Indigenous peoples and traditional local communities in the UNDROP

Author(s):  
Adriana Bessa ◽  
Jérémie Gilbert
Author(s):  
Giulia Sajeva

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 72 (10) ◽  
pp. 1401
Author(s):  
G. T. Davies ◽  
C. M. Finlayson ◽  
E. Okuno ◽  
N. C. Davidson ◽  
R. C. Gardner ◽  
...  

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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 227 ◽  
pp. 403-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colleen Corrigan ◽  
Heather Bingham ◽  
Yichuan Shi ◽  
Edward Lewis ◽  
Alienor Chauvenet ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 133 ◽  
Author(s):  
R Yando Zakaria

Abstract: Arizona (2015b) reported that in the last mid-2015, there were lots of local regulation products intended as instruments to recognize the rights of indigenous people. Eventhough 40% of these products contain arrangements of the area, lands and communal forests, in reality, total area that have been effectively possessed by local communities were insignificant. According to Arizona (2015a), this condition occurred because the advocacy agenda trapped by the complexity of the diversity of the subjects and objects of the indigenous rights to be recognized and protected. This article was not about to argue that conclusion. However, this paper believes that the trap of complexity and diversity of the subjects and objects of the recognition of indigenous rights was enabled by three factors. First, the stakeholders within those complexity of definition came from generic concepts; second, failed to approach subjects and objects of the rights as a socio-antrophology reality at field level; and third, this problem was worsen by the stakeholders that barely have a proven instrument in finding sociological-anthropological reality. This article aims to fill those gaps. Keywords : Strategy, Recognition, Indigenous Peoples, socio-anthropologicalIntisari: Arizona (2015b) melaporkan bahwa tengah tahun 2015 lalu ada banyak produk hukum daerah yang dimakudkan sebagai instrument hukum pengakuan hak-hak masyarakat adat. Namun, meski 40% produk hukum daerah itu berisi pengaturan tentang wilayah, tanah dan hutan adat, di tingkat lapangan, total luas yang telah benar-benar efektif dikuasi masyarakat adat relatif sangat sedikit. Menurut Arizona (2015a), hal itu terjadi, antara lain, agenda advokasi terjebak oleh kerumitan keragaman subyek dan obyek hak-hak adat yang akan diakui dan dilindungi. Tulisan ini tak hendak membantah kesimpulan itu. Namun, tulisan ini percaya bahwa jebakan kerumitan keragaman subyek dan obyek pengakuan hak-hak masyarakat adat itu dimungkinkan oleh tiga hal. Pertama, para-pihak terjebak dengan perdebatan definisi dari beberapa konsep yang memang bersifat generik; kedua, alpa mendekati subyek dan obyek hak itu sebagai realitas sosio-antropologis di tingkat lapangan; dan ketiga, masalah ini diperumit oleh para-pihak nyaris tidak memiliki instrument yang teruji dalam menemukan realitas sosiologis-antropologi dimaskud. Tulisan ini disusun untuk mengisi kekosongan-kekosongan itu. Kata Kunci: Strategi, Pengakuan, Masyarakat Hukum Adat, sosio-antropologis


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  

A growing body of evidence suggests that recognition of the collective tenure rights of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and Afro-descendants is a powerful and cost-effective strategy for addressing the climate and biodiversity crises. In spite of this, international funding for rights recognition pales in comparison to donor mobilization around alternative solutions to these crises.


1997 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fundación Indígena (FSI) ◽  
Brij Kothari

Research on indigenous knowledge has resulted in innumerable benefits to the Outsider(s). Indigenous peoples should be compensated in return. This article argues for integrating compensation and empowerment into the heart of the research process itself rather than viewing them as post-project undertakings. "Rights to the Benefits of Research" (RBR) is proposed as a unifying term to coalesce ideas of compensation for benefits to the Outsider(s) obtained from a noncommercial research process. In contrast, compensation of indigenous peoples via "Intellectual Property Rights" (IPR) is seen as predicated primarily upon commercial benefits. A strategy to implement RBR based on ethical guidelines and indigenous peoples' empowerment is suggested. A participatory ethnobotanical research project conducted in Ecuador serves to illustrate benefits for which compensation would fall under RBR but not IPR. The project involved the local communities in documenting their oral knowledge of medicinal plants in a written form, primarily for themselves. It is assessed along extractive, compensatory, and empowering tendencies through post-project self-reflection. The article posits that the conservation of indigenous knowledge for and by the local peoples could have positive implications for protecting their intellectual property from predations by the Outsider(s).


Author(s):  
Susy Frankel

This chapter situates the claims for protection of traditional knowledge in the international intellectual property (IP) context. Drawing on examples, it discusses the meaning of “traditional knowledge” and how the goals and means of protecting that knowledge do not fit within the framework of IP law. In order to address the overlap with IP and provide protection against misuse of traditional knowledge, a number of international bodies have been involved in negotiations and treaty drafting. The chapter discusses those developments, and concludes that even though international resolution looks unlikely in the short-term, the protection of traditional knowledge will continue to feature in international IP debates until a minimum level of agreement at least reached. In order to attain such agreement, there needs to be relevant national laws and, as a practical matter, sufficient investment in the innovation of traditional knowledge in order to deliver the value of protection to its holders.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document