] – driven largely by thedramatic growth of the global

tourism industry. But instead ofsetting limits to growth to mitigateemissions, the International CivilAviation Organization (ICAO, a UNspecialised agency) has proposed arange of false solutions like carbonoffsets and biofuel use. At a recentICAO conference, targets of up to285 million tons of biofuels by2050 were proposed, [2] whichwould require that global biofuelproduction for transport – alreadya major source of deforestationand biodiversity destruction –would be more than tripled. Sadly,the Ministerial Declaration of thelatest CBD Conference of theParties – hosted by the city ofCancun in Mexico, one of theworld’s most (in)famous touristresorts – does not even mentionaviation-related emissions growth.

The UN Framework Convention onClimate Change itself has recentlystarted a discussion about theneed to address possible conflictsof interests in its governancestructures, and the Parties to theCBD should follow suit and startseriously addressing this issue too.It will be important for the CBD toapproach the concept of 'conflict ofinterest' in a rational manner. Toooften, the term 'conflict of interest'is seen as accusatory, if notinflammatory. But it is only rationalto assume actors have certaineconomic, social, cultural or moralinterests in certain environmentalpolicy options, and thus certainconflicts of interest may arise. Theexistence of such conflicts ofinterest is not necessarilymalevolent. It is the lack oftransparency about – or worse, thedenial of – conflicts of interest thatcan trigger malevolent behavior.

transformative approach that is atthe heart of the UN Agenda 2030for Sustainable Development.

Yet, one should wonder whetherinvolving these very different actorsin a single governance structureisn’t the same as having elephantsand mice competing against eachother on the same soccer field.After all, a large corporation orgovernment agency has little tofear from a small indigenouscommunity or women’s group,while communities on the groundrisk losing their entire livelihood,and sometimes even their lives, ifcorporations are allowed to destroyforests, use deadly agrochemicalsor violently replace communities tobuild new tourist resorts.

Moreover, the interests of largecorporations are primarilycommercial. As capitalism requirescontinued growth of capital,

A protest in Paraguay. Simone Lovera/GFC



[1] http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2016/sbi/eng/19.pdf

[2] icao.int/Meetings/CAAF2/Documents/CAAF.2.WP.013.4.en.pdf

If the status quo is not challenged,power imbalances in CBDgovernance structures will lead tothe interests of the elephantsoverriding the interests of the mice.It is important to not only addresspotential conflicts of interest, butalso to ensure that rightsholdergroups are clearly distinguished

from actors that merely have acommercial stake in biodiversitypolicy. As the process of developingthe next Strategic Plan of the CBDbegins in theupcoming intersessional meetings,rightsholder groups like IndigenousPeoples, local communities andwomen should receive a special

status in these crucial negotiations.They should be able to participatefully and effectively through theirown representative constituencystructures, and their inputs to theprocess should be clearlydistinguished from the inputs ofstakeholders that merely have acommercial stake in biodiversity.

Harvesting apples in Tajikistan. Noosfera/GFC


http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2016/sbi/eng/19.pdf

icao.int/Meetings/CAAF2/Documents/CAAF.2.WP.013.4.en.pdf

Forest Cover: a Global Forest Coalition newsletter on...

Documents

Transcript of Forest Cover: a Global Forest Coalition newsletter on...