Empowering indigenous peoples and local communities: A human rights-based appraisal of the compliance mechanism of the Nagoya Protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoou Zheng
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Local Communities ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Compliance Mechanism

When Rights Embrace Responsibilities

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giulia Sajeva
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Indigenous People ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Local Communities ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
Group Rights ◽  
Potential Applicability ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Relationship Of

The conservation of environment and the protection of human rights are two of the most compelling needs of our time. Unfortunately, they are not always easy to combine and too often result in mutual harm. This book analyses the idea of biocultural rights as a proposal for harmonizing the needs of environmental and human rights. These rights, considered as a basket of group rights, are those deemed necessary to protect the stewardship role that certain indigenous peoples and local communities have played towards the environment. With a view to understanding the value and merits, as well as the threats that biocultural rights entail, the book critically assesses their foundations, content, and implications, and develops new perspectives and ideas concerning their potential applicability for promoting the socio-economic interests of indigenous people and local communities. It further explores the controversial relationship of interdependence and conflict between conservation of environment and protection of human rights.

Beyond Unbridled Optimism and Fear: Indigenous Peoples, Intellectual Property, Human Rights and the Globalisation of Traditional Knowledge and Expressions of Folklore: Part II

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-37
Author(s):  
Caroline Joan S. Picart ◽  
Caroline Joan S. Picart ◽  
Marlowe Fox
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Traditional Cultural Expressions

Abstract In Part I of this two-part article, we explained why western assumptions built into intellectual property law make this area of law a problematic tool, as a way of protecting traditional knowledge (tk) and expressions of folklore (EoF) or traditional cultural expressions (tce) of indigenous peoples. Part II of this article aims to: 1) provide a brief review of the Convention on Biological Diversity (cbd) and the Nagoya Protocol, and examine the evolution of the intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples from the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (trips Agreement) to the cbd to the Nagoya Protocol; and 2) examine possible core principles, inducted (rather than deduced) from actual practices already in place in the areas of patents, copyrights, and trademarks in relation to protecting tk and EoF. These explorations could allow for discussions regarding indigenous peoples, human rights and international trade law to become less adversarial.

Friends and Foes

2018 ◽  
pp. 50-75
Author(s):  
Giulia Sajeva
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Local Communities ◽  
Environmental Conservation ◽  
Environmental Concerns ◽  
Conservation Practices ◽  
Environmental Challenges ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
New Ideas ◽  
Relationship Of

Chapter 3 explores the controversial relationship of interdependence and conflict between environmental concerns and the protection of human rights by offering insights on the necessity—and the opportunity—of new ideas such as biocultural rights. Such necessity is made clear by bringing forward the inadequacy of human rights rhetoric in fully incorporating environmental challenges, as well as the damages environmental conservation can do to human rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. The chapter introduces attempts to combine conservation and rights interests through the recognition of the stewardship relationship indigenous peoples and local communities have towards the environment. Keeping distance from the dangers of the myth of the noble savage, and describing the important steps forward that have been done against fortress conservation practices, the chapters underlines those steps that still need to be taken.

Understanding Rights, Human Rights, and Group Rights

2018 ◽  
pp. 21-49
Author(s):  
Giulia Sajeva
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Local Communities ◽  
General Interest ◽  
Group Rights

Chapters 2 provides an introduction to the concept of rights, useful for understanding the sui generis nature of biocultural rights. It looks at the birth of human rights and group rights, the foundations of human rights, the relation between human rights and the general interest, and the hardship of balancing human rights with other interests and goals. The chapter also introduces a brief outline of indigenous peoples and local communities’ rights, with focus on their different status in international law. This allows for comparison of biocultural rights with other human rights of indigenous peoples and local communities and for elaboration on the significance and different challenges that biocultural rights may have for local communities and indigenous peoples.

Social environmental injustices against indigenous peoples: the Belo Monte dam

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 865-876
Author(s):  
Heidi Michalski Ribeiro ◽  
Jose Rubens Morato
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Hydroelectric Power Plant ◽  
Northern Region ◽  
Local Communities ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Hydroelectric Power ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Social Environmental ◽  
Belo Monte

PurposeThis proposal is a case study of the Belo Monte dam. The article deals with human rights and environmental violations arising from the construction of the Belo Monte Hydroelectric Power Plant in the northern region of Brazil. This paper aims to evidence human rights violations brought by the construction Belo Monte dam, a glimpse of the COVID-19 scenario and how Brazilian regulation allowed those violations.Design/methodology/approachTo achieve the objective of this article, the Brazilian norms, public policies and the current situation of the affected communities were analyzed, focusing on the human rights violations and the historical timeline of this mega-project. The analysis was directed to the hardcore social sciences, considering analytical and qualitative research.FindingsThe data gathered and the references consulted proved that many human rights violations occurred and that the vulnerability of indigenous and local people increased with the construction of the Belo Monte Hydroelectric Power Plant in the northern region of Brazil. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated this adverse scenario since indigenous and local people already had their vulnerabilities increased with the construction of Belo Monte.Research limitations/implicationsThe Belo Monte Dam has had severe and irreversible impacts on the lives of local communities, especially indigenous peoples, as it had destroyed their culture and the environment. The authors were not able to do fieldwork, due to the great distance of the dam. In this sense, the research does not cover all the social–environmental issues, as an ethnographic approach is necessary.Originality/valueThe authors intend to bring attention to harms caused to indigenous people and the local communities, expecting to create an alert of what this kind of project can do to vulnerable peoples' life, especially now with the pandemic scenario, which makes indigenous and traditional communities more vulnerable to diseases due to the loss of their territories.

scholarly journals Recognition of Customary Law and Institutions and Community Protocols of Indigenous People in Domestic ABS Legislation or Policies in Accordance with the Provisions of Nagoya Protocol

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 67-82
Author(s):  
Hasrat Arjjumend
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous People ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Local Communities ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Customary Laws

The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) provides for the rights of Indigenous people and local communities in accordance with United Nations Declaration of Rights of Indigenous People. The Parties are obliged to take legislative, administrative and technical measures to recognize, respect and support/ensure the customary laws & institutions and community protocols of Indigenous peoples and local communities (ILCs). Within the ambit of contemporary debates encompassing Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination, this paper examines the effectiveness of international law (i.e. Nagoya Protocol) to influence existing or evolving domestic laws, policies or administrative measures of Parties on access and benefit sharing. Through opinion surveys of Indigenous organizations and national authorities of CBD’s Parties, the findings indicate that the space, recognition and respect created in existing or evolving domestic ABS measures for rights of Indigenous communities are too inadequate to effectively implement the statutory provisions related to customary laws & institutions and community protocols, as envisaged in Nagoya Protocol. As the bio-cultural rights of Indigenous people are key to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, the domestic ABS laws need reorientation to be sufficiently effective in translating the spirit of international ABS laws into domestic policies.

scholarly journals The Nagoya Protocol and Indigenous Peoples

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Yolanda Teran
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Resources ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Local Communities ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Equitable Sharing ◽  
Mother Earth

This article is about Indigenous peoples’ involvement in the Nagoya Protocol negotiations from 2006 to 2010, as well as in its implementation to stop biopiracy in order to protect Pachamama, Mother Earth, and to ensure our survival and the survival of coming generations. The Nagoya Protocol is an international instrument that was adopted in Nagoya, Japan in October 2010 by the Conference of Parties (COP 10) and ratified by 51 countries in Pyeongchang, South Korea in October 2014 at COP 12. This protocol governs access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization (access and benefit sharing [ABS]). It has several articles related to Indigenous peoples and traditional knowledge, as well as: The interrelation and inseparable nature between genetic resources and traditional knowledge; The diversity of circumstances surrounding traditional knowledge ownership, including by country; The identification of traditional knowledge owners; The declaration of Indigenous peoples' human rights; and The role of women in the biodiversity process. In addition, this protocol lays out obligations on access, specifically participation in equitable benefit sharing, the accomplishment of prior and informed consent, and the mutually agreed terms and elaboration of a national legal ABS framework with the participation of Indigenous peoples and local communities in order to have well-defined roles, responsibilities, and times of negotiations.

Negotiating the Nagoya Protocol: Indigenous Demands for Justice

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 102-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly R. Marion Suiseeya
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Resources ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Local Communities ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Shared Meanings ◽  
Global Demand ◽  
Equitable Sharing ◽  
Resources Exploitation

In October 2010, parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization. One impetus behind the Nagoya Protocol was the mandate to address the unjust impacts—such as the loss of access to resources, exploitation of traditional knowledge, and expropriation of rights to resources—of the global demand for genetic resources on indigenous peoples and local communities (ILCs). Using collaborative event ethnography, this article demonstrates the limited nature, scope, and engagement of the ILC justice discourse in the negotiations, despite the supposedly inclusive nature of the CBD. I attribute the constrained discourse in part to the existence of a justice metanorm as evidenced through the emergence of shared meanings and prescriptive status of justice instruments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document