In other words, governments will face an exam to answer a simple but decisive question for the health of the Earth: are they really doing what they promised to halt the destruction of nature and restore lost biodiversity? Bolivia is one of the countries expected to show what it has done. Before facing that exam, at COP17 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to be held in Yerevan, Armenia, from October 19 to 30, 2026, countries first had to account for their progress. They did so through their Seventh National Reports (7NR), in which each government details the measures it has taken and the results it has achieved.

The deadline was February 28, 2026. These reports will provide input for the first global review of collective progress. Bolivia also submitted its report, a document that makes it possible to reconstruct—from the State’s official account—the progress it claims to have made and the difficulties it acknowledges.

The Great Challenge

In 2022, during COP15 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, countries adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and laid out a roadmap toward a world living in harmony with nature by 2050. To meet that challenge, they established 23 targets for 2030 that not only commit governments to halting biodiversity loss, but also place Indigenous Peoples and local communities at the center—as rights holders and essential actors in the conservation of their territories and ways of life.

This relationship between conservation and Indigenous rights runs throughout the Framework. It is particularly evident in Targets 1 and 3. The first calls for spatial planning that reduces the loss of areas of importance for biodiversity while respecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Target 3, known as the 30×30 target, establishes that conservation of at least 30% of the planet’s lands and waters must respect these peoples’ rights over their traditional territories. The message is clear: biodiversity conservation cannot be separated from Indigenous Peoples. So, what has Bolivia done over the past four years to fulfill the commitments it made?

If Indigenous territories are part of Bolivia’s strategy to conserve biodiversity, what is actually happening to their forests in the face of deforestation, land encroachment, and the other pressures the State itself acknowledges?

If Indigenous territories are part of Bolivia’s strategy to conserve biodiversity, what is actually happening to their forests?

In its Seventh National Report, prepared by the General Directorate of Biodiversity and Protected Areas, the Bolivian State maintains that Indigenous territories form part of its conservation strategy. Without providing any figures, the document reports progress in the titling of new Tierras Comunitarias de Origen (TCOs) / Territorios Indígena Originario Campesinos (TIOCs), the development of life plans, and the strengthening of Indigenous forms of governance. It also highlights the creation of conservation areas under Indigenous management, as well as initiatives in forest management, sustainable use, restoration, and territorial monitoring.

But the same report points to a more complex picture. Bolivia acknowledges land encroachment, conflicts over land use and overlapping rights, as well as pressures stemming from extractive activities, agricultural expansion, and illegal settlements. It also admits difficulties in updating and harmonizing life plans and, above all, a lack of information to measure land-use change and land tenure in ancestral territories and local communities. The Document states: “No Data Available”.

The paradox is significant. Bolivia presents Indigenous territories as key to conservation and to the international target of protecting at least 30% of the planet’s lands and waters. Yet when it comes to showing what is actually happening within those territories, the State itself acknowledges that it still lacks the data needed to report on one of the indicators established by the Global Biodiversity Framework. If Indigenous territories are part of Bolivia’s strategy to conserve biodiversity, what is actually happening to their forests in the face of deforestation, land encroachment, and the other pressures the State itself acknowledges?

Forests Under Pressure

An investigation by Amazonía Traficada—a journalism project supported by the Pulitzer Center, Mongabay Latam, RAI Bolivia, and Asuntos Centrales—used satellite data to examine a key region for conservation: Bolivia’s Indigenous Amazon. The investigation analyzed deforestation within 48 titled Indigenous territories in Bolivia’s Amazon basin and found that, between 1986 and 2024, these ancestral territories suffered a cumulative loss of 257,000 hectares of forest. That figure represents 3.4% of the 7.6 million hectares deforested in Bolivia during the same period.

To determine how much of that deforestation was legally authorized, the investigation cross-referenced the data with forest-clearing permits issued by the Authority for the Social Oversight and Control of Forests and Land (ABT) between 2003 and 2023. Records show that, over those two decades, the institution authorized the clearing of nearly 80,000 hectares of forest in 41 Indigenous territories. Yet only 17,900 hectares within those authorized areas actually lost their forest cover. Most of the forest loss occurred outside areas where clearing had been authorized.

In other words, between 2003 and 2023, 168,670 hectares were deforested in areas without authorization. The ratio gives a sense of the scale of the problem: for every hectare cleared within an authorized area, more than nine were cleared outside authorized areas. In other words, nearly 90% of the forest loss recorded in Amazonian Indigenous territories during that period occurred outside State authorization mechanisms. The pressure on these territories is part of a nationwide trend. A World Resources Institute (WRI) report shows that in 2025 Bolivia once again ranked second in the world for primary forest loss, behind only Brazil.

A Territorial Struggle with No End in Sight

The pressure on Indigenous territories is not limited to forests. It also extends to land tenure and the legal security of these territories. In its Seventh National Report, Bolivia states that it has expanded the area covered by TCOs/TIOCs through new land titles, although it does not specify how many hectares were incorporated.

However, cross-referencing data from research conducted by the Centro de Estudios Jurídicos e Investigación Social (CEJIS) and the Centro de Investigación y Promoción del Campesinado (CIPCA) shows that the struggle of Lowland Indigenous Peoples for the recognition, titling, and defense of their ancestral territories is far from over.

While much of this territorial demand remains unresolved, the State has continued allocating land to third parties in areas bordering Indigenous territories.

While much of this territorial demand remains unresolved, the State has continued allocating land to third parties in areas bordering Indigenous territories.

From the 1990s through the first decades of the twenty-first century, the 48 Indigenous territories in the Amazon basin collectively requested legal recognition of around 22.7 million hectares. Yet the National Institute for Agrarian Reform (INRA) titled only 11.7 million hectares—just 52% of the area claimed. In other words, more than 11 million hectares were left outside the titling process.

While much of this territorial demand remains unresolved, the State has continued allocating land to third parties in areas bordering Indigenous territories. Between 2009 and 2019, INRA allocated approximately 318,500 hectares for the establishment of 236 intercultural and campesino communities, whose social organizations were aligned with the political party that governed Bolivia between 2006 and 2025.

When Protection Is Not Enough

The gap between the protection the State says it provides and what actually happens within Indigenous territories also appears in the Seventh National Report itself. Bolivia acknowledges that it lacks information to measure, amongst other things, land tenure in the ancestral territories of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. It also acknowledges problems of land grabbing and illegal tenure.

These ancestral peoples face pressure from third-party communities settled around their titled territories with authorization from the National Institute for Agrarian Reform. But they also face land grabbing within areas legally recognized by the State—that is, territories for which they hold collective title.

While Indigenous communities denounce land grabbing and State institutions take months—even years—to act, the trees keep falling and Indigenous territories keep being trafficked.

While Indigenous communities denounce land grabbing and State institutions take months—even years—to act, the trees keep falling and Indigenous territories keep being trafficked.

An analysis of interviews with leaders from 30 of the 48 titled Indigenous territories in the Amazon basin concludes that 28 of these ancestral territories have experienced land grabbing over the past two decades and that, in 22 cases, the conflicts remain unresolved. According to the leaders interviewed, behind these occupations are networks seeking to fuel an illicit land market in the Bolivian Amazon, primarily to open up land for large-scale agricultural activities.

While Indigenous communities denounce land grabbing and State institutions take months—even years—to act, the trees keep falling and Indigenous territories keep being trafficked. But this is not the only pressure. The 30 Indigenous leaders also identified conflicts and threats linked to carbon markets, illegal mining, timber trafficking, and drug trafficking.

Conserving Beyond the Map

In Yerevan, Bolivia will have to show how much progress it has made toward 30×30. It will be able to talk about titled territories, Indigenous governance, and conservation under Indigenous management. Yet behind those figures are territories where trees continue to fall, where disputes over land persist, and where Indigenous communities wait years for the State to respond to land grabbing and the trafficking of their lands.

30×30 may look achievable when viewed on a map. But conservation does not happen on a map. It happens in real territories, where Indigenous Peoples defend their forests, their rights, and their ways of life. The unresolved issue Bolivia will take to COP17 is not simply how many hectares it can declare conserved, but how much of what it says it protects is actually safe—and how effectively it can halt or control the pressures it acknowledges in its own Seventh National Report: the expansion of the agricultural frontier, extractive activities, and human settlements as major drivers of biodiversity loss and deforestation.

In other words, beyond the exam it must sit in October, the Bolivian State—regardless of who happens to be the current occupant of power in La Paz—must be capable of enforcing the rules it has created and guaranteeing the protection of the forests and of those who inhabit these ancestral lands. This is not only an obligation to Bolivians. It is also a responsibility to a planet that no longer has time to wait for promises to become action.

The post 30×30 and Indigenous Territories: Bolivia’s Contradiction appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

The territorial boundaries of Taung Pat Lal are demarcated by natural geographical landmarks, including the Tho Doe The Loe creek, Chein Loe Yo (Tiger Creek), El Bra Loe Chee, Chein Loe Htit (Tiger Rock), Thaw Kha Loe Chee, and the ridges of Yae Ka Hday and Kyar Mwe mountains. Within these boundary markers, the community manages a sophisticated zoning system that seamlessly integrates food production, biodiversity conservation, and spiritual protection such as rotational agricultural lands (Shwe Pyaung Taung Ya), family-managed perennial agroforestry orchards, and communal and sacred lands including protected watershed areas and sacred sites including the Prayer Mountain (Su Taung Taung), a Marian Grotto (Mae Taw Gu), and community cemetery grounds.

Customary land tenure is governed equitably. Inheritance of family orchards and land is granted equally between daughters and sons without gender discrimination. Land boundaries are respected through customary oral agreements and natural landmarks. To safeguard ancestral territories from external land-grabbing, customary rules prohibit selling inherited lands to outsiders from distant areas. If a family must transfer land, it must remain with relatives or community members. Dispute resolution is overseen by village elders, local leaders, and religious figures, terminating in traditional reconciliation practices, such as symbolic handshakes and collective prayers.

Indigenous Knowledge and Ecosystem Conservation

The conservation value of Indigenous lands comes directly from deep-rooted Indigenous ecological knowledge passed down across generations. In Taung Pat Lal, customary resource management contains mechanisms that regulate extraction and protect forest fauna and flora.

1. Agro-biodiversity and biological pest control

In rotational rice plots, Gheba Karen farmers practice agro-farming by planting Phor Li Phor Par (cockscomb flowers) along rice field margins. Under customary knowledge, these vibrant flowers attract insects away from the rice, providing natural biological control that minimizes crop damage without chemical pesticides. Furthermore, rotational plots host a diverse mix of food crops, preserving a genetic bank of resilient local plants and species.

2. Seed-keeping and leadership of Indigenous women

Women (Maetaw Thami) play a crucial role in maintaining agro-biodiversity. Following harvest, women carefully select, sun-dry, and smoke inherited seeds over kitchen households to protect them from insects, storing them safely for the next planting season. Customary rituals reinforce seed purity. When transferring harvested grain to the family granary, a handful of rice and a bouquet of flowers are tied to the main house post throughout the year, ensuring that the spirit of the crops (Saba Leik Pyar) remains tied to the land and is replanted in the spring.

3. Sustainable harvesting rules

The community enforces strict seasonal and biological guidelines for harvesting Non-Timber Forest Products. Bamboo shoots (Myit) are vital for living and livelihoods, with families harvesting bamboo shoots seasonally while maintaining root stock integrity. Medicinal plants such as Bhon Ma Ra Za roots and wild orchids are extracted selectively to prevent depletion.

4. Indigenous herbal heritage and practice

The Gheba Karen Affairs Committee and local youth documented a comprehensive collection of medicinal plants. Local healers rely on species like Dwi Yin Kaung (a wild forest fern), which is crushed into a poultice with sesame oil, turmeric, and local binders to treat severe bone fractures and tissue injuries. Other wild forest species, such as Yae Yin Pyar leaves, wild jackfruit leaves, and ginger roots, are used for post-natal care and treating physical trauma.

Increasing Threats: Conflict, Destruction, and Climate Vulnerability

Despite these sustainable practices, Indigenous Peoples in tropical forest regions face escalating structural threats that endanger both their rights and their ecosystems.

1. Escalating conflict and human rights violations

The operational environment in Kayin (Karen) State is defined by intense military conflict and displacement. Across Thantaunggyi Township and neighboring Leiktho, civilian populations endure frequent airstrikes, heavy artillery shelling, and village burnings by military regime resulting in thousands displaced across the Thantaunggyi / Leiktho regional corridor. Reports document severe casualties, including regime airstrikes on April 29, 2026 in Thantaunggyi that killed 20 civilians, alongside widespread destruction of homes. Thousands of residents remain internally displaced in forest zones, unable to return to burned villages. These conditions prevent regular agricultural cycles and threaten human security. Moreover, Indigenous Gheba Karen communities are also bearing the burden of sheltering and accommodating other internally displaced people from Bago Region, further straining their resources and resilience. The ongoing violence not only devastates lives and property but also hinders long-term development and stability in the region. Urgent international attention and support are needed to address these crises, protect civilian lives, and promote sustainable peace and recovery efforts.

2. Loss of biodiversity and Indigenous knowledge

Deforestation and habitat destruction intensified by historical commercial exploitation which have caused severe decline in biodiversity, including a rising threat against rare medicinal plant species. As elder medicinal plant experts die without proper record-keeping, generations of Indigenous healthcare knowledge risk permanent extinction. Documenting these practices is critical to prevent the loss of Indigenous knowledge and ensure that future benefit-sharing mechanisms respect community ownership.

3. Climate shocks and rodent crises

Tropical forest communities are on the frontlines of climate change. In 2024, extreme monsoon rains triggered severe landslides across Taung Pat Lal, destroying upland hill rice fields, turmeric crops, and valuable customary cardamom agroforest systems. This vulnerability is intensified by cyclical ecological crises. In 1975 and 2016, mass bamboo flowering (Mautam cycles) caused rodent population explosions that destroyed upland rice fields, forcing communities into prolonged economic recovery.

4. Top-down conservation and policy exclusion

Historically, state-driven conservation frameworks and top-down initiatives have ignored customary tenure, treating Indigenous Peoples as threats to forests rather than their primary guardians. Modern market-driven conservation mechanisms such as carbon  and biodiversity credits and offsets risk replicating “fortress conservation” models if implemented without Indigenous Peoples right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), threatening to displace communities from their ancestral lands.

The Need to Align Global Biodiversity Goals with Local Realities

The evidence from Taung Pat Lal (Khlo Do) demonstrates that global biodiversity goals cannot be achieved through top-down mandates or corporate offsetting strategies. As CBD Parties negotiate the operationalization of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) at COP17 in Armenia, the experience of Myanmar’s Indigenous communities’ points to fundamental policy priorities:

1.  Implementing Safeguards and Free, Prior and Informed Consent

All conservation, climate mitigation, and offset projects must enforce Section C of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) safeguards. Protected area expansion, green infrastructure projects, or carbon and biodiversity credit schemes should only proceed after obtaining the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of Indigenous Peoples over their ancestral lands and resources. Furthermore, conservation and carbon- and biodiversity credit schemes that drive dispossession of Indigenous Peoples should be eliminated.

2. Direct Recognition of Indigenous Territories

Target 3 (30×30) must not be interpreted purely as the expansion of state-managed protected areas or exclusive national parks. CBD Parties must formally recognize and legally protect Indigenous Territories as distinct, self-governed conservation designations. Systems like Taung Pat Lal’s customary fallow management and communal forest protection are effective conservation models that directly maintain tropical forest territories and biodiversity. For example, customary zoning (sacred areas, orchards, watersheds) successfully conserves intact forest canopy without state enforcement.

3. Protection of Environmental Human Rights Defenders

Ensure the full, equitable and meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples in decision-making and uphold complete land tenure rights. Robust, direct legal protection and funding mechanisms for Indigenous environmental human rights defenders operating in conflict zones should be ensured. In conflict-affected tropical forest zones, Indigenous land stewards act as the final defense against illegal logging, extraction, and ecosystem collapse. Implementing Target 22 requires operational mechanisms to protect environmental human rights defenders operating in high-risk conflict environments, shields local guardians facing violent conflict, airstrikes, and land grabbing.

4. Direct Climate and Biodiversity Financing

Despite safeguarding crucial carbon sinks and biodiversity hotspots, Indigenous Peoples organizations face systemic barriers to direct funding. International financial mechanisms must establish direct, accessible funding streams for grassroots Indigenous Peoples organizations, bypassing centralized state channels to support community-led mapping, traditional knowledge preservation, and climate resilience interventions.

Resilient Stewardship in the Tropical Forests

Myanmar’s tropical forests endure because of the Indigenous Peoples who steward and safeguard them. The customary land governance, agro-biodiversity practices, and Indigenous herbal heritage and practice of Gheba Karen community in Taung Pat Lal (Khlo Do) offer convincing proof that biodiversity conservation and human rights are fundamentally linked. As international leaders gather at COP17 in Armenia to evaluate progress under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), international policy must be grounded in these local realities. Fully realizing the goals of the KMGBF demands formal recognition of Indigenous territories, legal protection for customary tenure, investment in Indigenous-led monitoring, and robust safeguards for frontline environmental defenders.

Due to the sensitive nature of the issues addressed in this article, Indigenous Debates prefers to keep the author or authors anonymous.

The post Defenders of Rights, Indigenous Customary Governance and Biodiversity Conservation in Myanmar’s Tropical Forests appeared first on Debates Indígenas.