Chapter 7. Implementing the Nagoya Protocol in Africa: Opportunities and Challenges for African Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities

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.

Download Full-text

The Nagoya Protocol and Indigenous Peoples

International Indigenous Policy Journal ◽

10.18584/iipj.2016.7.2.6 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 7 (2) ◽

Cited By ~ 5

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.

Download Full-text

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

Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law ◽

10.1111/reel.12343 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Xiaoou Zheng

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Indigenous Peoples ◽

Local Communities ◽

Nagoya Protocol ◽

Compliance Mechanism

Download Full-text

Negotiating the Nagoya Protocol: Indigenous Demands for Justice

Global Environmental Politics ◽

10.1162/glep_a_00241 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 14 (3) ◽

pp. 102-124 ◽

Cited By ~ 25

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.

Download Full-text

When Rights Embrace Responsibilities

10.1093/oso/9780199485154.001.0001 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

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

International Community Law Review ◽

10.1163/18719732-12341269 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 16 (1) ◽

pp. 3-37

Author(s):

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.

Download Full-text

Land tenure and agricultural expansion in Latin America: The role of Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ forest rights

Global Environmental Change ◽

10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.010 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 35 ◽

pp. 316-322 ◽

Cited By ~ 34

Author(s):

M. Graziano Ceddia ◽

Ulrich Gunter ◽

Alexandre Corriveau-Bourque

Keyword(s):

Latin America ◽

Indigenous Peoples ◽

Land Tenure ◽

Local Communities ◽

Agricultural Expansion

Download Full-text

Reply to Bridgewater (2021), 'Response to Davies et al., 'Towards a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Wetlands"

Marine and Freshwater Research ◽

10.1071/mf21132 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 72 (10) ◽

pp. 1401

Author(s):

G. T. Davies ◽

C. M. Finlayson ◽

E. Okuno ◽

N. C. Davidson ◽

R. C. Gardner ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Indigenous Peoples ◽

Local Knowledge ◽

Local Communities ◽

Universal Declaration ◽

Legal Rights ◽

Indigenous And Local Knowledge ◽

Rights Of Nature ◽

Areas Of Concern ◽

Management Approaches ◽

Conservation And Management

We reply to the main concerns raised by Bridgewater (2021) in his response to Davies et al. (2021a), ‘Towards a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Wetlands’. We appreciate the contribution of Bridgewater (2021) to this emerging conversation and, although we disagree with some of his assessments and statements, we do not find his points to be incompatible with support for the Declaration of the Rights of Wetlands (ROW). This reply focuses on four areas of concern raised by Bridgewater (2021). First, we describe why a wetlands-specific declaration will add important value to other Rights of Nature declarations. Second, we discuss how the ROW does not detract from, but rather can contribute to and complement, existing conservation and management approaches and mechanisms. Third, we agree on the importance of weaving Indigenous and local knowledge with other knowledges and emphasise that the ROW should not be confused with or misused to undermine the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities. Finally, we explain how legal rights can and have been granted to non-humans, including elements of Nature, such as wetlands.

Download Full-text