Convenors: Jamie Copsey and Richard Jakob-Hoff
Aim:
To input into the development of one of CPSG’s new strategic areas of work focused on developing tools and processes to support indigenous groups in planning for threatened species that they care about.
Background:
The recent IPBES 2019 report is the latest in a stream of global assessments that present a stark picture for biodiversity and the need for ‘transformative change’ if we are to reverse trends. Human communities worldwide have immense power to influence future change. Indigenous People alone have ownership and use or management rights over more than 38 million km2 (a quarter of the world’s land surface), spread over 87 countries. Two thirds of this land is considered ‘essentially nature’ (Garnett, S.T., Burgess, N.D., Fa, J.E., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Molnár, Z., Robinson, C.J., Watson, J.E., Zander, K.K., Austin, B., Brondizio, E.S. and Collier, N.F., 2018. A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nature Sustainability, 1(7), p.369.), supporting thousands- if not millions- of species, a proportion of which need conservation. Importantly indigenous people are custodians of knowledge and practices built on generations of living in harmony with their environment. Accessing and adding this to western scientific approaches holds the potential to radically enhance conservation planning outcomes.
Indigenous People now have a formally-recognised membership category within IUCN, highlighting a move to endorse their right to play a central role in conservation decision-making. Many organisations exist to promote social inclusion, development and environmental change within these community-based groups. Some organisations (e.g. the Conservation Measures Partnership) have been developing more culturally and socially-relevant planning tools and processes to support such groups (e.g. Healthy Country Planning). We believe there is an opportunity to add a significant new ‘string to the CPSG bow’ by enhancing and promoting species conservation planning processes designed to support indigenous groups to take more of a leading role in threatened species recovery. This ‘new string’ could be developed in partnership with other organisations- including other IUCN Commissions- that have indigenous organisations at their heart. This ‘ground up’ approach will complement our existing support for NGOs, zoos, and governments, enabling us to include new indigenous voices in successful efforts to increase the number of threatened species with effective conservation plans in place.
Process:
The Working Group will be co-facilitated by Jamie Copsey (CPSG Director of Training) and Richard Jakob-Hoff (CPSG Australasia Co-Convenor). We will begin with a short presentation to introduce the topic, providing some fundamental questions to guide working group discussions. This will be followed by a facilitated World Café event in which working sub-groups will brainstorm a set of questions to inform the development of this new strategic arm for CPSG. We will also present some possible scenarios as prompts to get us thinking about what this new area of work for CPSG might ‘look like’.
The session will end with summary presentations back from the working sub-groups and the identification of next steps in the development of this area of work.
Outcomes:
1. Identification of some of the core risks and opportunities of this new strategic direction for CPSG.
Question prompts:
a. To what extent would this new direction fit within our existing mission?
b. To what extent do we think the space is already ‘full’/ is there a need and how would we know?
c. How might this new area of work inform our current practice?
d. Would we risk losing our identity or reconfirming it?
e. How might our supporters view this new direction?
f. Might this limit or expand our funding opportunities and how?
2. Collation of other sources of information on individuals and organisations that are working within this area who could inform or assist its development for CPSG.
Question prompts:
a. What can we learn from the Healthy Country Planning approach and others already established in the field?
b. How different do we think their (and others) processes/ approach are from ours?
c. Why would an indigenous group want to connect with us rather than another organization? What is special that we bring to the table?
d. How might we connect with other IUCN Commissions/ SSC Specialist Groups to develop work in this area?
e. Who else should we ‘connect’ with?
3. Examples of potential ‘case studies’ that could be developed to inform CPSG’s growth in this space.
Question prompts:
a. Opportunities/risks of partnering with an existing provider of planning to indigenous groups?
b. What examples of indigenous groups seeking to conserve threatened species (for cultural, spiritual, harvesting or other needs) are we aware of which we might explore as potential case studies?
Materials:
Watch the recent webinar within the CPSG webinar series on Healthy Country Planning as an example of a planning process designed with and for aboriginal groups in Australia, and now beginning to be used more widely.