Indigenous protected areas and ICCAs: Commonalities, contrasts and confusions

Abstract

Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) in Australia and ICCAs (an acronym derived from ‘Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas’, originally used to summarize ‘Indigenous peoples’ protected areas, Indigenous peoples’ conserved territories and community conserved areas’) internationally are both area-based designations that provide contemporary expressions of the ancient and ongoing relationships between Indigenous peoples (and also non-Indigenous local communities in the case of ICCAs) and their local environments – with a particular emphasis on conservation outcomes. This paper explores commonalities and contrasts between IPAs and ICCAs, seeking to clarify their meanings and applications, and also to contribute to debate on the concepts of ‘conserved areas’ and ‘protected areas’ within the IUCN conservation lexicon. The paper describes the evolution of the IPA concept from being based on Indigenous legal ownership (tenure) of land to being based on Indigenous ‘Country’ (traditional clan estates), irrespective of current legal ownership. This is contrasted with the evolution of the ICCA concept that currently only applies to Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ territories and areas where major decision-making authority has been retained by the respective Indigenous peoples or local communities. Proposals are made to clarify the use of the terms ‘protected area’ and ‘conserved area’, particularly in the context of respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities to assign their own designations to their respective territories and areas.