Recognition of Commons and ICCAs—Territories of Life in Europe: Assessing Twelve Years of Initiatives in Spain

Abstract

Lack of recognition lays at the root of many of the current challenges for commons and ICCAs—Territories of Life despite the wide range of ongoing, collective action initiatives in Europe acknowledging and fighting this gap. In this paper, using a mixed methods approach, we analyze twelve years of three bottom-up initiatives based on the commons and ICCA—Territory of Life concept, implemented in Spain from 2012 to 2025. The aim of this research is to assess and understand the degree of success of the initiatives, based on an analysis of the source of recognition and the type of goals achieved. In general terms, the three recognition initiatives were successful, especially at the levels of self-, peer, and international recognition. However, all failed to substantially improve public awareness and national and sub-national governmental recognition, especially when addressing policy change and implementation. We conclude that, in the European context, despite these challenges, the concepts of “commons” and “ICCA-Territory of Life” are powerful tools to achieve some level of recognition and are a strategic priority for facing Europe’s challenges fostering solutions that reinforce the role, capacity, responsibility, and rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.

1. Introduction

Commons and Territories of Life (the latter also known as ICCAs, territories and areas conserved by Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples) are facing a wide variety of problems today, but at the root of many of these problems and threats lies a lack of appropriate recognition of their existence, governance institutions, and values [1]. Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPs and LCs) governing commons and Territories of Life have made it very clear: they highlight recognition (and especially lack of recognition) as one of their greatest challenges, as the following examples show. In relation to ICCAs—Territories of Life, a report authored by UNEP-WCMC (United Nations Environment Programme—World Conservation Monitoring Centre) and the ICCA Consortium [2] (p. 11) considers that ICCA custodians must be acknowledged and respected as rights-holders, protagonists and leaders in relevant decision-making processes, and their rights to self-determination and collective lands and territories recognised and upheld. In the same vein, other authors reinforce these ideas, focusing on collective tenure rights, their link to sustainability [3] (pp. 45, 51), and ultimately for greater understanding on how to recognize and support ICCAs [4] (p. 9). In Europe, this is also the case at the regional level [5,6,7] and at the national level in Spain [8,9,10], Italy [11], Croatia [12], England [13], Finland [14,15], Portugal [16], Romania [17], France [18], and Switzerland [19] (p. 289).

In the context of our research, we define “commons” as a system through which any natural resource is collectively governed by a local community of both users and producers [20,21]. In this study, for ICCAs—Territories of Life, we apply the definition of the ICCA Consortium [1,22], to any area where:

• There is a close connection between a territory and its community.
• The community has its own functioning governance institution.
• The governance decisions and rules overall positively contribute to the conservation of nature as well as to community livelihoods and wellbeing.

In this sense, all ICCAs—Territories of Life are commons, as the definition of the former includes all the characteristics of commons, but not all commons are ICCAs. A common will need to comply further with the overall positive contribution to nature conservation and to community wellbeing [1,22] to meet the ICCAs—Territories of Life definition (both definitions exclude other kinds of resource systems, such as digital or knowledge commons). In this paper, we focus on these two concepts as conceptual and political tools that can be used to achieve recognition by commons and ICCA custodian communities.

The importance of adequate recognition of commons and Territories of Life relies on their current and potential contribution to achieving environmental, social, and economic goals, from the local to the global level, as well as their intrinsic focus on harmonizing these values. For this reason, there is an increasing recognition of the global contribution of ICCAs—Territories of Life [23] and commons [19,24,25,26] to environmental goals. For example, potential ICCAs—Territories of Life are thought to cover more than one-fifth (21%) of the world’s land and over one-fifth (22%) of the extent of the world’s terrestrial Key Biodiversity Areas [2]. Territories of Life and commons have the same relevance from economic and social perspectives, such as for community livelihoods [3,22,27,28,29] or equity [30,31].

As it happens at the global level, commons and ICCAs—Territories of Life in Europe are relevant from economic, environmental, and social points of view. For example, European Union (EU) countries reported 9,000,000 ha of common land dedicated to grazing and agriculture [32]; these data were acknowledged as incomplete by the EU. Regarding small-scale artisanal fisheries, they employed 48% of all EU fishing jobs in 2018, comprising 74% of all EU fishing vessels [33]. In most cases, it is difficult to quantify commons for the following reasons: the difficulty in categorizing such diversity [34,35], comparability of official datasets between countries [32], incomplete and fragmented data [36], and the absence of national or regional inventories and registries (e.g., common forests, common hunting areas, or common irrigation systems).

In Spain, as in the case of Europe in general, commons (including Territories of Life) include diverse socio-ecosystems based on forestry, pastoralism, hunting, irrigation, fishing, agriculture, and sacred/spiritual areas [8]. Available, partial data show that in Spain, commons are very diverse and extremely relevant from social, economic, and environmental points of view. For example, common pastures are widespread: 27.3% of all the herbivore livestock heads graze in common grasslands and 21% of livestock farms use common grasslands [37]. The Spanish Sociedades de Caza (hunting associations) manage some 11.6 million hectares communally [38] and there are more than 2 million hectares of woodlands [39] governed as Montes de Socios (Partner Woodlands) and 673,000 ha governed as Montes Vecinales en Mano Común (Neighbour Woodlands) in Galicia alone [40,41]. Finally, a third type of collectively governed woodlands, the abundant Communal Woodlands (Montes Comunales in sensu stricto: excluding Partner and Neighbour Woodlands), has no national register [42] or reliable data: while available partial data shows 641,843 ha [43], the authors of this paper conservatively estimate that more than a half of the 6,160,225 ha registered as “local entity properties” in the National Forest Inventory [44] may be communal woodlands. In the Extremadura region alone, there are 141,000 ha of Montes Comunales, providing ecosystem services to more than 170,000 commoners [45]. Concerning coastal areas, the Spanish coastline is communally governed by 229 Cofradías de Pesca (historical and traditional fishing guilds), which provide 83% of the jobs in the fisheries sector [46]. Regarding irrigation, 7196 registered Comunidades de Regantes (irrigation communities) managed 2,596,731 ha of irrigation land in Spain in 2001 [47] (p. 197), but this figure excludes many unregistered irrigation communities. For example, a non-exhaustive participatory mapping of traditional and historical irrigation systems implemented in just 2 (Granada and Almeria) of the 50 provinces of Spain showed more than 550 such communities [48].

In this paper, we analyze three national-scale initiatives that work towards the recognition of the social, economic, and environmental values of commons and Territories of Life in Spain, from 2012 to 2025. In the European context, grassroot initiatives for supporting commons are comparatively abundant in Spain [8], although almost all of them are implemented at local (e.g., focused on a particular commons [49,50]) or regional levels (e.g., focused on a specific sector, e.g., Neighbour Woodlands in Galicia) and are poorly disseminated, remaining mostly unstudied. The initiatives studied in this paper are unique among other initiatives supporting commons in Spain due to their national scale, the innovative approach of the ICCA—Territory of Life concept, and the cross-sectoral approach. We seek to understand how these initiatives achieved recognition by analyzing the sources of recognition, the goals achieved, and the main factors influencing the processes. We also summarize lessons learned. These three initiatives are based on the “ICCA—Territory of Life” concept and approach and were self-managed by communities governing commons, with support from Iniciativa Comunales (iComunales) and the ICCA Consortium. The first and last authors contributed to the facilitation, design, and implementation of these initiatives.

The concept of recognition, as described by Hegel, is a process through which individuals encounter each other and struggle to be acknowledged; this results in one party recognizing the other [51]. Going beyond the individual, recognition dynamics can extend to groups and be applied to Local Communities (LCs) [52], including commons and ICCA custodians [22], from international politics [52] to social movements [53], and can involve a complex struggle involving individuals, governments, and international organizations [54]. In this sense, recognition can be a scalar process, moving from the individual to peers to regional, national, and international scales, as we will see later in the analysis. Recognition can also help victims of discrimination and exclusion [55], something especially relevant due to the global legacy of misunderstanding and injustice against commons and ICCAs [56]. Accordingly, a claim for recognition can arise because the process of being recognized is thought to improve the situation; in this sense, it is part of a political struggle [57].

Recognition implies respect for cultural diversity, collective decision-making institutions, and the rights of LCs [58]. Self- and mutual recognition among peers remain essential to ICCAs—Territories of Life, implying that the custodian people or community is aware of and caring about its relationship with their territory, and that other peoples and communities are also aware, accept, and possibly support that self-identification and caring [22] (p. 331).

Conversely, lack of recognition and misrecognition have consequences on the communities governing commons and ICCAs—Territories of Life which, adapting Martin et al.’s methodology [59], can be categorized as psychological, social, cultural, political, and material. Impacts include being disempowered by the decisions affecting their territories, erosion of local biological and cultural diversity, dispossession of livelihoods [22] (p. 179), and undermining the possibilities for innovation by excluding local forms of knowledge and experience, or the unlikeliness of decision-making processes to produce fair outcomes, e.g., distributional equity [60].

The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness for achieving community goals of three national-level, recognition-based, bottom-up initiatives on commons and ICCAs—Territories of Life. We study if and how different sources of recognition help achieve community goals—described in this study as outcomes sought by custodians of commons and ICCAs—Territories of Life through bottom-up collective action. We also aim to understand at which point the concepts “commons”—as a culturally rooted phenomenon in Europe—and “ICCA–Territory of Life”—as an innovative, encompassing global term—can be effectively used as political tools to improve the results of collective action in the Spanish context and, by extension, in other contexts. Furthermore, we aim to draw conclusions on the strengths and weaknesses of the three initiatives in order to contribute to improving similar initiatives elsewhere. Finally, we aim to improve the understanding on how the commons and ICCA—Territory of Life concepts can be used—mainly in the European context but also elsewhere—as a governance and political tool in community-based initiatives which work on environmental, social, and economic challenges in society.

2. Context and Implementation Framework of the Three Initiatives

In this paper, we focus on the following three initiatives for recognizing the social, economic, and environmental values of commons and Territories of Life in Spain that were implemented from 2012 to 2025: The Valdeavellano de Tera (VdT) Declaration, the creation of the association Iniciativa Comunales, and the peer review and support (PRS) process for the Spanish applications to the ICCA Registry. Table S1 (Supplementary Material) includes dates and details of key, early events related to the development of the three initiatives studied in this paper.

2.1. The Valdeavellano de Tera (VdT) Declaration

This is a participative, bottom-up national initiative developed in 2014 aiming to provide a common vision and public declaration for the recognition of commons and ICCAs in Spain.

2.1.1. Context

In the context of increasing global interest of the concept of ICCA—Territory of Life, the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) commissioned a report [4] on recognizing and supporting ICCAs, including case studies from 19 countries worldwide, including Spain, lead and co-authored by the first author. For the Spanish study [8], in 2011–2012, the authors contacted approximately 200 community members, researchers, and other experts involved in, or with knowledge about, any collective governance system of natural resources (e.g., forestry, pastoralism, hunting, irrigation, fishing, agriculture, and sacred/spiritual areas) with special attention to those focused on achieving conservation.

2.1.2. Implementation Framework

The organizations participating in the study called for bringing the various initiatives into contact in order to network, exchange experiences, and foster solidarity and peer support. Subsequently, the first community-led cross-sectoral national meeting on commons in Spain was organized in 2013. The goals of this meeting were to meet in-person and to draft a “declaration” that would publicly stress the communities’ shared vision. Additionally, in order to link to the global movement and the ICCA—Territory of Life concept, the ICCA Consortium held its 6th Global Assembly in conjunction with the national meeting in Valdeavellano de Tera, Soria, Spain at the same time.

2.1.3. The Drafting of the VdT Declaration

During the national meeting, a workshop was held to facilitate a participatory draft of the Declaration. The event was public and open. During the previous months, invitations were sent to key communities governing commons and their organizations along with other interested actors, irrespectively if they had been part of the national study. The draft was written by representatives of communities commonly governing woodlands, pastoral grazelands, hunting areas, small-scale fisheries, irrigation systems, and shell-gathering areas. Other people and organizations participating in the draft were commons researchers and public servants in their personal capacity, academic institutions, national and regional environmental civil society organizations (CSOs), and sectorial foundations. Afterwards, the resulting draft was distributed to other Spanish communities governing commons for comment.

The Declaration was signed by 28 organizations. In total, 11% (3) were international organizations and 89% (25) were Spanish organizations. The Spanish organizations alone represent a minimum of 142,377 commoners and 1,819 communities governing commons in Spain. This process took almost one year, and the final version of the Declaration, comprising ten points, was translated into seven vernacular and four foreign languages [61].

The Declaration was publicly launched in the Real Jardín Botánico de Madrid in 2014 [62], where each one of its ten thematic points was read by a representative of a different type of commons (woodlands, hunting, pastoral, etc.). Starting in 2017, signing the VdT became part of the iComunales membership process (see below).

2.2. The Creation of the Association “Iniciativa Comunales”

In 2015, a national, cross-sectoral, community-led organization of communities governing commons and ICCAs in Spain, called Iniciativa Comunales (“Communal Initiative”), was founded.

2.2.1. Context

The creation of the association Iniciativa Comunales is closely related to the “VdT Declaration”. As a result of the contacts and subsequent networking facilitated by the national study conducted by Couto & Gutiérrez [8], Spanish communities agreed on the need to create a national-level organization for the recognition and defence of the commons.

2.2.2. Implementation Framework

The attendants of the 2013 VdT meeting agreed on creating a national-scale organization, choosing the name Iniciativa Comunales. Later, in 2015, the association was founded in Córdoba, Spain by 14 members, 8 of which were commoners (including the president, vice-president, treasurer, and secretary), and 6 others which were steering committee members—including the first author—consisting of researchers, activists, and experts in communication and participation. Governance measures were taken to prevent the association from being instrumentalized by outside interests: it was decided that the seats of the president, vice-president, treasurer, and secretary should be held by commoners. For the same reason, a weighted voting system was conceived (25 votes for communities governing commons and organizations directly representing them, 5 votes for other organizations, and 1 vote for individual association members). Additionally, after 2017, all membership applications were asked to sign the VdT Declaration as a prerequisite to join the association.

One year later (2016), iComunales had 58 members, including individuals and organizations. iComunales member organizations represented at least 102,377 commoners, 319 communities governing commons, and 784 people who were not commoners. Additionally, the association had a national, open email list with 224 members and a dedicated webpage. iComunales had increasing activity during the period of 2014–2019, with one yearly in-person national assembly, and organizing—often in partnership—several thematic workshops and public events, counting 13 national-scale events in that period [63,64]. iComunales became an active member of the ICCA Consortium in 2014 and the International Land Coalition (ILC) in 2018. In 2015, iComunales was appointed by the ICCA Consortium as the organization responsible for the facilitation of the peer support and review process for the candidacies to the International ICCA Registry in Spain (see next section). In 2017, the Spanish Ministry for the Ecological Transition and Demographic Challenge (MITECO) granted iComunales with a yearly “Permanent Seminar” in their facilities at the National Center for Environmental Education CENEAM for organizing the “Seminar on Communal Conservation in Spain”, held yearly from 2017 onwards [65]. iComunales coordinated the ILC Working Group on Commons in 2018 and the “Common Lands Network” (2019 to 2021), a group of 30 community-based organizations from 22 countries of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa aiming to recognize and support the commons [66], in collaboration with the ICCA Consortium and the Spanish association “Trashumancia y Naturaleza”.

In 2019, COVID-19 regulations stopped in-person events, having a strong effect on the vitality and activity of the association. In-person assemblies were resumed in 2021, as well as other events, such as the Seminar on Communal Conservation (Valsaín, Spain), but overall, the activity has not reached, by far, the pre-pandemic levels.

2.3. The Peer Review and Support (PRS) Process for Spanish Applications to ICCA Registry

A community-based initiative was created for the peer review and support of the ICCA—Territories of Life candidacies to the International Registry of ICCAs, managed by UNEP-WCMC and facilitated by iComunales with the support of the ICCA Consortium.

2.3.1. Context

The formal recognition of ICCAs—Territories of Life was helped by the establishment of the international ICCA Registry at UNEP-WCMC, in collaboration with the ICCA Consortium. This international registry stores voluntary, descriptive, and spatial information. The purpose of this registry is to build a knowledge base about ICCAs—Territories of Life by documenting their values, enhancing understanding and recognition of their purposes and impacts, and increasing engagement of local and traditional communities in biodiversity conservation and policy [67]. The LCs and IPs concerned are required to go through a “Free, Prior and Informed Consent, FPIC” process before providing information about their ICCAs—Territories of Life. The data may be stored and made freely available, or it can remain private, according to the wishes of the community [68].

2.3.2. Implementation Framework

From 2010, and especially during 2014, the ICCA Consortium started work on safeguarding the quality of the ICCA Registry to be sure that all the entries in the ICCA Registry were consistent with the ICCA global definition. More importantly, the Consortium had a clear position: LCs and IPs, in their role as ICCA custodians, should govern and implement the peer review and support (PRS) process, typically through an ICCA network at the country level [22] (p. 263). Eventually, in 2015, this approach was agreed to, rather than the expert panel option that had been originally proposed by the ICCA Registry managers.

2.3.3. The Spanish Peer Review and Support Initiative

Shortly after this meeting, iComunales organized a participative workshop in Madrid (at the Medialab Prado premises) to draft the first protocol for the PRS of the applications to the ICCA Registry, which guaranteed the quality, fairness, and transparency of the process and respect for FPIC, among other aspects. As part of the PRS process, iComunales (in its capacity as a national network) would support candidate communities in the work of exploring self-identification with the ICCA—Territory of Life concept and accessing their application to the Registry. Additionally, volunteering commoners would be selected by iComunales to anonymously review the candidacies. In 2016, the first version of the protocol was passed in the 1st iComunales General Assembly in Altsasu, Navarra. The PRS process was implemented from 2017 to 2025 (see Section 4), with a pause from 2019 to 2024 during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In 2017, the Spanish PRS process had two successful candidacies. In 2018, there were six candidacies: four were positive, one negative, and one pending additional information. In 2019, the 4th iComunales General Assembly approved the new version of the protocol, which is the one currently in force in 2025. In 2024, there were four more candidacies, which are now going through the process of peer support and review.

3. Methods

For this study, the authors analyzed information using a mixed methods approach [69], combining quantitative and qualitative methodologies, using a wide range of sources. Mixed methods permit a deeper understanding of the research subject and more flexibility [70].

The research is rooted in the direct and sustained involvement of the first author in the studied processes, which allowed for continuous access to rich, evolving data. As an insider to these processes, this positionality permits a nuanced analysis and easier access to actors and documents [71]. Rather than applying a pre-defined research design, the study retrospectively systematizes materials and insights generated throughout the development of the initiatives, reflecting a situated, practice-based approach. This required methodological flexibility and a combination of document analysis, participant observation, interviews, and informal exchanges.

Documents- The documents studied include approximately 60 unpublished and public documents from the ICCA Consortium and iComunales associations from 2012 to 2025 such as assembly and meeting minutes and agendas, reports, and other publications (e.g., conclusions of participatory workshops), as well as approximately 55 e-mails, including distribution lists (e-fora) and individual exchanges. Given the time passed (12 years) and the evolving nature of the process, this number is indicative rather than exhaustive.

Interviews- The information obtained from the documents was complemented with around 80 interviews by e-mail or face-to-face with Spanish and European LC members—including registered ICCAs community members—and iComunales and ICCA Consortium members—including LCs and IPs at the global level. Other actors included public administration servants, CSO members, researchers, and a wide range of technicians mostly involved in rural development and natural resource conservation and management. These exchanges were not always formalized as structured interviews but were part of ongoing dialogue and co-reflection. Informal and unstructured interviews were used, which according to Newing et al. [72], allow for greater flexibility and depth in gathering rich, contextualized information. Their primary aim was to obtain feedback to adapt and improve the processes, to guarantee the FPIC of the involved communities, and as part of the daily exchanges of the bottom-up approaches and methodologies of the studied initiatives. Subsequently and only when several years had passed, these materials now serve as research materials, after a previous process of anonymization.

Given the existing application of recognition theory from the individual to governments and social movements and based on the relevance of recognition for commons and ICCAs—Territories of Life at the global level (see Section 1), we designed a methodology to analyze the important role of recognition in the three studied initiatives during the period 2012–2025. We take a scalar approach, where recognition was disaggregated according to five different sources: self-recognition; recognition among peers; general public recognition; national and sub-national governmental recognition; and international/global recognition. All these scalar categories are easy to understand and identify, are often present in commons/ICCAs related processes, and do not overlap.

In order to understand the levels of success of each initiative, we linked those sources of recognition with the following nine goals achieved during the study period: enhance internal communication and boost participation processes in the community; specific recognition of the community social/economic/environmental contributions (being differentiated goals); exchanges, networking, replicability, and other sources of collective innovation; provide added value to community products and services; strengthen capacity to defend against external threats; increase external institutional support and resource mobilization; and influence external policies linked to commons/Territories of Life.

The nine goals analyzed were identified through an inductive process of grouping and categorizing the main objectives (sensu Erlingsson and Brysiewicz [73]) repeatedly identified as achieved or intended by communities during the study period. These emerged from participatory workshops, informal and formal exchanges, and were also observed by the research team through long-term involvement in the recognition processes. The final set reflects both community-defined priorities and recurring patterns identified through sustained empirical engagement.

Consequently, the matrix resulting from crossing “recognition sources” and “types of goals achieved” was analyzed. Similarly to Fakis et al. [74], who explained how to quantify qualitative data by assigning intensity scores to identified categories, this study employs a scoring system to evaluate levels of success across matrix components.

For each component of the matrix, a score was attributed to three levels of success: low (0 points, no goals achieved), medium (1 point, moderate achievement), and high (2 points, high achievement). Medium success refers to partial success (e.g., only one or few goals achieved, but relevant failures in other cases, weak/partial achievement of goals overall, or consistent identification of relevant barriers for overall achievements).

Medium score: For example, for the initiative “Peer review and support (PRS) process”, the crossing between “national and sub-national recognition” and “Increase in external institutional support and resources mobilization”, the impact score was “medium” as there was only a single relevant case of national recognition and another one at the regional level that brought external institutional support and some, quite limited, resource mobilization for national/regional networking/events among the communities. Additionally, the Registration itself did not bring any institutional support or resource mobilization to the registered communities.

High score: An example of a “high” score includes the crossing of “peer recognition” (as a source of recognition) with “Exchanges, networking, replicability and other sources of collective innovation” (as type of goals achieved) in relation to the “creation of iComunales”. During the study period, there was a fruitful interaction between peers of iComunales including an active national e-mail list, 15 in-person national events, 5 international [63,64] events, others at the regional and local levels, and project proposals, including a LIFE EU proposal and a European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability (EIP-AGRI) Operational Group on commons governance. Additionally, this networking and exchange was enjoyed by a wide range of members from both diverse geographical areas (65% of Spanish regions represented in the association membership) and sectoral activities (including woodland, pastoral, fishing, shell-gathering, hunting, and watering communities). These results of the matrix are summarized in Figure 1 and Figure 2 and Table 1 and Table 2 (see Section 4). For a detailed matrix categorization of the outcomes achieved in each of the studied initiatives, see

Table A1. Declaration of Valdeavellano de Tera. Matrix categorization of the outcomes achieved through the Declaration of Valdeavellano de Tera by linking community goals to the source of recognition. Cells ranked as LOW recognition (red) have impact scores of 0 points, with MEDIUM (yellow) having 1 point and HIGH (green) having 2 points. Total recognition impact per source of recognition is the result of the sum of the scores of each column.

	SOURCE OF RECOGNITION INVOLVED	Self-Recognition	Recognition Among Peers	General Public Recognition	National and Sub-National Governmental Recognition	International/Global Recognition
TYPE OF GOAL ACHIEVED
Enhance internal communication and boost collective participation processes in the community		HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): 96% of the communities went through a self-recognition process with the Declaration. Indicator(s): -High participation rate -96% of the involved communities signed	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): 96% of the communities feel identified with other signatories of the Declaration. Indicator(s): -High participation rate -96% of the involved communities signed	LOW General public recognition of the value of the internal participation and self-recognition that the Declaration brought has not been relevant	LOW National or sub-national governmental recognition had not a relevant impact on achieving the internal participation and self-recognition that the Declaration brought	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): Institutional, conceptual and financial international support for recognition processes of the signatories of the Declaration. Indicator(s): -Valdeavellano meeting -Sense of being part of a global movement for common/ICCA rights -Coordinator funding support (ICCA Consortium) -Support and foundation of iComunales
Specific recognition of the community social contributions		HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The community goes (or not) through an internal process of self-recognition on their own social impact. Indicator(s): -High participation rate -96% of the involved communities signed	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The communities as signatories self-recognize themselves on their own social impact. Indicator(s): -High participation rate -96% of the communities involved signed -Strong support on conceptualization (e.g., social values of commons)	MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The Declaration contributed to general public recognition on the social values of commons in Spain. Indicator(s): -Press and blog news at national and regional level -Attendance to public events on the Declaration	LOW We do not have relevant evidence that the specific social value of commons has been recognized by national or sub-national governmental thanks to the Declaration	MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): International support and recognition of the commons’ social values. Indicator(s): -Support with conceptualization (e.g., ICCA concept) -Setting the foundation of iComunales
Specific recognition of the community economic contributions		HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The community goes (or not) through an internal process of self-recognition on their own economic impact. Indicator(s): -High participation rate -96% of the involved communities signed	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The communities as signatories self-recognize themselves on their own economic impact. Indicator(s): -High participation rate -96% of the communities involved signed -Strong support on conceptualization (e.g., economic values of commons)	MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The Declaration contributed to general public recognition on the economic values of commons in Spain. Indicator(s): -Press and blog news at national and regional level -Attendance to public events on the Declaration	LOW We do not have relevant evidence that the specific economic value of commons has been recognized by national or sub-national governmental thanks to the Declaration	MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): International support and recognition of the commons’ economic values. Indicator(s): -Support with conceptualization (e.g., ICCA concept) -Setting the foundation of iComunales
Specific recognition of the environmental contributions		HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The community goes (or not) through an internal process of self-recognition on their own economic impact. Indicator(s): -High participation rate -96% of the involved communities signed	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The communities as signatories self-recognize themselves on their own environmental impact. Indicator(s): -High participation rate -96% of the communities involved signed -Strong support on conceptualization (e.g., environmental values of commons)	MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The Declaration contributed to general public recognition on the environmental values of commons in Spain. Indicator(s): -Press and blog news at national and regional level -Attendance to public events on the Declaration	MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The Declaration contributed to national administration recognition on the environmental values of commons in Spain. Indicator(s): -National permanent seminar (CENEAM) -Regional support (Navarra) to some events	MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): International support and recognition of the commons’ environmental values. Indicator(s): -Support with conceptualization (e.g., ICCA concept) -Setting the foundation of iComunales
Exchanges, networking, replicability and other sources of collective innovation		MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): self-recognition is a prerequisite for equal and effective exchanges and networking at any level. Indicator(s): -High participation rate -96% of the involved communities signed	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The process leading to the Declaration was a major driver of networking and exchanges. Indicator(s): -Creation of iComunales -Nr of members associated (30)	MEDIUM Public recognition brought some degree of exchange and networking from external institutions Indicator(s): -Nr of networking collaborations (5–10)	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The national and sub-national administration recognition and support brought by iComunales contributed to networking and exchanges among commons in Spain. Indicator(s): -National permanent seminar (CENEAM) -Regional support (Navarra) to some events -MEMOLab Prado (Madrid) -Real Jardín Botánico (Madrid) -Assembly of Pontevedra	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): International support and recognition for the commons networking, exchanges, etc. Indicator(s): -Valdeavellano meeting -Coordinator funding support (ICCA Consortium)
Provide added value to community products and services		MEDIUM The Declaration has been a part of the self-recognition process leading to add value to products and services for some communities. Indicator(s): -Forest products -Information boards and other land signalling	MEDIUM The Declaration has been a part of the association peer-recognition process leading to add value to products and services for some communities. Indicator(s): -iComunales have managed this recognition -Products and services recognized	LOW We do not have evidence that the Declaration has added value to the products and services of the communities involved through the general public recognition	LOW We do not have evidence that the Declaration has brought added value to the products and services of the communities involved trough national or sub-national administrations	MEDIUM the Declaration has been an intermediate step for bringing added value to the products and services of the communities involved trough international support Indicator(s): -Creation of iComunales with international support -ICCA process as final step of early international support
Strengthen capacity to defend against external threats		LOW The Declaration has not been used directly (yet) to defend communities from external threats through self-recognition	MEDIUM The Declaration started the support and solidarity net among peers for helping communities to face each other external threats Indicator(s): -Nr of peer supporting initiatives for facing threats to individual communities	MEDIUM The Declaration started the support and solidarity net among the general public for helping communities to face external threats among the general public Indicator(s): -Nr of external supporting initiatives for facing threats to individual communities	LOW We do not have evidence that the Declaration has strengthen the capacity of the communities involved to defend against external threats	MEDIUM The Declaration started the international support and solidarity net for helping communities to face external threats Indicator(s): -Nr of external supporting initiatives for facing threats to individual communities
Increase in external institutional support and resources mobilization		LOW The Declaration has not been used directly (yet) to achieve external support or for resources mobilization through self-recognition	MEDIUM The Declaration started the institutional support among peers of other institutions Indicator(s): -Nr of institutions supporting the Declaration related initiatives	MEDIUM The Declaration started the institutional support among other general public institutions Indicator(s): -Nr of institutions supporting the Declaration related initiatives	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The Declaration contributed to the national and sub-national administration recognition and support on institutional support and resources mobilization. Indicator(s): -National permanent seminar (CENEAM) -Regional events support (Navarra) -MEMOLab Prado (Madrid) -Real Jardín Botánico (Madrid) -Assembly of Pontevedra	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The Declaration contributed to the international resources support and recognition. Indicator(s): -ILC funding Common Lands Network -Valdeavellano meeting -Coordinator funding support (ICCA Consortium) -Participation in international events (Sidney, etc.)
Influence external policies linked to commons/Territories of Life		LOW The Declaration has not been used directly (yet) to influence policies through self-recognition	LOW The Declaration has not been used directly (yet) to influence policies through recognition among peers	LOW The Declaration has not been used directly (yet) to influence policies through recognition among the general public	LOW The Declaration has not been used directly (yet) to influence policies through recognition at national or sub-national level	LOW ACHIEVED GOAL(S): the Declaration itself brought little international recognition to propose changes in international policies
RECOGNITION IMPACT SCORE:		10	13	6	5	11
OVERALL RECOGNITION IMPACT 0–6: LOW 7–12: MEDIUM 13–18: HIGH		MEDIUM	HIGH	LOW	LOW	MEDIUM

,

Table A2. Creation of the association “Iniciativa Comunales”. Matrix categorization of the outcomes achieved through the creation of Iniciativa Comunales by linking community goals to the source of recognition. Cells ranked as LOW recognition (red) have impact scores of 0 points, with MEDIUM (yellow) having 1 point and HIGH (green) having 2 points. Total recognition impact per source of recognition is the result of the sum of the scores of each column.

	TYPE OF RECOGNITION INVOLVED	Self-Recognition	Recognition Among Peers	General Public Recognition	National and Sub-National Governmental Recognition	International/Global Recognition
TYPE OF GOAL ACHIEVED
Enhance internal communication and boost collective participation processes in the community		MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The creation of iComunales brought some degree of self-recognition to the communities. Indicator(s): -Membership process -Mandatory signature of the Declaration (self-recognition)	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): Communities feel identified with other members of iComunales and started self-recognition processes leading to join iComunales. Indicator(s): -Events and assembly high participation rate -Numbers and geographical and sectorial representativity of the membership	LOW The value of internal participation and self-recognition related to iComunales has not been relevantly recognized by the general public	LOW National or sub-national governmental recognition had not a relevant impact on achieving the internal participation and self-recognition that the iComunales brought	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): Institutional, conceptual and financial international support for recognition processes of the members of iComunales. Indicator(s): -Valdeavellano meeting -Coordinator funding support (ICCA Consortium)
Specific recognition of the community social contributions		MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The community as member goes (or not) through an internal process of self-recognition on their own social impact. Indicator(s): -Membership process -Mandatory signature of the Declaration (self-recognition)	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The communities as iComunales members self-recognize through peers their own social impact. Indicator(s): -Events and assembly high participation rate -Numbers and geographical and sectorial representativity of the membership	MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): iComunales contributed to general public recognition on the social values of commons in Spain. Indicator(s): -Press and blog news at national and regional level -Attendance to public events organized by iComunales	LOW National or sub-national governmental recognition of iComunales had not a relevant impact on achieving specific recognition of the social contribution of commons	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): International support and recognition of the commons’ social values. Indicator(s): -Valdeavellano meeting -Coordinator funding support (ICCA Consortium) -Participation in international events (Sidney, etc.)
Specific recognition of the community economic contributions		MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The community as member goes (or not) through an internal process of self-recognition on their own economic impact. Indicator(s): -Membership process -Mandatory signature of the Declaration (self-recognition)	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The communities as iComunales members self-recognize through peers their own economic impact. Indicator(s): -Events and assembly high participation rate -Numbers and geographical and sectorial representativity of the membership	MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): iComunales contributed to general public recognition on the economic values of commons in Spain. Indicator(s): -Press and blog news at national and regional level -Attendance to public events organized by iComunales	LOW National or sub-national governmental recognition of iComunales had not a relevant impact on achieving specific recognition of the economic contribution of commons	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): International support and recognition of the commons’ economic values. Indicator(s): -Valdeavellano meeting -Coordinator funding support (ICCA Consortium) -Participation in international events (Sidney, etc.)
Specific recognition of the environmental contributions		MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The community as member goes (or not) through an internal process of self-recognition on their own environmental impact. Indicator(s): -Membership process -Mandatory signature of the Declaration (self-recognition)	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The communities as iComunales members self-recognize through peers their own social impact. Indicator(s): -Events and assembly high participation rate -Numbers and geographical and sectorial representativity of the membership	MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): iComunales contributed to general public recognition on the environmental values of commons in Spain. Indicator(s): -Press and blog news at national and regional level -Attendance to public events organized by iComunales	MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): iComunales contributed to national administration recognition on the environmental values of commons in Spain. Indicator(s): -National permanent seminar (CENEAM) -Regional support (Navarra) to some events	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): International support and recognition of the commons’ environmental values. Indicator(s): -Valdeavellano meeting -Coordinator funding support (ICCA Consortium) -Participation in international events (Sidney, etc.)
Exchanges, networking, replicability and other sources of collective innovation		MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): self-recognition is a prerequisite for equal and effective exchanges and networking at any level. Indicator(s): -Assembly participation -Events participation	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The membership activity is a major driver of networking and exchanges. Indicator(s): -High participation in events, assemblies -Numbers and geographical and sectorial representativity of the membership	HIGH Public recognition through iComunales brought many exchanges and networking from external institutions Indicator(s): -Nr. of networking collaborations (10–15)	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): iComunales achieved support on networking and exchanges among commons in Spain through the national and sub-national administration recognition. Indicator(s): -National permanent seminar (CENEAM) -Regional support (Navarra) to some events -MEMOLab Prado (Madrid) -Real Jardín Botánico (Madrid) -Assembly of Pontevedra	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): International support and recognition for the commons networking, exchanges, etc. Indicator(s): -Valdeavellano meeting -Coordinator funding support (ICCA Consortium) -Participation in international events (Sidney, etc.)
Provide added value to community products and services		MEDIUM The creation of iComunales has been a part of the self-recognition process leading to add value to products and services for some communities. Indicator(s): -Forest products -Information boards and other land signalling	MEDIUM The creation of iComunales has been a part of the peer-recognition process leading to add value to products and services for some communities. Indicator(s): -Forest products -Information boards and other land signalling	LOW We do not have evidence that iComunales has added value through general public recognition to the products and services of the communities involved	LOW We do not have evidence that national or sub-national administrations have brought added value to the products and services of the communities involved in iComunales	MEDIUM iComunales brought added value to the products and services of some of the communities involved through international support Indicator(s): -Creation of iComunales with international support -ICCA process as final step of early international support
Strengthen capacity to defend against external threats		MEDIUM iComunales has been used directly (yet) to defend communities from external threats through self-recognition Indicator(s): -iComunales supporting campaigns (5-10)	HIGH IComunales, through peer-recognition has been key to defending communities from external threats Indicator(s): -iComunales supporting campaigns (5-10)	HIGH iComunales has been key to the support and solidarity net among the general public for helping communities to face external threats Indicator(s): -Nr of external supporting initiatives for facing threats to individual communities	LOW We do not have evidence that national or sub-national administrations recognition has strengthen the capacity of the communities involved in iComunales to defend against external threats	HIGH iComunales the international support and solidarity net for helping communities to face external threats Indicator(s): -Nr of external supporting initiatives for facing threats to individual communities
Increase in external institutional support and resources mobilization		HIGH The self-recognition of communities through iComunales has been key to achieving external support or for resources mobilization Indicator(s): -ILC funding Common Lands Network -Valdeavellano meeting -Coordinator funding support (ICCA Consortium) -Participation in international events (Sidney, etc.)	HIGH Peer-recognition through iComunales has been key to achieving external support or for resources mobilization Indicator(s): -ILC funding Common Lands Network -Valdeavellano meeting -Coordinator funding support (ICCA Consortium) -Participation in international events (Sidney, etc.)	HIGH iComunales has been key to materializing the institutional support among other general public institutions Indicator(s): -Nr. of institutions supporting iComunales related initiatives	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): iComunales contributed to the national and sub-national administration recognition and support to resources mobilization. Indicator(s): -National permanent seminar (CENEAM) -Regional support (Navarra) to some events -MEMOLab Prado (Madrid) -Real Jardín Botánico (Madrid) -Assembly of Pontevedra	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): iComunales contributed to the international resources support and recognition. Indicator(s): -ILC funding Common Lands Network -Valdeavellano meeting -Coordinator funding support (ICCA Consortium) -Participation in international events (Sidney, etc.)
Influence external policies linked to commons/Territories of Life		MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): iComunales contributed to the international support and recognition bringing changes in international policies, but not in national or subnational policies, through self-recognition. Indicator(s): -EU Common Agricultural Policy -ICCA policy campaigns	MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): iComunales contributed to the international support and recognition bringing changes in international policies, but not in national or subnational policies, through peer recognition. Indicator(s): -EU Common Agricultural Policy -ICCA policy campaigns	LOW iComunales has not been used directly (yet) to influence policies through general public recognition	LOW iComunales have not been used directly (yet) to influence policies through national or sub-national recognition	MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): International recognition through iComunales has served to propose changes in international policies, but not in national or subnational policies. Indicator(s): -EU Common Agricultural Policy -ICCA policy campaigns
RECOGNITION IMPACT SCORE:		10	16	8	5	16
OVERALL RECOGNITION IMPACT 0–6: LOW 7–12: MEDIUM 13–18: HIGH		MEDIUM	HIGH	LOW	LOW	HIGH

and

Table A3. The peer review and support (PRS) process for the candidacies of the ICCA Registry in Spain. Matrix categorization of the outcomes achieved through the PRS process by linking community goals to the source of recognition. Cells ranked as LOW recognition (red) have impact scores of 0 points, with MEDIUM (yellow) having 1 point and HIGH (green) having 2 points. Total recognition impact per source of recognition is the result of the sum of the scores of each column.

	TYPE OF RECOGNITION INVOLVED	Self-Recognition	Recognition Among Peers	General Public Recognition	National and Sub-National Governmental Recognition	International/Global Recognition
TYPE OF GOAL ACHIEVED
Enhance internal communication and boost collective participation processes in the community		HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): Strong community self-recognition internal and participatory process inherent to the candidacy prerequisite. Indicator(s): -FPIC -Self-evaluation -Documentation-process involving self-recognition by the community	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): Strong community peer recognition and internal participatory process inherent to the ICCA Registry candidacy. Indicator(s): -Peer evaluation -Final peer proposal on the candidacy	LOW General public recognition of the value of the internal participation and self-recognition brought by the Registry has not been relevant	LOW National or sub-national governmental recognition had not a relevant impact on achieving the internal participation and self-recognition that the Registry brought	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): International support was achieved for enhancing participation and self-recognition through the Registry. Indicator(s): -Valdeavellano meeting -Coordinator funding support (ICCA Consortium) -Limited support of UNEP-WCMC
Specific recognition of the community social contributions		HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): Strong community social self-recognition process inherent to the candidacy. Indicator(s): -FPIC -Self-evaluation -Documentation-process involving social self-recognition by the community	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): Strong community peer recognition of social values inherent to the candidacy process (if final peer opinion positive). Indicator(s): -Peer evaluation -Final peer proposal on the candidacy -Registry entry	LOW ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The ICCA Registry did not contribute relevantly to general public recognition on the social values of commons in Spain.	LOW We do not have relevant evidence that the specific social value of commons has been recognized by national or sub-national governmental through the registry	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): International support and recognition of the ICCAs social values through the ICCA Registry. Indicator(s): -Peer evaluation -Final peer proposal on the candidacy -Registry entry
Specific recognition of the community economic contributions		HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): Strong community economic self-recognition process inherent to the candidacy. Indicator(s): -FPIC -Self-evaluation -Documentation-process involving economic self-recognition by the community	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): Strong community peer recognition of economic values inherent to the candidacy process (if final peer opinion positive). Indicator(s): -Peer evaluation -Final peer proposal on the candidacy -Registry entry	LOW ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The ICCA Registry did not contribute relevantly to general public recognition on the economic values of commons in Spain.	LOW We do not have relevant evidence that the specific economic value of commons has been recognized by national or sub-national governmental through the registry	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): International support and recognition of the ICCAs economic values through the ICCA Registry. Indicator(s): -Peer evaluation -Final peer proposal on the candidacy -Registry entry
Specific recognition of the environmental contributions		HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): Strong community environmental self-recognition process inherent to the candidacy. Indicator(s): -FPIC -Self-evaluation -Documentation-process involving environmental self-recognition by the community	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): Strong community peer recognition of environmental values inherent to the candidacy process (if final peer opinion positive). Indicator(s): -Peer evaluation -Final peer proposal on the candidacy -Registry entry	LOW ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The Registry has not relevantly helped to general public recognition on the environmental values of commons in Spain.	MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The Registry contributed to national administration recognition on the environmental values of commons in Spain. Indicator(s): -National permanent seminar (CENEAM)	HIGH ACHIEVED GOAL(S): International support and recognition of the ICCAs environmental values through the ICCA Registry. Indicator(s): -Peer evaluation -Final peer proposal on the candidacy -Registry entry
Exchanges, networking, replicability and other sources of collective innovation		MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): self-recognition has been achieved as prerequisite of the candidacy and involves as result some networking and exchanges as part of the process as well as result of being registered. Indicator(s): -Acceptation of peer evaluation -Networking among registered ICCAs	MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The process leading to the registration was a relevant driver of networking and exchanges, but not as much as expected (especially after the registration) Indicator(s): -Registered communities networking -Registered communities exchanges	LOW ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The Registry has not relevantly helped to general public recognition on the environmental values of commons in Spain.	MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The national and sub-national administration recognition and support brought by the ICCA Registry contributed to on networking and exchanges among commons in Spain. Indicator(s): -National permanent seminar (CENEAM) -Regional support (Navarra) to some events -MEMOLab Prado (Madrid)	MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): International recognition and support brought by the ICCA Registry contributed limitedly to on networking and exchanges among ICCAs in Spain. Indicator(s): -National permanent seminar (CENEAM)
Provide added value to community products and services		MEDIUM The Registry provides support for self-recognition leading to add value to products and services for some communities. Indicator(s): -Forest products -Information boards and other land signalling	HIGH Peer-recognition is the main key of the ICCA Registry, leading to adding value to products and services for some communities. Indicator(s): -Forest products -Information boards and other land signalling -iComunales label for ICCAs	LOW We do not have evidence that the registration has added value to the products and services of the communities involved through the general public recognition	LOW We do not have evidence that the Registry has brought added value to the products and services offered by the communities through national or sub-national administrations	HIGH International recognition is an important key of the ICCA Registry, leading to adding value to products and services for some communities. Indicator(s): -Forest products -Information boards and other land signaling -Registry entry (e.g., webpage)
Strengthen capacity to defend against external threats		MEDIUM Communities have identified the ICCA Registry and self-recognition as a source of power to defend against external threats Indicator(s): -Community alert calls -Community support calls	MEDIUM The Registry is moderately helping to build a support and solidarity net among peers for helping communities to face each other external threats Indicator(s): -No. of peer supporting initiatives for facing threats to registered communities	MEDIUM The Registry brought some support and solidarity net among the general public for helping communities to face external threats among the general public Indicator(s): -Nr of external supporting initiatives for facing threats to individual communities	LOW We do not have evidence that the Registry has strengthened the capacity of the communities involved to defend against external threats through national or sub-national recognition	MEDIUM The Registry achieved through international recognition some support and solidarity net for helping communities to face external threats Indicator(s): -Nr of external supporting initiatives for facing threats to registered communities
Increase in external institutional support and resources mobilization		LOW Although being part of the Registry have been useful to increase external institutional support and resources mobilization, it was mainly caused by peer and international recognition, not so much because self-recognition	MEDIUM Being part of the Registry trough peer recognition have been useful to increase quite limited external institutional support and resources mobilization	LOW The limited general public recognition on the Registry has helped quite little to achieve institutional support from other institutions	MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The national and sub-national administration recognition and support brought by the ICCA Registry contributed moderately to increase institutional support and resources mobilization. Indicator(s): -National permanent seminar (CENEAM) -Regional events support (Navarra) -MEMOLab Prado (Madrid)	MEDIUM ACHIEVED GOAL(S): The international recognition and support brought by the ICCA Registry contributed moderately to increase institutional support and resources mobilization. Indicator(s): -ILC funding Common Lands Network -Coordinator funding support (ICCA Consortium) -Participation in international events (Sidney, etc.)
Influence external policies linked to commons/Territories of Life		LOW The Registry has not been used directly (yet) to influence policies through self-recognition, although it is intended in the medium and long term	MEDIUM The peer support achieved through the Registry has been used directly to influence policies Indicator(s): -No. of policy briefs of the ICCA Consortium and UNEP-WCMC reports addressing policy issues	LOW The limited general public recognition on the Registry has helped quite little to influence external policies	LOW The Registry has not been used directly (yet) to influence policies through recognition at national or sub-national level	LOW ACHIEVED GOAL(S): International recognition through the Registry has served little to propose changes in international policies
RECOGNITION IMPACT SCORE:		11	14	1	3	13
OVERALL RECOGNITION IMPACT 0–6: LOW 7–12: MEDIUM 13–18: HIGH		MEDIUM	HIGH	LOW	LOW	HIGH

(Appendix A).

One of the limitations of this study includes the fact that the initiatives studied in this paper only involved communities and associations of communities active on external networking and communication, with an intersectoral focus, and interested in participating in and contributing to national-scale initiatives. In this sense, the communities involved do not represent the whole spectrum of strategies (e.g., do not include low profile/invisibilization strategies) implemented by commons and their organizations when protecting their rights and territories in Spain or Europe.

Another limitation of the study is methodological: most of the materials studied are not products of a predesigned methodological sampling, but documents, events, workshops, interviews, and communications (e.g., e-mails) designed for other purposes (organizational, political, etc.). This is why we applied a mixed methods approach.

4. Results

Detailed results are shown and categorized in a matrix linking community goals to different sources of recognition for each of the three studied initiatives (see Table A1, Table A2 and Table A3 in Appendix A). Each element of the matrix includes a brief assessment of the effectiveness of a particular source of recognition in achieving specific community goals. For successful elements of the matrix, the achieved goal(s) are listed, including related indicators. It is worth noting that for the three initiatives, all sources of recognition contributed relevantly to at least one community goal. Similarly, all community goals gained from at least one source of recognition in the three initiatives, with the sole exception of the goal “influence external policies” in the case of the creation of iComunales, where none of the sources of recognition contributed relevantly.

4.1. Overall Initiative Effectiveness

The three initiatives were successful in obtaining a relevant degree of recognition and achieving community goals. The most effective initiative was “the creation of iComunales” (55 points), followed by the “VdT Declaration” (45) and then the “PRS process to the ICCA Registry” (42); see details in Table 1 and Table 2 (see Section 4.3 for Table 2).

Table 1. Degree of success of recognition of three initiatives according to source of recognition.

	Recognition Source	Self-Recognition	Recognition Among Peers	General Public Recognition	National and Sub-National Governmental Recognition	International Recognition	Total
Recognition Initiative
Valdeavellano de Tera Declaration		10	13	6	5	11	45
Creation of iComunales		10	16	8	5	16	55
Peer Review and Support process to the ICCA Registry		11	14	1	3	13	42
Total		31	43	15	13	40	142

Table 1. Degree of success of recognition of three initiatives according to source of recognition.

	Recognition Source	Self-Recognition	Recognition Among Peers	General Public Recognition	National and Sub-National Governmental Recognition	International Recognition	Total
Recognition Initiative
Valdeavellano de Tera Declaration		10	13	6	5	11	45
Creation of iComunales		10	16	8	5	16	55
Peer Review and Support process to the ICCA Registry		11	14	1	3	13	42
Total		31	43	15	13	40	142

4.2. Source of Recognition Effectiveness

The three initiatives had a similar pattern of recognition impact on the goals achieved (Table 1; Figure 1), with “recognition among peers” being the most effective source of recognition (43 points), followed closely by “international recognition” (40) and “self-recognition” (31). The least impactful sources of recognition are “general public recognition” (15) and “national and sub-national governmental recognition” (13).

Figure 1. Degree of success of recognition of three initiatives by recognition source.

Figure 1. Degree of success of recognition of three initiatives by recognition source.

4.3. Type of Community Goals Achieved

Based on the type of goals achieved through recognition, some of the results are summarized in Table 2 and Figure 2.

Figure 2. Degree of success of recognition of three initiatives according to type of goal achieved.

Figure 2. Degree of success of recognition of three initiatives according to type of goal achieved.

Table 2. Degree of success of recognition of three initiatives according to type of goal achieved.

	TYPE OF GOAL ACHIEVED	Community Participation	Social Value Recognition	Economic Value Recognition	Environmental Value Recognition	Exchanges and Networking	Added Value Products and Services	Capacity to Defend Against External Threats	External Institutional Support and Resource Mobilization	Influence External Policies	TOTAL
RECOGNITION INITIATIVE
Valdeavellano de Tera Declaration		6	6	6	7	8	3	3	6	0	45
Creation of iComunales		5	6	6	7	8	3	7	10	3	55
Peer Review and Support process to the ICCA Registry		6	6	6	7	4	5	4	3	1	42
TOTAL		17	18	18	21	20	11	14	19	4	142

Table 2. Degree of success of recognition of three initiatives according to type of goal achieved.

	TYPE OF GOAL ACHIEVED	Community Participation	Social Value Recognition	Economic Value Recognition	Environmental Value Recognition	Exchanges and Networking	Added Value Products and Services	Capacity to Defend Against External Threats	External Institutional Support and Resource Mobilization	Influence External Policies	TOTAL
RECOGNITION INITIATIVE
Valdeavellano de Tera Declaration		6	6	6	7	8	3	3	6	0	45
Creation of iComunales		5	6	6	7	8	3	7	10	3	55
Peer Review and Support process to the ICCA Registry		6	6	6	7	4	5	4	3	1	42
TOTAL		17	18	18	21	20	11	14	19	4	142

4.3.1. Enhance Internal Communication and Boost Participation Processes in the Community

The Declaration facilitated an active self-recognition process at the national level (see the “Initiatives for the recognition of the commons and ICCAs in Spain” Section). Later, through iComunales, the 58 members also reviewed the Declaration and self-identified with key concepts (e.g., commons, governance, ICCA—Territory of Life, etc.). In the PRS process, 12 candidate communities were involved in a sound ICCA—Territory of Life concept self-identification process, and around 20 peers (external, anonymous commoners) and 12 facilitators were involved in the PRS.

4.3.2. Specific Recognition of Community Social/Economic/Environmental Contributions

These three goals were achieved, quite evenly for the three initiatives overall, but very unevenly if we look at the sources of recognition. These values/contributions were explicitly self-recognized or recognized among peers in the three initiatives studied, or internationally recognized (see “Exchanges, networking…”, “Increase in external institutional support…”, and other goals). National, sub-national, and general public recognition was quite poor, except, to a lesser extent, “recognition of environmental contributions” (e.g., CENEAMߞNational Center for Environmental EducationߞPermanent Seminar, see Section 2.2.2).

4.3.3. Exchanges, Networking, Replicability, and Other Sources of Collective Innovation

Exchanges and networking were one the most overall achieved goals, including a wide range of activities and events [63,64].

4.3.4. Provide Added Value to Community Products and Services

As a result of being listed in the ICCA Registry, some communities have “labelled” their products (e.g., forest food products) as ICCA products or have labelled their services (e.g., trails) with the additional values linked to being a registered ICCA. iComunales developed a logo to help communities with this purpose [75,76].

4.3.5. Strengthen Capacity to Defend Against External Threats

The creation of iComunales, and to a lesser extent the ICCA Registry process, helped communities governing ICCAs/commons to leverage some external threats (e.g., harmful, extractive projects, alienation or regressive policies on common rights [64,77,78,79]) through an “Alert System” that recognizes their values. Additionally, specific guidelines were funded and published by iComunales for improving the defence capacity of communities, e.g., “Mini-guidelines for persons or groups affected by photovoltaic installations” [80].

4.3.6. Increase in External Institutional Support and Resource Mobilization

Some external institutional support examples are detailed in the Section 2. This support included directly or indirectly funding (through collaborations with projects or other institutions’ activities) communities’ goals and activities (e.g., networking) by the ICCA Consortium, ILC (International Land Coalition), MITECO (Spanish Ministry for the Ecological Transition and Demographic Challenge), Trashumancia y Naturaleza, MAVA Foundation, EU (e.g., collaborating with 7th Framework Programme for Research and EIP-AGRI Operational Groups), among other institutions. This support also included institutional support (e.g., from the ICCA Consortium to iComunales to implement the PRS process, or the MITECO supporting a Permanent Seminar about ICCAs and commons).

4.3.7. Influence of External Policies Linked to Commons/Territories of Life

This goal resulted in a few successes identified, all at the regional level, despite the relevant recognition efforts to support communities’ defending themselves against common rights/regressive policy initiatives through issuing policy briefs [81], funding informative and networking webpages, or by providing organizational and public support. One of the very few laws and regulations that were successfully changed for being more “commons” friendly was indirectly supported: an EU LIFE project team on common “dehesas” [82] participated by presenting their project in the public event on the VdT Declaration and regularly collaborated with iComunales. One of its results was to set a correction factor for forest regional subsidies based on its governance system, awarding 100% for communal forests due to their additional value.

Considering the goals achieved (Table 2; Figure 2), the most successful was “environmental recognition of the commons/ICCAs values” (21 points), followed by “promoting exchanges and networking among communities” (20 points), “achieving external institutional support and resources mobilization” (19), and “social and economic recognition of commons/ICCAs values” (18 both). The goals for which less success was observed were “influence external policies” (4 points), followed by “adding value to the community products and services” (11 points).

4.4. Lack of Recognition

During the study period, it appears that lack of recognition is at the root of a vast range of problems experienced by commons and Territories of Life. These problems can be categorized as socio-political, material, and cultural and, eventually, cause insecure natural resource tenure and greatly constrain LCs’ opportunities. As commons and Territories of Life provide social, economic, and environmental benefits to non-commoners, we, the rest of society, are also subject to the harm of the injustice of the lack of recognition.

5. Discussion

Based on our results, recognition is a key prerequisite for active participation of commons and Territories of Life custodians in decision-making processes, such as shaping, implementing, and enforcing policy objectives (e.g., environmental, territorial planning, rural development, and climate), but also for achieving a more favourable context (administrative, funding, legal, public opinion, etc.) in which the communities can implement their governance rights, preserving and enhancing the environment, social fabric, and economy of their territory (e.g., ecosystem services, social justice, direct democracy, or quality local job positions). Recognition also enhances the potential replicability and transferability of common governance solutions to other areas (including urban areas), sectors (e.g., private sector, CSOs, etc.), or public policies (e.g., health, education, etc.).

5.1. Sources of Recognition

Our study, for the first time, visualizes the scalar impact of various levels of recognition, from high recognition at the international level to low levels of recognition at the local and community levels. A key point of the success of the three initiatives has been self-recognition and peer recognition and support (PRS). The paramount importance of self-recognition and peer recognition among Territories of Life has been stressed by Borrini-Feyerabend [22] (p. 267), who states, what may make a difference is the collective voices of self-identified custodians, those who engage together in processes of self-strengthening and end up recognising, and being recognised by, their peers. PRS is increasingly successfully used in very diverse scenarios as training, reading and cross-disability services [83], mental health services [84], and for evaluating art and design [85].

Furthermore, the international level has been an important source of recognition for the three initiatives. This is in line with the global rapid “recognition crescendo” [4] (chapter 3) [22] (p. 255) of community conservation (e.g., [86], Section C.8) and common governance [87,88,89] during the study period. The three initiatives contributed to this global recognition while benefiting from it (see “international recognition”, Table A1, Table A2 and Table A3).

However, in all three initiatives, there was less general public and national and sub-national governmental recognition. During the last decade, although well oriented relevant efforts were made to influence the regional, national, and EU policy levels [29,81], little was achieved [29]. For example, in France, the government continues to appropriate commons but a coalition of elected officials, legal scholars, activists, and researchers are collaborating to change this legal framework to favour commons [90]. Notable exceptions to these trends include Italy’s recent legal reforms in favour of commons [91,92], Switzerland’s relatively robust and regionally supported institutions [19], and Scotland’s national policies [93] including those which favour the challenging creation of community woodlands [94].

In this regard, at the national and sub-national levels (and also in the EU), there is a clear and strong barrier to changing policies in a way that limits the market-oriented and individualist perception of rights to natural resources [29] (e.g., for valuing their long-term environmental, economic, and social functions) to opt, instead, for local-contextualized adaptative (see [17,95]) instead of standardized administrative processes when governments regulate commons and ICCAs—Territories of Life [4] (p. 74). This barrier also limits further empowering LCs and IPs, instead bypassing the rights of commoners to benefit extractive industry and other neo-colonial initiatives (e.g., [13] (Section 5.1)). These barriers go beyond influencing policies by obstructing the enforcement of law though the lack of effective recognition [4] (p. 64) [11]. An example is not enforcing the restitution of common land ruled by a final court decision [96]. Blocking funding is also an issue where, for example, the Andalusian Government passed specific subsidies for Historical and Traditional Irrigation Systems through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for 2014–2020 that never received a budget line for implementation. Borrini-Feyerabend [22] (p. 267) also concludes that had the state governments (and United Nations) more seriously engaged with grassroots community organizations, they might be better organized today to fend off risks—from the commercialization of nature to climate emergencies. This policy incoherence contributes to the disempowerment of LCs and IPs [52,97] and deepens social and ecological unsustainability of the affected territories [95].

5.2. Types of Goals Achieved

The three initiatives are succeeding in enhancing “community participation”, “social, economic and (specially) environmental values recognition”, and “exchange and networking”. This is in accordance with what communities appreciate at the global level where, according to Borrini-Feyerabend, they see technical and financial support as most helpful when it enables them to carry out surveillance and enforcement of their own rules, to respond to threats and to take advantage of joint learning and networking with other communities [22] (p. 260). This could have been the case because these goals are mostly self- and peer recognition-dependent. A study on the creation of iComunales showed that it was useful in networking and supporting commons, providing legal advice, strengthening governance structures, generating knowledge about commons, and providing feedback to communities on different matters [97].

5.3. Key Factors Contributing to the Success of the Three Initiatives

We consider that one of the most important key factors for the success of these recognition initiatives is related to the ethics and values embedded in their implementation. These are summarized in the following points:

• Bottom-up approach

The motivation of the recognition initiatives contributes to solving the problems, needs, and challenges identified by LCs’ governing commons and ICCAs—Territories of Life. The collective design and implementation of the three recognition initiatives came later, as a collective answer to those problems, and were facilitated for and supported by commons grassroot organizations (iComunales and the ICCA Consortium), in line with global recommendations [1].

• Inclusive participatory strategy

As highlighted by Godoy et al. [97], a consensus was built on the idea that diverse and open participation improves the initiative’s processes and results, reflecting sectorial and geographical diversity while ensuring a respectful and comfortable environment for a wide spectrum of LCs (e.g., rural or urban, conservative or progressive, materialistic or spiritual, etc.).

• Community empowerment goals

A common driver of the processes was the empowerment of the communities and their organizations, as rightful, collective custodians (e.g., through technical support). According to Borrini-Feyerabend [22] (p. 260), placing ICCA governance institutions at the centre of decisions helps empower them in ways tailored to the context.

• Self-recognition basis (no “labelling” by outsiders)

The identification of the communities as “local”, “commons”, or “ICCAs-Territories of Life” can be recognized, facilitated. and supported by other actors (e.g., other communities as in the RPS process), but that process cannot be legitimately governed by external actors, e.g., experts, CSOs, or governments. Borrini-Feyerabend [22] (p. 255) also highlights the dilemmas of being described “by others”. For example, for the PRS process at the global level, the ICCA Consortium insisted that environmental and social results of community conservation initiatives should be “peer reviewed” rather than reviewed by national authorities or experts [22] (p. 263) [98].

• Self-governance guarantees

All these processes included specific governance features to intentionally avoid instrumentalization by (external or internal) vested interests. These rules pertained to iComunales institutions (e.g., weighted voting in favour of LCs) or processes implemented (e.g., although commoners knew and acknowledged—as stated in the “Declaration” and implemented in iComunales—the importance of collaboration and support from other actors, these collaborations must focus on advising, supporting, and implementing the communities’ vision and decisions).

• Intersectoral approach

From the original study on ICCAs in Spain [8], the initiatives were focused on commonalities rather than legal or historical differences. The value of this approach has been highlighted as both enriching and challenging by the participants [97].

• Not alone

Many of the community leaders were positively surprised to find out that there were so many active commons aimed at protecting and improving their communities and territories. Prior to the initiatives, many felt that they were almost the only remaining commons alive, in the context of growing privatization and rural abandonment (something we call the “Asterix village feeling”) (Asterix is the main character of a popular French comic book series set in the year of 50 B.C.E. Unlike the rest of Gaul (present-day France), Asterix’s village has not been taken over by the Roman Empire and endures a continuous, but unsuccessful, siege). Breaking down the isolation brought additional motivation to community leaders. The ICCA—Territories of Life concept showed the communities involved that the resurgence of commons was a global movement, not a local legal “dysfunction” of historical origin that should disappear for the sake of modernity [88]. Combining the ICCA Consortium General Assembly and the first meeting on commons in Spain was a powerful demonstration of the global scale of this resurgence, showing that the recognition and support of common systems and their custodian communities is an active, emerging, and global phenomenon that extends beyond countries, cultural and historical backgrounds, or administrative and legal frameworks.

5.4. Recommendations for ICCAs—Territories of Life and Commons in Europe

• Conceptualization is key

The concepts of “commons” and “ICCAs-Territories of Life” are powerful tools to achieve recognition in the European context. “Commons” has a strong historical and cultural base in most of Europe [30], linking together communities’ governing commons through a diverse range of cultures, socio-ecosystems, and governance institutions. “Territories of Life” has been proved to be a powerful political tool to encompass a shared vision among custodian communities, highlighting the key cornerstones of good governance, while stressing the environmental, social, and economic values that are the centre of common governance. For example, the ICCA—Territory of Life concept helps demonstrate the relevance of resource governance, as the core activity that identifies and gives meaning to both commons and ICCA—Territory of Life concepts. While we acknowledge the importance of the type of property (being public, private, or common) or natural resource governed both in commons and ICCAs (mostly for practical reasons), experience highlights that this aspect does not define ICCAs or commons: collective natural resource governance can occur in public, private, common lands, or a mixture of the former. ICCA—Territory of Life is also interesting as a self-recognition concept, becoming a tool through which many communities governing commons have achieved a higher degree of awareness and empowerment. Another attractive aspect of the ICCA—Territory of Life concept is that it can conceptually reconcile collective human needs (community wellbeing) with nature conservation, something that market policies have failed to do and mainstream conservation organizations are just recently aiming to achieve [24].

2.

Recognition is most effective when actively used

The benefits to a community of being part of any of these initiatives depend greatly on whether and how the community uses this recognition. All examples included in the results involved a great deal of proactive attitude by the communities to strategically use the different sources of recognition.

3.

What commons have in common

Through outlining the vision and values that Spanish communities governing commons had together, the initiatives checked if Spanish communities had enough interests in common in order to work together, both at the national level and at intersectoral levels. In practice, the Declaration was created as a condensed and fast way to communicate common values, visions, approaches, and goals to many diverse communities governing commons. In this sense, the Declaration was clearly successful: many communities quickly identified with what they read in the Declaration, helping them to both self-identify as well as to be peer-identified. iComunales was a successful recognition tool for networking and establishing synergies through a familiar cultural and historical-based concept: the commons. The PRS process has been a successful source of recognition too, but was less accessible for the many communities potentially interested due to conceptual barriers (novelty of the ICCA—Territory of Life concept [99]), difficulties in perceiving the potential benefits and fully understanding the PRS process [97,99], and the high voluntary investment in time and governance management and external communication required by the organization (iComunales) in charge of the PRS process. For a detailed analysis of the lessons learnt on the PRS process in Spain, see [100] (pp. 53–56).

6. Conclusions

In light of the results, we conclude that the three recognition initiatives were largely successful over the study period (2012–2025). On one hand, the VdT Declaration had strong and genuine support and served its purpose well, helping to join intersectoral commons at the national level in a dialogue that gave birth to iComunales. At the same time, iComunales was able to articulate a governance structure capable of organizing and supporting several national events per year, as well as coordinating some international initiatives. The peer review process is still active, and although it still only involves a few communities, is a demonstrative and ground-breaking initiative with a promising future. All sources of recognition were useful to achieve community goals, showing the overall importance of recognition, in its diverse forms, as a key component of any collective action regarding commons and ICCAs—Territories of Life. We also conclude that “commons”, as defined in this paper, is a key concept to promote initiatives to improve and recognize collective governance of natural resources, due to its strong cultural, legal, and historical background in Europe. Regarding the “ICCA–Territory of Life” concept, it has been shown to be an empowering political tool for communities, as well as key to mobilizing the wide diversity of commons, focusing on their common traits and challenges.

Our analysis revealed the scalar challenges to achieving recognition across multiple levels. Although the initiatives were successful at self-, peer, and international recognition, all found it difficult to achieve public awareness, most likely due to the lack of the vast communication resources needed to target general public opinion. National and sub-national governmental recognition was also difficult, especially when addressing policy changes and implementation. We consider that the resistance to these changes, or an adequate implementation of current common rights policies, is strongly related to the links between national and sub-national governments and political and economic forces willing to exploit the natural resources the communities have under their custodianship. Despite these issues, several lessons emerge which can help other European ICCAs—Territories of Life and commons enhance recognition at multiple levels. We consider the recognition of ICCAs—Territories of Life and commons a strategic priority for facing Europe’s challenges fostering solutions that reinforce the role, responsibility, capacity, and rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. We hope that processes like those explored in this paper can inspire others across the continent and elsewhere.