Globally, there is no single universally agreed-upon definition of Indigenous peoples (IPs), yet specific criteria are typically used to define whether someone is Indigenous or not, namely self-identification, historical continuity, linkage to ancestral land, and distinctive social, cultural, and economic systems. This paper argues that the definition criteria act as guiding principles to explain the situation of IPs rather than recognising IPs’ collective rights to their lands, which are critical for nature conservation. By drawing the insights from selected cases, we found that either one or two of these criteria, such as cultural and self-identification, are commonly applied to identify IPs. The cases also showed that recognising collective rights of IPs to land has been found to offer a positive outcome for nature conservation and associated socio-cultural and economic opportunities for the people (e.g. biodiversity conservation, greenhouse gas abatement). We emphasise that not only the definition, but the legal recognition of land rights and involvement of IPs would be of the utmost importance to continue cultural practices attached to their ancestral lands, allowing them to be involved with natural resource management and conservation decision-making, that eventually relates to self-determination, equity and social and economic justice.

Globally, there is no single universally agreed-upon definition of Indigenous peoples (IPs), yet specific criteria are typically used to define whether someone is Indigenous or not, namely self-identification, historical continuity, linkage to ancestral land, and distinctive social, cultural, and economic systems. This paper argues that the definition criteria act as guiding principles to explain the situation of IPs rather than recognising IPs’ collective rights to their lands, which are critical for nature conservation. By drawing the insights from selected cases, we found that either one or two of these criteria, such as cultural and self-identification, are commonly applied to identify IPs. The cases also showed that recognising collective rights of IPs to land has been found to offer a positive outcome for nature conservation and associated socio-cultural and economic opportunities for the people (e.g. biodiversity conservation, greenhouse gas abatement). We emphasise that not only the definition, but the legal recognition of land rights and involvement of IPs would be of the utmost importance to continue cultural practices attached to their ancestral lands, allowing them to be involved with natural resource management and conservation decision-making, that eventually relates to self-determination, equity and social and economic justice.

This paper examines land use patterns of rural households and the association with food production and income across three different zones of various forest proximity across a landscape gradient (remote, intermediate and on-road) in the Chittagong Hill Tracts region of Bangladesh. We conducted in-depth semi-structured surveys of households (175-300) and farm owners (30) to collect information on people’s perceptions of land use change, present land use patterns and contributions to food production and income. Our research found that more than half of the surveyed households experienced a decline in the land available for food production over the past 30 years. The land use patterns revealed decreasing crop lands (mainly swidden farms) and an increase in areas of planted trees. However, household use of the reduced crop land has not affected food production in the on-road zone, whereas the diversity of food sources has declined. People living in more remote areas used larger areas of crop (swidden farms) and fallow lands, fruit orchard and accessed natural forest lands that provide a diverse reservoir of food sources. The current land uses contribute to variations in annual household income, with remote dwelling people earning less to those living in the intermediate and on-road zones. In summary, this transition of land uses over three decades and changes in income and food availability cannot be generalised across the region because of zone specific differences. We recommend a broader and context-reliant landscape management approach in consideration of the diversity of forest and tree benefits.