1

Executive Summary, WWF response to Survival International Charitable Trust Specific

Instance lodged with Swiss National Contact Point of the OECD

WWF is deeply and demonstrably committed to respecting and promoting internationally

accepted human rights standards in its conservation work. Principles evolved from many years

of direct work with indigenous peoples assisted WWF to respond to the evolving indigenous

rights framework by taking a pioneering role in the development of specific and sympathetic

policy on indigenous peoples and conservation for WWF itself and the conservation sector

generally.

WWF is fully committed to ensuring that nature conservation activities have positive impacts for

Indigenous Peoples and local communities and we are working continuously to ensure that

WWF respects rights and encourages other actors to do so. In practice, WWF works in a wide

diversity of settings, including some where there is limited official recognition and respect for

indigenous rights, or where extreme marginalisation and difficult demographics or politics

present particular challenges. An outline of WWF’s actions and current initiatives under its

indigenous policies and commitments was recently provided to the UN Special Rapporteur on

the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These include complementing existing fraud prevention and

complaints mechanisms with a Project Complaints Resolution Process, finalising guidelines on

Prevention of Restrictions of Rights and Involuntary Relocation and Resettlement of Indigenous

Peoples, Tribal and Local Communities (RRR guidelines) and applying social safeguard

requirements as a Global Environment Fund agency.

WWF notes that the Specific Instance is poorly informed on the nature, establishment and

operation of the two multi-agency Jengi projects in southeast Cameroon, and on the extensive

consultations undertaken prior to any project related zonings and still continuing with local

communities, with specific and where appropriate exclusive emphasis on the Baka population.

The Specific Instance takes little account of the considerable and special challenges facing

recognition of indigenous rights and implementation of the international indigenous rights

agenda in southeast Cameroon. WWF acknowledges the realities of Baka discrimination,

disadvantage and abuse, but regrets that Survival International has to date shown little

inclination to collaborate with WWF and other agencies in addressing these and other issues on

the ground, even just to the extent of providing valid and sufficient information to enable WWF

and other agencies to address specific allegations.

Survival’s lack of presence, experience and consequent understanding of the complex

challenges and realities on the ground coupled with their reliance on third party information and

hearsay has made it nearly impossible for our Cameroon staff to effectively engage with them in

finding long term solutions in country. WWF remains concerned that Survival is unaware or

unconcerned over the possible impacts of its campaigning on the delicate political and

demographic situations faced by the Baka, or how the campaign might affect the funding and

implementation of initiatives to assert Baka rights and counter Baka marginalisation.

2

There is little recognition of customary land ownership for rural residents of Cameroon

generally. This is compounded for Baka by Baka marginalisation in relation to more dominant

populations, institutions and power structures. Even where some recognition and implicit rights

can be extended to indigenous peoples, there can still be pronounced reluctance or active

opposition towards proposals for positive discrimination on behalf of more marginalised groups.

Other circumstances specific to the sensitive border areas of southeast Cameroon were a

marked increase in weapons trafficking and availability from around 2009, linked to better armed

and more organised criminal activity including poaching, heightened tensions and incoming

refugee flows related to the insurgency in directly adjacent areas of the Central African

Republic, and a pronounced militarisation of the area over an extended period. It is therefore

not surprising that the great majority of incidents raised in the specific instance occurred in the

period 2009-2013. The increased instability and militarisation, combined with after effects of the

2007-2009 global financial crisis meant that WWF was from 2010 the only remaining

international partner of the agencies originally involved in the Jengi project. WWF would

contend however that despite these challenges, much has been achieved and is in the process

of being achieved in lifting recognition of the Baka and advancing respect for their rights.

Consultation and access

Planning and implementation of the Jengi projects was accompanied by consultations that were

both extensive and unprecedented for the place and time. These processes, which extended

over five years and far surpassed formal requirements of a 30 day notice period, were

extensively documented. The Specific Instance does not note that the Jengi projects had

specific socio-economic objectives, that they proposed much more than the simple creation of

protected areas, or that the consultative processes in most respects fulfilled the still being

outlined requirements of Free, Prior, Informed Consent. These consultations resulted in

significant amendments that created additional community areas and privileges, including within

National Parks. Forestry and safari hunting concessions were also reduced in the area, and for

the first time concession holders were required to make direct financial community contributions.

Mechanisms to distribute such contributions included deliberate provisions to broaden

community decision making processes, most particularly through requirements to include Baka

and women of all subgroups.

There are intrinsic difficulties however, ensuring indigenous participation is sufficient in some

consultative contexts, particularly around formal administrative processes operating through

traditional authority structures in mixed communities. This is acknowledged, and is part of the

impetus for continued negotiations often with specifically Baka participants and communities.

The Specific Instance selectively mines some of this material without reference to any context

that it represented a very concrete effort on behalf of WWF to addressing issues of Baka

marginalisation.

3

Currently, WWF, in partnership with local NGOs, is facilitating direct agreements between Baka

communities and forest managers on respective rights and responsibilities, respect for Baka

culture and traditions and joint participation in forest and protected area management. Similar

outcomes are flowing from WWF efforts to have forestry concessionaires commit to Forest

Stewardship Council certification that mandates FPIC standard consultations and respect for

indigenous rights. WWF also played a key role in the issue (2014) of Cameroon’s first FPIC

requirements. WWF’s efforts to prevail on the Government of Cameroon to formalise and

extend FPIC were recently commended by the UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Issues as

an example of “best practice” by international environmental NGOs.

The full picture of livelihood impacts of the aggregate Jengi project rezonings is considerably

more complex than as portrayed by SI. With respect to protected areas it is activities - for

instance hunting of protected species, or the use of firearms and snares - that are proscribed to

greater degrees than access. Indeed, some special areas within protected areas have been

specifically secured for subsistence or seasonal activities and other community use zones have

been opened up. Problematic access or denial of access to various zonings can occur for

reasons that can sometimes be obscure and enforced by diverse officials and custodians

including the military, the police, the gendarmerie, ecoguards, agents of concession holders or

members of neighbouring communities. Baka enjoy privileged access in some circumstances,

which can be a source of controversy in other communities. Other important factors include

likely loss of access where unprotected forest cover is lost or degraded, increasing pressure on

forest resources from population increase and other groups moving into traditionally Baka

areas, and Baka not receiving an equitable share of the benefits or returns to mixed

communities from natural resource utilisation.

Ecoguards’ operations Aware that Baka are subject to much discrimination and abuse which can cover most facets of

their lives, including interactions with ecoguards and other law enforcement personnel, WWF

has since 2006 facilitated the provision of human rights training to ecoguards. It has also urged

and facilitated the employment of Baka ecoguards and is currently engaged in support for a

ministry review of ecoguard conduct, supporting use of traditional community sanctions and

exploring possibilities of community and collaborative policing.

WWF has systems in place for the reporting and investigation of misconduct by its own

employees, but there are not systems for the notification and investigation of reported incidents

of abuse by Cameroon officials. WWF does attempt to verify credible allegations of instances of

abuse coming to its attention, and has taken up instances of verified abuse with authorities and

has made officials up to ministerial level clearly aware that WWF is not prepared to tolerate

abusive ecoguard behaviour to Baka or other local communities. At least one such intervention

seems to have played a significant role in improved behaviour. WWF is also aware of and

encourages a variety of informal mechanisms that limit application of the letter of the law in

respect of subsistence activities by local communities, including Baka.

4

Both WWF and the Cameroon National Human Rights and Freedom Commission (HRFC) have

raised with SI the difficulty of investigation of alleged incidents when critical information is

absent or withheld. Broader contextual, temporal and spatial analysis of the allegations raised

by SI shows that most (76 per cent) occurred in the 2009 to 2013 period of militarisation, the

majority appear to have involved the participation of military and enforcement personnel as well

as ecoguards, and the majority occurred in proximity to the two military bases in the area. WWF

accepts that while the possibility of ecoguard abuse does not currently seem to be a high priority

issue for most Baka communities there is clearly more to be done in respect of more

sympathetic enforcement and robust systems for deterring, detecting and acting on

inappropriate behaviour.

Engagement with Survival International

It is WWF's policy to always seek dialogue and engagement with all relevant stakeholders.

Accordingly, WWF has reached out to SI repeatedly in relation to the possibility of supportive or

collaborative action to further the interests of Baka, and to verify or support the investigation of

allegations of abuse. WWF has also reached out to other parties and local grass-roots civil

society organisations - the Cameroon National Human Rights and Freedom Commission and

the Ministry in charge of forests and wildlife (MinFoF) - to support submissions or requests for

documentation from SI. To date little has come of the overtures to or on behalf of Survival

International, but WWF has a strong record of working with international and local partners in

the region and remains open to collaboration with any interested and committed party. If the

NCP determines that the Specific Instance lies within its jurisdiction, WWF would welcome its

good offices in seeking to bring the parties together to seek constructive ways forward.

5

WWF International response to Survival International Charitable

Trust Specific Instance lodged with Swiss National Contact Point

of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

WWF and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises

WWF regards the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises as one of a number of influential and

valuable instruments for outlining the elements of responsible conduct by multinational enterprises. In part

this is intended to be reinforced through the provision of mechanisms to explore and advance remedies

for conduct that may not be responsible (the NCP process). WWF has made use of the NCP process

itself, with a satisfactory result.1 We do however share the view of other civil society organisations that

the tool needs to be improved if it is to genuinely provide consistent levels of remedy for those impacted

by corporate misconduct in different parts of the world.2 Through WWF’s on-going engagement with the

OECD and OECD Watch, WWF is currently seeking to strengthen the enforcement of the OECD

Guidelines, improve the consistency of their application and make them more accessible to those

impacted by the negative activities of corporations. Consistent with this approach, WWF has no

hesitation in committing to full cooperation with the Swiss National Contact Point (NCP) and its handling

of the Specific Instance lodged by the Survival International Charitable Trust. To strengthen the integrity

of this process, WWF has voluntarily stepped down from its position on the board of OECD Watch for at

least the duration of the process.

Challenges faced in southeast Cameroon

In WWF’s view and experience, there are many challenges in regards to the respect and promotion of

Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ rights in southeast Cameroon. The overall situation of the

Baka is indeed of concern; they have effectively lost access to large areas of their former range, much

through the agency of forest destruction and degradation, and the loss of fauna and flora significant to

Baka subsistence; the recognition of indigenous peoples and indigenous rights by authorities, businesses

and other communities is low; land tenure arrangements are problematic with rural Cameroonians

generally being described as “little more than squatters on their own land”3 and there is no explicit and

little implicit recognition of customary rights to land. The Baka are a marginalised and often exploited

minority in most of the area they now inhabit and are generally subject to a great deal of disadvantage,

discrimination and abuse.

1 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/330392/bis-14-967-uk-ncp-final-statement-following-

agreement-reached-in-complaint-from-wwf-international-against-soco-international-plc.pdf 2 In analysing 15 years of complaints filed with OECD guidelines adhering governments, the Remedy Remains Rare report

published by OECD Watch in 2014, part-funded by WWF, highlighted that only a small number of complaints (14%) resulted in any form of beneficial outcome. the vast majority (over 80%) of complaints fail to provide any redress for complainants. The report highlighted that only one of the 250 cases examined over the past 15 years provided any improved conditions for the victims of misconduct by a multinational corporation. 3 Liz Alden Wily Whose land is it? The status of customary land tenure in Cameroon, Centre for Environment and Development,/

FERN / The Rainforest Foundation UK 2011

6

Although verification of individual incidents of abuse is difficult and official mechanisms of investigation

and resolution are clearly deficient in Cameroon, instances of abuse by enforcement and military

personnel against Baka (and members of other communities) have clearly occurred. Factors include the

general background of disadvantage and discrimination, and poor mechanisms for receiving and

resolving complaints and dealing with perpetrators of abuse. From 2009, there was extensive

militarisation of this sensitive border area in response to increased trafficking and availability of military

grade weapons, instability and war over nearby borders, inflows of refugees and more heavily armed and

organised criminal activity, particularly poaching. The frequency and severity of reported incidents

appears to have peaked in about 2012 and declined during 2013 and may be linked to increased levels of

objection and complaint, including from WWF directly to the Ministry of Forestry. However, any level of

abuse remains unacceptable.

The Specific Instance filed by Survival International

The Specific Instance4 filed by Survival International however presents an incomplete and oversimplified

picture.

As is outlined by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment there are strong

linkages between the protection of the environment and human rights.5 Furthermore, it is generally

acknowledged that the rule of law, and enforcement of law are essential pillars/vehicles for the

observance of human rights. In this situation a key human rights issue for the Baka community is the

protection of (specific) forests for their existence - there are no forest rights without forest. The situation

cannot be fully assessed without acknowledging differences between the situation of Baka in areas where

forest is greatly degraded or gone, and those in areas where forest and forest uses receive varying

degrees of protection. This is an area where research is relatively sparse, but observation and experience

suggests that forest and biodiversity protection is a key determinant of Baka welfare.

While WWF does include the human rights dimension in its work, the extent to which WWF can influence

the government or government agencies is limited. WWF fully acknowledges general and specific

responsibilities to the Baka and local communities and has worked to address the situation of the Baka

and protect their rights and access to forest in the Jengi project area. WWF has been and continued to

drive clear and demonstrable improvements in consultation, building on the extensive initial consultations

where WWF was but one of the partners to Jengi project. Although well documented, the quality and

extent of consultations is little acknowledged in the Specific Instance. Also neglected is that the Jengi

projects were from the beginning a landscape level plan with included social objectives and not, as is

implied, the simple extraction of protected areas from areas available to local communities. Significant

additional access and security flowed to local communities from the creation of extensive community

agro-forest and hunting zones previously covered by forest and safari hunting concessions and these

industries were for the first time required to respect community rights and provide benefits to local areas.

WWF has worked with and supported local and other civil society partners in pursuing improvements to

Baka welfare and rights and engagement in consultative and representative processes, again building on

4 The Specific Instance contains many factual errors and misinterpretations, possibly partly in consequence of the complexity and

long time frame of the events, the fact that Survival International has no field presence in Cameroon and relies on third party information which may be incomplete or inaccurate and the presence prior to 2009 of a large number of involved institutions with which WWF can be confused. For the purposes of this initial response it is not proposed to correct individual errors; detailed commentary can be made available to the NCP as required. 5 Second and Fourth Reports of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Environment to the UN Human Rights Council,

respec. documents A/HRC/25/53, A/HRC/31/53.

7

the significant work of earlier partners whose contributions are unacknowledged in the Specific Instance.

Insufficient account is also given to the unanticipated external factors which by 2010 left WWF in the

position of being the sole remaining active international partner in what was designed to be an ambitious

multi-actor programme. Local communities rightly point out that the economic benefits have fallen short

of what was originally envisaged.

WWF seeks dialogue and engagement with all relevant stakeholders and has reached out to Survival

International repeatedly in relation to the possibility of supportive or collaborative action to further Baka

interests and/or to verify, or support the investigation of, allegations of abuse. WWF has also reached out

to other parties - the Cameroon National Human Rights and Freedom Commission and the Ministry in

charge of forests and wildlife (MinFoF) - to support Survival submissions or requests for documentation.

To date little has come of the overtures to or on behalf of Survival International, but WWF has a strong

record of working with international and local partners in the region and remains open to collaborative

action. For the most part, WWF has refrained from public criticism of Survival International and intends to

keep doing so. WWF has also constrained its responses to Survival campaigning to avoid significant risk

of harming Baka interests6.

WWF does find merit in some recommendations put forward in the Specific Instance and is indeed

working on or along a parallel track to many of them. Recent developments include the successful

conclusion of a process started in 2011 to formalise Cameroon government requirements and guidelines

for Free Prior Informed Consent; substantial progress in facilitating together with a Cameroon NGO direct

agreements between Forest Conservators and Baka communities; the imminent inauguration of a second

Baka-only community forest; the roll out of a WWF-network wide project complaints resolution

mechanism; a global Code of Conduct for Rangers which WWF is urging governments to adopt and a set

of Law Enforcement Support Principles to guide WWF support to law enforcement operations.

WWF’s efforts to prevail on the Government of Cameroon to formalise and extend FPIC were recently

commended by the UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Issues as an example of “best practice” by

international environmental NGOs.7

Adequacy of consultation

The two Jengi landscape projects are likely best considered under three headings - an establishment and

early phase that incorporated levels of community consultation without precedent for the area and the

time8, a period of enormous difficulty where security concerns drove substantial militarisation of the area

and all international external partners except WWF pulled out in response to the combined effects of the

6 There is additional context that could, if canvassed in public, result in harm to Baka and their interests or to WWF’s capacity to

promote Baka interests. This context does not however materially impact on the issue of whether or not the NCP should take up the Specific Instance but rather how some sensitivities would best be canvassed in the public arena in order to minimise harm. WWF can outline this context to the NCP. 7 Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on the rights of indigenous peoples,Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, 29 July

2016 Paragraph 48. 17/25 http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/71/229 8 An initial focus on the threat to forests and biodiversity in South East Cameroon and people in South East Cameroon incorporated

more and more elements relating to indigenous and local peoples by the early 1990s as proposals progressed from permanent forest protection to an eventual complex pattern of protection and use over two landscapes across four countries - Jengi TNS (Cameroon, central African Republic and Republic of Congo) and Jengi Tridom. (Cameroon, Gabon and RoC) Gazettal of the zonings followed a five year consultation and community capacity building process unprecedented for the time and place and incorporating most elements of Free Prior Informed Consent. To around 2009, consultation continued and communities received considerable support from Jengi partners and the government. WWF was for the most part the leading biodiversity partner with the lead social role taken by another development agency.

8

global financial crisis and growing instability in the region, and what WWF now hopes is a period of

recovery.

While Cameroon government formal requirements for the Jengi landscape projects consisted only of a

30-day comment period following posting of the proposal details, gazettal of the zonings occurred late in a

two-phase programme conducted under the auspices of a bilateral development agency over a period of

five years. Effectively, consultations covered the majority of the elements of Free Prior Informed Consent,

well in advance of much of the development or requirement for such processes:

1997-99 Prior to any formal consent process an experienced development agency partner of the

Cameroon government conducted an extensive three-year intensive programme to make all

communities and subgroups fully aware of the government proposals, and build and support

local participation and institutions, with particular attention paid to the Baka minority and differing

views of subgroups such as women, community leaders and those not involved in community

decision making. This was supported by participatory mapping, socioeconomic studies and

engagement in village microprojects. In 1998 alone, 827 meetings were held in 46 villages, with

a total 18,925 participants.9

1999-2002 During and after the formal consultation and consent processes (2000-2002), the

same bilateral agency organised (partly with WWF) more than 1500 meetings/interactions with

villages and sub-groups within villages with the aim of improving the information and awareness

of natural resource management issues, forestry and wildlife related law and regulations;

improving the communication and negotiation skills of local and indigenous communities in

preparation for the formal consultation meetings on the land-use planning and protected areas

gazettement process; strengthening community organisation (community empowerment); and

implementing livelihoods enhancement activities. Baka involvement as target group in all these

meetings and activities was significantly higher than their proportion of the population. 10

Despite these efforts and precautions, recognition of Baka needs in the zoning plan was nevertheless

inadequate because of the preoccupation in the plan with fixed signs of human habitation and because

Baka involvement in the actual consent process was less satisfactory than in the consultation phase. As

a later study noted “It was difficult for the zoning operation to take into account the specificities of the

Baka who hardly understand French, rarely frequent public places, and are less inclined to frankly

express their points of view in the presence of their Bantu brethren”.11 Nevertheless, substantial changes

were made to the original proposals as a result of the processes followed and the comments made during

the formal consultation process which included changes to boundaries, the addition of community hunting

zones, the inclusion of communal use areas within the National Parks, access for specific resources even

outside these areas, and additional restrictions and requirements being imposed on the operators of

forestry and safari hunting concessions.

9Augustat Karin : Rapport d’activités de la cellule socio-economique de la phase I du projet ‘Protection des forêts naturelles au Sud-

Est Cameroun’, GTZ, 1999 10 Halle Birgit Rapport d’activités de de la cellule socio-economique de la phase II du projet ‘Protection des forêts naturelles au

Sud-Est Cameroun’ GTZ, 2002. 11 Njounan Tegomo, Olivier; Defo, Louis; Usongo,Leonard Mapping of resource use area by the Baka Pygmies inside and around

Boumba-Bek National Park in Southeast Cameroon, with special reference to Baka’s customary rights African study monographs. Supplementary issue (2012), 43:45-59 http://hdl.handle.net/2433/153064

9

Consultation has been regarded as a continuing process, although it was complicated by the later

withdrawal of the development agency and all remaining partners other than WWF in the period to 2010

following the global financial crisis and growing instability and militarisation of the area. WWF still

endeavoured to improve consultations on management plans, for instance through a WWF-funded study

of Baka forest and park use that went some way to overcome the impact of the earlier village-focused

consent and gazettal process and give more recognition “to the actuality of traditional use of land and

resources by the Baka, and their customary rights”.12

Significant consultations were also held in relation to management plans for the protected areas, with the

next major phase of the process long envisaged as being direct agreements between communities and

the relevant MinFoF administrations in the project areas. The first of these in respect to Baka

communities around Boumba Bek National Park is expected to be finalised shortly.

It should be noted that this level of recognition and consultation with local and indigenous communities

remains unmatched to any significant extent for any other proposed projects or land use changes in the

area. WWF has been actively urging the Government of Cameroon to utilise the FPIC guidelines for all

projects (agriculture, forestry, mining, infrastructure) involving land occupied by local and indigenous

peoples.

Issues of access

With respect to protected areas it is activities - use of firearms, hunting of endangered species, snaring -

that are prescribed to greater degrees than access. Indeed, some special areas within protected areas

have been specifically secured for subsistence or seasonal activities and other community use zones

have been opened up. Problematic access or denial of access to various zonings can occur for reasons

that can sometimes be obscure and enforced by diverse claimed custodians, including the military, the

police, the gendarmerie, ecoguards, agents of concession holders or members of neighbouring

communities. Baka can also enjoy privileged access in some circumstances, which can be a source of

controversy in other communities.. The full picture of livelihood impacts of the aggregate Jengi project

rezonings is much more complex than a simple subtraction for the purpose of creating protected areas

that tends to be portrayed by SI.13 The net impacts on Baka generally would need careful analysis to

account for factors including likely loss of access where unprotected forest cover is lost or degraded,

increasing pressure on forest resources from population increase and other groups moving into

traditionally Baka areas, and Baka not receiving an equitable share of the benefits or returns to mixed

communities from natural resource utilisation.

Alleged abuse by ecoguards

It should be noted that a key ask of communities during the prior consultation and consent processes was

for more effective action on poaching, with major concerns at that time being the depredations of

12 Njounan Tegoma, Defo and Usongo op cit 13 For instance, SI founded some of their claims of inadequate consultation and restricted access on a WWF-funded study

mapping Baka use of a protected area in order to protect such access. Njounan Tegomo, Olivier; Defo, Louis; Usongo,Leonard Mapping of resource use area by the Baka Pygmies inside and around Boumba-Bek National Park in Southeast Cameroon, with special reference to Baka’s customary rights African study monographs. Supplementary issue (2012), 43:45-59 http://hdl.handle.net/2433/153064

10

employees of commercial concessions and suppliers to the bushmeat trade to towns and cities elsewhere

in Cameroon. While this remained an issue, the end of the decade saw an upsurge in elephant killings

which paralleled an increase in arms availability -- especially of military grade weapons -- and instability in

the region. That these events are connected can be seen by the well publicised slaughter of more than

300 elephants in Cameroon's Bouba N'Djida National Park in early 2012 coming shortly before an

insurgency which brought down the government of the Central African Republic and sent streams of

refugees into neighbouring areas of Cameroon - including notably the Jengi DNS project area straddling

the border.

There was a substantial militarisation of the border area and of the poaching response. Most of the

allegations14 of abuse of Baka and the most serious of the allegations known to WWF relate to the period

2009-2013, which was a notoriously difficult period during which all international NGOs but WWF left the

area and programme funding dropped by more than two thirds. A key feature of incidents during this

period was the involvement of the military who were responding to perceived security threats in the area.

WWF had no influence on the deployment or activities of the military. Spatial analysis of incidents

outlined in the Specific Instance shows concentrations in areas near the main military base at

Yokadouma and the subsidiary base (annexe) at Mouloundou.

WWF has since 2006 provided or funded some training for ecoguards under an MOU with the Ministry of

Forests and Wildlife, with a focus on wildlife education and human rights training. Also in relation to the

MOU and specific plans, it provides equipment and operational support to some ecoguard units operating

in areas where it is active. WWF additionally funds and supports some ecoguard activities in areas

where it is active under operational plans. The MOU clearly sets out the responsibility of the Ministry for

the conduct of its employees and WWF has raised with the Ministry the necessity for it to improve its

mechanisms for the reception and resolution of incidents of alleged abuse and to take appropriate

measures in instances of substantiated abuse.

Investigation of individual allegations of abuse is difficult and particularly so in the absence of specific

detail and context. WWF-Cameroon policy and practice is to address any incidents that can be

sufficiently verified15 with the Ministry. Both WWF and the Cameroon National Human Rights and

Freedom Commission have noted to the complainant in this instance the difficulty of verifying or

investigating incidents of alleged abuse in the absence of details. WWF has separately noted to the

complainant that more credibility will be given to incidents put forward for investigation and better results

will be forthcoming if the full context is presented rather than selective accounts.

It is unfortunately the case that some Baka are significantly involved in wildlife crime. In respect of

elephants, the hunters are primarily Baka although in the majority of cases they are commissioned by

others, including in some cases those with authority over Baka. Arrest and prosecution data in general

support the contention that Baka are disproportionately less likely to be arrested or prosecuted for

poaching offences - for example of 77 poaching offenders apprehended in the Lobbeke National Park

related zonings in the period 2012-2015, four were Baka, with three having no conviction recorded. The

14 76 per cent of individual allegations related to this period. 15 WWF was in the process with local NGOs of organising a stakeholder meeting to resolve issues around seasonal allegations of

abuse connected with a hunting concession in the 2007-2009 period. The meeting was not held because the hunting guide implicated in the alleged incidents left the area. A 2012 incident witnessed and reported by a person contracted to WWF was taken up directly and personally with the Minister for Forests and Wildlife. Conduct that would be considered “completely unacceptable to WWF” was outlined during this meeting and there was subsequently a marked reduction in reported incidents involving ecoguards.

11

exception is for firearms offences, with higher grades of weaponry being handled by military tribunals -

the proportion of Baka is not known in this instance.

Despite verified instances of abuse, ecoguards are overwhelmingly performing their intended function of

protecting the integrity of the landscape zoning systems that were the subject of the participatory

planning, consultation and consent processes outlined above, which were intended in part to specifically

benefit local populations and indigenous peoples. WWF interactions with communities indicate that this

role is well understood and appreciated by local communities. Baka ecoguards report that they remain

well accepted in their communities, and that there is general understanding of what they do and

agreement on the necessity of their role.

Cameroon experience, in more adverse circumstances than are usually faced, has informed the

development of codes and standards around law enforcement that are being followed or developed for

the WWF network as a whole and the associated wildlife trade monitoring network TRAFFIC. This

includes provisions to “advocate for the appropriate balance of law enforcement and community

partnership so that wildlife law enforcement supports local community and indigenous peoples’ needs,

aspirations, and rights” and support for activities “designed to respect and protect human dignity and

comply with international standards on human rights”.16

Translating this into practice in Cameroon presents challenges, not least because of rivalries between

enforcement agencies, the involvement of the military and corrupt involvement in wildlife crime by some

officials. WWF has supported greater participation of Baka and local communities in enforcement

planning and review, and the inclusion of support for traditional sanctions in the MOUs currently being

negotiated between Baka communities and the ministry (represented by the Conservators based in the

area). Earlier this year, WWF facilitated a community policing workshop attended by Baka community

members, ecoguards, ministry officials and WWF personnel.

APPENDIXES:

Attached you will find two appendixes that we request be included as part of our response:

1. WWF’s formal response to questions from the UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Issues

2. WWF’s project complaints resolution mechanism that is referenced in the above response:

provided as a hyperlink.

16 Draft WWF and TRAFFIC Law Enforcement Support Principles to mitigate Wildlife Crime

12

APPENDIXES 1:

WWF Contribution to the Thematic Report of the UN Special

Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Introduction

Background and Content of this report

This report is WWF’s contribution to the thematic report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples on conservation and the promotion of the rights of Indigenous Peoples.[1] It draws

on experiences and practice from offices and programmes across WWF’s Network and identifies ongoing

efforts and outstanding challenges for promoting the rights of Indigenous Peoples in conservation. The

report briefly introduces WWF and then responds to the nine questions posed by the Special Rapporteur

in her letter of 11 March 2016. A brief joint contribution will also be submitted by the Conservation

Initiative on Human Rights of which WWF is a founding partner.

WWF in general

From its origins as a small group of committed wildlife enthusiasts, WWF has grown into one of the

world's largest independent conservation organizations – supported by 6 million people and active in over

100 countries on five continents. Over the last fifty years, WWF's focus has evolved from localized efforts

in favour of single species and individual habitats to an ambitious strategy to preserve biodiversity, share

equitably the resources of our planet, and achieve sustainable development across the globe.

WWF is a network of independent and managed offices which share a mission, global objectives and the

WWF brand. Our Mission is inherently intertwined with human wellbeing: “To stop the degradation of the

planet's natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature”. The

Network is not hierarchical; each independent office has its own Board and offices develop their own

strategic plans. WWF International, the global Secretariat of the Network, unites and supports all offices

to collectively drive conservation impact at scale in line with our Mission – this includes developing

network policies, fostering global partnerships, coordinating international campaigns, and maintaining

consistent standards. The WWF International Board (composed of internal and external members) and

the Network Executive Team (composed of CEOs representing the WWF Network) represent the two key

governance bodies for the WWF Network. The Network Executive Team engages with CEOs across the

Network before taking decisions or making recommendations to the WWF International Board.

A new work programme, designed to achieve greater impact by concentrating resources on a limited set

of large-scale challenges, will launch in July 2016. This will include a focus area on Governance of

natural resources, including community rights and natural resource stewardship.

WWF and Indigenous Peoples

Indigenous Peoples (IP) are among the earth’s most important stewards, as evidenced by the high

degree of correspondence between the lands, waters and territories of indigenous peoples and the

remaining high-biodiversity regions of the world. Many areas where WWF works are thus also home to

13

Indigenous Peoples, tribal, rural and coastal communities whose livelihoods and cultures are intertwined

with the natural environment.

WWF endeavours to work closely with multiple stakeholders to help ensure that development is inclusive

and does not undermine the natural environment underpinning human well-being. During over five

decades of conservation work, WWF has collaborated with many indigenous peoples and their

organizations on activities such as conservation area management, sustainable use of natural resources

and policy advocacy on issues of shared concern.

In many places, the conservation community and indigenous peoples are natural allies fighting for the

common objective of strong and equitable stewardship of natural resources. WWF has seen that success

often depends on building effective partnerships with civil society, IP organization and other actors to

advocate for the rights of Indigenous Peoples in conservation and the implementation of the UNDRIP as

well as on the natural resource governance frameworks in place, including the legal frameworks and the

access and rights they confer.

The movement to address human rights, including indigenous rights, within conservation has gained

strength since the 2003 World Parks Congress (WPC 2003), where the Conservation community

acknowledged that the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities were still not adequately

promoted and respected in conservation work. The conservation community has since adopted a number

of resolutions through the World Conservation Congress.[2] Another important step was the creation in

2005 of the Conservation Initiative on Human Rights (CIHR), a framework of principles by which the

major international conservation organisations committed to improve their human rights practices, and to

establish and promote best practices for the conservation community as a whole.[3]

The discussion below highlights examples where WWF has made progress towards these commitments

and also some of the challenges that we have met or continue to face.

Responses to the Special Rapporteur’s questions on conservation

and the rights of indigenous peoples

Q1: Has your organization adopted specific policies, guidelines and/or standards regarding

the respect of indigenous peoples’ rights? If so, could you please specify their contents?

What steps have you taken internally to disseminate such policies, guidelines and/or

standards among your staff, particularly those working on the ground on conservation

projects at all levels?

Policies: WWF was the first major conservation organisation to formally recognize, in 1996, the rights of

Indigenous Peoples to their traditional lands, territories and resources. Reviewed and revised in 2007 in

consultation with Civil Society Organisations and Indigenous Peoples representatives, WWF’s Indigenous

Peoples policy includes principles around inter alia due diligence, respect of voluntary isolation,

consultation, Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC), use of traditional knowledge and dispute resolution.

Guidelines on ‘Mainstreaming WWF Principles on Indigenous Peoples and Conservation in project and

14

programme management’ were issued in 2008 outlining practical steps to mainstream these

commitments.

As a founding member and partner in the CIHR, WWF has committed more broadly to respect and

promote internationally proclaimed human rights as contained in the Universal Declaration on Human

Rights and other applicable instruments, and to support and promote human rights within conservation

programs (See CIHR). Specifically WWF endorsed the two key instruments on Indigenous Peoples rights:

the ILO Convention No 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, and the

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

WWF’s Indigenous Peoples and Human rights policies are part of a wider suite of social policies also

covering poverty and conservation (promoting pro-poor approaches) and gender. New guidelines on the

Prevention of Restrictions of Rights and Involuntary Relocation & Resettlement of Indigenous Peoples,

Tribal and Local Communities (RRR guidelines) are in the final stages of development. WWF also applies

safeguard requirements as a GEF agency.

Policy Dissemination: WWF’s broad and diverse Network -- with over 6000 staff across 100 countries

and many working in remote locations and in a variety of languages – creates a challenge for ensuring

thorough dissemination and uptake of Network policies. Some of the steps taken to strengthen staff

knowledge and learning, internal capacity, and external engagement to move these policies off the paper

are listed below.

● Expanding an internal community of practice to build awareness and capacity on social

policy and Human Rights Based Approaches (HRBA). WWF’s Social Development for

Conservation (SD4C) is a self-organised community of practice, established in 2009 and growing

organically ever since. Working through regional hubs in Africa, Asia Pacific, LAC and Europe/North

America covering over 50 offices and the International Secretariat, the SD4C works to build WWF’s

capacity and effective integration of social policies. SD4C focal points come from a variety of

backgrounds, including the social sciences, and bring skills in program design, implementation and

monitoring, issue and policy analysis, policy advocacy, knowledge sharing and capacity

building. The SD4C Steering Group helps ensure connectivity across regions and between local to

global levels, builds a global vision for the WWF Network, and conducts joint pieces of work for the

Network. It also maintains an Intranet site and external pages on panda.org/people where the

social policies can be downloaded and where colleagues can share project information, academic

articles, external reports, guidance, etc. SD4C has also worked with conservation strategy and

performance colleagues to embed WWF’s social policies in WWF’s voluntary programme and

project standards. In June 2014 the SD4C Steering Group drafted a Social Development Action

Plan to accelerate mainstreaming and integration of the social policies and enhance

accountability and monitoring of social dimensions of WWF work in all offices and programmes.

The plan was agreed by WWF’s Conservation Committee.

● Translating policies into national and regional contexts. All WWF social policies are available

on WWF’s internal and external sites in English, French and Spanish. In addition a number of offices

have taken further steps to embed the policies in their national or regional context. In Asia-Pacific

different offices have endorsed the Network social policies and some have translated them into

national and local languages (e.g. WWF Thailand). Some offices have also developed specific,

country-based guidance on the respect, engagement and partnership with IP that reflect legal

conditions in the country and the degree of recognition IP enjoy. WWF Indonesia, for example, has

15

developed positions grounded in the legal and field reality of IP in Indonesia such as upholding

the rights of IP to continue to access resources for their wellbeing and cultural purposes including

inside protected areas.[4] WWF Indonesia also developed guidelines and principles of “Community

Empowerment” where the respect of IP rights and advocacy work are key principles. WWF India, in

collaboration with other Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), has developed a field guide on

implementation of the Forest Rights Act that sets out the recognition and vesting rights of Tribal

and forest dependent communities in forest areas. WWF Chile has translated and adapted WWF’s

Mainstreaming Guidelines to its regional context and funds a staff position to support colleagues

with challenges around social issues. In Africa, SD4C is gaining momentum with focal points in

each country to support mainstreaming across all country projects. The SD4C Africa hub includes a

session on Social Policies in all its training to raise staff awareness and knowledge. While not all

WWF offices are working or have worked with indigenous people as per the ILO definition, all apply

the same principles when working with marginalised communities around conservation areas in

priority landscapes who face the same challenges as Indigenous Peoples. WWF Nordic offices

(Sweden, Norway, Finland) have begun drafting a document on the application of the Indigenous

People’s policy in the Sampi region.

● Adopting relevant national, indigenous or third party policies and guidelines. WWF

Paraguay is using Paraguay’s national guidelines for Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), the

Indigenous People National Institute regulations, the Minister of Environment’s environmental

assessment and environmental services guidelines and the Indigenous People’s Federation FPIC

guidelines. WWF Peru has specific guidelines on engaging with IP (updated in 2013) which are part

of the introduction process for new employees and used by teams in the field. In addition to

upholding WWF internal policies, WWF Colombia works in accordance with the national legal

and policy frameworks regarding IPLC collective rights, and the policies and guidelines defined by

IPLC organizations when establishing partnerships. In 2002, WWF Colombia defined an ¨Ethical

guide for action: set of principles to work with ethnic organizations¨ in collaboration with indigenous

and afro-Colombian organizations. In Africa, many WWF programmes promote the Forest

Stewardship Council principles, criteria and generic indicators for Principle 3 on Indigenous Rights

and Principle 4 on Community Relations and Workers’ Rights. In addition, Kenya, South Africa,

Tanzania and Uganda are developing National Forest Stewardship Standards (NFSS) to

domesticate the international FSC generic indicators, a process that treats IP as a special interest

group. WWF Canada adheres to a WWF position which does not oppose indigenous hunting in the

Arctic, unless best available knowledge shows that it threatens the local population of a species.

Q2: Has your organization put in place any mechanism to monitor the implementation of

these policies, guidelines and/or standards? If so, could you please explain its functioning?

An SD4C survey in 2014 demonstrated that many WWF offices monitor a suite of indicators at

project and programme level to measure the social dimensions of their work. Part of those

comprise specific indicators on indigenous peoples such as strengthening Indigenous Community

Based Forest Enterprises (CBFEs) in Priority Ecoregions in Latin America and Caribbean, Asia-Pacific

and Africa; IP consultation processes; the ability of IP to negotiate collectively with companies; the

number of hectares mapped and registered as IP territories; Number of community forests recognized;

Number of coalitions and partnerships with IP; proper FPIC process conducted; Civil Society tools

(capacity, level of engagement); and number of benefit-sharing schemes benefitting IP communities.

16

Developing practical indicators to provide a global overview across the WWF Network has been more

challenging. An earlier attempt to include an indices on engagement with Indigenous Peoples in project

reporting at global level did not provide meaningful and consistent information. WWF is now trialling a

different approach developed over 18 months of discussion and pilot tests by a joint working group of

SD4C and Results Based Management colleagues and currently in proof of concept stage in 8 countries.

Part of WWF’s global monitoring of conservation outcomes and impact, this approach will use three

indicators of community natural resource governance -- Institutional Capacity, Resource Conflict,

and Resource Access -- to provide insight into the social aspects of WWF conservation work. The

indicators will be assessed by WWF office presences, at the national scale, with respect to a set of

approximately 20 local user groups selected to represent the community partners with which WWF works

most closely. The guidelines encourage that indigenous peoples be represented as important user

groups. It is envisaged that the indicators will enable WWF programmes to adaptively manage how they

engage and empower user groups and address their specific needs, inform higher-level policy

and sectoral interventions, and highlight emerging global issues related to resource governance,

partnerships, and drivers.

SD4C regional hubs have also conducted self-assessment surveys on the mainstreaming of social

policies and principles at programme level which have helped highlight gaps and inform capacity building

needs. In Africa, a social policies compliance review tool, endorsed by SD4C focal points in 2015, is

being promoted across all offices to support internal evaluations of the progress each office is making in

implementing the provisions of each WWF social policy. The WWF Coastal East Africa global initiative

developed a screening tool on gender, livelihoods and communities. WWF Indonesia conducted a

complete assessment of its work with Indigenous People.

Monitoring implementation at office project/programme level includes both quantitative and

qualitative mechanisms. WWF Paraguay projects are designed to include social indicators that are

then monitored regularly by field staff and monitoring team. WWF Paraguay is also an active member of

a key national commission that monitors policies, guidelines, mechanisms and conflict management of

indigenous communities related to issues in the Bi-Chamber National Congress Commission of Defense

of Natural Resources (CONADERNA) and the National Commission on Climate Change (CNCC). The

“Ethical guide for action” is a keystone to every collaborative agreement or Memorandum of

understanding that WWF Colombia signs with Indigenous Peoples, afro-Colombian and peasant

organizations: each of these agreements include a follow-up mechanism and a monitoring committee.

The WWF Forest and Climate team have been supporting countries involved in Reducing Emissions

from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) in the development of safeguards information

systems, benefit sharing systems and grievance mechanisms. In addition, monitoring plans have

been put in place to ensure effective implementation of training and capacity building with

Indigenous Peoples and to measure policy influence. Examples of indicators used include: Number of

provisions to address tenure/resource rights and FPIC and biodiversity values included in REDD+

initiatives in focal countries; Hectares under the management of indigenous and local communities in

REDD initiatives; Number of civil society organizations and local communities trained in, and using,

rigorous but practical tools for measuring; and Number of innovative revenue streams from benefit

sharing mechanisms with potential to increase income for rural communities.

Q3. How does your organization promote your policies, guidelines and standards on the

rights of indigenous peoples vis-à-vis governments and other civil society organizations with

whom you work?

17

WWF’s engagement with government agencies, the private sector and civil society organizations to

promote the rights of Indigenous Peoples varies across the Network and is influenced by the political

and legal context of Indigenous Peoples in each country. In some countries, IP rights are

challenged or not recognized or respected, while in others customary land and fishing rights and

communal ownership are protected. In a small number of places, Indigenous Peoples have a very

strong voice and conservation management decisions are made in consultation with them.

WWF’s work with government and other CSOs is also influenced by wider issues around the respect of

civil and political rights and civil society action, for our own offices but also the wider CSO community.

While WWF generally works frequently and well with government at all levels, the degree to which civil

society enjoys an enabling space varies significantly across the Network. Civil society space and citizen

participation are under threat in many countries where WWF works and environmental rights defenders

are among the most at risk as pressures around land use and natural resources increase, including

indigenous environmental rights defenders.

These differences in civil society space and in the degree to which national and local context recognize

IP rights and enable inclusive and equitable decision-making on natural resource use means no one

approach fits all. Each WWF office needs to determine the most effective way to apply Network principles

in its work with government and other CSOs. This diversity creates challenges for ensuring even

implementation of our social policies and for aggregating results across different offices but also provides

an ample variety of strategies and potential for learning. Some examples of WWF’s work to promote the

principles of our Indigenous policies with government, the private sector and CSO partners are provided

below.

● Building awareness and implementation of national laws. In collaboration with CSO partners,

WWF India developed a field guide on how to implement the Forest Rights Act. The Act is about

recognising and vesting rights of Tribal and forest dependent communities in forest land. The guide has

been translated into Hindi and shared with all field offices, CSO partners and relevant government offices.

In the field, government officials are often not aware of the policies and guidelines related to IP therefore

awareness raising is key. WWF has used the enabling provisions of the national Act to secure

community tenure and access to forest resource use areas in Western Ghats-Nilgiri including for a

particularly vulnerable tribe. Possibilities of using the enabling provisions in Satpura Maikal landscape are

being explored.

● Making Indigenous Rights a specific focus in conservation work: Over the last five years WWF

Indonesia has moved from including work with IP under conservation targets to making it a specific target

itself through the documentation, recognition and integration of Indigenous peoples and

community territories and areas (ICCAs) in conservation landscapes and seascapes. This is part of

building stronger recognition of IP rights and more effective and equitable governance. In this work, WWF

Indonesia is working directly with IP communities to provide technical support for mapping of

Indigenous territories, development of management plans and integration of important places for

IP in existing government spatial plans to safeguard their resources and rights. At national level, WWF

Indonesia is a founding and active member of an advocacy coalition on ICCAs and IP rights in Protected

Areas established in 2011 with other rights and environmental organizations, including the largest IP

network (AMAN). As part of this coalition, specific policy advocacy work is underway for the

recognition of ICCAs including advocating for stronger role and voice of IP in protected areas and

influencing a new law on biodiversity and genetic resources.

18

● Influencing policies in support of community tenure rights for land and access to resources

and respect of IP rights. In Cambodia, WWF works to support the legalization of community forestry,

community protected areas and community fisheries which benefit the communities as a whole, including

ethnic Khmers. In Malaysia, WWF Malaysia’s conservation work pays attention to the rights of the local

IP communities and specific efforts are directed towards securing the rights of IP in forestry concessions

in Sarawak. In Nepal, interventions on the ground advocate for local policies and practices to secure the

rights over and access to natural resources with the leading examples of ecotourism and water

management. WWF Colombia works to ensure that the government entities with whom they cooperate

respect the IP's national legal framework. WWF Colombia also verifies that IP organisations that could be

impacted by a project are aware of the process and that they are provided with the consultation process

required. In Mozambique, Mozambican law does not give local communities exclusive access to their

traditional fishing ground. Since 2008, WWF and partner organization CARE have been collaborating with

communities and authorities to develop marine sanctuaries and design a fisheries management plan that

works for people and nature.

● Supporting the participation of indigenous leaders in key international events and high level

political fora. WWF Paraguay actively supported the participation of indigenous leaders from the

Federación por la Autodeterminación de los Pueblos Indígenas (FAPI) at the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) 20th Conference of the Parties (COP 20) in Lima (2014). In

addition, high authorities of FAPI and of the Ache People of the Indigenous Community, the Koe Tuwy,

were part of the main speakers at the WWF Paraguay International Seminar on Forest and Climate

Change. WWF Indonesia has also mobilized resources for IP representatives and leaders to attend

COP10 to the Convention on Biological Diversity, in Nagoya (2010), the World Park Congress in Sydney

(2014), COP UNFCC in Paris (2015) and Indigenous Terra Madre in India (2015), while also supporting

their membership in regional ICCAs events and networks. WWF Colombia also promotes and supports

participation by Indigenous People and Local Community organisations in key processes at the

subnational, national and international levels.

● Bringing Indigenous Rights into collaborative work with other partners: WWF has been working

with national focal points, private sector companies, CSOs and academia to raise awareness on forest

certification and support the development of national stewardship standards as beacons of best practices

and reference points, including treatment of IP as special interest groups. Uganda, Tanzania, DRC,

Ghana among others, are working on national standards. WWF Thailand provides financial support to a

local NGO, Seub Foundation, to promote an ecological corridor in IP territory. Seub Foundation works on

community-based forest management including participation of IP in conservation work.

● Building rights into commodity standards: WWF ’s Market Transformation Initiative (MTI) has

been lobbying to include Free, Prior and Informed consent (FPIC) in a range of voluntary

standards for short commodities (forestry, agriculture and seafood related commodities). The Forest

Stewardship Council’s (FSC), Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC), the Roundtable on Sustainable

Palm Oil (RSPO), the Roundtable on Responsible Soy and genetically modified soy (RTRS). The latter

has put three new criteria on respecting the rights, customs and culture of indigenous peoples forward for

adoption at the next RTRS Assembly. These measures are complementary to legal protection, but also

engage the private sector on this issue which strengthens implementation on the ground. The

increase in FSC certification, doubling in the past 7 years to about 16% of production forests, documents

progress for indigenous rights. Further, WWF includes rights of local indigenous communities in

19

due diligence research before signing agreements with companies. If question arise, WWF checks

these and requires companies to provide assurances that indigenous rights will be respected.

Q4. Does your organization use established or ad hoc procedures for the full and effective

participation of indigenous peoples in activities supported by your organization that affect

them?

WWF’s Indigenous Peoples policy states that “WWF will not promote or support, and may actively

oppose, interventions which have not received the prior free and informed consent (FPIC) of affected

indigenous communities, and/or would adversely impact – directly or indirectly – on the environment of

indigenous peoples’ territories, and/or would affect their rights”. The WWF Mainstreaming document

provides guidelines for the implementation of FPIC based on internationally agreed standards.

WWF is continuously guided by this principle and continues to work to ensure its practical

implementation. Particular challenges occur where there are significant pragmatic challenges to FPIC

procedures. These include situations where: national FPIC frameworks are lacking or conversely where

different guidelines co-exist, the title/tenure of different groups is not recognised, marginalized groups are

excluded or overshadowed in consultation processes or choose not to engage, and where protected

areas boundaries were established in the past without FPIC procedures. Some examples of WWF’s

work to help advance FPIC procedures on the ground are provided below.

● Multistakeholder initiative to harmonize FPIC procedures. In August 2012, WWF DRC, with

support from the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad), organised a workshop with

local and international civil society leaders and private sector representatives to harmonize different FPIC

guidelines in view of REDD+ FPIC protocol requirements. Through a participatory approach, the group

also developed an FPIC questionnaire to enable REDD+ project managers in the field to tailor their efforts

to the specific needs and criteria of each community. The workshop produced draft FPIC guidelines for

the DRC which were then field tested with government agencies in the Mai Ndombe district in a total of

five communities (Mopulenge and Tshuma, Lebo, Embeyu and Enkiu). A new harmonized document is

now being developed. Key challenges are time and resources and issues regarding community tenure

rights and gender have arisen.

● Promoting formalisation of national FPIC requirements. WWF Cameroon has been advocating

over many years to formalise FPIC requirements and guidelines and has been working towards this

objective with the government. Such a framework was issued for REDD+ projects in 2014 and WWF

continues to advocate for FPIC application for all major development and infrastructure projects involving

land occupied by local and indigenous peoples. This builds on earlier (1997-2002) multi-actor efforts to

expand the formal requirement of a 30-day consultation period for protected area and other related

zoning decisions into a two-phase, five-year programme on information sharing, participatory mapping,

and community capacity building prior to and overlapping with an extended consent and gazettal phase.

Lessons learned from these earlier consultation processes, however, underlined the important

challenges in ensuring adequate voice and representation of the interests of the Baka. WWF

recognizes that consultation with indigenous/tribal groups must be a continuous process and we are

working to ensure better representation of the Baka. In particular, WWF and a local NGO are facilitating

direct agreements between indigenous Baka communities and the Ministry of Forests and Wildlife

concerning all aspects of Baka use and access to Boumba-Bek National Park and other such agreements

are in preparation for the Nki National Park and Lobéké National Park.

20

● Improving and going beyond FPIC. WWF Paraguay looked internally at how they apply FPIC in

work with IP and the results of the evaluation were shared through information sessions with all WWF

staff as well as a working session in the community with the IP involved. The evaluation showed that

more is required in FPIC with IP, including providing specific processes and details when Indigenous

Peoples are included alongside peasant communities. It also showed that the FPIC process is not

enough: on-going consultation and interaction is needed with IP, whose communities, territories and

natural resources are under pressure from illegal farming, logging, and charcoal production and

deforestation and degradation. Continued consultation has been very useful for WWF Paraguay to

understand important socio-economic and cultural considerations whilst proposing new resources

management tools such as the creation of environmental services certificates (PSAs).

● Capitalising on the existence of an enabling legal framework. WWF Namibia has been able to

build on an enabling national legal framework that grants use rights over wildlife to rural communities

who have organized themselves as conservancies. The conservancy legislation and operational

framework provide a structure for the provision of technical support services directly and through

local CSOs to conservancies, including those predominantly comprised of San communities. The Nyae

Nyae Conservancy, for example, was registered in 1998 and represents approximately 2300 people

(predominantly Ju/’hoansi San) occupying an area of about 9000 km2. It is managed through a locally

elected Management Committee, which employs the Conservancy Manager, office administrative staff

and Community Rangers, who are largely responsible for game and natural resource monitoring. The

conservancy members participate in decision making over resource use, benefits distribution, etc. through

community meetings. Community benefits generated through the conservancy include cash income from

trophy hunting; game meat from trophy and own use hunting; employment by the conservancy as well as

the conservancy joint venture private tour and / or hunting operators. Other local livelihood activities

include veld food gathering, craft production and sales, natural plant products harvesting and sales, small

scale livestock keeping and gardening, as well as employment and social grants through government

services. Outstanding challenges are low literacy levels (high school dropout rate) and inadequate

managerial skills that continue to hamper the ability of the community to optimise the full potential of their

conservancy area.

Q5. Have you established a complaint mechanism which can be accessed by indigenous

peoples in case of conflict or disagreement within the context of these activities?

A Project Complaints Resolution Process (PCRP) for the WWF Network was endorsed by WWF

International’s Board in 2015 to provide a channel for raising and resolving concerns related to the

implementation of WWF social policies in our conservation work. The PCRP is intended to respond to

concerns raised by stakeholders who may be affected by WWF-supported conservation activities. It was

designed in the spirit of dialogue and conflict resolution and to serve as one channel to improve mutual

understanding, strengthen WWF’s accountability and provide a foundation for increased collaboration

with other actors. The PCRP provides a common, basic procedure applicable across the Network;

offices are encouraged to adapt it to ensure it is effective in their national and local contexts.

WWF International and the SD4C regional hubs are currently co-hosting a series of WebEx discussions

for all offices to introduce the process and refresh staff knowledge on the social policies

themselves.

21

Additional mechanisms for receiving complaints have also been developed. WWF Canada has a

complaint mechanism outlined on its website, which can be accessed by indigenous peoples and all other

external stakeholders in case of conflict or disagreement. WWF Paraguay has established a network of

local NGOs in order to streamline any complaints or conflicts related to projects that may originate in

indigenous communities. WWF Colombia’s ¨Ethical guide for action” provides guidance for timely and

direct resolution of any conflict through direct discussion between affected parties and maintaining

respectful language in front of third parties. In addition, one of the key achievements of WWF Colombia

is the Citizen’s Action Dialogue (CAC), designed to bring together communities and government agencies

to discuss and find agreements. The CAC is a powerful participation mechanism based on the

Constitution (1991) and includes three stages: preparation, negotiation and follow-up. “This mechanism

facilitates participation, conflict resolution and negotiation and provides an opportunity for communities to

come up with proposals to face challenges, threats, based on civil rights and responsibilities“

(Empowering speech, 2014).

In practice, complaints from indigenous communities are often voiced through direct interactions

and conversation with WWF staff. This can be effective when the relations established are strong and

good trust exists. For example, the WWF Living Amazon Initiative manages conflict directly with

Indigenous leaders or representatives both at regional and national level. A bureaucratic system for

submitting complaints is experienced by some as a more colonial approach to issue resolution.

Q6. Indigenous peoples have their own worldviews and practices on how to live in harmony

with nature, as well as traditional conservation practices and related customary laws. How are

these integrated into your conservation policies and programs?

A number of WWF offices actively integrate traditional conservation practices and related customary laws

in their conservation policies and programs:

● Using customary laws, indigenous planning tools and participatory mapping. In the northern

eastern region of India, where large tracts of forests are the jurisdiction of Indigenous Peoples, WWF

India has worked to leverage customary laws and traditional customary practices towards improved

forest and biodiversity protection. In Indonesia and elsewhere, WWF has supported mapping of

territories and documentation of traditional regulations. This has been a critical step and an opportunity

to conduct further FPIC – communities are informed of future interventions and have the rights to choose

to engage or not. In Colombia, indigenous organisations have their own tools for planning and

exercising of rights: WWF Colombia capacity building addresses concepts and methodologies that

will support these internal regulations and IP's territorial development. WWF Madagascar

promotes the concept of “dina”, which refers to a principle of community and traditional self-regulation, in

the design and implementation of projects and programmes.

● Funding support to IP sustainable development plans and visions. In many places, local IP

organizations enter formal partnerships with WWF if activities and interventions are in IP territories.

These organisations are often the recipient of grants and sub grants to conduct activities in their

territories according to their aspirations and vision. One example is the partnership of WWF

Indonesia and WWF Malaysia with FORMADAT, the Alliance of the Indigenous Peoples of the

Highlands of Borneo (an Equator Prize 2015 winner) to support their sustainable development and

conservation vision for the Heart of Borneo at the border between Malaysia and Indonesia. This approach

22

has become the model for integrating IP views, practices, traditions and aspirations in conservation

policies and programs.

● Collaborative management of Protected Areas: In Namibia, institutional and technical support

enabled the Kwhe San community to successfully collaborate with the government in the

management of the Bwabwata National Park, and to share in the socio-economic benefits from the

park. Nevertheless, the lack of control over “illegal” settlement in the park by communities moving into

the park from neighbouring areas and the eroding of park resources remain challenging. There is the

need to speed-up the signing of the MoU between the Ministry of Environment and Tourism and the

Kyaramacan Association in order to secure the rights of the community, in accordance with the 2013

National Policy on Protected Areas, Neighbours and Resident Communities.

● Supporting Indigenous organisations and development of indigenous REDD+. WWF Colombia

is supporting the Coordination of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin (COICA), which

represents 390 peoples with 2’779’479 inhabitants over 10,268,471 km² of the Amazon Basin, through

nine national indigenous organizations. WWF Colombia also supports the Organisation of the Indigenous

Peoples from the Colombian Amazon (OPIAC) to develop and implement the Indigenous REDD+

approach in the Amazon, namely Proyectos REDD+ Indígena Amazónico (RIA). RIA seeks to highlight

the importance of the indigenous territories not only as carbon stocks but as spaces that provide

important ecosystems services and shelter spirituality, culture, identity, pride and future

indigenous development.

● Protecting Indigenous traditions and livelihoods: The indigenous Udege and WWF Russia have

worked together to protect the core area of the Bikin forests from commercial logging by using a public

auction mechanism to win the Udege a 49-year lease of a 461,000 hectare region officially earmarked as

a “Nut Harvesting Zone“. In these specially designated areas, the major resource use is the harvest of

forest products; timber exploitation is limited by law. This is the first project in Russia to pass a special

ethnological assessment which confirmed its relevance to sustaining the traditional way of life of an

indigenous group. Both the Udege and WWF have a joint interest in protecting the Bikin forests, which

are also home to one of the last populations of the endangered Amur tiger: for the Udege the Amur tiger

is a sacred animal, while for environmentalists it is an iconic species and an indicator of the health of the

wider ecosystem. Since April 2012, the traditional knowledge and harvesting practices of the Udege

have allowed their “Tribal Commune Tiger” association to cover all lease fees and costs for the

protection of the forest through their profits from the commercialization of non-timber forest products. The

sales of carbon credits provide an additional source of income.

Q7. How are you working with States to ensure that they respect, protect, and fulfil

indigenous peoples’ human rights when you collaborate with them to promote conservation?

What are the challenges you face and the good practices you have in helping States adhere to

their human rights obligations?

In addition to the opportunities and constraints for WWF in working with State actors outlined in question

3, the roles WWF offices play can be influenced by their status as a local NGO or an INGO acting as part

of national civil society and the global CSO community. Some country offices are involved in policy

advocacy and/or act as watchdogs in relation to governments and institutions, while others have mainly

played the roles of technical advisors and programme managers. There are also important differences in

23

terms of the legal status of offices in the countries where they are based which affect the roles any

individual WWF office can play, for example:

● Facilitation: In some places, WWF has been asked, or has offered, to take on a facilitator role for

building bridges between government and Indigenous Peoples. WWF Nepal, for example, has played an

integral role as mediator between government and communities in the development of REDD+,

including conducting policy advocacy on the rights and participation of Indigenous Peoples at

national level. In this role, WWF Nepal has been able to create space for dialogue to bring in the

community’s voice and institutionalised these communication channels while developing safeguards for

the respect of Indigenous Peoples rights and participation in REDD+ to ensure that States do respect,

protect and fulfil indigenous people’s human rights.

● Policy advocacy: In Indonesia, WWF Indonesia is currently engaged in an advocacy coalition to

influence the revision of the biodiversity law for the recognition and protection of the rights and practices

of Indigenous Peoples after the watershed Constitutional Court ruling in Indonesia that customary forest

is not state forest (2013). The ruling opens the opportunity for Indigenous Peoples to have their territories

recognized if mapped and documented, and after the districts and provincial governments have endorsed

local laws for the recognition and protection of IP rights. WWF Indonesia is actively advocating with

other CSOs for such laws and schemes in at least 8 districts in Indonesia, especially in the Kalimantan

region, where other forest tenure schemes like Hutan Desa (Village Forest) and Hutan Adat (Customary

Forest) are also developed as mechanisms to secure stronger community rights.

● Building Awareness, Capacity and Monitoring: WWF Nepal is working with NGOs like NECIN,

NEFIN (Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities), and the government institution NEFDIN to create

awareness and develop capacity building especially on international instruments for IP. Efforts are

made to ensure that international provisions on IP are not violated in government policies such as

National Forest Policy, GESI Strategy and Policy, Land Use policy, Wetlands policy, National Water Plan

etc.

● Contributions to international negotiations: WWF Paraguay works with the Government of

Paraguay, the Climate Action Network and the AILAC countries, to actively support the inclusion of

indigenous rights in the preamble of the Paris Accords during the COP21. WWF International led the

WWF Network’s engagement in the Post-2015/Sustainable Development Goals intergovernmental

negotiations, where WWF advocacy teams advocated for indigenous rights to natural resources. In the

Arctic, WWF has attempted to convey the perspectives of Arctic indigenous peoples through participation

in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora & Fauna (CITES).

● Supporting multistakeholder initiatives with government and IP engagement: The Arctic

Council has adopted ecosystem based management (EBM) as the management approach to protect and

sustainably manage the Arctic marine environment at the circumpolar level. WWF Canada is producing a

report and video that will be presented to the Arctic Council. This partnership involves stakeholders from

Aboriginal, federal and territorial government bodies, industry and other interested parties and it abides by

the requirements of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, which was signed in 1984 after 10 years of

negotiations. The Inuit Circumpolar Council has struck a special commission (Pikialasorsuaq

Commission) to consult Inuit in both Canada and Greenland on the development of a shared Inuit vision

of how to save the North Water Polynya - the world largest body of open water in the High Arctic. WWF

Canada contributed funding in support of the establishment of this Commission and is holding workshops

24

with Inuit leaders to support them collectively figuring out what type of management approach would be

most appropriate. The findings will be released to the public in late 2016.

● Supporting IP organisation recognition and project ownership. In the DRC, a member of the

PAP (Peuples Autochtones Pygmés) was employed by WWF-DRC to lead a programme of support to the

PAP from 2009-2012. This programme raised awareness and helped regroup and restructure the PAP

to form a legally recognized entity, which in turn facilitated the preparation of the national development

plan for the DRC PAP financed by the World Bank. This programme also supported the production of

more specific mapping of PAP distribution and their community lands in some cases. Legal support was

also provided to help the PAP defend their rights. Financial, administrative, technical organisational

support was provided to help the PAP put in a place a national democratic representation, which

unlocked World Bank funding to the PAP as the project owner and contracting authority (maître

d’ouvrage) in 2014.

Examples of some of the challenges WWF offices have encountered in working with State actors are

included here and additional challenges are discussed under Question 9.

· WWF Madagascar endeavours to work with the Malagasy government to promote good governance of

natural resources for the implementation of legal and policy frameworks compatible with the sustainable

use of resources. Nevertheless, a recurrent challenge are governance gaps which have affected all

spheres and levels of the public administration.

● WWF Central African Republic and WWF Cameroon face many challenges in the revival and

continuation of programmes that have been affected by large reductions in international funding in the

wake of the global financial crisis, instability and war in the region. An additional challenge is that

fundraising for social programmes including those specifically for IP has historically been more

difficult to obtain than for “pure conservation” programmes.

● WWF Colombia works in close collaboration with the government advocating for the involvement of

communities at an early stage of project and policies formulation. As part of this dialogue, they have

promoted a bottom up approach for the development of national safeguards System for REDD+,

participation in the development of the REDD+ strategy and the climate change policy and have

developed legal analysis of the prior consultation for the development of REDD+ projects. Some of the

challenges they have encountered relate to the legal framework for the prior consultation,

contradictions between government sectors and actors; the low capacity/number of public

officials with knowledge of indigenous/ethnic and collective rights; and the high financial costs tied to

the inclusion and effective participation of indigenous peoples in Colombia particularly because of

difficulties of access and communication.

Q8. What are the best practices and examples of progress in terms of respect for the rights

of indigenous peoples in activities developed by your organizations of which I should be

aware?

Examples of good practice have been included throughout the preceding sections and a few additional

examples are provided here. WWF views its work to integrate our social policies in our conservation

work – like our work on the physical and biological dimensions of conservation – as work in progress. We

are eager to continue to improve and learn from others while sharing our own experiences.

25

● WWF-DRC has played an important role in facilitation and negotiating space opened by the

REDD+ process that allows for communication between the state and local communities. This process

has provided important insights into social dynamics and tenure conflict, including who owns the land and

who should benefit from such conservation interventions. Gender inclusive processes have also been

included, identifying and addressing barriers to women’s participation in these dialogues. This work has

provided an important basis for implementation of the recent community forestry decree and the

development of a national policy regarding gender and community forest management. Community

members also engaged in a transparent, participatory micro-zoning process to gain recognition for

their land use and tenure. A total of 15 communities and a hundred community members have mapped

their lands in this way to date, with many more due to participate in coming years. Starting in 2016,

communities will receive payments as rewards for protecting their forest in line with these micro-

zoning plans.

● WWF Guyana has been building capacity for territorial governance and empowering

indigenous peoples to participate in the Guyana-Norway Agreement (GNA) Opt-In Mechanism. Guyana

has the first national-scale payment for performance REDD+ system. Since the GNA’s inception in 2009,

a mechanism by which Guyana’s indigenous communities could participate in the REDD+ was envisioned

and the “opt-in” pathway has been anxiously anticipated. Guyana’s Office of Climate Change and the

Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund (GRIF) contracted WWF to pilot the mechanism based on our

experience with community capacity development. WWF partnered with the North Rupununi District

Development Board (NRDDB), an indigenous community organization, the Guyana Forestry Commission

and the indigenous Wai Wai community of Kanashen to develop a participatory monitoring system –

community Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (CMRV) – integrated with the national MRV

system. Through CMRV, communities with titled lands have established systems to monitor their own

resources, including forest cover and carbon content but also other resources important to them, such as

water quality, biodiversity, fish and other wildlife stocks, timber, and non-timber forest products, in addition

to criteria for measuring community well-being. The active participation of local communities and the

effective recognition of their rights over local natural resources are key components of this

process. The project has contributed toward building the capacity of Guyana’s indigenous communities

(owners of over 2 million hectares – more than two-thirds of titled indigenous lands) to make informed

decisions about their resources and to become active participants in Guyana’s carbon economy with the

opportunity to opt in to REDD+. Community-based monitoring work is important in Guyana because it

builds skills that are valuable to the communities for REDD+ and other natural resource conservation

issues.

● In Peru, the preparation of a dedicated funding mechanism to directly support indigenous

peoples in their efforts to protect the Peruvian Amazon through sustainable forest management

improved land tenure and governance as well as greater gender equality and inclusion. In 2012,

members of two national organizations representing Peruvian Amazonian indigenous peoples took part in

the Dedicated Grant Mechanism (DGM), a special initiative of the World Bank’s Forest Investment

Program (FIP) that places project design and funding decisions directly in the hands of indigenous

peoples. This led to a collaboration that culminated in the development of “Saweto, Living Memory,” a

DGM for Peru’s Amazonian indigenous communities to be administered by WWF-Peru over five years.

The DGM’s name honors the Asheninka community of Saweto’s ongoing fight to protect its forests from

illegal logging—a fight that has cost some of its community leaders their lives and that exemplifies the

larger struggle of all indigenous communities in the Peruvian Amazon. The projects are intended to

foster empowered, informed and inclusive engagement with forest issues, and to strengthen

environmental and community governance and land tenure through titling and recognition of

26

indigenous communities. The Saweto DGM will require authorities to live up to their legal and political

commitments surrounding the governance of indigenous territories and international cooperation and

adequate financial support.

● In the Amazon, WWF offices are developing an Early Warning System to monitor threats to

indigenous territories which aims to prevent escalation of conflict and prevent violation of human

rights. The system has two processes: first, the identification of threats by local IP organizations and

second, the response to these threats. The observatory to monitor threats to indigenous territories is part

of the Regional Strategy for the Conservation of Amazon Indigenous Territories and was identified as a

need by the COICA.

● In Indonesia, WWF has successfully promoted collaborative management principles in the

management of national parks by advocating the recognition of the rights of Indigenous Peoples in the

Kayan Mentarang National Park since 1998 (KMNP became the first recognized National Park in

Indonesia to be managed collaboratively in 2002). In addition, WWF has supported the mapping of

Indigenous territories in Indonesia and ICCAs in Indonesia (at least 8 million hectares, and over 100’000

hectares of ICCAs) and facilitated the registration of at least 2 million hectares of IP territories. Moreover,

in Papua, where development needs but also exploitation challenges are highest, WWF has successfully

advocated for the adoption of the maps of “important places” of IP in the spatial and land use plans of

three regencies/districts; this is an important spatial safeguard against aggressive forest and IP territory

conversion by private sector and other players.

● Despite its cultural and environmental significance, Colombia’s Pacific region faces substantial

threats from mining, illicit crop cultivation, illegal logging, livestock intensification, the expansion of agro-

industrial cultivation, infrastructure. Scant economic resources, political turmoil, lack of environmental

policies or governance, mismanagement of resources and possibilities for cooperation, and frequent

conflicts also limit conservation opportunities and incentives. At the same time, independent carbon

credit dealers and an onslaught of REDD+ initiatives are offering contracts to local communities, creating

confusion and conflict around forest conservation. Facing this complex scenario, the Pacific region’s

indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities have voiced their concerns about possible REDD+

initiatives in the territory and the need to safeguard their rights. WWF-Colombia and Colombia’s

Patrimonio Natural (Fund for Biodiversity and Protected Areas) partnered with the Proceso de

Comunidades Negras (PCN) y Agenda Común, an organization of Afro-Colombian groups, community

councils and leaders. These organizations, in turn, formed alliances with the Latin American Institute for

an Alternative Society and an Alternative Law (ILSA), the Bank Information Center (BIC), Rights and

Resources Initiative (RRI), and the communities to develop a set of safeguards that incorporate Afro-

Colombian worldviews and perspectives, and protect the rights of Afro-Colombian people.

Through this participatory process, Afro-Colombian community leaders gained the knowledge and

capacities needed to participate in REDD+ decision-making and defined a pathway to social and

environmental REDD+ safeguards that reflect their needs and interests, and protect their ancestral lands

and rights. The process has helped ensure that their voices and perspectives are heard in the national

REDD+ dialogue.

Q9 According to your view, what are the main challenges to ensure respect for the rights of

indigenous peoples in the context of the conservation work you are doing? What could be

done to further strengthen the protection and respect of the rights of indigenous peoples in

your conservation work?

27

The preceding discussion has highlighted examples where WWF has been able to successfully work to

promote the rights of Indigenous Peoples in our conservation work. At the same time, our own internal

assessments tell us that we need to continue to make improvements based on lessons learned, including

to deepen knowledge and capacity and to increase our ability to monitor our social impact. Some of the

means we are pursuing or plan to build capacity and the consistency of our efforts are outlined below.

We also experience significant external challenges when seeking to combine conservation work with the

protection of indigenous and local communities. We highlight some of these below and would welcome

opportunities to collaborate with the Special Rapporteur, CIHR partners, indigenous and rights based

organisations, governments and private sector partners to make effective progress on these in order to

ensure respect and promotion of IP rights in conservation work. Some preliminary ideas are outlined

below.

Some key external challenges include:

● Weak enabling environments: lack of respect or abuse of rights and weak natural resource

governance and corruption: Some of the most challenging places for WWF’s work are those

where human and IP rights are not respected, unclear or contested, or even abused. In some

areas, local governments may exclude IP in decision making or question IP special status. This is

often coupled with weak rule of law and corruption which undermine equitable access and benefit

sharing, participation, transparency and access to information and justice.

● Aligning international commitments with national/local frameworks: There are also often

cases where key actors and stakeholders have conflicting interpretations on both the content of

IP core rights and their application in specific situations, for example whether national/local legal

frameworks specifically with regard to land provide or safeguard these rights, or situations where

States do not confer ownership but only recognise and regulate access to, and use of, natural

resources. In some cases, systems of concessions of land or natural resources to local

populations have led to counter-productive effects where local political or economic elite captured

the systems, marginalising targeted communities.

● Challenges with regard to the implementation of FPIC: In general, actors in the field still encounter

many challenges with regard to the practical implementation of FPIC, such as determining exactly what

constitutes prior information, what is an acceptable percentage of a population to be consulted in any

given situation, lack of clarity on the representiveness of the leadership of certain local groups, etc. There

is also often a lack of awareness and understanding on how to conduct the proper FPIC process by state

and non-state actors while IP communities are not always aware of their rights with regard to FPIC before

development and conservation decisions concerning their communities, resources and territories are

made. Timelines are often rushed, in particular when large commercial interests are competing for

allocation of large tracts of land for agribusiness, logging or mining. WWF has taken important steps in

applying safeguards and promoting IPs rights in working with private sector especially with aquaculture

and pulp and paper, and provided input to FSC principles and RSPO standards. However, we see big

challenges ahead with rising, unplanned land use change and encroachment on IP lands and territories,

and the growing economic role of agribusiness and mining. This will require more systematic

implementation and monitoring of proper and fair FPIC, as well as the fair benefit-sharing arising from the

use of natural resources.

Some suggestions for making progress on these and other challenges include:

28

● Practical Guidance and Multi-actor Collaboration. While WWF offices are trying different

approaches in these situations, such as raising awareness of national/international IP policies and

guidelines with local officials, drafting Memoranda of Understanding with Government agencies that

contain human rights provisions, supporting human rights training and Guidelines on Enforcement, etc.

this a broader problem that extends beyond conservation. Clear and practical guidance for state and

non-state actors to ensure due diligence and best practice would help conservation actors

address the challenges encountered when working in areas where Indigenous Peoples’ rights are not

acknowledged or implemented by state partners. Collaborative efforts among actors, including

conservation organisations, Indigenous and rights based groups, donors, UN institutions

including the OHCHR, and the private sector are needed to advocate for policy and legal

frameworks that respect human rights. Collaborative action is also needed to build the evidence base

on the interlinkages between conservation activities and the fulfilment of Indigenous Peoples’ rights and

human rights in general. In this regard, we look forward to the work by the Special Rapporteur on Human

Rights and Environment.

● Supporting the voice of Indigenous Peoples. Working in partnerships and coalitions with IP

communities and organizations is a way to minimize the risk of large organisations, governments

or businesses dominating the discussion and to establish more equitable relations. WWF is

working to provide specific support and capacity building to Indigenous Peoples for territorial

governance (including IP local knowledge) and to indigenous organizations to improve

coordination between different organizational levels for more effective participation in decision

making. We are also supporting the mapping and titling of IP territories and areas through

advocacy work to enable national tenure and institutional frameworks and processes, including

inclusive processes led by IP communities and organizations. Where IP rights recognition is low,

WWF has seen that progress can also occur by building implicit recognition through enhanced

consultative processes and outcomes gained for IP in conservation programmes: these can open

avenues for more formal recognition in instruments such as management plans.

● Contributing to the development of FPIC implementation: WWF will continue to work to

strengthen our application of FPIC mechanisms by building capacity and building consistent

application in WWF projects including by partners or collaborators. Partnerships between

conservation, rights-based organisations, government agencies and human rights experts

to build collective capacity and ensure that all actors in an area are “on the same page” on

FPIC would be an effective way forward. Experience has also shown that conducting regular

programme assessments and participatory evaluations with affected communities is fundamental,

particularly where indigenous/tribal populations (and women) occupy a marginalised position

within the larger community.

● Building knowledge and skills to address strengthen capacity to integrate IP rights: While

many WWF colleagues are actively working to integrate WWF social policies including on

Indigenous Peoples, in parallel WWF is continuing to build capacity and awareness across

different levels of staff. Staff turnover and internal transfers are a challenge for consistency. The

WWF Social Action Plan targets inclusion of social principles in the project and programme

design cycle, peer-to-peer support, design and monitoring tools, and better sharing of good

practices as some of the paths to improving capacity.

29

● Donor awareness and inclusive funding models: While stable funding would contribute to

steady progress, the absence of such funding represents a significant obstacle. Our regional

internal assessments of social policy uptake in the Network identified typical conservation funding

models – with rapid project proposal timelines and little donor support for institutional capacity

building – as an important challenge to achieving project and programme designs that fully

address indigenous issues. Rapid proposal timelines often mean there is insufficient time to do

full inception phases. A donor dialogue on funding models to support integration of human

rights, indigenous rights and gender in conservation projects and programmes would help

move this forward. Donor requirements for due diligence could also help guide adequate internal

budget allocations.

● Monitoring social policy implementation: As outlined above, many WWF offices track the

social dimensions of their work, but this is not systematic across all offices. We are working to

determine indicators at Network level that can guide WWF offices that are both cost- and time-

efficient and that provide useful information. This is a shared challenge with other conservation

organisations and the CIHR has begun discussing ways to move the conservation

community ahead. New mechanisms, such as WWF’s Project Complaints Resolution

Mechanism is an additional way to ground truth gaps in policy implementation and ensure rapid

response where problems arise. The current design of WWF’s new work programme includes a

set of social outcomes, which will also help institutionalise monitoring and accountability.

International guidelines and good practice examples would also help guide individual

institutional efforts.

[1] This report has been developed by a special working group of the Social Development for

Conservation (SD4C) Steering Group.

[2] Inter alia; WCC Resolution 1053, WCC res. 3055, WCC resolution 2056, WCC Resolution 4048, WCC

Resolution 4052, WCC Resolution 2056.

[3] CIHR partners include : Birdlife International, Conservation International, Fauna and Flora International, IUCN,

The Nature Conservancy, Wetlands International, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and WWF.

[4] See Masyarakat Hukum Adat dan Konservasi (2012) and on traditional use in protected areas

Pemanfaatan Tradisional Sumber Daya Alam untuk Kehidupan Masyarakat dan Konservasi at

http://www.wwf.or.id/program/inisiatif/social_development/.

30

APPENDIXES 2:

WWF Project Complaints Resolution Process

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) has established a mechanism to receive and respond

to concerns raised by stakeholders who may be affected by WWF-supported conservation

activities as a key means to strengthen implementation of WWF’s Social Policies and

Safeguards (defined below). Addressing complaints in a timely and effective way helps resolve

conflicts, improves mutual understanding, strengthens accountability and provides a foundation

for increased collaboration. This process will be available on WWF’s public website

(wwf.panda.org) and should be shared with stakeholders during the project design phase or at

other appropriate interactions.

WWF’s Network Social Safeguards and Policies

1. WWF Statement of Principles on Indigenous Peoples and Conservation

2. WWF Policy on Poverty and Conservation

3. WWF Gender Policy

4. Conservation and Human Rights Framework

5. WWF Guidelines: Prevention of Restrictions of Rights and Relocation & Resettlement Of Indigenous

Peoples, Tribal and Local Communities (pending approval)

6. Other relevant WWF policies and safeguards developed and communicated to the WWF Network

WWF Social policies and safeguards can be found at WWF social policies :

(http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/how_we_work/people_and_conservation/wwf_social_policie

s/).

Eligibility: Who can make a complaint?

Any community or group (at least two or more people) that believes it is or may be negatively

affected by a failure on the part of WWF to follow its Network Social Policies and Safeguards in

the design or implementation of a WWF project activity is considered an “Affected Party”. Any

Affected Party may file a complaint. Representatives filing a complaint on behalf of an Affected

Party must provide concrete evidence of authority to represent them. Because this project

complaints process is oriented towards direct dialogue and engagement among all parties,

anonymous complaints will not be considered although complainants can request confidentiality.

31

There is a risk that confidentiality may limit efforts to resolve complaints, and complainants will

be informed if confidentiality is impeding the process.

Complaint Filing Process

The WWF Complaints Resolution Process is overseen by the office of the Director General of

WWF International. Complaints should be directed to WWF International’s Project Complaints

Officer by email to ProjectComplaint@wwfint.org or delivered by post to Project Complaints,

Director General Office, WWF International, Avenue Mont-Blanc 27, 1196 Gland, Switzerland.

Complaints may be submitted in the Affected Party’s native language.

The complaint should include the following information:

Complainant’s name and contact information

If not filed directly by the complainant, proof that those representing the affected people have

authority to do so

The specific project or program of concern including region and country

The harm that is or may be resulting from it

The relevant Social policy or provision (if known)

Any other relevant information or documents (e.g. date of event)

Any actions taken so far to resolve the problem, including contact with WWF

Proposed solutions

Whether confidentiality is requested (stating reasons)

Complaint Review Process

The WWF International Project Complaints Officer will acknowledge receipt and – within 10

business days – assess the eligibility of the complaint and provide a response as to whether or

not it is eligible, in accordance with the above criteria.

If the complaint is eligible, the Project Complaints Officer will notify the concerned WWF office

or program, and request that they provide a response. The concerned office or program will

provide a response to the Project Complaints Officer within 10 business days with information

on how it plans to look into the complaint and a timeframe for this process. The Project

Complaints Officer will communicate this information to the Affected Party. The concerned office

or program will then look into the matter, with technical support as needed, for example through

investigation of the issues raised and dialogue with the Affected Party and other concerned

parties. Based on the results, the WWF office or program will work with concerned parties to

develop an action plan and timeframe of steps required to resolve any issues identified. A

summary of the concerns raised, actions taken, conclusions reached, follow up plan and

timeframe for completion will be documented and communicated as agreed between the

parties, and provided to the Project Complaints Officer. (If confidentiality has been requested,

the Project Complaints Officer will then communicate the response to the Affected Party.) WWF

International will facilitate support to further clarify, assess, and resolve issues raised as

needed, including if appropriate engaging input from outside experts.

32

Monitoring

Agreed action plans should establish timeframes for regular process monitoring towards

resolution of the complaint. The Project Complaints Officer will coordinate the monitoring by

organizing periodic checks – bringing together the concerned parties and relevant technical

advisors for calls, meetings or other communication on the status of action plans, until they are

completed. WWF will also assess the effectiveness of this complaints resolution process on an

annual basis, and identify any needs for improvement.

Ensuring Compliance with this Process

WWF International, through the Project Complaints Officer, shall ensure offices are aware of

and understand this process and their responsibilities to comply with it.

Non-retaliation. WWF strongly disapproves of and will not tolerate any form of retaliation

against those who report concerns in good faith. Any WWF employee who engages in such

retaliation will be subject to discipline up to and including termination. WWF will take all feasible

actions to protect reporters against retaliation. Anyone who has made a report of suspicious

conduct of a WWF employee and who subsequently believes he or she has been subjected to

retaliation of any kind by should immediately report it by the same channels as noted herein.