Policy Brief
Securing Indigenous and Community Lands as Key to Solving Global
Problems of Human Rights, Climate Change, and Conflicts
I.
Massive Opportunity
At a time when climate change is of great global concern and poverty reduction is an
international priority, growing pressures on land and natural resources from governments,
the private sector, and entities interested in preserving natural resources, threaten the
economic, social, and cultural wellbeing of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
These groups are the customary owners and proven stewards of large areas of the world’s
forests and drylands. Threats to the rights of these communities also places undue risk on
the very ecosystems that must be preserved to mitigate climate change and provide global
environmental benefits.
While statutory recognition of indigenous and community lands has historically been
limited, the extent of customary claims to land, the low cost of recognition, and the tangible
social and environmental benefits associated with community ownership of resources,
means that vastly increasing the extent of statutorily recognized land and forests is an
underutilized tool in achieving sustainable development and environmental goals,
including climate change mitigation. Further, the evolving set of entities impacting the land
and forest tenure rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, find themselves
united by the central theme that secure land and forest tenure is a necessity for achieving
multiple goals. These include profitability and risk mitigation, i cost-effective conservation,ii
and carbon sequestration.iii Never have so many stakeholders been aligned, nor so much
capital been in play, with the unprecedented opportunity to immediately secure the
essential rights and livelihoods of some of the world’s poorest and most marginalized
citizens, while simultaneously achieving global climate and environmental goals.
II.
Recognition of Rights Today
A great deal of progress has already been made. After years of struggle, Indigenous Peoples
and local communities have won significant victories, which have been enshrined in
international policies like ILO Convention 169, the United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and widespread endorsement of the Voluntary
Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries, and Forests
(VGGT). At the national level, victories have been reflected in the creation and
implementation of legislation and policy that enable the devolution of rights to land and
forests from governments to communities. For example, between 2002 and 2013, 125
million hectares of forest land in lower and middle income countries (LMICs) was
recognized as either owned or managed by Indigenous Peoples and local communities.iv
This represents an increase of just over 35 percent in the forest area officially recognized
as being owned or administered by Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Though in
its early stages, a global examination of the extent of community rights across all land
types, including forests, indicates that nearly 10 percent of land is either owned or
designated for Indigenous Peoples.v
Figure 1: Change in statutory forest land tenure, LMICs, 2002 – 2013, by percent
Even with this positive change, governments still claim control of the vast majority, at least
61 percent, of the developing world’s forests (73 percent of the world’s forests).vi Often,
progressive legislation and policy exists on paper, but is not implemented or enforced. In
fact, creation of new legislation recognizing community rights to forests declined from
2008 to 2013, as compared to the period 2002 to 2007.vii Further, none of the frameworks
created since 2008 confer ownership to Indigenous Peoples or communities. These results
reflect the larger reality that the amount of land that Indigenous Peoples and local
communities customarily use and claim is much larger than that which is statutorily
recognized by governments. The implication is that the ownership of rural lands and
forests is contested between customary and statutory owners. By some estimates,
contestation is truly extensive, encompassing more than 50 percent of the world’s rural,
forest and dryland areas, and impacting over two billion people.viii
III.
Demonstrated Benefits
Yet, rigorous research emerging over the last decade makes it clear that even partial
recognition of the land and forest customarily claimed by Indigenous Peoples and local
communities has delivered major, tangible benefits to the world. Where local rights are
recognized, their territories and community-managed forests outperform public protected
areas in preventing deforestation and ensuring conservation. The recognition of rights has
also played a key role in saving and strengthening the unique cultures of many Indigenous
Peoples and communities. This is not only worthy of celebration in its own right, but also
central to achieving any sound definition of development. In the same vein, clear property
rights for local people have greatly boosted the capacity of countries to achieve nationallevel forest restoration. These communities have also proven more effective than statecontrolled forests in sequestering carbon.ix
For example, Indigenous Peoples and local communities currently have governmentrecognized rights to around one-eighth of the world’s forests, an area which houses over
37.7 billion tons of carbon.x This is equivalent to 29 times the annual emissions from all
passenger vehicles in the world. Increased legal recognition of community tenure enhances
carbon storage benefits by enabling communities to exclude loggers, extractive companies,
and settlers from illegally destroying their forests and releasing carbon into the
atmosphere. In Brazil alone, it is believed that strong community forest rights could
prevent 27.2 Mha of deforestation by 2050, equal to three years’ worth of emissions from
all Latin American and Caribbean countries.xi
Figure 2: Carbon storage in forests owned and administered by Indigenous Peoples and Local
Communities
Additionally, stronger community land rights reduce civil unrest and even violent conflict
around the world.xii A report by UNDP found that “insecurity of ownership, mismatches
between state and indigenous forms of ownership, and unequal distribution of ownership
are frequent sources of conflict and poor environmental decisions.”xiii Figure 3 is a
graphical representation of the relationship between the unequal distribution of forest
ownership in 21 LMICsxiv and the risk that a state will experience internal conflict.xv As the
chart indicates, it is clear that many of the most conflict prone regions of the world also
coincide with a preponderance of state ownership of resources, with little devolution of
ownership over the past decade. It also indicates that in states where government claims of
forest ownership have declined there is also a corresponding decrease in the risk of
internal strife.
Figure 3: Correlation between change in government tenure of forests and change in the risk
of conflict
Indigenous Peoples and local communities have effectively protected their environment for
thousands of years with little or no outside financial incentive, and limited government
recognition. Research indicates that forests under community ownership have better
ecological outcomes, when measured by forest cover, than state-managed forests.xvi It
comes as no surprise then that around 85 percent of the areas designated for biodiversity
conservation globally coincide with territories occupied or controlled by Indigenous
Peoples. Stronger rights to land and forests increase communities’ sense of security, and
increase the incentives to conserve.xvii
Finally, recognition of the land and territorial rights of Indigenous Peoples and customary
communities is a human right. The provision of more robust rights to land and natural
resources means that Indigenous Peoples and local communities can more fully enjoy the
basic human rights that are inherent and intrinsic to every person. This is particularly
important as these groups are often among the most marginalized on the planet. Some 370
million Indigenous Peoples make up only five percent of the world’s population, but
account for nearly 15 percent of the world’s 900 million poorest people.xviii
IV.
Securing Communal Land Tenure is Feasible and Inexpensive
Historically, coordinated efforts to secure the rights of Indigenous Peoples and
communities to land and forests globally have been hampered by insufficient technology
and lack of experience. However, this is no longer the case. New technology, including
drones, satellites, and simple GPS systems accessible through mobile phones has
dramatically reduced the cost of mapping large territories.xix Large scale land and forest
reform processes, including in Brazil and China,xx offer valuable examples for application in
other states. The feasibility of securing at scale the rights of Indigenous Peoples and
communities is reflected in new research reviewing findings from literature to assess the
costs of securing communal land. It indicates that costs range from less than US$0.05 per
hectare to US$9.96 per hectare, averaging US$3.68 per hectare.xxi Estimates are also
provided for other administrative units, including communes, villages and communities.
Figure 4: Costs of securing communal land tenure rights
Unit
Cost
per Average Cost per Sample Size (n)
Unit (US$)
Unit (US$)
Hectaresa
.05 to 9.96i
Communeb
Communityc
Villaged
1,900
3,000
1,596
10,000
to
to
400 to 3,185
3.78
10
2,450
2
5,270
10
1,145
4
Countries
Included
Bolivia,
Mozambique,
Ecuador, China
Cambodia,
Vietnam
Mozambique,
Liberia
Tanzania,
Lao
PDR, Cambodia
* Information was available in multiple formats and units. Thus, cost estimates represent the range of components
related to securing communal land rights, from delimitation to formal land use planning and registration per unit
of classification.
i. Removed outlier estimate of <US$ 0.01.
a. Includes estimates from Bolivia, Mozambique, Ecuador, and China.
b. Source material examines communes in Cambodia and Vietnam. The commune administrative unit is composed
of multiple villages. In Vietnam, 10,745 communes comprise 648 districts, and 64 provinces.
c. Estimates for securing community land in Mozambique. One community may represent between 1,000 and
20,000 hectares, and several thousand rural people.
d. Estimates for securing village land in Tanzania, Lao PDR, and Cambodia.
Application of these estimates to real world cases yields striking results. For example, there
are 168,772 villages with forests as land-use in India.xxii Based on the findings in Figure 4,
funding in the range of US$67.5 million to US$537 million could secure the rights of some
88 million tribal peoples. The Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN)
recently declared their intention to map 30 million hectares of community forests in
Indonesia over the next 7 years.xxiii Based on these same findings, it may cost around
US$110.4 million to secure community rights to their forests. In Brazil, it could cost in the
range of roughly US$3.9 million to US$25.0 million to secure the collective land titles of the
estimated 2,500 quilombola communities in the country.xxiv
These figures stand in stark contrast to the cost of the types of projects that negatively
impact the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. For example, the
construction of the controversial Myitsone Dam in Myanmar, which was suspended in
2011, was estimated to require over US$3.6 billion to construct.xxv In Cameroon,
development of the Mbalam-Nabeba iron ore deposit in the forested south is estimated to
require over US$4.6 billion.xxvi
Compare also to the 2014/2015 budget of the United Nations at US$5.5 billion.xxvii It is
generally agreed that clear and secure Indigenous and community forest tenure is a
prerequisite to the success of REDD+ (an international program that aims to reduce
emissions from deforestation and forest degradation as well as promote the conservation
and sustainable management of forests) and for equitable benefit sharing and avoidance of
a global “carbon grab”.xxviii Since 2008, a combined US$1.64 billion has been committed to
prepare participating countries to implement REDD+,xxix and some studies have estimated
annual funding requirements for REDD+ to be as high as the tens of billions of dollars.xxx
How does one price community land rights recognition?
This exercise, first undertaken in the 2009 RRI analysis Securing Tenure Rights and Reducing
Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD): Costs and Lessons Learned,xxxi was expanded
upon by the consulting firm, Indufor, in the 2014 study Analysis on the Costs of Securing Communal
Land Rights: New Technologies and Approaches Offer Potential for Scaling Up.xxxii Indufor’s analysis
goes beyond the findings of existing reports to include comparative studies and consultation with
land tenure experts to reveal the relatively low level of funding actually required to increase tenure
security in a sample set of developing countries.xxxiii
The “cost” is determined taking into account the whole of the communal land rights recognition
process, generally comprised of a preparatory assessment, community and stakeholder
engagement, recording of claims and governance rules, demarcation by state technical staff and
registration, titling, and administration. These discrete steps require differing amounts of time and
effort, and may be accomplished separately or all at once. As a result, it is necessary to disaggregate
the commonly deployed technologies and concrete actions under each phase of the process, and
estimate costs by factoring in staff time, material and logistics.
At the same time, published information on the cost of securing communal land rights is limited.
When available, cases might only be concerned with a particular step in the process of securing
rights, as opposed to the entire process. Therefore, costs are presented in a range. The low end of
the range represent cases that present the initial steps associated with securing communal rights,
typically demarcation or delimitation. The upper end of the range consists of cases that provide
information on the more complete process of securing communal rights, for example, the cost of
participatory land-use planning and registration. Cases also differ across the unit of analysis. Some
cases examined provided the process of mapping, and provided information in terms of cost per
hectare. Others examined registration of a communal unit, and presented information in terms of
cost per village, community, or commune. Variance is necessarily present as the ranges of costs and
units represent multiple country contexts and methodologies.
V.
Scaling up
Expanding the area under secure indigenous and community tenure is increasingly feasible
and beneficial. A quick calculation proves illustrative. New research indicates that at least
870 million hectares of land globally has been recognized by governments as either
designated or owned by communities.xxxiv This limited recognition has already benefitted
an estimated 688 million rural peoples.xxxv Based on average cost per hectare estimates in
Figure 4, tripling this area would cost around US$6.50 billion, benefitting up to 2.07 billion
rural peoples. Similarly, almost 513 million hectares of forest land globally has been
recognized as owned or designated for Indigenous Peoples and local communities.xxxvi
These forests are already benefitting up to 374 million rural peoples and storing 37.5
billion tons of carbon. Given improved technology, expanding statutory recognition of
community forestland globally by a factor of two may cost only around US$1.9 billion,
impacting up to 748 million rural peoples and accounting for 75 billion tons of carbon.
VI.
Priority Steps
To take advantage of alignment in the demand for clear and secure community tenure to
rural land, a three pronged approach is required. This strategy includes: 1) continuing and
scaling up support to communities, 2) direct engagement with forward looking companies
and suppliers of capital, and 3) increasing investment in implementing tenure reform
projects. There are important initiatives already underway in each category.
Support to communities should be continued and expanded. Better technology and the sum
of lessons learned have not only reduced the cost of securing communal lands, but also
increased the capacity of Indigenous Peoples and community groups for advocacy and to
implement projects. Using inexpensive Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and other devices
to map their land with great precision, communities and their partners are able to clarify
and delineate their lands. One example of such collaboration between is the recent map of
overlapping land claims in the Pacific Basin.xxxvii This project, coordinated by the Instituto
del Bien Común with assistance from 13 civil society organizations from Colombia,
Ecuador, Panama, and Peru, illustrates the forest areas owned or controlled by Indigenous
Peoples and local communities (roughly 41 percent of the Basin) that are overrun by largescale land projects and government controlled protected areas.
Second, forward looking companies and suppliers of capital must be engaged to update
operational policies, to increase transparency in their supply chains and portfolios, and
provide support for clarifying local and indigenous tenure. One example is the Interlaken
Group, composed of companies including Nestlé, Coca Cola, and Unilever, among others, as
well as representatives from civil society and indigenous groups, and committed to
expanding and leveraging private sector action in securing community land rights. The
Group is currently drafting a set of guidelines which operationalize the VGGT for
companies. Another initiative is the Behind the Brands campaign, led by Oxfam. By scoring
the supply chains of the world’s largest food and beverage companies according to a
number of sustainability indicators, including rights and access to land, Oxfam engendered
a 'race to the top' of company performance, yielding a number of new company
commitments to policy development.
Third, the capital invested in implementing tenure reform projects must be increased. One
such tool is the International Land and Forest Tenure Facility (the Facility), and it is being
developed to respond to the growing demand for secure tenure from Indigenous Peoples
and local communities, governments, the private sector, and the conservation and climate
communities alike. The Facility is structured as a unique public-private-civil society
partnership to provide the capital and technical expertise to support securing community
lands at scale. It will also serve as a leading international platform through which
Indigenous Peoples and communities, governments, public and private sector institutions
can raise and coordinate commitments and develop shared strategies to recognize and
strengthen collective land and territorial rights in rural, forest, and dryland areas.
independent organization will depend on an advisory body consisting of representatives
from all stakeholders, including indigenous and community groups, multilateral
institutions, private sector entities, and civil society. The Facility will initiate a first set of
pilot projects in early 2015, with the goal of being fully operational by 2016.
VII.
Conclusion
The world is faced with an unprecedented opportunity to secure the rights of millions of its
most marginalized citizens, and research shows that securing their rights to the land and
forests on which they depend yields multiple benefits. The extent of customarily claimed
land and forests is larger than estimated historically, and it is feasible to secure them at
scale. Compared to the cost of the extractive projects which negatively impact the rights of
Indigenous Peoples and communities, the cost of securing the communal rights of millions
is miniscule. These costs are reasonable even when compared to the scale of funds already
committed to preparing countries for REDD+, for which secure tenure is regarded as a
prerequisite for success.
Indeed, securing the rights of Indigenous Peoples and communities to land and forests
achieves many the same intended climate outcomes, in addition to the additional proven
social and environmental benefits recognizing rights brings. As the entities influencing land
and the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities continue to evolve in terms of
global scope, financial investment, and a confluence of interested parties, there is a unique
opportunity to create new allies and sources of funding to boost incentives to secure land
rights for some of the world’s most marginalized populations and deliver on a major tenet
of global sustainable development for a fraction of the cost. The world must capitalize on
this unique opportunity before it is erased by more powerful actors in a global quest for
food, fuel, water, and fiber.
The Munden Project. 2012. The Financial Risks of Insecure Tenure: An Investment View.
IUCN.
iii RRI. 2012. Status of Forest Carbon Rights and Implications for Communities, the Carbon Trade, and REDD+ Investments.
iv RRI. 2014. What Future for Reform? Progress and slowdown in forest tenure reform since 2002.
v RRI. Global Baseline Study. Forthcoming.
vi RRI. 2014. What Future for Reform? Progress and slowdown in forest tenure reform since 2002.
vii RRI. 2014. What Future for Reform? Progress and slowdown in forest tenure reform since 2002.
viii Liz Alden Wiley. 2011. The Tragedy of Public Lands.
ix RRI. 2012. Respecting Rights, Delivering Development: Forest Tenure Reform Since Rio 1992.
x RRI. 2014. What Future for Reform? Progress and slowdown in forest tenure reform since 2002.
xi WRI/RRI. 2014. Securing Rights, Combating Climate Change.
xii IFAD. 2008. Improving Access to Land and Tenure Security.
xiii UNDP/UNEP/World Bank/WRI. 2003. World Resources 2002-2004. Decisions for the Earth: Balance, voice, and power.
xiv Represented by the absolute change in the proportion of government administered forests in 21 LMICs between 2002 and 2013 in RRI.
2014. What Future for Reform? Progress and slowdown in forest tenure reform since 2002.
xv Represented by change in the Fragile States Index (FSI) between 2005 and 2013. The FSI is composed of 12 social, economic and
political indicators, and include such elements as large-scale involuntary dislocation of the population, group-based inequality and
environmental decay in Fragile States Index. 2013. The Fund for Peace.
xvi Lawry, S., McLain, R. et al. 2012. Devolution of Forest Rights and Sustainable Forest Management, Vol. 1: A Review of Policies and
Programs in 16 Developing Countries and Vol. 2: Case Studies. United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
xvii RRI. 2012. What Rights? A Comparative Analysis of Developing Countries’ National Legislation on Community and Indigenous Peoples
Forest Tenure Rights.
xviii United Nations. 2010. State of the World’s Indigenous People.
xix Cite Map My Rights
xx Cite RRI literature on land reform in Brazil China
xxi INDUFOR. 2014. Analysis on the Costs of Securing Communal Land Rights: New Technologies and Approaches Offer Potential for
Scaling up.
xxii SOURCE.
xxiii Parker, Diana. 2013. Indonesia group vows to map 30 million hectares of customary forest in 7 years. Mongabay.com. Accessed
September 9, 2014.
xxiv Portal do Governo Brasileiro. 2014. Incra reconhece terras de comunidades quilombolas em três estados. Accessed September 9,
2014.
xxv Reuters. September 30, 2011. Factbox: Myanmar suspends controversial Myitsone Dam.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/30/us-myanmar-dam-factbox-idUSTRE78T15S20110930
xxvi Reuters. August 30, 2013. Sundance sees troubled African iron ore project online by 2018.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/30/us-sundance-project-idUSBRE97T06420130830
xxvii Reuters. December 13, 2014. U.N. General Assembly approves $5.5 billion budget for 2014/2015.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/27/us-un-budget-idUSBRE9BQ0JX20131227
xxviii RRI. 2012. Status of Forest Carbon Rights and Implications for Communities, the Carbon Trade, and REDD+ Investments.
xxix Includes commitments to REDD+, the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), and the Forest Investment Program (FIP).
xxx USAID. 2013. Emerging Compliance Markets for REDD +: An Assessment of Supply and Demand. Citing IWG- IFR. 2009. Discussion
document.
i
ii
Hatcher, J. (2009). Securing Tenure Rights and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation
(REDD): Costs and Lessons Learned. Social Development Papers: Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Paper
No. 120 / December 2009. Washington, DC: World Bank.
xxxii Analysis on the Costs of Securing Communal Land Rights: New Technologies and Approaches Offer Potential
for Scaling Up. Indufor. June 2014.
xxxi
Bolivia, Brazil, Cambodia, China, Ecuador, Lao PDR, Liberia, Mozambique, Tanzania, and
Vietnam
xxxiii
RRI. Forthcoming. Global Baseline Study.
Based on estimates of rural population in Wiley. 2011.
xxxvi RRI. 2014. What Future for Reform: Progress and slowdown in forest tenure reform since 2002.
xxxvii http://www.rightsandresources.org/documents/files/doc_6601.pdf Accessed September 10, 2014.
xxxiv
xxxv