First published on 10/11/2014, and last updated on 03/11/2018
By: Holly Jonas, ICCA Consortium International Policy Assistant and Natural Justice (member)
From 4-5 July 2014, a small group of staff and members of the ICCA Consortium convened in Gland, Switzerland, for a focused meeting on three complementary initiatives and movements: a) the Community Conservation Resilience Initiative (CCRI), b) the ICCA Consortium, and c) the Global ICCA Support Initiative under the Global Environment Facility Small Grants Programme (GEF-SGP). The meeting sought to establish a common understanding of the visions, processes and plans of these three initiatives; identify GEF-SGP initiatives that can support ICCAs in a variety of contexts; develop visions and approaches for international advocacy on ICCAs; and identify and discuss strategic objectives and broad recommendations for international law and policy processes remaining in 2014.
The first day included introductory presentations by Terence Hay-Edie (on the Global ICCA Support Initiative), Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend (on the ICCA Consortium’s 2014-2017 Vision and Plan), and Simone Lovera (on the CRRI). These were followed by a plenary discussion on assessment methodologies and break-out group discussions on good practices and suggestions for the three Work Packages of the Global Support Initiative.
The second day focused on developing strategies for engagement in international law and policy processes, including in the fields of human rights, conservation, and sustainable development. The Consortium’s goal in engaging with international processes is to create an enabling environment for ICCAs. Each international process has its own pros and cons, for example, in terms of organisational structures and cultures, procedures for community and civil society engagement, opportunities for influencing existing or new standards and implementation, and so on. The Consortium needs to promote a broader understanding of ICCAs as a model or tool for thriving ecosystems, peoples, and sustainable livelihoods. Many Consortium members are already involved in international processes and are encouraged to invest time and energy in advocating support for ICCAs as well.
Key points and suggested next steps included:
- Be more strategic with the Consortium’s international engagement (e.g. identify 2-3 leads to track and attend each international process over time); if there are already many participants, the Consortium should support a specific liaison person to coordinate campaigns, reporting, and so on
- Take an integrated approach, including across the types and levels of law and policy, throughout the ‘cycle’ of each process (e.g. intersessionals as well as conferences of the parties), and through multiple forms of engagement (e.g. joint submissions, briefing papers, negotiations, events, online)
- Ensure a feedback loop of community experiences being shared at the international level, and outcomes shared with the communities
- Use different narratives and messages to highlight aspects of ICCAs in each policy context (e.g. Aichi Targets in the CBD, food sovereignty in FAO)
- Develop an effective process for planning, coordination and communication within the Consortium and with other movements and networks
- Need more human resources engaging in international processes; could be built into budgets and work plans for regional or policy coordinators
- Establish a flexible Consortium working group on law and policy, with point people (or small groups) to lead in different categories
| Developing the ICCA Consortium’s International Advocacy Strategies:
¨What do we want to achieve overall in international law and policy 5, 10 and 20 years from now? ¨What do we want to achieve in specific categories of international law and policy (e.g. Indigenous peoples’ rights, environment, sustainable development, business and human rights, and general human rights) 5, 10 and 20 years from now? ¨What do we want to achieve in specific fora and mechanisms such as the UNFCCC and Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues? ¨What are the pros and cons of different approaches (e.g. focusing primarily on conservation benefits of ICCAs vs. primarily on the importance of securing human rights)? ¨How can these different approaches be used strategically in different fora to fulfil the overall objectives? ¨Are there any fora or processes with which the Consortium should not engage (e.g. on the basis of principle or incompatible aims)? |
