INTRODUCTION

COMMUNITY CONSERVED AREAS (CCAs) can be defined as natural and

modified ecosystems with significant biodiversity, ecological and related
cultural values, voluntarily conserved by indigenous peoples and local
communities through customary laws or other effective means. This
encompasses three essential features:
■ one or more communities closely related to the ecosystems and/or species,
because of cultural, livelihood, economic or other ties;
■ community management decisions and efforts lead to the conservation of
habitats, species, ecological benefits and associated cultural values, although
the conscious objective of management may not be conservation per se; and
■ communities are the major players in decision-making and implementing
actions related to ecosystem management, implying that some form of
community authority exists and is capable of enforcing regulations.
COMMUNITY CONSERVED AREAS (CCAs) have burst upon the global
conservation scene in the first few years of the new millennium, and are the
most exciting development since the concept of ‘protected areas’ came into
vogue, over a century back. CCAs, variously called indigenous protected
areas, biocultural heritage sites, community reserves, and various other
names, are not new in practice. The conservation of sites and species by
indigenous peoples and local communities is age-old. But the fact that these
are equivalent in many ways to conventional, government-managed
‘protected areas’, has only recently been recognized. Two events advancing
such recognition were the IUCN World Parks Congress (WPC, Durban 2003)
and the Vllth Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD, Kuala Lumpur 2004). Both of these meetings, attended by thousands of
conservationists from virtually all countries on the planet, endorsed the need
to recognize CCAs as an important phenomenon. The CBD Programme of
Work on Protected Areas has explicitly committed countries to recognize,
support and take other action regarding CCAs by 2008.
Unfortunately, even as this recognition has grown, so too has the realization
that there is precious little documentation of CCAs, that they remain
neglected and discounted in most national conservation policies, and that
they face immense challenges and threats. As the analysis contained in this
issue shows, urgent action is needed to redress this situation.
The actual and potential benefits of CCAs more than justify urgent national
and global action to support them. Such action may well double the current
area of the earth that is under special conservation status (i.e., conventional
‘protected areas’), thereby considerably increasing humanity’s ability to
protect what is left of the planet’s biodiversity. Equally important, such action
could enable a considerable enhancement of the livelihood security of tens of
millions of people, and provide ecological benefits to many more. Never
before have been presented with so clear an opportunity to meet the twin
objectives of ecological and human security that all countries are supposed
to be striving to achieve. CCAs could in fact be a significant force in achieving
the Millennium Development Goals.
This issue presents a general introduction to CCAs followed by a series of
regional assessments of CCAs. No uniform format has been imposed but most
have brought out the current state of knowledge on CCAs, the extent and
numbers of CCAs where known, opportunities and challenges facing CCAs,
and key lessons on which to build future strategies. The size limits of this issue
have required to shed a lot of detail and nuances that would have enriched
their arguments, but the papers do provide an initial glimpse of the richness
and complexity of CCAs.
CCAs are found in both terrestrial and marine areas . In size, they can range
from a tiny forest patch of less than a hectare (e.g. many sacred sites in South
Asia), to several million hectares (e.g. the indigenous protected areas in some
South American countries). They can also be of many kinds, such as the
followings:
■ indigenous peoples’ territories managed for sustainable use, cultural
values, or explicit conservation objectives;
■ territories (terrestrial or marine) over which mobile or nomadic
communities have traditionally roamed, managing the resources through
customary regulations and practices;
■ sacred spaces, ranging from tiny forest groves and wetlands to entire
landscapes and seascapes, often (but not necessarily) left completely or
largely inviolate;
■ resource catchment areas, from which communities derive their livelihoods
or key ecosystem benefits, managed such that these benefits are sustained
over time;
■ nesting or roosting sites, or other critical habitats of wild animals,
conserved for ethical or other reasons explicitly oriented towards protecting
these animals; and
■ landscapes with mosaics of natural and agricultural ecosystems, containing
considerable cultural and biodiversity value, managed by farming
communities or mixed rural-urban communities.