Customary sustainable management practices of IPLCs related to biodiversity can often offer lessons of wider applicability, including for Aichi Target 7. This section includes information on community forest management (see also Targets 5 and 11), shifting cultivation and agroforestry, traditional fire management, and traditional agricultural systems. For examples on traditional management of marine resources see Target 6. In relation to the conservation of forest areas, growing and diverse sources of evidence highlight the positive contributions from community based-forest management:
- CIFOR reports that community forestry is highly effective and that “the worlds’ best-kept forest and ecosystems tend to be in indigenous peoples’ territories.” Analysis of 73 case studies in the tropics found that annual deforestation rates are significantly lower in community-managed forests than in strict protected forests. The findings also underscore that greater rule-making autonomy at the local level is associated with better forest management and livelihood benefits.
- A study on forest loss by the World Bank Independent Evaluation Group comes to similar conclusions about the effectiveness of community-managed forests, in particular forest areas managed and controlled by indigenous peoples.
Shifting cultivation and agroforestry
Many IPLCs across South and Southeast Asia depend directly on shifting cultivation for their livelihoods and food security, but this practice continues to be one of the most misunderstood and controversial forms of land use. What has been overstressed is the destructive “slash and burn” component, whilst in fact overall, traditional systems of rotating cultivation, with fallow periods, can be good for biodiversity, as well as for the food security and sustainable livelihoods of millions of IPLCs. Many IPLCs practice highly sophisticated agro-forestry systems (for an example, see case study “The traditional land use system of the Lua (La-weu) peoples in northern Thailand”). However in many Asian countries, there are policies on land use that consider all shifting cultivation to be destructive, casting it as a major driver of deforestation. These policies are damaging indigenous land use systems and are resulting in food insecurity and the loss of biodiversity and traditional knowledge. In this context, the FAO Regional Office in Asia and the Pacific (FAO-RAP) and the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP) initiated a project on shifting cultivation titled “Regional Support to Indigenous Peoples for Livelihood and Food Security (2014)”. Seven case studies were conducted (in Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Laos, Nepal and Thailand) and the study concluded that shifting cultivation plays a significant role in providing livelihoods and ensuring food security for the indigenous communities; that their lives and cultures are intrinsically linked to shifting cultivation, and that the traditional shifting cultivation fallow cycle of seven to ten years is sustainable and does not lead to deforestation unless restrictions on land use compel farmers to clear new land in forest areas. The findings were presented and discussed in a multi-stakeholder consultation in Chiang Mai, Thailand, with active participation of government, UN agencies, regional NGOs, IPLC organisations and leaders, and local governments. Discussions affirmed that sustainably managed shifting cultivation requires protection and promotion. The consultations raised awareness about the importance of shifting cultivation and fostered collaborations between the different stakeholders involved, building on the principle of equal partnership between states and IPLCs and adherence to the right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). Many of the recommendations highlighted provision of support services for indigenous peoples by governments, with support from FAO, other UN agencies and CSOs, to enhance their livelihoods.
Customary practices and knowledge on fire management
IPLCs around the world use controlled fires to regenerate pastures, fertilise land, shape landscapes and control undesirable insects, plants and animals (see case study “Traditional fire management in Spain”). Many traditional natural commons under the control of specific communities are associated with multiple and wise uses of fire. Restoring and promoting traditional fire management patterns, which are linked to wider governance and management structures, can have significant benefits for biodiversity because they help to prevent large, uncontrolled and destructive fires associated with ineffective fire-fighting models (see Box “Story from the Northern Territory, Australia: Dabboh and smoke money: burning the bush for people and Country” under Target 3). Similarly, a fire learning network has emerged in the USA so that people can re-learn forgotten fire management skills and restore the social and ecological diversity of forest systems. A persistent challenge, however, is that many countries’ budgets prioritise fire-fighting equipment over prevention.
Agricultural heritage systems
An important international initiative that recognises and supports communities and local knowledge systems in agricultural biodiversity is the FAO initiative “Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS)”. This initiative emphasises that, worldwide, specific agricultural systems and landscapes have been created, shaped and maintained by generations of farmers and herders using diverse natural resources and locally adapted management practices, and building on local knowledge and experience. In 2002 FAO started the initiative to safeguard and support these “agri-cultural heritage systems” and to promote public understanding, awareness, and national and international recognition of these systems. Over the past decade, the GIAHS Initiative has designated thirty two sites around the world and has many success stories to share. Currently China has the most GIAHS sites, including various rice culture systems (such as rice-fish culture, Hani rice terraces, Dong’s rice-fish-duck system); Pu’er traditional tea agrosystem; Xuanhua traditional vineyards system; Jiaxian traditional date Gardens; Xinghua Duotian agrosystem, and Fuzhou jasmine and tea culture systems. A second international initiative is a labelling system for “biocultural heritage-based products” (see case study “Exploring a labelling scheme for biocultural heritage-based products”). Several labelling and certification schemes exist for ecological and fair trade products, but as yet there is no such scheme aiming specifically to protect biological and cultural diversity. The aim of this project is to fill this gap and to develop a non-bureaucratic and inexpensive scheme that can easily be used by IPLCs around the world. Concrete initiatives like this hold the potential to promote continued and enhanced sustainable community-based agriculture, forestry and aquaculture while providing a source of income and incentives to sustain these practices.
