2023 NBSAPs Report 1

Forest Declaration Assessment Special Report
PROTECTING NATURE,
RESPECTING RIGHTS:
Putting Indigenous and community rights at the heart
of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans
November 2023
In December 2022, 188 governments adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF),
collectively committing to a set of ambitious targets to protect and restore global biodiversity. Countries
have until October 2024 to translate these targets to national level by updating their National Biodiversity
Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs).
These NBSAP updates provide a critical opportunity for governments to engage Indigenous Peoples (IPs)
and local communities (LCs) as full and equal partners in achieving the GBF targets. NBSAPs founded on a
rights-based approach that empowers communities, leverages their knowledge and skills, and ensures
respect for their rights offer the best path for achieving ambitious and long-lasting biodiversity
conservation gains.
This brief assesses the extent to which IPs’ and LCs’ rights have been integrated into NBSAP development
and implementation processes in the past, assesses initial progress toward integrating rights in NBSAP
updates, and recommends how governments can maximize benefits for people and biodiversity through
ensuring rights are at the heart of NBSAPs.
FOREST DECLARATION ASSESSMENT i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Key findings and Recommendations i
1. Introduction 1
2. Methodology 2
3. Findings from NBSAPs Assessment 3
Consultation with IPs and LCs in NBSAP development is limited 3
One third of the assessed NBSAPs include securing IP and LC land tenure and rights
as a biodiversity conservation strategy 6
IPs’ and LCs’ rights to traditional knowledge tend to be better acknowledged and
respected than other rights in NBSAPs 8
NBSAPs have inadequate safeguards to ensure that biodiversity conservation
respects IPs’ and LCs’ rights 10
IPs and LCs are sometimes engaged in the implementation of NBSAPs but rarely as
full and equal partners 12
NBSAPs are often insufficiently implemented and mainstreamed into national policy
decisions 15
Challenges remain in fully engaging IPs and LC in NBSAP updates 17
4. Recommendations for IP and LC inclusion in NBSAPs 19
Governments 19
Donors and partners 20
IPs and LCs 21
Endnotes 22
Acknowledgments
Annex 1
Key findings
Fewer than one third of assessed countries strategies focus more on documenting
engaged IPs and LCs when developing their knowledge than on protecting knowledge rights
last NBSAPs. Even fewer countries engaged or on implementation.
women from these communities. Consultations
IPs and LCs are listed as implementation
that did occur were often inadequately funded,
partners in fewer than half of the assessed
had a limited scope, and did not provide
NBSAPs. Where they are listed, IPs and LCs are
meaningful opportunities for IPs’ and LCs’ voices
typically named as (co-)managers of protected
to be heard.
areas but rarely as full and equal partners.
Only one third of assessed NBSAPs include
None of the assessed NBSAPs have clear
provisions for strengthening IPs’ and/or LCs’
safeguards to protect IP and LC rights, despite
rights, despite overwhelming evidence that this
extensive evidence of biodiversity conservation
is among the most effective biodiversity
violating these rights.
conservation strategies.
Some countries are involving IPs and LCs in
Over two thirds of assessed NBSAPs include
NBSAP updates. However, tight budgets and
strategies to recognize Indigenous and
timeframes may limit effective engagement.
traditional knowledge. However, these
Recommendations
For policymakers and partner organizations
Follow a rights-based approach in NBSAP Enshrine safeguards to protect IP and LC rights
development and implementation. A rights- in laws and in NBSAPs.
based approach recognizes the unique roles and
Mainstream NBSAPs in national and sub-
vulnerabilities of IPs and LCs while ensuring all
national laws, policies, and programs.
people can access and enjoy biodiversity.
Include indicators and monitoring measures in
Engage IPs and LCs as full and equal partners
NBSAPs to track progress on IPs’ and LCs’ rights.
in NBSAP development and implementation.
Shift framing in NBSAPs from humans as
Commit in NBSAPs to respect rights to
consumers of biodiversity to agents in caring
traditional knowledge, collaborate with IPs and
relationships with nature.
LCs in recording it, and engage them in decision-
making. Provide IPs’ and LCs’ groups and organizations
direct access to finance to support their
Include targets and actions in NBSAPs that are
participation in NBSAP updates and
aimed at securing IP and LC rights within and
implementation.
beyond protected areas and empowering
community-led conservation. Provide lower income countries with increased
access to finance to support extensive NBSAP
consultation and FPIC processes.
For IPs and LCs

Strengthen national representative bodies and Engage with the International Indigenous
develop common positions on how Forum on Biodiversity to advocate to the CBD.
governments can better respect and protect IPs’
Ensure women, youth, remote communities,
and LCs’ rights in NBSAP processes.
and other frequently marginalized groups are
Build national and international partnerships represented and included in NBSAP processes
and coalitions advocating for a rights-based
approach to NBSAPs.
FOREST DECLARATION ASSESSMENT i

1. INTRODUCTION
In December 2022, countries at the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) of the United Nations
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework
(GBF). The GBF commits countries to collectively protect 30 percent of land and marine areas and restore
30 percent of degraded ecosystems by 2030 – known as the 30x30 targets – while respecting the rights of
Indigenous Peoples (IPs) and local communities (LCs).
The GBF is a landmark agreement that has the potential to reverse ecosystem loss, halt species extinction,
and contribute to reducing emissions from forests and other natural ecosystems. Parties to the CBD must
translate these global goals into national targets and actions through updating their National Biodiversity
Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) by the next CBD COP, scheduled to take place in October and
November 2024. NBSAPs serve as the principal instruments for implementing CBD commitments at the
national level and provide an important guidepost for biodiversity conservation policy and action. Getting
these updates right will be crucial to ensuring the 2030 targets are reached.
IPs and LCs are uniquely effective stewards of forests and biodiversity. Ecosystems managed by IPs and LCs
exhibit notably higher rates of biodiversity than other protected areas, 1 and protected Indigenous lands are
more effective than other types of protected areas in ensuring forest integrity. 2 Research also shows that
1.65 billion to 1.87 billion IPs and LCs live in important biodiversity conservation areas, 3 and ecosystem
services originating from IP- managed lands alone are estimated to be worth USD 1.16 trillion per year. 4
IPs and LCs have also consistently demonstrated their willingness to engage with governments on
biodiversity conservation. Driven not only by a desire to secure their rights but by a strong sense of
responsibility to nature, rooted in their respective cosmovisions, IPs, LCs, and their representative
organizations have long pushed to have their voices heard both at CBD negotiations and at national level.
Working through organizations such as the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, IPs and LCs
have successfully pushed for the inclusion of language emphasizing respect for IPs’ and LCs’ rights within
the GBF as well as a new program of work to implement the post-2020 framework in line with IPs’ and LCs’
rights, knowledge, and practices. 5
However, despite IPs’ and LCs’ consistent advocacy and the evidence of their essential role in conserving
biodiversity, government- and NGO-led conservation efforts frequently ignore IPs’ and LCs’ contributions or
actively threaten IPs’ and LCs’ rights. 6 All too often, “fortress conservation” approaches have been
employed, excluding people from the ecosystems they depend on and the decision-making processes that
affect them. 7 In spite of language on respecting IPs’ and LCs’ rights in the GBF, there remains a significant
risk that governments will resort to exclusionary approaches to show quick progress on the 30x30x30
targets. 8 Previous experience makes it clear: such fortress conservation approaches would be disastrous for
both people and planet. 9
In light of this risk, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and multilateral organizations are increasingly
calling for a rights-based approach at the heart of biodiversity conservation. 10 A rights-based approach
ensures all people can access and enjoy biodiversity while specifically honoring the outsized contributions
of IPs and LCs, addressing the disproportionate harms biodiversity loss poses to IPs and LCs, and avoiding
infringement on human rights by conservation activities. The NBSAP updates currently underway provide a
critical opportunity to embed a rights-based approach within national conservation actions.
This Special Report assesses the extent to which IPs’ and LCs’ rights – and IP and LC women’s rights –
have been integrated into NBSAP development and implementation processes in the past and
provides initial insights into how they are being considered in NBSAP updates. Through identifying
successes and shortcomings in these processes, this report proposes recommendations to help
governments, donor and partner organizations, and IP and LC representative organizations ensure
that the new round of NBSAPs is based on engaging IPs and LC as full and equal partners and
ensuring respect for their rights.
PROTECTING NATURE, RESPECTING RIGHTS 1

2. METHODOLOGY
This brief is the outcome of two parallel pieces of research: a high-level assessment of 27 NBSAPs and in-
depth assessments of seven countries’ NBSAP development and implementation processes. The authors
selected NBSAPs that had a minimum of a second and, in most instances, a third version. These NBSAPs
are from countries that have a substantial presence of IPs and LCs and extensive forest ecosystems with
high biodiversity values and represent all inhabited continents. Figure 1 indicates the countries included in
each assessment.
1. The high-level assessment involved review of the text of the most recent pre-GBF version of 27
countries' NBSAPs against a set of twelve indicators. The indicators were designed to evaluate
whether IPs, LCs, and women were involved in developing the NBSAPs and whether the NBSAPs
included provisions to ensure that biodiversity conservation respects and strengthens their rights.
Countries received one point for each indicator that they clearly fulfilled. Figure 1 maps the
outcomes of this assessment. Annex 1 provides a complete list of the indicators and a more
detailed explanation of the rapid assessment methodology.
2. The in-depth assessments involved comprehensive case studies of NBSAP development and
implementation in Australia, Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Madagascar,
Mexico, the Philippines, and Sweden. In addition to reviewing the text of the most recent NBSAP
for each country, the authors conducted desk reviews of relevant policies and interviews to
ascertain stakeholders’ perspectives on how IPs, LCs, and women were engaged in developing and
implementing the NBSAP.
The assessments analyzed the extent to which IPs and LCs and women who are members of those groups
have been included in NBSAP development and implementation. There are other groups such as youth,
the rural poor, and Afro-Descendant Peoples who contribute to biodiversity conservation and have been
historically excluded in NBSAPs. The scope of this analysis was not sufficiently broad to specifically analyze
the inclusion of these groups and future research on this may be warranted.
FOREST DECLARATION ASSESSMENT 2

3. FINDINGS FROM NBSAPs ASSESSMENT
The assessment shows that there are major gaps in aligning NBSAPs with countries’ commitments to
protect and respect IPs’ and LCs’ rights and to engage communities as equal partners in biodiversity
conservation efforts. Out of twelve possible points (1 point for meeting each indicator) the highest score
that any country received was seven – achieved by Nepal and the Philippines. Of the 27 countries
assessed, 24 scored positively on less than half of the indicators assessed (Figure 1).
The following sections provide a more detailed breakdown of the findings, focused on seven key
components of respecting IP and LC rights.
Figure 1. Countries with assessed NBSAPs and how they scored in the rapid assessment
Consultation with IPs and LCs in NBSAP

development is limited
Importance of consultations
Engaging IPs, LCs, and women in NBSAP development processes provides an important opportunity to
promote rights-based approaches that strengthen biodiversity conservation. IPs and LCs own, manage,
and live in many of the most important biodiversity areas in the assessed countries and have extensive
knowledge of how to best manage those areas. IP and LC women in particular are often at the forefront of
biodiversity conservation by teaching and sharing knowledge and innovation and developing strategies to
conserve and sustainably use scarce resources. 11 IPs and LCs are also disproportionately vulnerable to
biodiversity loss as they directly depend on local ecosystems for their livelihoods and cultural practices.
Actively engaging IPs, LCs, and women is therefore crucial to ensure that their rights and knowledge are
protected, and failure to do so heightens risks of loss of ecosystems and biodiversity knowledge.

Just over half (56%) of the 27 assessed NBSAPs indicated that public participation or consultation was
undertaken as part of their development. However, only 30 percent of the NBSAPs specifically referred to
undertaking consultation with IPs and LCs or following free, prior, and informed consent processes (FPIC)
as part of the development of their NBSAP. Just 15 percent – four NBSAPs – specifically mentioned
including women from IP and LC groups. Figure 2 summarizes these findings.
Figure 2. Extent to which public consultation, consultation with IPs and LCs, and consultation with women
IPs and LCs was part of NBSAP development
Inclusiveness of consultations
Even where countries did engage IPs and LCs, consultations often had limited scope or did not provide
meaningful opportunities for IPs’ and LCs’ voices to be heard. One common challenge is that IPs and LCs
frequently live in remote areas and face barriers to travel to capital cities to attend consultations, and
governments do not provide the time or resources to facilitate travel. Budget constraints are also a major
limitation for consultations.
• Mexico’s limited budget for NBSAP development meant that only national-level consultations took
place, resulting in limited participation of IPs and LCs.
• The DRC, planned consultations in eleven provinces, but budget constraints ultimately resulted in
consultations only taking place in five provinces, leaving many communities without the
opportunity to participate in NBSAP development. 12
• Madagascar held regional consultations, but its limited budget coupled with the relatively sparse
presence of representative bodies for IPs and LCs constrained the expansion of consultations at the
local level and, consequently, limited IPs’ and LCs’ engagement. 13
The Philippines stands out as an example of a country that had more inclusive consultations for its NBSAP
development. The Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Biodiversity
Management Bureau (DENR-BMB) – the agency responsible for NBSAP development – invited Indigenous
and local leaders and representatives to consultations held to validate and refine its NBSAP’s targets,
indicators, actions, roles, and time frames. To allow for broader participation of communities and
organizations, five regional consultations were convened. At least 107 civil society representatives, which
included IPs’ and LCs’ advocacy and support organizations, were engaged in the process. A similar strategy
will be employed for the Philippines’ NBSAP update in 2023 this year. 14

Importance of well-organized IP and LC representative bodies
The in-depth assessment found that engagement of IPs and LCs at national level is usually more effective
in countries where IPs and LCs have well-organized representative bodies.
• In the Philippines, the existence of several NGOs that focus primarily on Indigenous rights together
with other environmental NGOs who have championed rights-based approaches facilitated
relatively strong representation of Indigenous interests in the NBSAP process, despite the
challenges raised by an often-hostile attitude of State agencies toward these groups.
• In the DRC, IPs’ and LCs’ representative organizations such as ANAPAC – the DRC National Alliance
representing Indigenous Community Conservation Areas (ICCAs) – were involved in the NBSAP
consultations. However, despite significant efforts by ANAPAC and other organizations, the
incorporation of IPs’ and LCs' concerns received minimal attention. 15
• In Brazil, well-organized IPs’ representative organizations facilitated their relatively strong (if less
than full) participation in the NBSAP process. In contrast, other Brazilian LCs, especially those living
outside the Amazon, are less well organized and were not effectively engaged in the NBSAP
process. 16
• In Sweden, IPs were not consulted or involved in the development of the country’s current NBSAP,
despite the existence of a strong Indigenous representative body: the Sami Parliament (the
Sámediggi). However, a 2022 law strengthened requirements that the Swedish Parliament consults
with the Sámediggi, and the body is part of a working group of government authorities for
developing the updated NBSAP under the GBF. 17
• In Mexico and Madagascar, the relative absence of unified platforms representing IPs and LCs
presented significant barriers to IPs’ and LCs’ participation in national-level consultations. 18
Limited resources for consultations

Another challenge to consultation processes in many countries is the meager resources allocated to
NBSAP development – and to biodiversity conservation as a whole – in national budgets. Average
biodiversity expenditures account for less than one percent of GDP – 0.2 percent of biodiversity’s estimated
economic value. 19 At the same time, there has been relatively limited international attention to and funding
for NBSAP development, which in recent years has been overshadowed by climate change processes.
• In the DRC, multiple interviewees pointed to the limited international emphasis on involving IPs
and LCs in decision-making pertaining to biodiversity at the time of the NBSAP development, with
more emphasis being placed on (and budget dedicated to) ensuring involvement in REDD+ and
other climate change processes. 20
• In Mexico, the extremely limited resources available for the development of the NBSAP contrasts
with the development of the REDD+ strategy, where international finance allowed for extensive
national and regional-level consultations, including with over 12,000 IPs and LCs. 21

One third of the assessed NBSAPs include
securing IP and LC land tenure and rights as a
biodiversity conservation strategy
Securing tenure is a powerful biodiversity conservation strategy
Securing IPs’ and LCs’ tenure and recognizing their historical and ongoing management of ecosystems is
one of the most effective ways to protect biodiversity. 22 Evidence from multiple countries shows that titled
IPs’ and LCs’ lands have lower rates of deforestation than other areas. 23 Where IPs’ and LCs’ rights are
secure, there is less deforestation on IPs’ and LCs’ lands than in national protected areas. 24 Conversely, the
absence of secure tenure makes IPs’ and LCs’ lands more vulnerable to threats from loggers, ranchers, and
land grabbers. 25
The GBF echoes previous global biodiversity targets in counting other effective area-based conservation
measures’ (OECMs) toward the 2030 targets. This refers to areas other than protected areas which are
governed or managed in ways that achieve long-term positive conservation outcomes and can include
lands managed by IPs and LCs under traditional governance models. 26 In some cases, recognizing IPs’ and
LCs’ lands as OECMs could lead to stronger rights for communities. An analysis by over 100 scientists and
economists suggests that meeting the 30 percent target for nature protection could lead to strengthening
IPs’ and LCs’ rights through OECMs on 63-98 percent more land. 27
Missed opportunities to strengthen tenure

Despite clear evidence of the value of strengthening, protecting, promoting, or securing IPs’ and LCs’
tenure or land rights as a strategy to protect biodiversity, only 33 percent of the assessed NBSAPs clearly
included this among their targets and actions (Figure 3). Over half (52%) of the NBSAPs did not mention
IPs’ and LCs’ land tenure and 15 percent were unclear, a for instance referring to the relevance of rights or
tenure but not explicitly committing to improving tenure as a conservation strategy. None of the 27
NBSAPs identified recognition of IP and LC women’s rights or tenure as a biodiversity conservation
strategy, despite evidence that women are key users of land and forest resources and are often the holders
of traditional knowledge. 28
Notably, the threats to biodiversity that assessed NBSAPs identify are often related to land use – such as the
expansion of agriculture, overharvesting of resources, and encroachment in protected areas. Such threats
can be addressed by securing land tenure, clarifying use rights, improving livelihoods, and following IPs’
and LCs’ leadership in designing management and conservation strategies. Yet, NBSAPs consistently fail to
make the link between the land use-related threats to biodiversity they identify, and possible land-use
related solutions such as securing IPs’ and LCs’ rights and improving livelihoods.
The absence of targets for formalizing IPs’ and LCs’ rights is particularly noteworthy in countries where
large numbers of IPs and LCs lack formal recognition.
• In Madagascar, many IPs and LCs reside in self-defined Indigenous and Community Conserved
Areas and Locally Managed Marine Areas. Despite the Malagasy laws allowing for the establishment
of Community Protected Areas and the transfer of management responsibilities for specific
resource areas to LCs, these areas lack formal legal recognition. 29 While Madagascar’s NBSAP
a
“Unclear” classified NBSAPs that made some reference to the assessed indicator but did not specifically fulfill it. In this
case, NBSAPs were unclear if they referenced land rights or tenure but did not explicitly name securing or improving
rights and tenure as a biodiversity conservation strategy.

emphasizes a participatory approach involving LCs in the creation and management of Protected
Areas, it does not acknowledge these specific areas or include provisions for their legal
recognition. 30
• When the DRC’s current NBSAP was developed in 2016, the country’s Constitution classified all
land as state property, 31 although customary possession of forests by LCs and the possibility of
securing this possession through "Local Community Forest Concessions” was recognized. 32 The
DRC’s 2016 NBSAP did provide for strengthening community forestry, 33 but otherwise did not
commit to strengthening land tenure rights. In recent years, however, there have been notable
efforts to strengthen IPs’ and LCs’ rights in the DRC, in particular through the adoption of the
National Land Policy in November 2021. 34 The National Land Policy recognizes both collective and
individual rights and titles, enforces the principle of FPIC, and introduces decentralized land
management tools such as local land charters and community land cadasters and registers.
According to government representatives, these strengthened IP and LC rights will be reflected in
the ongoing updates to the DRC’s NBSAP. 35
• The absence of targets related to IPs’ and LCs’ land rights also stands out in Sweden, where 50
percent of the country’s territory is covered by Sami reindeer herding districts, 36 but IPs and LCs are
not mentioned in the NBSAP at all.
Figure 3. Extent to which NBSAPs include securing IPs’ and LCs‘ rights as a conservation strategy
Commitments to formalize Indigenous Community Conservation

Areas
The Philippines is among the minority of countries to explicitly target formalizing customary rights as a
biodiversity conservation strategy. The country’s NBSAP aims to identify all known Indigenous Community
Conservation Areas and Local Conservation Areas by 2028, with actions undertaken to strengthen their
recognition through mapping and documentation. From 2011 to 2019, two GEF-funded projects were
implemented by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the Philippine DENR to identify
these conservation areas and strengthen their protection and management. 37 As of 2023, 16 Philippine
Indigenous Community Conservation Areas had been listed under the global Indigenous Community
Conservation Areas registry. 38 However, an Indigenous Communities Conserved Territories and Areas Bill
that is intended to clarify the legal status of Indigenous Community Conservation Areas and reconcile
problems faced by IPs and LCs in national parks stalled in the Congress and Senate. 39 As such, Indigenous
Community Conservation Areas in the Philippines remain vulnerable to resource extraction concessions
and other environmental violations.
Australia’s NBSAP includes a commitment to ‘respect and maintain’ traditional stewardship of nature and
includes extending Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) or other co-management as a ‘progress measure’ of
the strategy. 40 While it did not include and specific targets for this, there is evidence that Australia is

expanding its IPAs and Indigenous ranger programs. According to the Australian Department of Climate
Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, 82 IPAs cover 87 million hectares of land and 5 million
hectares of ocean—making up more than 50 percent of Australia’s National Reserve System—and the
Australian government has committed to provide AUD 231.5 million in grants to the IPAs over the next 5
years from 1 July 2023. 41 As of July 2022, there were over 200 Indigenous ranger and IPA projects. 42
Threats persist in recognized lands

In Brazil and Mexico, the majority of IPs’ and LCs’ lands are formally recognized. However, many of these
lands remain vulnerable to threats from illegal loggers, ranchers, and miners, as well as from government-
backed projects that can override formal tenure rights. Brazil’s NBSAP includes actions explicitly aimed at
reverting the intrusion in Indigenous lands by removing occupants and ensuring full possession by
Indigenous people. Mexico’s NBSAP, in contrast, does not explicitly target the protection of Indigenous
lands. However, it does include actions to enhance IPs’ and LCs’ capacities to manage protected areas,
including those they voluntarily establish on their own lands with a view to providing additional protection
against would-be intruders.
The shortcomings of previous NBSAPs in committing to recognizing and securing IPs’ and LCs’ land tenure
as a conservation strategy represent a major missed opportunity that countries would do well to seek to
address in current update processes.
IPs’ and LCs’ rights to traditional knowledge

tend to be better acknowledged and
respected than other rights in NBSAPs
Roots of traditional knowledge rights in biodiversity frameworks
Involving IPs and LCs in decision-making processes regarding traditional knowledge is essential for Parties
to meet their commitments under the CBD and necessitates meaningful participation from IPs and LCs.
Article 8(j) of the CBD explicitly requires Parties to “respect, preserve and maintain knowledge… and
encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge.” 43
Numerous global targets and agreements adopted over the past two decades have reinforced this
commitment. These include the Aichi targets and the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and
the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization. 44 The Nagoya Protocol requires
that benefits from genetic resources are shared fairly and equitably and that governments ensure prior and
informed consent or approval and involvement of IPs and LCs for access to traditional knowledge
associated with genetic resources.
Mixed progress in protecting traditional knowledge

Reflecting this long history of commitments to protecting traditional knowledge associated with
biodiversity, countries are more advanced in protecting IPs’ and LCs’ knowledge rights than they are in
protecting other rights of IPs and LCs. 70 percent of the assessed NBSAPs included strategies to recognize
Indigenous and traditional knowledge, and 59 percent included protecting IPs’ and LCs’ knowledge as a
biodiversity conservation strategy (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Extent to which NBSAPs include strategies to protect IPs’ and LCs’ knowledge and intellectual
property
Several countries incorporate measures to protect traditional knowledge in their NBSAPs, aligning with
Aichi Targets 18 and 16. Madagascar, the DRC, and the Philippines have set ambitious goals to establish
comprehensive legal, regulatory, and administrative provisions for accessing genetic resources and
ensuring equitable benefit sharing. However, progress in achieving these targets appears to be slow in
both nations.
• In Madagascar, three GEF-funded pilot projects have facilitated the creation of community
registries, outlining guidelines and terms for local communities to govern their access to and
utilization of biological and genetic resources, along with associated traditional knowledge. 45
Nevertheless, according to governmental stakeholders, the extensive consultation prerequisites
and associated costs involved in developing a robust regulatory structure to safeguard traditional
knowledge are impeding the implementation of a dedicated national framework. 46 In addition, a
2017 decree mandates adherence to the principle of ‘Prior Informed Consent’ b for anyone seeking
to harness genetic resources. 47 Nonetheless, the specific texts required to operationalize this
decree are still pending.
• Meanwhile, in the DRC, governmental reshuffling and transitions have delayed the organization of
the competent national authority and the endorsement of regulations needed to implement the
Nagoya Protocol. 48
• To increase economic opportunities associated with biodiversity conservation and knowledge for
Philippine IPs and LCs, the Philippines’ DENR and UNDP in the Philippines are receiving funding
from the GEF to implement a “National Framework on Access and Benefit Sharing of Genetic
Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge.” 49, 50
In contrast to the Philippines, Madagascar, and the DRC, Australia does not currently have laws to
recognize and protect the intellectual property rights of Indigenous Australians. 51 However, Australia’s
NBSAP pledges to collaborate with Indigenous communities to preserve their knowledge, and also
emphasizes their involvement in the decision-making processes by aspiring to recognize and use
“Indigenous ecological knowledge in interpretation, practices and decisions relating to environmental
management.” Australia’s intellectual property rights agency has an Indigenous Knowledge initiative that
has included consultations with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People, who identified that there are
b
The language requires 'Consentement Préalable donné en Connaissance de Cause (CPCC), (Prior Informed Consent’ from
the Malagasy state, private landowners, relevant local communities, and holders of the traditional knowledge, as
applicable, for anyone seeking access to Madagascar's genetic resources and the associated traditional knowledge. This
language reflects the terms of the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing.

gaps in the Australian intellectual property system with regard to ensuring Indigenous people have control,
protection, recognition, and respect for their knowledge. 52 The agency’s Indigenous Knowledge Work Plan
2022-23 identifies six objectives related to enhancing partnerships, consultations, and engagement with
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The plan, however, makes no reference to biodiversity. 53
Documenting traditional knowledge

Countries adopt distinct strategies in approaching the documentation of traditional knowledge, a
significant element of protecting IPs’ and LCs’ knowledge.
• The Philippines’ NBSAP notes the value of Schools of Living Traditions 54 (SLTs), a program by the
National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) that documents Indigenous knowledge,
systems, and practices and enables holders of knowledge (called “culture bearers,” “masters,” or
“specialists”) to transfer their knowledge, practices, arts, and crafts to young people from culture
bearers’ own ethno-linguistic communities. 55 While a promising initiative, experts note that SLTs
are limited in their reach, and lack systematization and monitoring. 56
The rights of women IPs and LCs as traditional knowledge holders

are ignored
The majority of NBSAPs do not mention IP and LC women’s rights or knowledge. Among the assessed
NBSAPs, only Mexico’s makes explicit reference to women’s rights, outlining measures to “rescue, collect,
systemize and protect traditional knowledge of Indigenous peoples and local communities, particularly
that of women.” 57
Overall, while Indigenous and traditional knowledge is more frequently mentioned in NBSAPs and
corresponding national laws than other considerations for IPs and LCs, NBSAPs and legal systems still
consistently fall short in protecting this knowledge from exploitation, ensuring adequate benefit sharing, or
enabling IPs and LCs to continue to access the biodiversity resources that allow them to innovate and
transmit their knowledge to future generations. NBSAPs are particularly weak in recognizing the
knowledge of IP and LC women.
NBSAPs have inadequate safeguards to

ensure that biodiversity conservation
respects IPs’ and LCs’ rights
Safeguarding against fortress conservation
Safeguards are required to ensure that IPs and LCs are not displaced, unable to practice their livelihoods or
cultural traditions, criminalized, or otherwise harmed by the implementation of NBSAPs. Ensuring FPIC is
obtained prior to the establishment or expansion of protected areas on land that IPs and LCs own, manage,
or use is one essential safeguard, as are the protection of IPs’ and LCs’ knowledge rights (described above)
and the security of land tenure and use rights.
Absence of clear safeguards

None of the 27 NBSAPs reviewed have clear safeguards or redress measures for negative impacts on IPs
and LCs from NBSAP development or implementation (Figure 5). This is of particular concern in light of the
“alarming violations” 58 of Indigenous rights frequently committed in the course of conservation initiatives,
including the establishment of protected areas, as documented by the UN Special Rapporteur on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Without safeguards, IPs and LCs face loss of cultural and livelihood resources,
criminalization, abusive prosecution, forced evictions and displacement, physical violence, and killings. 59

Figure 5. NBSAPs lack safeguards or redress mechanisms for IPs and LCs
In many of the assessed NBSAPs’ countries, IPs’ and LCs’ rights to FPIC are not guaranteed by national laws
and land tenure is not secure. This leaves IPs and LCs vulnerable to the creation, expansion, or re-
categorization of protected areas in ways that violate their rights to use, access, and reside in forests and
other areas.
• In the DRC, until recent tenure reforms and the enactment of the Law for the Protection and
Promotion of the Rights of Indigenous Pygmy Peoples, 60 the legal framework did not fully integrate
FPIC, and conservation efforts in the country often failed to engage communities, leading to local
skepticism of these initiatives. The DRC’s current NBSAP lacks provisions to ensure that future
biodiversity conservation does not further displace IPs and LCs and to address adverse impacts on
IPs and LCs from previous biodiversity protection efforts.
• Sweden has not codified FPIC and recognizes Indigenous land rights only for the minority of Sami
people who belong to cooperative reindeer herding organizations known as Sameby. 61 How
members of Sameby use their land and resources is restricted to activities related to reindeer
husbandry and hunting and fishing. 62 Sweden’s NBSAP makes no reference FPIC or to any other
safeguards against negative impacts on IPs and LCs.
Most NBSAPs fall short of committing to robust safeguards such as full FPIC or true guarantees of land
tenure security. However, some NBSAPs include IPs and LCs through co-management arrangements. For
instance:
• Brazil’s NBSAP does not include comprehensive safeguards, but it proposes the development of
‘co-existence agreements’ when there is an overlap between Indigenous Land and federal
Protected Areas to develop and implement joint land management plans. 63
• Madagascar’s NBSAP does not explicitly address the potential impacts of NBSAP development or
implementation on IP and LCs. It includes strategic guidelines for a participative approach to
involve LCs in the creation and management of protected areas but stops short of requiring that
FPIC is obtained. 64 This is particularly concerning because Madagascar’s national regulations on
protected areas do not provide any protection to LCs that do not have formal land titles. A 2019
evaluation indicates that, while IPs and LCs participate in the implementation of the strategic
guideline for the management of specific areas, land disputes stemming from limited community
decision making in governance and unfamiliarity with prevailing legislation present an ongoing
challenge. 65
• Sweden’s NBSAP does not mention co-management. However, nine Sami communities advocated
for and achieved roles as co-managers of Laponia, a World Heritage site that covers 9,400 square
kilometers in northern Sweden and overlaps four national parks and nine Sami herding districts. 66
After the World Heritage site was designated in 1996, Sami reindeer herding communities spent
years advocating that they should be managers of the land because as Laponia’s Indigenous
residents they are uniquely knowledgeable and capable of managing its land and resources. 67 As a
result of that advocacy, a joint management regime was established in 2011, through which Laponia
is co-managed by the nine herding communities, representatives from the county administration,

the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, and the two local municipalities. Decisions are
made by consensus, but the Sami communities do not have the ability to fully exercise their own
authority over the site. 68
Relevance of existing legal safeguards

In countries that already have strong FPIC requirements, these typically apply to activities implemented
under the NBSAP and will often be referenced in the documents.
• In Mexico, FPIC is required for the adoption of laws that directly affect the rights of IPs and LCs. 69
This includes the creation of protected areas, which could occur as a result of NBSAP
implementation. Mexico’s NBSAP calls for FPIC processes to be respected, but it does not adopt any
specific safeguards to ensure this.
• Similarly, the Philippines has legislation requiring the full FPIC process for the declaration and
management of protected areas, forestry management projects, and bioprospecting. 70 The
Philippines’ NBSAP reiterates the requirement for FPIC under several interventions, namely for
infrastructure development in protected areas and applications for bioprospecting permits.
However, this is not always effective in practice. Even though the Philippines’ legal system
recognizes FPIC and sustainable traditional resource rights, c activities like the collection of non-
timber forest products in protected zones are often disallowed or subjected to long permitting
processes.
IPs and LCs are sometimes engaged in the

implementation of NBSAPs but rarely as full
and equal partners
IPs and LCs are effective partners
As discussed above, IPs and LCs are highly effective stewards of ecosystems and have consistently
demonstrated willingness to engage as partners in biodiversity conservation. They also own and occupy a
large share of important biodiversity conservation areas. Engaging IPs and LCs as full and effective partners
in the achievement of NBSAP targets and the implementation of actions is therefore crucial not only for
safeguarding their rights, but also for maximizing the effectiveness of conservation measures.
Only 41 percent of the NBSAPs reviewed explicitly list IPs and/or LCs as implementation partners (Figure 6).
A further 11 percent were unclear as to whether IPs and LCs would support implementation. For instance,
some included references to broader categories of stakeholders that could include IPs and LCs but did not
mention these groups specifically. India’s NBSAP was the only assessed NBSAP to explicitly mention
women IPs and LCs as partners.
c
Sustainable traditional resource rights” are defined by the Philippines’ Department of Environment and Natural
Resources as the “[r]ights of…IPs to sustainably use, manage, protect and conserve a) land, air, water, and minerals; b)
plants, animals and other organisms; c) collecting, fishing and hunting grounds; d) sacred sites; and e) other areas of
economic, ceremonial and aesthetic value in accordance with their indigenous knowledge, beliefs, systems and practices.”
See more at: DENR-FASPS. (2023). Sustainable traditional resource rights.

Indigenous and community protected areas
The most common role that the assessed NBSAPs identify for IPs and LCs is participation in the
management of protected areas. In some countries, IPs and LCs can voluntarily designate their lands as
protected areas, and several NBSAPs explicitly target the creation of such areas. For instance:
• Mexico’s NBSAP aims to support and promote the establishment of Areas Voluntarily Destined for
Conservation on IPs’ and LCs’ lands, allowing communities to establish their own land use criteria
and thereby safeguard them from outside pressures.
• Brazil’s NBSAP includes funding for the development and implementation of Territorial and
Environmental Management Plans (PGTAs), which promote the environmental protection of
Indigenous Lands, and the delimitation of these lands in various biomes.
• The Philippines’ NBSAP aims to identify and document all known ICCAs and Local Conservation
Areas by 2028. Moreover, the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act assigns IPs and LCs the responsibility
of maintaining ecological balance and restoring denuded areas in their certified ancestral
domains. 71
• Australia’s NBSAP aims to increase the number and extent of IPAs, though it does not include
specific targets for this. 72
Figure 6. Extent to which IPs and LCs are included as implementation partners in NBSAPs
Engaging IPs and LCs in protected area management

Some NBSAPs provide for the involvement of IPs and LCs in the management of protected areas beyond
their designated lands. For example:
• Madagascar’s NBSAP cites the revision of the Protected Areas Management Code in 2015, which
provided opportunities for a broader range of stakeholders—including local communities,
associations, and NGOs—to actively participate in the governance and management of Protected
Areas.
• Mexico’s NBSAP proposes enhancing stakeholders’ capacities – including those of IPs and LCs – to
manage protected areas; ensuring IP and LCs participation in ecosystem restoration; and
developing mechanisms to increase the participation of the social sector in conservation, for
instance by developing fiscal incentives to enhance participation of IPs and LCs and women in
conservation processes.
• Australia’s NBSAP specifically lists Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and women as
stewards of nature and names its Indigenous ranger programs as one avenue to support
stewardship. 73 Australia’s previous NBSAP had a specific target to increase IPs’ employment and
participation in biodiversity conservation by 25 percent by 2015. 74 The current NBSAP does not have

this target and it is not clear if the target was achieved. However, as of 2022, Indigenous ranger
programs provided 2,700 government-funded jobs associated with Indigenous conservation, one
third of which were held by women. 75 While Australia’s NBSAP implies that Indigenous Australians
are essential for Australia’s biodiversity conservation plans, their roles are not detailed in the
NBSAP.
IPs and LCs in national-level implementation

It is relatively rare for the assessed NBSAPs to include a role for IPs and LCs in national-level
implementation. However, there are some notable exceptions:
• The DRC’s NBSAP explicitly recognizes IPs, along with other stakeholders, as collaborators for
executing two key actions: formulating regulatory measures concerning access and benefit sharing
and crafting the national strategy regarding access to resources and benefit sharing. 76 However, at
the time of writing, these efforts have yet to materialize because the legislation governing access to
genetic resources and benefit sharing is still pending in its effectiveness.
• Sweden’s NBSAP does not mention IPs or LCs, however, since 2021, the Sámediggi has a mandate
to act as the focal point for Sweden’s implementation of the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)
articles on traditional knowledge and customary use of biodiversity (Box 1).
Box 1. Sweden: Sami Parliament CBD Focal Point mission
Sweden’s NBSAP makes no reference to Indigenous People or the Sami people, despite legal recognition
of Sami reindeer herding districts, which cover about 50 percent of Sweden’s national territory. However,
in 2021 the Swedish government gave a mandate to the Sámi Parliament (Sámediggi) to act as the focal
point for Sweden’s implementation of the CBD’s articles on traditional knowledge and customary use of
biological resources, Articles 8(j) and 10(c). 77, 78 This appointment followed 15 years of work and a proposal
by the Sámediggi, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, and the SLU Swedish Biodiversity
Centre.
As the focal point, the Sámediggi works in collaboration with SLU Swedish Biodiversity Centre to
coordinating efforts to acknowledge, respect, and encourage sustainable use of all traditional knowledge
in Sweden. Their work covers both Sami traditional knowledge and the traditional knowledge of other
Swedes. The focal point mission began by convening a working group that includes the Environmental
Protection Agency, County Administrative Boards, and organizations representing traditional knowledge
holders, including Sami and non-Sami herders and fishers. This consultative group aims to develop a
process to acknowledge, respect, and encourage traditional knowledge and sustainable customary use,
and to train government authorities in appropriate consultation practices. 79
Activities being implemented by the Sámediggi focal point mission and partners at the SLU Swedish
Biodiversity Centre include training County Administrative Boards on how to respect and follow Articles
8(j) and 10(c) and developing awareness-raising efforts such as a digital training program to provide
information about traditional knowledge and sustainable customary use of biological resources in
Sweden and the focal point mission.
However, the legal influence of the Sámediggi is limited. While a 2022 law requires consultations with the
Sámediggi and Sami representatives on issues that affect them, including biodiversity issues in reindeer
herding districts, the law does not require FPIC and the government is free to end consultations where it
determines consensus cannot be reached. 80 Within the context of the CBD focal point mission, the
Sámediggi and SLU Swedish Biodiversity Centre are promoting compliance with this law and other good
practices for consultation by engaging with government authorities about how to conduct consultations
with all groups of knowledge holders in decision-making processes.
The initial mandate for the Sámediggi as the focal point to coordinate implementation of Articles 8(j) and
10(c) runs until the end of 2023, but the mandate is expected to be renewed. The Sámediggi and Swedish
Biodiversity Centre will conclude by submitting a report of recommendations to the Swedish
government. The Sámediggi is also part of the working group that is making suggestions for updating
Sweden’s NBSAP under the GBF.

IPs and LCs as full and effective partners
Even where NBSAPs do recognize the role of IPs and LCs in implementation, they are rarely considered full
and equal partners:
• In the Philippines, despite the allocation of seats for IP representatives on Protected Area
Management Boards, studies have found that these governance mechanisms are ultimately less
effective at facilitating inclusion and participation due to the expenses associated with attendance,
gaps in capacity building and information dissemination, and inconsistencies between these
formal structures and collective community decision making. 81 At other times, concerns of
Indigenous communities have also been brushed aside by other members of these Management
Boards, and it has been documented that Indigenous representatives are sometimes left out of
decision making entirely. 82
• Similarly, as explained in Box 1, while Sweden mandates consultations with the Sami people on
issues that affect them, government authorities can ultimately overrule Sami viewpoints. 83
• Indigenous authors of Australia’s State of the Environment report emphasize that while
Indigenous stewardship is recognized in Australian laws, “current laws, policies and management
approaches continue modes of colonialism and are inherently limited in their ability to wholly
support Indigenous self-determination.” 84
NBSAPs are often insufficiently implemented

and mainstreamed into national policy
decisions
Absence of monitoring and evaluation measures
While national biodiversity conservation efforts can pose threats to IPs and LCs, they can also serve to
protect the areas they own and live on from outside threats. Despite their shortcomings, many of the
NBSAPs assessed include important measures that, where properly implemented, can support IPs and LCs
in conserving their lands and protecting them from outside threats.
All too often, however, implementation of NBSAPs is sorely lacking and monitoring and evaluation
measures are weak or absent. Few NBSAPs include specific targets or indicators to monitor and evaluate
progress in implementing the NBSAP. Where they are present, these indicators are often not directly tied
to challenges and threats to biodiversity identified in other sections of the NBSAP. None of the assessed
NBSAPs evaluated or disaggregated monitoring data by demographic characteristics, which would enable
understanding of impacts on specific groups, such as IPs and LCs (Figure 7).
• Mexico’s NBSAP includes a recommendation to create a formal monitoring system including

several institutions—among them the National Institute of Indigenous Peoples . However, this was
not implemented, likely due to an absence of political will.
• Australia’s second NBSAP included seven quantitative national targets—including a 25 percent

increase in employment and participation of Indigenous peoples—but its more recent third NBSAP
lacks these quantitative measures. It is not clear why Australia made this change.

Figure 7. Extent to which NBSAPs monitor IPs’ and LCs’ rights and land tenure, or by demographic
categories
Measuring advances in land tenure

Across all the assessed NBSAPs, only two include a monitoring indicator related to land tenure:
• South Africa’s NBSAP lists the number of settled land claims in protected areas and other areas
designated for biodiversity conservation as indicators of biodiversity conservation supporting the
land reform agenda and socio-economic opportunities for communal land holders. However, the
NBSAP also notes that these indicators are not currently being monitored. 85
• Australia’s NBSAP identifies the “number and extent of terrestrial and marine IPAs, other co-
management areas, and Indigenous ranger programs” as one of its “progress measures.” It also
includes a progress measure on “Indigenous rangers and Indigenous ranger programs managing
land and seascapes.” 86
Integrating actions in national plans and policies

In many cases, NBSAP targets and actions are not integrated into national development plans or sectoral
policies, resulting in conflicts between biodiversity conservation and other priorities:
• The most recent Philippine Development Plan 2023-2028 makes mention of only one NBSAP
target, indicating that biodiversity conservation is not among the government’s development
priorities. 87 The Philippines’ NBSAP targets are also not sufficiently communicated to local
government units, and as such may not form part of local land use or environmental plans. IPs and
LCs are particularly concerned about moves to provide expedited business processes for mining
operations and energy facilities as many mineral-rich areas and identified locations for large-scale
energy projects overlap with Ancestral Domains and traditional territories. 88
• In Brazil, the political climate of recent years placed unprecedented pressure on Ips’ and LCs’ lands
and made the implementation of NBSAP actions aimed at strengthening Ips’ and LCs’ rights and
capacities incredibly challenging. In addition, a barrier to the implementation of the current NBSAP
seems to be the disconnection of the targets with the economic issues faced on the ground and
the economic priorities of the country and the communities.
• Similarly, Mexico’s NBSAP has no legal status, and the government has taken few efforts to
mainstream its provisions across sectoral strategies, or even within other environmental policies.
This likely reflects limited political will, which has seen low priority being given to biodiversity
protection. 89

Stronger legal status in Sweden
Sweden’s NBSAP is unique in that it is an excerpt of the 2013 Swedish government bill, “A Swedish strategy
for biodiversity and ecosystem services,” which gives it a stronger legal status than many other NBSAPs. It
explicitly aligns with Sweden’s 16 Environmental Quality Objectives, which guide Swedish environmental
policy, and derives its ten time-bound, qualitative targets from the Aichi targets and the European Union
2020 Biodiversity Strategy. However, as noted above, the Swedish NBSAP makes no reference to IPs and
LCs.
Challenges remain in fully engaging IPs and

LC in NBSAP updates
A unique opportunity
As policymakers move to translate the GBF into national targets and actions through updating their
NBSAPs ahead of COP 16 in late 2024, they have a unique opportunity to build lasting partnerships with IPs
and LCs on biodiversity conservation. Through engaging with communities as full and equal partners and
placing a rights-based approach at the center of NBSAPs, policymakers can enable fairer, more effective,
and more ambitious action to meet the global 2030 targets.
Some promising signs

In several countries, there are indications that governments are taking meaningful steps to involve IPs and
LCs in current NBSAP update processes:
• In Brazil, the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change plans consultations targeted specifically
to IPs and LCs, with the support of the new Ministry of Indigenous Peoples.
• In the Philippines, IPs and LCs and allied organizations will again be invited to participate in the
process, and the government has already begun to coordinate with existing partners to help
identify potential participants and mobilize resources to support the consultation process.
• In Sweden, the Sámediggi is part of the working group for updating the NBSAP.
Better organization and government openness

In both Madagascar and the DRC, better organization of IPs and LCs coupled with greater government
openness to engaging with communities in recent years has created a more positive outlook for
forthcoming NBSAP updates:
• In the DRC, the Consultation Framework of Civil Society Organizations and Indigenous Peoples for
Biodiversity (COSPAB)—a platform formed by Civil Society and IP and LC Organizations to ensure IP
and LC interests are reflected in decision making, planning, and executing biodiversity-related
actions—coordinated closely with the government in negotiations on the GBF and is already
engaged in the NBSAP update. 90
• Similarly, in Madagascar, the government is engaging with the MIHARI network—established in

2020 to represent IPs and LCs in Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMAs)—with a view to
incorporating LMMAs, which are absent from the current NBSAP, into the forthcoming strategy. 91
• It is not clear whether Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples will be engaged in the
development of Australia’s updated NBSAP. However, their key role in Australia’s protected areas
programs and apparently growing recognition in Australian policy are hopeful indications that the
work of Indigenous Australians to gain legal standing will lead to inclusion in NBSAP processes.

Funding and timing present challenges
However, even in these countries, there are already signs that IP and LC engagement will not be fully
inclusive, with limited funding and tight timelines presenting major barriers:
• In Sweden, while the Sámediggi is part of a working group of government authorities developing
the updated NBSAP under the GBF, the short response time allowed for comments on the draft
NBSAP could mean that not all Sámi or other Swedish people and groups were able to give input. 92
• In both Madagascar and the DRC, funding limitations are likely to place a strain on efforts to
engage communities, particularly at local levels. Stakeholders in Madagascar pointed to challenges
arising from the engagement of numerous international, national, and regional actors, demanding
effective coordination within the NBSAP update process.
• Brazil’s Ministry of Environment has highlighted that ensuring participation and inclusion of IPs
and LCs in the planning and implementation of the new GBF will be a challenge, though it did not
elaborate on what those challenges are. 93
• Mexico will not fully update its NBSAP given that the time horizon of the current version is 2030.
Instead, Mexico is taking steps to align the current NBSAP with the 2030 GBF. This will mostly
involve internal discussions with government agencies, and, while some workshops with other non-
governments stakeholders, including IPs and LCs, will take place, no major changes are expected
to be made as a result of those workshops.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IP AND LC
INCLUSION IN NBSAPS
Ensuring IPs and LCs are engaged as full partners and empowered as leaders in NBSAP development and
implementation is critical to achieve biodiversity conservation goals.
Full and effective engagement with IPs and LCs in NBSAP updates is an important first step in adopting a
rights-based approach. However, this must be followed by ongoing engagement in NBSAP
implementation, coupled with adequate mandates, resources, and supporting legal and policy frameworks
that enable IPs and LC to effectively implement biodiversity conservation measures. Even in countries
where there are promising signs of IP and LC engagement in NBSAP updates, limited financial and
technical capacities together with ongoing threats to their lands create major challenges for communities.
Massively scaled-up direct access of IPs and LCs to biodiversity finance will be essential for ensuring they
can fulfill their role at the center of national biodiversity conservation efforts.
Governments, donors, local and international civil society and research organizations, and IP and LC
organizations can all take action to follow a rights-based approach and increase the involvement of IPs and
LCs in the development and implementation of NBSAPs.
Governments
In most cases, governments are the primary authors and implementers of NBSAPs. In this role,
governments hold great responsibility to engage IPs and LCs as full and equal partners in biodiversity
conservation. To achieve this, governments should:
● Commit to and allocate sufficient resources to ensure comprehensive and sustained engagement
with IPs and LCs throughout the development and implementation of the NBSAP. This includes
supporting actions that enhance the agency of IPs and LCs in consultation, planning, and
implementation processes, recognizing that legacies of exclusion disenfranchise IP and LC
participation in policymaking. Engagement and consultation processes should also take into
account the different approaches to and understandings of governance, ownership, and human
responsibility to biodiversity held by IPs and LCs. Finally, engagement approaches should ensure
the participation of women and other people (e.g., youth, people with disabilities, people who live in
remote regions) who may be further marginalized within IP or LC groups.
● Acknowledge and support the non-monetary contributions of knowledge, time, labor, and skills
provided by IPs and LCs in developing and implementing NBSAPs and other conservation plans.
One approach is to implement cost-sharing arrangements that recognize and reflect the significant
investment of time and energy provided by IPs and LCs in conservation.
● Develop NBSAP targets and actions specifically aimed at securing IPs’ and LCs’ tenure rights within
and beyond protected areas and allocate resources to enable these targets to be met. Tenure rights
should be as broad as possible, including recognition of full legal ownership, in particular over areas
to which communities have customary ownership claims.
● Ensure that sufficient finance and capacity building is allocated to enable communities to fully
implement biodiversity conservation actions while also supporting communities in obtaining direct
access to international finance. Resources and capacity building should also be provided to local
government entities and civil servants to enable effective and equitable collaboration with IPs and
LCs.

● Include indicators and monitoring measures in the NBSAP that track progress on targets linked to
IPs’ and LCs’ rights. Advancing tenure, intellectual property, consultation, and other rights should
be critical to assessing the success of the NBSAP.
● Include safeguards in the NBSAP that ensure that all biodiversity conservation measures, including
the establishment and expansion of protected areas, fully respects the rights of IPs and LCs,
including their right to FPIC. Safeguards should equally ensure that partners, consultants, and local
government entities engaged to develop or implement NBSAPs fully engage with and ensure FPIC
of IPs and LCs for any actions that affect them.
● Ensure that NBSAP actions, in particular those relating to respecting, protecting, and enhancing
IPs’ and LCs’ rights, are mainstreamed in national and sub-national laws, policies, and programs.
This includes legally recognizing rights to land and resources, ensuring sectoral policies respect IPs’
and LCs’ rights, mandating FPIC in line with UNDRIP, and integrating IPs’ and LCs’ rights across
climate change and biodiversity policies, plans, and programs. Governments should equally engage
IPs and LCs in mainstreaming processes to ensure their interlinked concerns and understandings
of biodiversity, climate change, sustainable development, and rights are integrated and respected
in laws and policies beyond the NBSAP.
● Collaborate with IPs and LCs to develop and protect traditional knowledge inventories, registries,
and standardized protocols, and design IP and LC-led decision-making processes related to
traditional knowledge. Approaches to protect the rights of knowledge-holders while recording and
sharing biodiversity-related knowledge include conferring collective intellectual property rights;
mandating that knowledge is learned and shared in alignment with knowledge holders’ practices;
and developing benefit sharing mechanisms for rewarding the original holders and innovators of
knowledge that is applied.
● Work with IPs and LCs to enable NBSAPs to integrate and reflect their cosmovisions in NBSAPs.
This may include shifting the framing of NBSAPs from humans as the users and beneficiaries of
biodiversity to humans as responsible for maintaining relationships with nature.
● Recognize and protect IPs’ and LCs’ cultural heritage and knowledge by providing programs such
as grants and special cultural zones that enable IPs and LCs to practice, teach, and develop
knowledge related to biodiversity and intersecting concerns like climate and agriculture.
Donors and partners

Many governments partner with civil society or research organizations to develop and implement their
NBSAPs. Governments in the Global South also frequently receive support from donor countries and
organizations for their NBSAPs. Partners and donors therefore have a responsibility to drive increased
consultation and partnership with IPs and LCs. Donors and partner organizations should:
• Ensure direct access to finance for IPs, LCs, and women’s groups to support their participation in
NBSAP update processes, in implementing integrated projects and programs that advance rights,
biodiversity conservation, and climate change mitigation and adaptation, and in forming and
maintaining strong national and regional representative bodies.
• Provide financial resources to developing countries to support extensive NBSAP consultation

processes, enabling governments to fully engage with IPs and LCs at national, regional, and local
levels and to obtain FPIC for specific actions that may affect their rights.
• Advocate for governments to engage with IPs and LCs, ensure FPIC, and adopt an integrated
rights-based approach to biodiversity conservation and climate change, including using their

influence as partner organizations involved in NBSAP update processes and implementation.
Donors and partners should further advocate for governments to mainstream rights-based
biodiversity conservation in sectoral policies and plans, including through making finance
conditional on respecting IPs’ and LCs’ rights.
• Acknowledge and support the non-monetary contributions of knowledge, time, labor, and skills
provided by IPs and LCs in developing and implementing conservation and restoration activities.
One way to do this is by requiring and establishing cost-sharing arrangements that reflect the
significant investment of time and energy provided by IPs and LCs in conservation.
• Ensure integration of IPs’ and LCs’ rights, livelihoods, traditional knowledge, and unique roles as
stewards of nature are recognized, respected, and enhanced across biodiversity and climate
finance programs.
IPs and LCs

IPs and LCs and their representative organizations are the experts on their needs and on the biodiversity
that they steward. To the extent possible and in the context of sufficient resources being made available by
governments, donors, and partners IPs and LCs should seek to organize and advocate for inclusion in
NBSAP design and implementation. IPs, LCs, and representative organizations are encouraged to:
● Strengthen national representative bodies and develop common positions on how governments
can better respect and protect IPs’ and LCs’ rights in NBSAP processes.
● Build national and international partnerships and coalitions advocating for a rights-based approach
to NBSAPs.
● Engage with the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity 94 and other representative bodies
at national, regional, and global level to advocate to the CBD and other international environmental
conventions and meetings.
● Ensure women, youth, remote communities, and other frequently marginalized groups are
represented and included in NBSAP processes and in biodiversity conservation more broadly.
● Demand compensation for the knowledge, time, labor, and skills that IPs and LCs invest in
conservation planning and implementation. One way to do this is by advocating for cost-sharing
arrangements with donors that reflect and value the significant time and energy provided by IPs
and LCs.

ENDNOTES
1
Rights and Resources Initiative. (2020). Rights-Based Conservation: The path to preserving Earth’s biological and cultural
diversity? https://doi.org/10.53892/ZIKJ2998.
2
Sze, J. S., Childs, D. Z., Carrasco, L. R., & Edwards, D. P. (2022). Indigenous lands in protected areas have high forest integrity
across the tropics. Current Biology, 32(22), 4949-4956.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2022.09.040.
3
Rights and Resources Initiative. (2020)..
4
Sangha, K. (2020). Global Importance of Indigenous and Local Communities’ Managed Lands: Building a Case for
Stewardship Schemes. Sustainability, 12, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197839.
5
Convention on Biological Diversity. (2022a). 15/10. Development of a new programme of work and institutional
arrangements on Article 8(j) and other provisions of the Convention related to indigenous peoples and local
communities. https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-10-en.pdf.
6
Dawson, N., Coolsaet, B., Sterling, E., Loveridge, R., Gross-Camp, Nicole D., Wongbusarakum, S., et al. (2021). The role of
Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation. Ecology and Society, 26(3).
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12625-260319; Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact et. al. (2022). Reconciling Conservation and Global
Biodiversity Goals with Community Land Rights in Asia. https://rightsandresources.org/wp-content/uploads/Asia-
Conservation-Report.pdf; Independent Panel of Experts of the Independent Review. (2020). Embedding Human Rights in
Nature Conservation: From Intent to Action.
https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/independent_review___independent_panel_of_experts__final_report_24_no
v_2020.pdf; Woods, K. M., & Naimark, J. (2020). Conservation as counterinsurgency: A case of ceasefire in a rebel forest in
southeast Myanmar. Political Geography, 83, 102251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2020.102251; Lunstrum, E., & Ybarra, M.
(2018). Deploying Difference: Security Threat Narratives and State Displacement from Protected Areas. Conservation and
Society, 16(2), 114–124.
7
Calí Tzay, J. F. (2022). Protected areas and indigenous peoples’ rights: the obligations of States and international
organizations (No. A/77/238). https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/a77238-protected-areas-and-
indigenous-peoples-rights-obligations-states. Calí Tzay, J. F. (2022).
8
Rainforest Foundation UK. (2023). 30x30 – The Good, The Bad and What Needs to Happen Next.
https://www.rainforestfoundationuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/30x30_The-Good-the-Bad-and-What-needs-to-
happen-next_EN.pdf.
9
Rainforest Foundation UK. (2023).
10
Tauli, J. C. (2022). Only a human rights-based approach will address biodiversity loss. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 6(8),
1050–1051. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01796-x; Mukpo, A. (2021, October 12). Advocates call for a new human rights-
based approach to conservation. Mongabay Environmental News. https://news.mongabay.com/2021/10/advocates-call-for-
a-new-human-rights-based-approach-to-conservation/; Boyd, D. R., & Keene, S. (2021). Human Rights-Based Approaches
to Conserving Biodiversity: Equitable, Effective and Imperative (No. Policy Brief No.1).
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Environment/SREnvironment/policy-briefing-1-summary.pdf;
Springer, J. (2021, December 9). Rights-based approaches must be placed at the heart of conservation efforts. October 25,
2023, https://www.iucn.org/news/governance-and-rights/202112/rights-based-approaches-must-be-placed-heart-
conservation-efforts; Human Rights in Biodiversity Working Group. (2022). Implementing a human rights-based approach
to biodiversity conservation (No. Paper 3). https://www.forestpeoples.org/en/report/2022/implementing-human-rights-BA..
Bastidas, E. (2022, December 7). The rights of Indigenous women in the Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework. IUCN, CEESP
11
News. https://www.iucn.org/story/202212/rights-indigenous-women-post-2020-biodiversity-framework; Convention on

Biological Diversity. (2022b). The Role of Indigenous Women in the Transmission of Traditional Knowledge.
https://www.cbd.int/article/role-indigenous-women-transmission-traditional-knowledge-IDWIP2022.
12
République Démocratique du Congo Ministere de L’Environment Conservation de la Nature et Developpement Durable.
(2016). Stratégie et Plan D’Action Nationaux de la Biodiversite (2016-2020). https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/cd/cd-nbsap-v3-
fr.pdf.
13
Interview with governmental stakeholders responsible for the Madagascar’s NBSAP update process (August 2023).
14
Interview with Tebtebba Foundation - Indigenous Peoples’ International Centre for Policy Research and Education).
(August 2023).

15
Interview with Rainforest Foundation Norway (August 2023).
16
Interviews with experts on Brazil’s NBSAP update process. (August 2023).
Hofverberg, E. (2022, February 3). Sweden: Swedish Parliament Adopts Sami Parliament Consultation Order. Library of
17
Congress. https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2022-02-03/Sweden-swedish-parliament-adopts-sami-
parliament-consultation-order/; Interview with expert on Sweden’s Focal Point Coordinator for Sami Traditional
Knowledge (August 2023)
18
Interviews with experts on NBSAP processes in Mexico and Madagascar (August 2023).
19
UNDP. (2018). 1.3 the state of biodiversity finance. 2023, October 25,
https://www.biofin.org/sites/default/files/content/publications/workbook_2018/1-2.html.
20
Interviews with Rainforest Foundation Norway and governmental stakeholder responsible for the Democratic Republic
of the Congo’s NBSAP update process (August 2023)
21
Interview with expert on biodiversity conservation in Mexico (August 2023).
22
Sze, J. S. et al. (2022).
Veit, P. (2021). 4 Ways Indigenous and Community Lands Help Fight Climate Change. https://www.wri.org/insights/4-
23
ways-indigenous-and-community-lands-can-reduce-emissions.
24
Schleicher, J., Peres, C. A., Amano, T., Llactayo, W., & Leader-Williams, N. (2017). Conservation performance of different
conservation governance regimes in the Peruvian Amazon. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 11318. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-
10736-w.
25
World Resources Institute & Climate Focus. (2022). Sink or swim: How Indigenous and community lands can make or
break nationally determined contributions. https://forestdeclaration.org/resources/sink-or-swim/.
26
CBD. (2018). CBD/COP/DEC/14/8 Decision Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological
Diversity Protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-
14/cop-14-dec-08-en.pdf.
27
Waldron, A., Adams, V., Allan, J., Arnell, A., Atkinson, S., Baccini, A., et al. (2020). Protecting 30% of the planet for nature:
costs, benefits, and economic implications: Working paper analysing the economic implications of the proposed 30%
target for areal protection in the draft post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. University of Cambridge.
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19950.64327.
28
Convention on Biological Diversity. (2022b). Carling, J., Chavez Ixcaquic, L., Dekdeken, S., Teresa, Aye, H., Gualinga, P., et al.
(2021, March). Women at the frontline: Conversation with Indigenous Women at risk for defending their lands, rights and
dignity. Presented at the IPRI, FIMI, IWGIA, LRN. IPRI, FIMI, IWGIA, LRN. Bastidas, E. (2022, December 7).
29
Rasolojaona, J., Oates, J., Raharijaona, S. A., Quinlan, R., Rakotondrazafy, V., Mananoro, T., et al. (2021). Madagascar: A
national analysis on the status of territories of life. https://report.territoriesoflife.org/national-and-regional-
analysis/Madagascar/.
RABARISON Harison, RANDRIAMAHALEO Sahoby Ivy, RANDRIANASOLO Hanitra Lalaina, & ANDRIAMBELO Fara
30
Mihanta. (2016). NBSAP Madagascar (2016-2025). https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/mg/mg-nbsap-v2-en.pdf.

JOURNAL OFFICIEL de la République Démocratique du Congo. (2006). CONSTITUTION DE LA REPUBLIQUE
31
DEMOCRATIQUE DU CONGO. https://www.droitcongolais.info/files/101.02.06-Constitution-18-fevrier-2006.pdf.

32
The legal basis for Local Community Forest Concessions can be found in the Forestry Code, specifically Article 22, which
recognizes both the customary possession of forests by local communities and the process for obtaining a 'local
community forest concession' (CFCL) through written titles (Cabinet du Président de la République Démocratique du
Congo. La loi n° 011/2002 du 29 août 2002 portant code forestier (2002)). The term CFCL originates from Decree no. 14/018,
issued on 2 August 2014, which outlines the procedures for converting customary possession into a concession title
(Cabinet du Président de la République Démocratique du Congo. Décret n° 14/018 du 02 août 2014 fixant les modalités
d’attribution des concessions forestières aux communautés locales (2014). Additionally, Ministerial Order 025 contains
specific provisions for the management and exploitation of CFCLs once they have been granted (Cabinet du Président de
la République Démocratique du Congo. Arrêté Ministériel n° 025/CAB/Min/ECN-DD/CI/00/RBM/2016 du 9 février 2016
portant dispositions spécifiques relatives à la gestion et à l’exploitation de la concession forestière des communautés
locales. (2016
33
Ministère de l’Environnement Conservation de la Nature et Tourisme. (2013). Programme National Environnement,
Forêts, Eaux et Biodiversité (PNEFEB) - 2ème Génération. 2023, October 27, https://medd.gouv.cd/programme-
nationalenvironnement-forets-eaux-et-biodiversite-pnefeb/.

34
DRC validates its updated land tenure policy | Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI). (2021).
https://www.cafi.org/countries/democratic-republic-congo/drc-validates-its-updated-land-tenure-policy.
35
Interview with governmental stakeholder responsible for the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s NBSAP update
process (August 2023).
Nilsson Dahlström, Å., Dahlin, J., & Tunón, H. (2021). Pathfinders for the Future? Indigenous Rights and Traditional
36
Knowledge in Sweden. Sustainability, 13(20), 11195. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011195.

37
Biodiversity Management Bureau, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (BMB-DENR). (2019). The 6th
National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD): Tracking Progress in Implementing the Philippine
Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (PBSAP) 2015-2028. https://chm.cbd.int/api/v2013/documents/9D0D456A-FAC1-9806-
3B90-
21B37D4DEE5B/attachments/207991/Introduction%20to%20the%20Sixth%20National%20Report%20of%20the%20Republic
%20of%20the%20Philippines.pdf
38
ICCA Registry. (2023). Explore Case Studies: Philippines. https://www.iccaregistry.org/en/explore/Philippines.
39
Revilla Jr., R. B. An act recognizing the indigenous cultural communities and indigenous peoples (iccs/ips) community
conserved territories and areas (icca), establishing for the purpose the national icca registry, and appropriating funds
therefor. , Pub. L. No. Senate Bill No. 510 (2022).
40
Commonwealth of Australia. (2019).
Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. (2023b). Indigenous
41
Protected Areas program grants. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/land/indigenous-protected-areas/grants.

42
Commonwealth of Australia, National Indigenous Australians Agency. (2022). Stories from Country 2022: Stories and
reports from Indigenous Rangers and Indigenous Protected Areas Programs [Text]. https://www.niaa.gov.au/resource-
centre/indigenous-affairs/stories-country-2022.
43
CBD Secretariat. (2023, October 4). Article 8(j) - Traditional Knowledge, Innovations and Practices. November 7, 2023,
https://www.cbd.int/traditional/.
44
CBD Secretariat. (2011). Nagoya protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits
Arising from Their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/abs/doc/protocol/nagoya-
protocol-en.pdf.
45
Ministère de L’Environnement et du Développement Durable. (2019). Sixième Rapport National Sur la Diversité
Biologique de Madagascar. https://www.cbd.int/doc/nr/nr-06/mg-nr-06-fr.pdf.
46
Interview with governmental stakeholders responsible for the Madagscar’s NBSAP update process (August 2023).
47
MINISTERE DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT, DE L’ECOLOGIE ET DES FORETS. (2017). Décret N° 2017 – 066 du 31/01/2017 portant
réglementation de l’accès et du partage des avantages découlant de l’utilisation des ressources génétiques.
https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/Mad183938.pdf.
48
Interview with governmental stakeholder responsible for the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s NBSAP update
process (August 2023).
49
United Nations Development Programme. (2022, October 18). The DENR-UNDP Access and Benefit Sharing Project
advances to full implementation. https://www.undp.org/philippines/blog/denr-undp-access-and-benefit-sharing-project-
advances-full-implementation.
50
Global Environment Facility. (2021). Implementing the National Framework on Access and Benefit Sharing of Genetic
Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge in the Philippines. October 20, 2023, https://www.thegef.org/projects-
operations/projects/10079.
IP Australia. (2022). Scoping Study on Stand-alone Legislation for Indigenous Knowledge.
51
https://consultation.ipAustralia.gov.au/policy/stand-alone-legislation-for-indigenous-knowledge/.
52
IP Australia. (n.d.-a). Indigenous Knowledge initiatives. https://www.ipAustralia.gov.au/about-us/our-agency/our-
research/indigenous-knowledge-initiatives.
53
IP Australia. (n.d.-b). Indigenous Knowledge Work Plan 2022-23.
54
David, N. D. (2021). School of Living Traditions on Aeta Magbukon indigenous knowledge: promoting indigenous food
plants for food security. Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences Studies, 21(3), 518–534. https://doi.org/10.14456/HASSS.2021.47.
55
NCCA. (n.d.). School of Living Traditions. October 20, 2023, https://ncca.gov.ph/school-of-living-traditions/.

56
Interview with Tebtebba Foundation – Indigenous Peoples’ International Centre for Policy Research and Education.
(August 2023).
Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad. (2016). Estrategia nacional sobre biodiversidad de
57
México y plan de acción 2016-2030. https://www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/pais/enbiomex.

58
Calí Tzay, J. F. (2022).
59
Calí Tzay, J. F. (2022).; Woods, K. M., & Naimark, J. (2020).; Lunstrum, E., & Ybarra, M. (2018).; Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact
et. al. (2022).
60
République Démocratique du Congo. (2022). Loi n°22/030 du 15 juillet 2022 portant protection et promotion des droits
des peuples autochtones pygmées. August 24, 2023,
https://www.leganet.cd/Legislation/Droit%20Public/DH/Loi%2022.030%20du%2015%20juillet%202022.html.
61
Tarras-Wahlberg, H., & Southalan, J. (2022). Mining and indigenous rights in Sweden: what is at stake and the role for
legislation. Mineral Economics, 35(2), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13563-021-00280-5.
62
Tarras-Wahlberg, H., & Southalan, J. (2022).
63
Ministry of Environment. (2017). National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan Brazil.
https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/br/br-nbsap-v3-en.pdf.
64
RABARISON Harison et al. (2016).
65
Ministère de L’Environnement et du Développement Durable. (2019). Sixième Rapport National Sur la Diversité
Biologique de Madagascar. https://www.cbd.int/doc/nr/nr-06/mg-nr-06-fr.pdf.
66
True adventure in Laponia. (2023, July 13). November 7, 2023, https://visitsweden.com/where-to-go/northern-
sweden/norrbotten/laponia-swedish-lapland/; UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (2023). Laponian Area. November 7, 2023,
https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/774/.
67
Nilsson Dahlström, Å. et al. (2021).
68
Nilsson Dahlström, Å. et al. (2021).
69
Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. , Última reforma publicada DOF 06-06-2023 § (1917).
https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/CPEUM.pdf
70
Republic of the Philippines Office of the President. (2012). The Revised Guidelines On Free and Prior Informed Consent
(FPIC) and Related Processes of 2012. https://ncipcar.ph/images/pdfs/ncip-ao-no-3-s-2012-fpic.pdf; Republic of the
Philippines - Congress of the Philippines Expanded National Integrated Protected Areas System Act. , Pub. L. No. Republic
Act No. 11038 (2018).
71
Republic Act No. 8371: An Act to Recognize, Protect And Promote the Rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities/
Indigenous Peoples, Creating a National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, Establishing Implementing Mechanisms,
Appropriating Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes, Section 9.
72
Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. (2023a). Indigenous
Protected Areas. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/land/indigenous-protected-areas.
73
Commonwealth of Australia. (2019).
74
Commonwealth of Australia. (2010). Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010–2030.
https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/au/au-nbsap-v2-en.pdf.
75
Commonwealth of Australia, National Indigenous Australians Agency. (2022).
76
République Démocratique du Congo Ministere de L’Environment Conservation de la Nature et Developpement Durable.
(2016).
77
Sámediggi. (2022). Local and traditional knowledge regarding biodiversity and sustainable customary practices –
present and future work. https://www.sametinget.se/knowledge-material-traditional-knowledge_biological-diversity.
78
Sámediggi. (2022).
79
Interview with expert on Sweden’s Focal Point Coordinator for Sami Traditional Knowledge (August 2023)
80
Hofverberg, E. (2022, February 3).
Major, K., Smith, D., & Migliano, A. B. (2018). Co-Managers or Co-Residents? Indigenous Peoples’ Participation in the
81
Management of Protected Areas: a Case Study of the Agta in the Philippines Human Ecology, 46(4), 485–495.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-018-0007-x; Tebtebba Foundation (Indigenous People’s International Centre for Policy
Research and Education). (2008). Philippine Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas: Review of Policy and
Implementation.
https://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2010/04/wccphilippinespareviewwkgdftaug08eng.pdf.
82
Minter, T., Van Der Ploeg, J., Pedrablanca, M., Sunderland, T., & Persoon, G. A. (2014). Limits to Indigenous Participation:
The Agta and the Northern Sierra Madre Natural Park, the Philippines Human Ecology, 42(5), 769–778.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-014-9673-5.
83
Hofverberg, E. (2022, February 3).
84
Commonwealth of Australia (2021). Australia State of the Environment 2021. https://soe.dcceew.gov.au/.
85
Government of South Africa. (2015). South Africa’s 2nd National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2015–2025.
https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/za/za-nbsap-v2-en.pdf.
86
Commonwealth of Australia (2019). p. 17
87
Interview with Tebtebba Foundation - Indigenous Peoples’ International Centre for Policy Research and Education).
(August 2023).
88
Philippine Daily Inquirer. (2022, July 7). Energy projects must respect IP rights, gov’t told. Philippine Daily Inquirer.
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1635252/energy-projects-must-respect-ip-rights-govt-told.
89
Interviews with experts on Mexico’s NBSAP process. (August 2023).
90
Interview with Rainforest Foundation Norway – Democratic Republic of Congo (August 2023)
91
Interview with Mihari network representatives – Madagascar (August 2023)
92
Interview with expert on Sweden’s Focal Point Coordinator for Sami Traditional Knowledge (August 2023)
93
TNC Brasil. (2023). Diálogos Pan-Amazônicos de Biodiversidade. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgfwRRFToXY.
94
International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity. (n.d.). Who Are We? https://iifb-indigenous.org/.

About Norway), Isabel Garcia Drigo (Imaflora), Chloe
Ginsburg (Rights and Resources Initiative), Franziska
The Forest Declaration Assessment is a continual
Haupt (Climate Focus), Andrea Johnson (CLUA), Nina
and collaborative process achieved collectively by
Kantcheva (UNDP), David Kroeker-Maus (Rights and
civil society organizations and researchers, known as
Resources Initiative), Erin Matson (Climate Focus),
the Forest Declaration Assessment Partners.
Fara Mihanta (Ministère de l’Environnement et du
Previously the NYDF Progress Assessment, the
Développement Durable – DRC), Daniel Mukubi
Forest Declaration Assessment has since 2015
Kikuni (Government – DRC), Pablo Nuñez (Climate
published annual updates on progress toward
Focus), Mariana Oliveira (World Resources Institute –
global forest goals. All assessment findings undergo
Brazil), Vololoniaina Raharinomenjanahary
a rigorous peer review process conducted by
(Independent consultant), Felana Rakotovao
experts across the globe. To learn more about the
(Rainforest Foundation Norway), Hanitra Lalaina
Forest Declaration Assessment, please visit
Randrianasolo (Ministère de l’Environnement et du
www.forestdeclaration.org/about/assessment.
Développement Durable – DRC), Rantonirina
This report belongs to the public domain. Users are Rakotoaridera (Ministère de l’Environnement et du
Développement Durable – DRC), Sahoby Yvy
welcome to download, save, or distribute this report
electronically or in any other format. A digital copy Randriamahaleo (Ministère de l’Environnement et
du Développement Durable – DRC), Tahiry
of this report, along with previous progress
Fanomezana Rakotomamonjy (Ministère de
assessments, is available at
www.forestdeclaration.org. l’Environnement et du Développement Durable –
DRC), Anna Rynearson (Climate Focus), Deen
Sanders (Deloitte and University of Newcastle),
Acknowledgments Michel Santos (World Wildlife Fund – Brazil), Sandra
Authors Janet Solís Jerónimo (La Comisión Nacional para el
Darragh Conway, Melaina Dyck, Jade Pradines, Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad – Mexico),
Gema Andreo Victoria (Climate Focus) Jennifer Tauli Corpuz (International Indigenous
Forum on Biodiversity and Nia Tero), Theda Vetter
Elisa Scalise (World Resources Institute) (Climate Focus), José Iván Zúñiga (World Resources
Mikaela Bernardino, Patricia Nicdao, Angelika Pizaro, Institute – Mexico)
and Justine Nicole Torres (Parabukas)
Citation
Contributors
Please use the following citation:
KM Reyes (One Tree Planted & Centre for
Sustainability Philippines) Climate Focus and Parabukas.
(2023). Protecting Nature,
Åsa Labba (Focal Point Coordinator for Sami
Respecting Rights: Putting
Traditional Knowledge, Sámediggi)
Indigenous and community rights
Abigail Kitma (Tebtebba) at the heart of National Biodiversity
Strategies and Action Plans. Forest
The authors would like to thank the following Declaration Assessment (publisher)
people for their valuable insights and review: & Climate Focus (coordinator and
editor). Accessible at
Tianome Andriantsalama (Mihaari National
www.forestdeclaration.org.
Network), Andrea Cruz Angón (La Comisión Nacional
para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad –
Mexico), Mary Ann Bayang (United Nations
Development Programme), Manuel Cervera (World
Resources Institute – Mexico), Kevin Currey (Ford
Foundation), (Liliana Lozano Flores (World Wildlife
Fund), Deckas Ganza (Rainforest Foundation
ANNEX 1: RAPID ASSESSMENT
METHODOLOGY
The NBSAPs of 27 countries were included in the rapid assessment. The complete list of countries and
NBSAPs is in Table 1.
The countries were selected because they:
• had a third or recent second version of their NBSAP prior to the GBF
• have extensive forest ecosystems with high biodiversity value
• have a substantial presence of IPs and/or LCs
• represent every populated continent and a range of economic conditions.
In addition, authors of this paper had some preexisting familiarity with the legal landscape surrounding IPs,
LCs, and biodiversity in most of the selected countries.
The NBSAPs were assessed against the twelve indicators listed in Table 2. For each indicator, an NBSAP
received an assessment of yes, no, or unclear. An NBSAP received one point for every yes and no points for
no or unclear. Unclear was assessed when information in the NBSAP could be construed as the NBSAP
meeting a particular indicator, but the text did not provide sufficient information to verify whether the
indicator was met.
Table 1. The 27 NBSAPs reviewed for this assessment

COUNTRY DOCUMENT YEAR
Australia National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (v.3) 2019
Brazil National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (v.3) 2017
Cameroon National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (v.2) 2012
China National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (v.2) 2010
The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (v.3) 2016
Fiji National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (v.2) 2020
India National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (v.3) 2014
Indonesia National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (v.3) 2016
Jamaica National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (v.2) 2016
Jordan National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (v.2) 2015
Kyrgyzstan National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (v.3) 2016
Lao People’s Democratic Republic National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (v.2) 2016
Liberia National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (v.2) 2017
Madagascar National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (v.2) 2016
Mexico National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (v.2) 2016
Nepal National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (v.2) 2014
Papua New Guinea National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (v.2) 2020
The Philippines National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (v.3) 2016
South Africa National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (v.2) 2015
Sri Lanka National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (v.2) 2016
Suriname National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (v.2) 2013
Sweden National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (v.3) 2013
Thailand National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (v.4) 2015
United Republic of Tanzania National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (v.2) 2015
Viet Nam National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (v.3) 2015
Zambia National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (v.2) 2015
Table 2. NBSAP rapid assessment indicators

Indicators to assess NBSAPs and categories of assessment
Consultation in NBSAP development
1. Does the process for developing the NBSAP include public consultation (or other participatory processes)?
2. Are IPs and LCs specifically included in the NBSAP's consultation processes and/or was FPIC followed?
3. Are women IPs and LCs intentionally included in NBSAP public consultation processes?
Securing IPs' and LCs' rights as a conservation strategy in the NBSAP
4. Does the NBSAP include protecting, promoting, or securing IPs' and LCs' tenure and/or rights as a biodiversity conservation
strategy?
5. Does the NBSAP include protecting, promoting, or securing IP&LC women's tenure or recognition of women's rights as a
biodiversity conservation strategy?
Protecting IPs' and LCs' knowledge and intellectual property in the NBSAP
6. Does NBSAP include strategies to recognize Indigenous and traditional knowledge?
7. Does NBSAP include measures to protect IP&LC knowledge and/or intellectual property as a biodiversity conservation
strategy?
Safeguards to proactively monitor impacts on or redress grievances of IPs and LCs related to NBSAP actions
8. Do NBSAPs have safeguards or redress mechanisms for negative impacts on IPs and LCs in NBSAP development or
implementation?
IPs and LCs as NBSAP implementation partners
9. Are IP&LCs included as implementation partners in the NBSAP?
10. Are women IP&LCs specifically included as implementation partners in the NBSAP?
NBSAP monitoring for rights, tenure, and demographic characteristics
11. Are recognizing IPs and LCs' rights or securing tenure listed by the NBSAP as monitoring indicators?
12. Are monitoring data in the NBSAP disaggregated by any demographic categories?

2023 NBSAPs Report 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2023 NBSAPs Report 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2023 NBSAPs Report 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Forest Declaration Assessment Special Report

FOREST DECLARATION ASSESSMENT i

For IPs and LCs

FOREST DECLARATION ASSESSMENT i

PROTECTING NATURE, RESPECTING RIGHTS 1

FOREST DECLARATION ASSESSMENT 2

Consultation with IPs and LCs in NBSAP

PROTECTING NATURE, RESPECTING RIGHTS 3

FOREST DECLARATION ASSESSMENT 4

Limited resources for consultations

PROTECTING NATURE, RESPECTING RIGHTS 5

Missed opportunities to strengthen tenure

FOREST DECLARATION ASSESSMENT 6

Commitments to formalize Indigenous Community Conservation

PROTECTING NATURE, RESPECTING RIGHTS 7

Threats persist in recognized lands

IPs’ and LCs’ rights to traditional knowledge

Mixed progress in protecting traditional knowledge

FOREST DECLARATION ASSESSMENT 8

PROTECTING NATURE, RESPECTING RIGHTS 9

Documenting traditional knowledge

The rights of women IPs and LCs as traditional knowledge holders

NBSAPs have inadequate safeguards to

Absence of clear safeguards

FOREST DECLARATION ASSESSMENT 10

PROTECTING NATURE, RESPECTING RIGHTS 11

Relevance of existing legal safeguards

IPs and LCs are sometimes engaged in the

FOREST DECLARATION ASSESSMENT 12

Engaging IPs and LCs in protected area management

PROTECTING NATURE, RESPECTING RIGHTS 13

IPs and LCs in national-level implementation

Box 1. Sweden: Sami Parliament CBD Focal Point mission

FOREST DECLARATION ASSESSMENT 14

NBSAPs are often insufficiently implemented

• Mexico’s NBSAP includes a recommendation to create a formal monitoring system including

• Australia’s second NBSAP included seven quantitative national targets—including a 25 percent

PROTECTING NATURE, RESPECTING RIGHTS 15

Measuring advances in land tenure

Integrating actions in national plans and policies

FOREST DECLARATION ASSESSMENT 16

Challenges remain in fully engaging IPs and

Some promising signs

Better organization and government openness

• Similarly, in Madagascar, the government is engaging with the MIHARI network—established in

PROTECTING NATURE, RESPECTING RIGHTS 17

FOREST DECLARATION ASSESSMENT 18

PROTECTING NATURE, RESPECTING RIGHTS 19

Donors and partners

• Provide financial resources to developing countries to support extensive NBSAP consultation

FOREST DECLARATION ASSESSMENT 20

IPs and LCs

PROTECTING NATURE, RESPECTING RIGHTS 21

News. https://www.iucn.org/story/202212/rights-indigenous-women-post-2020-biodiversity-framework; Convention on

FOREST DECLARATION ASSESSMENT 22

Mihanta. (2016). NBSAP Madagascar (2016-2025). https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/mg/mg-nbsap-v2-en.pdf.

DEMOCRATIQUE DU CONGO. https://www.droitcongolais.info/files/101.02.06-Constitution-18-fevrier-2006.pdf.

PROTECTING NATURE, RESPECTING RIGHTS 23

Knowledge in Sweden. Sustainability, 13(20), 11195. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011195.