1.Front section - IUCN

Protected areas and indigenous peoples: the Durban contributions to reconciliation and equity 9
conservation priorities and responsibilities in the
overall system building and maintenance process.
Effective reconciliation can only happen if good
practices and tools are established system-wide.
Benchmarks 4
i. System-wide capacity for the planning,
establishment and management of protected
areas on indigenous lands and waters.
ii. Sufficient financial, technical and other
resources are available to meet the costs of
effectively involving indigenous peoples
throughout the system.
iii. Protected area gaps overlapping with indigenous
territories filled through the employment of
rights-based and culturally responsive
management solutions such as community
conserved areas.
iv. Effectiveness of protected areas overlapping
with indigenous territories strengthened to
address both biodiversity targets and other
indigenous priorities.
v. National and regional monitoring systems
address effectiveness in involving indigenous
peoples and ensuring equitable cost and benefitsharing
and sustainable development/MDG
targets.
In summary, these four steps condense the policy
objectives related to indigenous peoples in the broader
Durban and CBD action plans to bridge existing
protection gaps and build effective protection
strategies. Different regions and countries may be
more or less close to these benchmarks and,
furthermore, apply diverse planning approaches. The
four steps are not meant as a blueprint to replace the
latter, but rather as a checklist to help ensure effective
progress in relation to international commitments.
Concluding remarks
The reconciliation agenda with indigenous peoples
developed in Durban is one of the elements of the new
protected area paradigm with the most profound
implications for design and management practices.
Policy reform aspects are wide-reaching. Further, the
new paradigm consolidated by the CBD programme
of work shifted emphasis from de facto recognition of
indigenous concerns towards increasing de jure
recognition of indigenous rights. This has led to a
conceptual, political and legal shift in the protected
areas paradigm concerning indigenous peoples that it
was difficult to conceive of a few years ago. This goes
as far as working with indigenous communities and
their representative institutions in establishing and
managing protected areas in their territories, much the
same way government agencies are key actors in
recognising and establishing protected areas in their
national jurisdictions. The implications of the new
protected areas paradigm for indigenous selfdetermination
are evident and may be in some cases
decisive to reformulate the relationships between
indigenous communities and national governments
regarding management of their lands.
The paradigm change repositions protected areas
from being of general interest of society to one which
recognises the value of specific social and cultural
priorities. How can this be put in practice without
fragmenting broader ecosystem priorities and thus
undermining the basis for global and national
conservation priorities The considerable theoretical
overlap between indigenous conservation interests
and broader biodiversity priorities should facilitate
integration rather than fragmentation. But still,
considerable conflicts and differences over livelihood
practices and land use priorities do exist, and they
could expand as cultural change, particularly
prompted by the expansion of market forces, affects
land and resource management. Retaining the
reconciliation agenda as an integral part of
implementing the Durban Action Plan and the CBD
programme of work on protected areas is fundamental
to addressing such conflicts in a constructive manner.
The establishment of large-scale protected areas on
ancestral lands requiring the reduction or even halt of
certain customary livelihood activities may be
deemed necessary for the preservation of particular
species or ecosystems. In this sense, the new
paradigm does not compromise on halting
biodiversity loss. On the contrary, it retains the need
for strong scientific priorities, but combines this with
127