46557 Indigenous Communities and Biodiversity Table of Contents Foreword 1 About the GEF and GEF Biodiversity Program 2 Indigenous Communities: Policy and Participation 4 GEF Policy on Involvement with Indigenous and Local Communities 5 Participation of Indigenous Communities 6 GEF's Biodiversity Program and Indigenous Communities 8 Why We Work with Indigenous Communities 9 Indigenous Community Involvement in GEF Projects 12 Indigenous Communities and GEF's Small Grants Programme 18 Highlights and Good Practices: Indigenous Communities' Involvement in GEF Projects 22 Ecuador: Biodiversity Conservation in Pastaza 23 Vanuatu: Facilitating and Strengthening Local Resource Management Initiatives of Traditional Landholders and their Communities to Achieve Biodiversity Conservation Objectives 25 Central America: Integrated Ecosystem Management in Indigenous Communities 27 Global: Indigenous Peoples' Network for Change 28 Lessons Learned 30 Future Directions and Next Steps 34 indigenous communities and biodiversity conservation is being 1 Foreword built, so far through more than 100 projects worldwide. This publi- cation provides an account and a first analysis of the scope, con- tent and depth of indigenous communities' involvement with GEF projects. To the reader, it will become clear that, while much remains to be done, GEF is evolving rapidly to promote the partici- pation of indigenous communities at all stages of project design, Indigenous peoples have been responsible stewards of their lands implementation and monitoring. We are pleased to have been and resources for thousands of years. Relying on traditional knowl- able to adopt, since the early days of the GEF, a public participa- edge and sustainable resource management practices, indigenous tion policy which has provisions specifically designed to include cultures have survived and thrived in all corners of the world. indigenous and local communities. The present assessment and However, neither their communities nor our industrialized societies other related studies will form the basis to enhance the existing pol- are immune to a globalized economy whose side effects, when left icy and the introduction of additional elements, all relying on the unchecked, threaten the environmental public goods that indigenous key lessons presented in the report. peoples so vitally depend upon for their cultural, spiritual, and phys- ical sustenance. We remain open to receive feedback and guidance from constituen- cies of all sectors, and we invite indigenous groups and community In many regions, the plight of biodiversity is closely intertwined with organizations to help the GEF continue to evolve as an effective that of indigenous cultures. For example, a significant fraction of the mechanism that supports stewardship of global public goods. world's protected areas, the principal tool for biodiversity conserva- tion, is found within or overlaps with indigenous lands, territories and resources. This remarkable spatial convergence presents both an enormous opportunity as well as a challenge for both conserving biodiversity and supporting Indigenous Peoples' livelihoods. It is precisely around these strong connections between conserva- Monique Barbut tion and local economic development that GEF's approach with CEO and Chairperson About the GEF and GEF Biodiversity Program The Global Environment Facility (GEF) was established in 1991 as an independent financial mechanism that provides grants to developing countries for projects that benefit the global environment and promote sustainable livelihoods in local communities. The GEF provides grants to projects in biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation, the ozone layer and persistent organic pollutants. The GEF is the financial mechanism for implementation of the interna- tional conventions on biodiversity, climate change and persistent organic pollutants. The GEF is also a financial mechanism for the Convention to Combat Desertification and collaborates closely with other treaties and agreements. The GEF works closely with Convention Secretariats, Implementing Agencies, Executing Agencies, the private sector and civil society. The GEF unites 178 member governments ­ in partnership with interna- tional institutions, nongovernmental organizations, indigenous and local communities, and the private sector ­ to address global environmental issues while supporting national sustainable development initiatives. In just 16 years, the GEF has evolved into an effective and transparent entity with a solid, outcomes-driven track record. As the largest funder of projects to improve the global environment, the GEF has allocated $7.65 billion, supplemented by more than $30.6 billion in co-financing, for over 2,025 projects in more than 165 developing countries and countries with economies in transition. Through its Small Grants Programme (SGP), the GEF has also made more than 7,000 small grants directly to nongovernmental and community organizations, including The goals of the GEF's biodiversity program include the conservation 3 indigenous and local communities. and sustainable use of biodiversity, the maintenance of the ecosystem goods and services that biodiversity provides to society, and the fair The GEF partnership includes three Implementing Agencies -- the U.N. and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of Development Programme (UNDP), the U.N. Environment Programme genetic resources. To achieve these goals, GEF's strategy now encom- (UNEP) and the World Bank -- and seven Executing Agencies -- the passes four complementary and mutually reinforcing objectives: U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the U.N. Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the African Development Bank Catalyzing sustainability of protected area systems; (AfDB), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the European Bank for Mainstreaming biodiversity in production landscapes/seascapes Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the Inter-American and sectors; Development Bank (IDB) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). Safeguarding biodiversity, including building capacity for biosafety and prevention, control and management of invasive alien species; As the financial mechanism of the Convention on Biological Diversity and (CBD), the GEF supports countries in reducing their rate of biodiver- Building capacity on access and benefit sharing. sity loss. The GEF supports the key objectives of the CBD and other activities worldwide to generate global environmental benefits in the The first two strategic objectives are the backbone of the current GEF area of biodiversity. It has promoted the expansion and improvement biodiversity strategy and emphasize in situ conservation and sustain- in the management of protected areas systems worldwide, and cat- able use. All of GEF's biodiversity work is consistent with country priori- alyzed the integration of biodiversity objectives into such production ty frameworks, fostering the sustainability and mainstreaming of sectors as fisheries, tourism and agriculture. Biodiversity projects projects and programs. The strategies seek to promote biodiversity con- constitute the largest percentage of the GEF's portfolio, making up servation and sustainable use through an ecosystem approach. These 33 percent of total GEF grants. Between 1991 and 2007, the GEF strategic objectives make a substantial contribution to the achievement provided about $2.3 billion in grants and leveraged about $5.36 bil- of most of the Millennium Development Goals, particularly environmen- lion in co-financing in support of about 790 biodiversity projects in tal sustainability and poverty reduction. more than 155 countries. In addition, activities in other GEF focal areas -- in particular international waters, land degradation and integrated ecosystem management -- also contribute to the CBD's strategy and objectives. comprises three related and often overlapping processes: informa- 5 Indigenous tion dissemination, consultation and stakeholder participation. Upon approving the policy, the GEF Council stressed that, when applying the principles, there should be emphasis on local participation and Communities: local stakeholders, and specific national and local conditions should be taken into consideration. The document recognizes the need for developing strategies that incorporate stakeholder participation throughout the project cycle, especially for projects that impact the Policy and incomes and livelihoods of local groups, with particular attention to populations in and around project sites, notably indigenous and local communities.1 Participation The GEF project design and implementation process also complies with the GEF Agencies' policies and procedures. The GEF Agencies, including the World Bank, UNDP, ADB and IDB, all have their own policies and strategies on indigenous peoples in the con- text of project interventions, and these apply for GEF projects as GEF Policy on Involvement with well. For example, relevant GEF projects managed by the World Indigenous and Local Communities Bank are also required to comply with the Bank's mandatory opera- tional policy on Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10). Recognizing that The GEF was one of the few international financial institutions to not all GEF Agencies have a policy on indigenous and local com- develop early on an independent public participation policy, which munities, the GEF is reviewing and drawing lessons from its past includes provisions for indigenous and local communities. The poli- involvement with indigenous and local communities, in order to cy, which was laid out in the document Public Involvement in GEF- more effectively address the related issues and opportunities. financed Projects, approved by the GEF Council in April 1996, provides the basis for public involvement in the design, implementa- tion and evaluation of GEF-financed projects. Public involvement 1 GEF Secretariat. 1996. Public Involvement in GEF-financed Projects, Washington, DC. 6 Due to the varied and changing contexts in which indigenous peo- Participation of Indigenous Communities ples live, and because there is no universally accepted definition of indigenous peoples or indigenous communities, the GEF does not There are various channels through which indigenous communities define the term indigenous communities which is used throughout have been participating in GEF processes. These include: this report. The term indigenous communities was used in this report Gaining access to GEF funds for specific projects; as it is the commonly used term at the Convention on Biological Diversity, for which GEF serves as the financial mechanism. Involvement and participation in GEF projects; Indigenous peoples or communities are often referred to in different Involvement in policy processes through the GEF Assembly and countries by terms such as indigenous ethnic minorities, aboriginals, Council; and hill tribes, tribal groups and others. Involvement in the CBD Conference of Parties (COP) process, Another venue for dialogue between the GEF and indigenous com- 7 particularly by helping to provide guidance to the GEF in its role munities has been the CBD COP meetings. During such occasions, as the financial mechanism of the convention. the CEO of the GEF has held regular meetings with indigenous com- munity representatives, which attracted active participation on the The GEF NGO Consultation Meeting, which is held before each part of indigenous peoples on policy issues related to indigenous GEF Council meeting, has served as a key official forum open to communities, and around specific projects. indigenous communities to discuss policy matters that concern them. A representative of the indigenous peoples' networks has Indigenous communities have been involved in accessing funds and par- been part of the Coordination Committee of the GEF NGO ticipating in GEF-funded projects in the areas of biodiversity, sustainable Network, and has been supported by the GEF to participate in the land management, international waters, climate change and POPs. GEF NGO Consultation and the Council meetings. The degree of Indigenous involvement has been by far the greatest in the biodiversity participation of indigenous peoples' groups in the NGO focal area, as indigenous communities are closely tied to land, forests, Consultation Meetings has not been steady over the years, and the water, wildlife and other natural resources. The number of projects overall structure and strategy of the GEF NGO Network is currently involving indigenous communities has also increased over the years in under review. This review will represent an opportunity for indige- the focal area of sustainable land management. The remaining sec- nous peoples' groups to re-examine and strengthen their inclusion tions of this document review the involvement of indigenous commu- in key GEF processes. nities in GEF projects, particularly in the biodiversity focal area. tion of the world's protected areas is found within or overlaps with 9 GEF's indigenous lands, territories and resources. This remarkable spatial convergence presents both an enormous opportunity as well as a challenge for conservation efforts in protected areas and in the larg- Biodiversity er production landscape. Indigenous communities have also been responsible for the preservation and maintenance of traditional knowledge and practices that are highly relevant for the sustainable use of biodiversity. This nexus makes it imperative that the rights, Program and interests and livelihoods of indigenous communities are respected and reinforced in all relevant GEF biodiversity projects. Indigenous International treaties have recognized the close and traditional dependence of many indigenous and local communities on biologi- cal resources, notably in the Convention on Biological Diversity Communities (CBD). Article 8(j) of the Convention commits to respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, pro- mote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices, and Why We Work With Indigenous Communities encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the uti- lization of such knowledge, innovations and practices. The Many indigenous and local communities live in territories that are Programme of Work on Article 8(j) and related Provisions is the biologically outstanding on a global scale. Traditional indigenous ter- main instrument that Parties to the CBD have given themselves to ritories have been estimated to cover up to 24 percent of the world's land surface and contain 80 percent of the earth's remaining healthy 2 GEF project document on Assessment and Recommendations on Improving Access of ecosystems and global biodiversity priority areas.2 A significant frac- Indigenous Peoples to Conservation Funding, 2007 10 achieve this commitment. The Conference of the Parties (COP) has the immediate, full and effective participation of indigenous peoples also established a working group specifically to address the imple- and local communities in the development of relevant activities.4 mentation of Article 8(j) and related provisions of the Convention. Recognizing the important role that indigenous communities play As the financial mechanism of the Convention, the GEF has in biodiversity conservation, and responding to the CBD guid- received specific guidance from the COP to provide appropriate ance, the GEF biodiversity focal area identifies indigenous com- support for activities related to Article 8(j) and related provisions of munities as key partners in achieving its strategic objectives. the Convention. The GEF has been asked to provide information on Under the GEF Biodiversity Focal Area Strategy (2007-2010), activities and processes, including information on the criteria for eli- the GEF acknowledges the importance of the participation of gibility and access to project funding, and to make such information indigenous and local communities in the design, implementation, easily accessible to interested partners, including indigenous and management and monitoring of projects to conserve and sustain- local communities. The COP also invited the GEF to provide special ably use biodiversity. Promoting capacity development of indige- consideration in funding to projects that clearly contain elements of nous and local communities is recognized particularly under the participation of indigenous and local communities, where appropri- strategic objective on catalyzing sustainability of protected ate, and to continue to apply the GEF's policy on public involve- areas systems. The strategy supports community- and indigenous- ment to support the full and effective participation of indigenous conserved areas as part of national systems of protected areas and local communities.3 Moreover, at the Eighth COP in 2006, and as a way to strengthen sustainable management of a pro- GEF was invited to support community-conserved areas, ensuring tected areas systems. 3 COP6 Decision vi/10, 29 and 30, Convention on Biological Diversity. 4 COP8 Decision VIII/24, 22 (d) and (e), Convention on Biological Diversity. 11 F I G U R E 1 13 Indigenous Degree of Indigenous Community Involvement in GEF Projects Communities' 37% Limited Involvement in Significant Moderate GEF Projects 46% 17% varies, these projects were qualitatively categorized in three groups in terms of the degree of participation by indigenous Number of projects and degree of involvement communities: As of June 2006, GEF had supported 102 projects that involved indigenous communities at various levels.5 As their involvement Significant involvement, including projects that were designed exclusively to benefit indigenous peoples or projects where the 5 For the purposes of this document, a list of projects involving indigenous communities, executing and/or implementing agency was an indigenous which had been compiled during an analysis of the GEF portfolio of biodiversity proj- organization; ects as well as information provided by the GEF Agencies, were utilized. The present analysis was not intended to have captured all relevant projects, and GEF's information base on this subject will continue to be updated. Moderate involvement, including projects that had distinct compo- 6 For World Bank projects related to indigenous communities, a list of projects identified nents and/or sub-projects benefiting and targeting indigenous in a draft World Bank publication, The Role of Indigenous Peoples in Biodiversity Conservation (draft Jan 2008), prepared by Claudia Sobrevila, was used. peoples; and F I G U R E 2 Limited involvement, including projects that had participation of Types of Projects Involving Indigenous Communities indigenous peoples in a few project activities. In the case of World Bank projects, these included projects that established benefits to 48% indigenous peoples at the outcome level at project completion.6 Protected Areas and Of the 102 projects, the majority (47) had moderate involvement of Buffer Zone Management indigenous communities, while 38 were classified as having had 1% Good Practices Sharing only limited involvement. Among the 17 projects demonstrating sig- nificant involvement (see Figure 1), the majority (14) were projects Mainstreaming Biodiversity from the Latin America and Caribbean regions. in Productive Landscapes 51% Types of projects Nearly half (52 out of 102) of these projects focused on co-man- agement or direct participation in protected areas and buffer zones management (see Figure 2). There were about the same number of F I G U R E 3 projects (49 out of 102) focused on mainstreaming biodiversity in Regional Distribution of GEF Projects Involving the production landscape, through activities such as promoting Indigenous Communities sound agriculture practices utilizing traditional knowledge of indige- nous communities. The remaining project focused on lesson learning 46% 13% and sharing of good practices. Frequent project activities targeting 1% Africa indigenous communities included capacity development and aware- Arab States and Middle East ness raising, policy and institutional development, and alternative Asia and Pacific income generation and economic development. Europe and Central Asia Regional distribution Global Indigenous communities in the Latin America and Caribbean 28% Latin America and Caribbean regions generally seek active participation, particularly on issues 4% 8% F I G U R E 4 15 Trends in Projects Involving Indigenous Communities, by GEF Replenishment Cycle 50 30 49 42 10 6 5 Pilot GEF1 GEF2 GEF3 (FY1991-94) (FY1995-98) (FY1999-2002) (FY2003-06) related to biodiversity conservation. Reflecting this trend, the largest number of GEF projects involving indigenous communities (47 proj- ects, or 46 percent) took place in that region. This was followed by 29 projects in the Asia and Pacific regions and 13 in Africa. There were also eight projects in Europe and Central Asia, one in the Middle East, and four global projects, including the Indigenous People's Network for Change, which addresses the issue of indigenous and local communities' participation in GEF and CBD processes at the global level. Trends by GEF replenishment cycle The number of GEF projects that involve indigenous communities has increased steadily since the GEF-2 replenishment cycle (see F I G U R E 5 Figure 4). While there were only five projects in GEF-1, there were Size of Projects Involving Indigenous Communities 49 in GEF-2 and 42 in GEF-3. This increase could be attributed to increased capacity within GEF Agencies for working with GEF proj- ects in general and with these types of projects, leading to an over- 38% 64% all increase in GEF proposals and financing requests. In addition, in 1996 a medium-size project modality (for projects up to $1 million) Full-size Projects was introduced to simplify and expedite the project development (>$1 million) and appraisal procedures for proponents, targeting in particular the Medium-size Projects NGOs, and indigenous and local communities (see Figure 5). (<$1 million) Distribution of GEF projects by agency UNDP and the World Bank were responsible for the implementation of the majority of GEF projects related to indigenous communities, 52 and 43 projects respectively (see Figure 6). Additional World Bank projects may also have included some limited indigenous com- munity participation, but were not accounted for in this analysis, F I G U R E 6 Distribution of Projects Involving Indigenous given that this review included only the Bank's projects with some Communities, by GEF Agency impact at the outcome level as identified through its recent study.7 51% UNDP 6% UNEP 1% WB/IDB World Bank 42% 7 Claudia Sobrevila. 2008. The Role of Indigenous Peoples in Biodiversity Conservation, draft, Jan. 2008. 17 small grants had been provided to civil society organizations. The 19 Indigenous funding to date comprises $247.2 million from GEF and $242.8 million from other partners in cash or in-kind equivalents. A 2007 independent evaluation rated more than 90 percent of these proj- Communities ects as satisfactory in terms of achieving their intended outcomes, a very high standard for multilateral funding mechanisms to date. About 15 percent of 1,664 SGP projects have targeted and and the GEF involved indigenous communities with biodiversity and other focal area-related initiatives. The SGP has also established principles for working with indigenous peoples, which include a flexible, time sen- Small Grants sitive and simple project cycle. Proposals for the SGP are accepted in national languages, and in some cases utilize innovative formats, such as participatory videos and community theater, in order to Programme facilitate local solutions and to build on traditional knowledge. The SGP also allows for flexible disbursement terms to address indige- nous peoples' culture, customs and seasonal movements. In Vietnam, for example, the SGP has developed a strategy that pro- vides priorities to proposals to work with remote indigenous communi- The GEF Small Grants Programme (SGP) is a key GEF funding ties and pilot innovative approaches and the use of indigenous modality reaching out to indigenous and local communities world- knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Indigenous peoples and their wide, including in some very remote areas. Launched in 1992, the organizations are major partners of the SGP in a wide range of activi- SGP is designed to support grassroots initiatives with community- ties, including the revival of the use of traditional medicinal plants and based and nongovernmental organizations in developing countries, sustainable agricultural knowledge practices and systems. The SGP aiming to deliver global environmental benefits while contributing to draws on indigenous peoples' expertise when undertaking environmen- poverty reduction and local empowerment. As of the end of 2007, tal assessments, facilitating dialogue with local and central government 101 countries were participating in the SGP, and more than 9,500 representatives, and building institutional and legal capacity. G E F S M A L L G R A N TS P RO G R A M M E C A S E S T U DY The Guaymí: Forest Conservation in the Coto Brus Indian Reserve, Costa Rica Costa Rica´s 5,000 Guaymí people live in a region that stretches from the Osa Península on the Pacific Coast, to the heights of the Brunca mountains, bordering the Talamanca Mountain Range in La Amistad International Park, the first World Heritage Site in the region. Within this landscape, nearly 1,500 people live in the Guaymí Indian Reserve of Coto Brus, subsisting on agricultural production. The Integrated Development Association, a Guaymí organization, has been entrusted with the management of nearly 28,000 hectares of wilderness area on the green slopes of the Brunca mountains, an area with significant strategic importance for national conservation authorities. These tem- perate, fragmented forests contain nearly 70 percent of the forested areas to be included in a biological corridor that will join La Amistad International Park with the lush Piedras Blancas and Corcovado National Parks. With the help of the GEF SGP, and in collaboration with the district official from the Ministry of Natural Resources, a management plan was drafted and approved, and the indigenous association was able to obtain cash incentives from the government, in the form of payment for environmental services, by protecting 600 ha of commu- nity land. Another 600 ha is planed to be included this year. A revolving fund was created, where 40 percent of the money is invested to generate interest revenues, while the rest is used for ronmental and social impacts will affect most of the indigenous settle- 21 community projects. ments of the Southern Pacific watersheds. To keep the indigenous pop- ulations informed and attempt to minimize the project's impact on their Since the Guaymí received their first incentive payments earlier in the lifestyles, the GEF SGP also contributed to the establishment of the year, a small tree nursery was created and provides modest earnings to Indigenous Cultural Center in Buenos Aires de Osa. The center organiz- the women who prepare the trees for reforestation of a 1,000 ha grass- es workshops and distributes information about the project, its possible land. Two rangers were trained to keep illegal loggers and poachers repercussions and indigenous peoples' rights on the matter. away, and a bridge linking the mountainous reserve with the road lead- ing towards the nearest settlement, Sabanillas, was repaired. Urgent repairs were completed on the school facilities, and the "Salón Comunal" or community house, a meeting facility for the six communi- ties included in the reserve, was finally inaugurated. In total, the SGP project benefited about 200 Guaymí people. "Conservation has brought us benefits," says Jaime Atencio Guerra, one of the Coto Brus rangers trained by the project. "I enjoy going to the mountain, where you can still find tigers (jaguars) and lions (pumas). Now that they know we are here, the hunters have disappeared and we rarely hear the chainsaws. This project has left us a lot of good experi- ences. It allowed us better contact with people from our own communi- ties and it showed us we could make contacts outside the reserve. We have better access to financial support and that gives us better oppor- tunities to protect our land," he adds. "The mountain is our home," he concludes. "It is our source of food, shelter and medicine. We know we have to take care of it. I am happy we have access to resources to help us do it." The Guaymí livelihood is also threatened by plans to build a huge dam, the Boruca Dam, on the margins of the Térraba river. The dam will flood extended areas in the Coto Brus and Osa lowlands, and its envi- Summarized from a case study prepared for GEF SGP by Yanina Rovinski. These projects were all initiated by indigenous communities and 23 support the objectives of indigenous communities. Highlights and Good Practices: Ecuador: Biodiversity Conservation in Pastaza Indigenous GEF Agency: WB; GEF: $788,000; Co-financing: $248,744; GEF approval: FY2002 8 Background Communities' The project was implemented in the territories of the Quichua com- munities of Yana Yacu, Nina Amarun and Lorocachi, in the border area of the province of Pastaza, Ecuador. Consisting of approxi- Involvement in mately 250,000 hectares of tropical Amazonian rainforest, the three community territories are home to about 300 indigenous Quichua inhabitants. These territories traverse two important hydro- GEF Projects graphic basins, the Curaray River to the north and the Pinduc River to the south. Between these two watersheds, there is a mosaic of ter- restrial forest and aquatic ecosystems that harbor one of the great- est concentrations of biodiversity on Earth. The goal of the project was to contribute to global ecological benefits The four GEF projects summarized in this section exemplify best and to the maintenance of biological diversity through the practice in the engagement of indigenous communities in GEF proj- ects, and ensuring that their priorities and aspirations are taken into 8 Project Completion Report, Ecuador: Biodiversity Conservation in Pastaza. 2006. Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela Country Managing Unit, ESSD Sector Unit, Latin account within the overall project design and results framework. America and the Caribbean Region, September 5. conservation and sustainable use of the resources of the Amazon for- est in the province of Pastaza. The specific objective was to conserve and attain in situ management of the forest ecosystems and biodiversi- ty in the territories of the indigenous communities of Pastaza through the implementation of three components: 1) design and application of management plans in three community territories; 2) establishment of a socio-environmental information center for the indigenous territories of Pastaza; and 3) design and implementation of a capacity-building program on environmental and natural resource management. The project was developed by an inter-institutional network of specialists in environmental management that included representatives of the Quichua Institute of Biotechnology, the Amazon Environmental Institute of Science and Technology, the Technological Center of Amazon Resources and the Omaere Foundation. Achievements and lesson learned The project results have surpassed initial expectations, as the Quichua communities, in the course of implementing their manage- ment plans, have established an Inter-Community Biological Conservation Zone as one of the priority outcomes for the conserva- tion of their territories. This conservation zone brings together areas located at the deltas of several important tributaries, including the Yana Yacu, Sindi Yacu, Aymu Yacu and Arabela Yacu Rivers. The zone also serves as an inter-community biological corridor for the conservation of flora and fauna, defined in a participatory manner by the three communities, under common standards of management and conservation of existing flora and fauna at these deltas. The community-designed management plans targeting strategic bio- Vanuatu: Facilitating and strengthening 25 logical resources were developed covering an area of 250,000 ha. local resource management initiatives The families utilized a participatory mapping process to map the community territories, taking into consideration important ancestral of traditional landholders and their knowledge of the social and cultural use of the territorial spaces, the communities to achieve biodiversity classification of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, the location and conservation objectives management of ecosystems and associated plant and animal species, the identification of management zones according to the GEF Agency: UNDP; GEF: $770,807; Co-financing: $709,933; principal productive methods of the communities, and the ancestral GEF approval: FY2004 mechanisms needed for the conservation of the territory. The strengthening of community organizations through different capaci- Background ty-building events provided venues and opportunities for inter-com- The objective of the GEF project is to work with traditional land- munity meetings during which the community leaders have been holders, chiefs and their communities to facilitate, adapt and able to discuss policies for management and conservation of the ter- strengthen traditional mechanisms to conserve biodiversity in ritory and existing resources. The Quichua border communities have lands under communal resource ownership schemes. The project's created a new association that includes the communities participat- pilot initiatives on Gaua, Tanna and Santo Islands focus on ing in the project as well as other neighboring communities. strengthening local, provincial and national capacity to support local biodiversity conservation activity. The GEF's funding is direct- During all stages of design and implementation of the management ed at three objectives: 1) to facilitate, adapt and strengthen tradi- plans, the project applied participatory methodologies oriented tional mechanisms to conserve biodiversity; 2) to provide an toward the rescue of ancestral knowledge. These methodologies enabling environment and strengthen government and non-govern- facilitated the integration of approaches for land, ecosystem and ment capacity to support community-based conservation initiatives biodiversity management grounded on both ancestral knowledge and replicate successes in other areas of Vanuatu; and 3) to moni- and modern science. This combined approach in the three commu- tor the impact and effectiveness of landholder-based conservation nity territories helped to also strengthen the community organization areas to inform and direct work to strengthen and adapt tradition- and regain ancestral land use practices. al conservation approaches. 26 Achievements and lessons learned Indigenous peoples are involved in every aspect of the project in Gaua, Santo and Tanna. Eighty percent of participating landhold- ers are satisfied with the level of adherence to community regula- tions that apply to resource management and conservation activities in two-thirds of participating activities. There has also been an increase in local capacity to recognize and apply tradi- tional measures that contribute to biodiversity conservation. Through the project interventions, the island indigenous communi- ties have expanded the introduction of temporary tabus (sacred, no entry and no take zones) in coastal, marine and terrestrial environ- ments in communities on Gaua, Santo and Tanna. Traditional prac- tices are being used at more than 50 sites where resource management or conservation activities have been initiated. Inter-vil- lage committees have also been established to support the tradi- tional landholders and maintain the customary tabus. The proportion of participating communities reporting that governance difficulties affect their resource management and conservation activities has been reduced by 50 percent. Traditional mechanisms of resource management and adaptation to natural environmental changes are deeply rooted among many island communities in Vanuatu. The strong links between environ- ment and livelihood issues (health, income and education) are also being recognized. Given the reaffirmed importance of local peo- ples' knowledge on environmental management, the project finds it essential to empower local communities by maintaining, reinforcing or giving control over their own territories and natural resources. seven countries that make up the region. About 80 percent of these 27 This is being complemented by the strengthening of their traditional indigenous lands are forested, 7.3 percent are included in the knowledge with access to modern information and technology. Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, and about 23 percent overlap Moreover, legally recognized and enforceable rights to lands and with recognized protected areas. The strong overlap between waters give the communities both an economic incentive and a indigenous territories and natural resources is not coincidental. Their legal basis for stewardship. The project also recognizes that endur- ecosystems have been shaped by human practices in subsistence ing solutions to achieve sustainability in community-driven initiatives agriculture, home gardens, forest extraction, hunting and gathering, are unlikely to be found if policy reform is framed solely in terms of and by the use of forests as a refuge from mainstream society and articulating local rights and/or the use of plants and animals. The as sacred sites. project suggests that the focus should be broadened to require the establishment of institutional processes that secure local peoples' The objective of the project is to achieve more effective conserva- involvement in environmental decision-making systems in an integrat- tion of biodiversity and natural resources in the seven Central ed and proactive manner. American countries (Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama) by strengthening the capacity of indigenous communities to protect and manage their natural and Central America: Integrated Ecosystem cultural resources, rescuing and reinforcing traditional land use Management in Indigenous Communities practices they have developed over centuries. GEF Agencies: WB and IDB; GEF: $9.7 million; co-financing: The project is pursuing its objective through a series of initiatives. $39.88 million; GEF approval: FY2004 These involve a network of indigenous communities engaged in bio- diversity conservation and sustainable and culturally appropriate Background land uses; building organizational and institutional capacity across This project represents one of the first large-scale GEF projects countries and groups; promoting exchanges between indigenous devoted to strengthening the role of indigenous peoples in biodiver- communities on traditional knowledge, experiences and lessons sity conservation and management. The total area inhabited by learned; consolidating culturally based sustainable natural resource indigenous people in Central America is estimated to be as high as management practices and sustainable land use across the region; 170,000 square kilometers, or almost 33 percent of the area of the and supporting projects for sustainable production, promotion and 28 marketing of traditional products, environmental services and Global: Indigenous Peoples' Network eco/ethno-tourism. for Change Achievements and lessons learned GEF Agency: UNEP; GEF: $938,844; co-financing: $499,000; This project reflects a strong regional commitment to operations GEF Approval: FY2006 focusing on social inclusion. The project has adopted a highly par- ticipatory approach in organizing consultations with the indige- Background nous communities to begin project implementation, while ensuring The Indigenous Peoples' Network for Change is a global initiative that there were skilled and experienced project staff working with aimed at advancing the conservation and sustainable use of biodi- indigenous communities. The project is seeking to protect 135,000 versity by strengthening the capacity and knowledge of indigenous hectares during the first year of implementation through community peoples to participate in processes related to the Convention on conservation efforts; complementing the 30,100 hectares already Biological Diversity and other relevant international instruments. The under community management practices. More than 193 indige- project was developed in a collaborative manner among key nous and rural communities have been participating in the agro- indigenous leaders, national and regional indigenous peoples' ecological productive systems, which promote farming without organizations, the International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal chemical inputs. Peoples of the Tropical Forests (IAITPTF) and UNEP, in response to the continued recognition within the CBD process of the importance These project efforts are helping to limit additional land degrada- and need for increased participation by indigenous peoples. tion that threatens the continued provision of environmental servic- es, livelihoods and economic well-being while at the same time The project focuses on the achievement of four key outcomes: promoting the conservation of the region's highly diverse biological resources. The project supports and expands on the initiatives of Increased awareness and capacity among indigenous peoples, indigenous communities that inhabit areas of high biodiversity in with particular focus on indigenous women, with respect to the six priority eco-regions within the Mesoamerican Biological CBD and the GEF and their processes; Corridor whose livelihoods depend on preservation of their cultural Increased contribution to and participation in CBD and GEF values and promotion of their traditional land-use practices. processes at national, regional and international levels by indige- nous peoples, particularly women; Effective regional and international coordination of indigenous 29 peoples' interaction with the CBD and the GEF; and The establishment of strategic partnerships and improved existing partnerships leading to greater participation and more emphasis on indigenous peoples' role in conservation and sustainable man- agement of biodiversity resources. Achievements and lessons learned Since 2006, when project implementation began, the project has suc- ceeded in enhancing the participation of indigenous communities in the various CBD processes, while at the same time providing valuable les- sons for the indigenous movement as a whole. A range of integrated activities on capacity building, information sharing and facilitation for participating in international processes have been implemented in ten different regions of the world. For example, community radio programs in Kenya and Panama have been effective in reaching and effectively informing indigenous communities of the relevance of the CBD. The and experiences between young indigenous activists and older, radio programs are broadcast in local languages, thereby increasing more experienced ones. The project has also facilitated and provid- the reach and the sense of ownership by the indigenous communities. ed training for the participation of young indigenous representatives This approach is now being expanded to other network countries. to the global CBD meetings, thereby ensuring a new generation of Publications on the CBD (posters, primers and CDs) were also pre- indigenous focal points to continue following this political process. pared, specifically targeting an audience from indigenous communities. During this final year of the project, a series of case studies will be The project has also organized regional capacity-building seminars documented and published detailing the relevance and practical specifically for indigenous people. To date, about 200 people have experience of indigenous peoples within CBD-related themes. These participated in six different seminars. These have proven a valuable case studies, written by indigenous authors, could serve as valuable forum for the more systematic and formal sharing of information contributions to policy dialogues at future CBD meetings. indigenous communities to fully participate in decision-making 31 Lessons processes and other activities. Development of a cross-stakeholder communication strategy has proven useful to manage both over- and under-expectations, and for conflict resolution and prevention. Learned Institutional structure: It is more effective to utilize and maintain indigenous peoples' own institutional arrangements and decision- making processes, rather than creating new frameworks. This approach will, in the longer term, save time and effort, reinforce community organization and capacity, and foster better achieve- A series of lessons have emerged from GEF's portfolio of projects ment of project objectives and sustainability. Projects using a rota- related to indigenous communities, particularly from the World Bank's tional communal work system or regular community meetings, analysis of its related projects, which are highlighted in this section:9 instead of organizing special meetings to discuss project issues, have proved effective and efficient. Participation: Closer attention needs to be paid to designing prior consultation, participation and consent processes that are accept- Governance: Institutional arrangements should be as simple and able to indigenous peoples and that are culturally appropriate. flexible as possible when institutional structure beyond indigenous Early involvement of indigenous representation in project design is institutions is required. Relationships with and roles of other part- essential, and this will save time and avoid serious problems in the ners, including nongovernmental organizations, need to be clarified long term. Participation of women and youth of indigenous and at the earliest stages. Traditional decision-making processes using local communities is also considered essential and effective in consensus building usually work better than voting, which tends to reflecting diverse interests. One of the best practices is to sign for- create winners and losers and may result in conflict. mal agreements between indigenous organizations and government authorities before the project starts. 9 Presentation prepared by Paola Pioltelli, Alonso Zarzar, and Yabanex Batista, 2003. Communication: Sharing and dissemination of information at all Thematic Review of GEF Projects: Indigenous Peoples Participation in the Conservation of Biodiversity in LAC; and Claudia Sobrevila, January 2008, The Role of Indigenous stages of the project is essential for project success as it enables Peoples in Biodiversity Conservation, draft. 32 Flexibility of rules and processes: Projects that involve indigenous Specific process-oriented indicators should be given more careful communities require more time for reaching agreements or making consideration, as processes can be made outcomes themselves in decisions. The project's timing and scope must also take into project design. account the community's reality and calendar of activities. Processes are as important as project output and indigenous communities Indigenous land rights: Projects that have assigned indigenous place a high value on them. Processes should be put in place that groups their ancestral lands result in less conflict during implementa- allow learning and adaptation, as these are indispensable for tion. Protected areas adjacent to these areas then become either a developing capacity and can help accelerate capacity building. focus for co-management by the indigenous people or they are managed by protected areas officials with minimum conflicts. Many Empowering indigenous people to manage biodiversity in their 33 of the conflicts that have arisen in projects stemmed from the fact own territories has resulted in more sustainable and cost-effec- that indigenous lands claims were not previously addressed. tive biodiversity protection. Strengthening cultural integrity: Indigenous communities that Income-generation and environmental education activities: With the have strong historical continuity and cultural and spiritual her- widespread use of income-generation and environmental education itage are generally more determined to preserve, develop and activities, more in-depth review of such activities is required to iden- transmit to future generations their ancestral territories and their tify challenges, opportunities and best practices to improve quality ethnic identity. These are key elements for their continued exis- of outcomes and their sustainability. Particular attention needs to be tence as indigenous peoples, in accordance with their own cul- placed on how revenue-generating schemes target different groups tural patterns, social institutions and legal systems. Contributions of resource users and managers in order to avoid discriminating to cultural revitalization (traditional knowledge and spiritual against groups that live, for instance, inside or outside designated beliefs) can therefore help improve conservation efforts. protected areas. To this end, the GEF plans to undertake a series of actions to facili- 35 tate more effective involvement of indigenous communities in GEF- Future financed projects: Analyze in more detail GEF's engagement with indigenous and Directions and local communities in the context of GEF projects, identifying areas and themes that merit significant improvements; Next Steps Based on this analysis, explore opportunities to establish appro- priate tools that complement GEF's public involvement policy and GEF Agency policies for enhancing indigenous communities' involvement in project design and implementation, subsequent monitoring of the activities, and evaluation of the project impacts; The contributions of indigenous and local communities will remain Facilitate the exchange of best practices in projects involving crucial to the overall success of relevant GEF projects, and to indigenous communities among recipient governments, the GEF achieving the goals of the GEF biodiversity program. Agencies and other stakeholders, ensuring that lessons are incor- porated into the design of future projects; In line with the CBD Article 8(j) and other provisions of the Explore ways to strengthen the strategic approach and involve- Conventions dealing with traditional knowledge, GEF will continue ment of indigenous communities within relevant existing and to support initiatives to respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, new GEF programs and projects, particularly those which innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities target civil society organizations and relevant geographical embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and and thematic initiatives; and sustainable use of biological diversity, and promote their wider application. The GEF will also encourage the equitable sharing of Ensure that appropriate funding is allocated within GEF projects the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innova- to promote effective involvement of indigenous communities. tions and practices. 36 Photo Credits Production Credits Cover photo: Mentawai chief, Sumatra, Indonesia. Remi Benali/Corbis. Text: Yoko Watanabe Inside front cover: Angami Dancers, Nagaland, India. Jim Zuckerman/Corbis. Review and Edits: Amy Sweeting, Gustavo Alberto Fonseca, Mark Thomas Zimsky, and Maureen Shields Lorenzetti Page 2: BaAka tribe woman, Africa. Martin Harvey/Corbis. Page 4: Quechua Indian, Chimborazo, Ecuador. Jeremy Horner/ Design: Patricia Hord Graphik Design Panos Pictures. Page 6: Colca Canyon, Peru. Tui De Roy/Minden Pictures. Printing: District Creative Inc. Page 8: Mentawai child, Sumatra, Indonesia. Remi Benali/Corbis. Page 11: Ni-Vanuatu warrior, Vanuatu. Neil Farrin/JAI/Corbis. Page 12: Women in Lo Manthang, Nepal. Macduff Everton/Corbis. Page 15: Achuar man, Kapawi Ecological Reserve, Ecuador. Alison Wright/Corbis. Copyright April 2008 Page 17: Maasai woman and child, Kenya. Hugh Sitton/zefa/Corbis. Global Environment Facility Page 18: Embera man, Panama. Massimo Ripani/Grand Tour/Corbis. 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433 Page 20: Guaymi Indian, Costa Rica. Juan Carols Ulate/Reuters/Corbis. Page 22: Huli wigman, Papua New Guinea. Keren Su/Corbis. The text of this publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in Page 24: Pastaza RIver, Ecuador. Pablo Corral Vega/Corbis. any form for educational or nonprofit uses, without special permission, pro- vided acknowledgement of the source is made. The GEF Secretariat would Page 26: Boys on Tanna Island, Vanuatu. Patricio Robles Gil/ Minden Pictures. appreciate receiving a copy of the publication that uses this book for its source. Copies may be sent to the GEF Secretariat in care of the address Page 29: Maasai warriors, Kenya. Hugh Sitton/zefa/Corbis. above. Page 30: Tsaatan nomads, Mongolia. Hamid Sardar/Corbis. Page 32: Dancers in Port Vila, Vanuatu. Neil Farrin/JAI/Corbis. No use of this publication may be made for resale or other commercial pur- Page 34: Embera-Wounaan province, La Pulida, Panama. poses without prior written consent of the GEF Secretariat. All images Alejandro Bolivar/epa/Corbis. remain the sole property of their source and may not be used for any pur- Inside back cover: Micornesia. Amos Nachoum/Corbis. pose without written permission from the source. 1818 H Street NW Washington, DC 20433 USA tel: 202 473 0508 fax: 202 522 3240 www.theGEF.org Printed on Environmentally Friendly Paper