A/HRC/61/49 64. The Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy Program Initiative on Indigenous Rights and Protected Areas of the University of Arizona, United States, has developed a database on alleged violations against Indigenous Peoples’ human rights in protected areas, which includes 30 cases that highlight cultural rights violations. 108 Instead, States must allow local communities to lead protection projects as much as possible. In 2024, only approximately 1% of registered protected areas were reported to be governed by Indigenous Peoples or local communities.109 B. Tourism-related loss of meaning 65. Conservation is often linked to tourism. Although local communities are often pushed out of conservation areas, their cultural practices are being showcased, commodified and “folklorized” for mass consumption. This disconnects people from the meanings and significance that their practices and expressions used to have. Outside the living environment and dynamics of local communities, these practices and expressions become frozen in a particular time, with a certain aesthetic, impoverishing them and challenging their transmission as expressions of “identity, values and meaning” and as heritage resources. C. Donor and funder accountability 66. States commonly rely on international funders and private conservation NGOs for financial and technical assistance in managing conservation projects. Especially in underdeveloped countries, which often host the greatest biodiversity, conservation NGOs and donors yield immense power. They often fall short of a human rights-based approach and have historically not accounted for cultural considerations in their assessments, monitoring or reporting. Reports on donor States, international organizations and international conservation bodies paint an especially worrying picture of an immense discrepancy between proclamations and reality.110 67. This is particularly obvious regarding the consultation of local communities or processes to obtain the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples in connection with the creation or management of protected areas. There is evidence that public-private partnership models for managing parks mirror colonial structures. Despite its much-needed work to promote free, prior and informed consent and participation in conservation, the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ) has attracted widespread criticism for its work in the Congo, which allegedly led to cultural rights violations,111 and questions have arisen about the effectiveness of its work on free, prior and informed consent in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic.112 68. From the billions of dollars annually channelled towards biodiversity projects globally, little is earmarked for cultural safeguards or for ensuring that free, prior and informed consent processes meet international standards. Many donors also lack effective monitoring mechanisms to ensure that human rights are respected in connection with this financing. Donors routinely finance socioeconomic development opportunities for communities that have been adversely affected by protected areas, covering schools, transportation, infrastructure, hospitals and so forth. It is rare for these donors to fund culturally appropriate support and to question the cultural impact of their projects. Donors also resist funding long-term solutions to ensure cultural continuity for these communities, such as the restitution of ancestral lands, territories and resources or support for equitable conservation governance systems. 108 109 110 111 112 GE.26-01310 Submission from International Union for the Conservation of Nature. See www.protectedplanet.net/en/thematic-areas/indigenous-and-community-conserved-areas. See Knox, “Dismantling the fortress”. See Colin Luoma, Fortress Conservation and International Accountability for Human Rights Violations against Batwa in Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Minority Rights Group, 2022). See A/HRC/61/49/Add.1. 17