BRIEFING NOTE

This report by Natural Justice and Kalpavriksh analyzes the legal and institutional frameworks affecting Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ conserved territories and areas (ICCAs). It identifies systemic threats to these areas, including a lack of legal recognition for customary land rights and the imposition of exclusionary conservation models. While noting positive developments in international law and specific national initiatives, the report argues that state institutions often continue to undermine ICCAs through discriminatory legislation and inaccessible judicial systems. It provides comprehensive recommendations for governments and international bodies to recognize the self-determination of Indigenous peoples and support the integrity of ICCAs through both legal reform and non-legal support mechanisms.

• ICCAs are threatened by three main categories of external pressures: global systemic environmental pressures (such as climate change and habitat loss), direct pressures from industrial extraction and exclusionary conservation frameworks, and a widespread lack of effective legal recognition of inherent rights to self-determination, customary laws, and territories.
• International law contains a broad spectrum of provisions supporting the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities across biodiversity, climate change, and human rights instruments, though these laws often remain fragmented and disconnected from one another.
• National legal systems often discriminate against Indigenous peoples and local communities by excluding them from the drafting of legislation, failing to implement supportive laws, and maintaining judicial barriers such as a lack of legal standing for collective rights.
• A fundamental obstacle to the integrity of ICCAs is the lack of legal recognition for customary land rights, particularly in Africa and South Asia, where states often claim ownership of all unregistered lands, leaving communities vulnerable to dispossession.
• Many states maintain laws that grant the government sovereignty over sub-soil resources, which allows for mining and extraction on Indigenous lands without the consent of the communities, effectively disabling other rights to territorial integrity.
• State-managed protected areas often overlap with ICCAs and can undermine them by prohibiting traditional resource use, ignoring traditional knowledge, and failing to involve local communities in governance.
• There are positive national examples of recognizing Indigenous stewardship, such as Australia's Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs), Namibia's Communal Conservancies, and Bolivia's Original Indigenous Peasant Territories (TIOCs).
• Non-legal recognition and support for ICCAs—including administrative recognition, financial aid, and social awards—are increasing but remain inadequate and often fail to prioritize community-defined needs.
• The report recommends that governments shift toward legislating for integrated socio-ecological systems, respecting the right to self-determination, and creating enabling environments for the self-designation and self-definition of ICCAs.

APA

Natural Justice (n.d.). BRIEFING NOTE. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/International-Law-and-Jurisprudence-English.pdf

Chicago

Natural Justice. BRIEFING NOTE. n.d. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/International-Law-and-Jurisprudence-English.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Natural Justice |title=BRIEFING NOTE |url=https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/International-Law-and-Jurisprudence-English.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{naturaljusticendbriefing, author = {{Natural Justice}}, title = {{BRIEFING NOTE}}, institution = {Natural Justice}, url = {https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/International-Law-and-Jurisprudence-English.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }