RECOGNITION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN ACCESS AND BENEFIT SHARING (ABS) LEGISLATION AND POLICIES OF THE PARTIES TO THE NAGOYA PROTOCOL

The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) provides for the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities (ILCs) in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). States Parties are obliged to take legislative, administrative and technical measures to recognize, respect and support/ensure the prior informed consent of indigenous communities and their effective involvement in preparing mutually agreed terms before accessing genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge or utilizing them. Within the ambit of contemporary debates encompassing indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination, this paper examines the effectiveness of the percolation of the legal intent of international law into existing or evolving domestic laws, policies or administrative measures of the Parties on access and benefit sharing. Through an opinion survey of indigenous organizations and the competent national authorities of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the findings indicate that the space, recognition and respect created in existing or evolving domestic ABS measures for the rights of indigenous communities are too inadequate to effectively implement the statutory provisions related to prior informed consent, mutually agreed terms and indigenous peoples’ free access to biological resources as envisaged in the Nagoya Protocol. As these bio-cultural rights of indigenous peoples are key to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, the domestic ABS laws need reorientation to be sufficiently effective in translating the spirit of international ABS law and policies

Endangered nomadic pastoralism: a need for restructuring the policy paradigm of rangeland commons

Fading fast all over the world, nomadic people have faced biases concerning their lifestyles and their symbiosis with rangelands. The nomadic grazing, which is helpful to biodiversity, not detrimental, in rangeland commons is perceived and advocated by deep ecologists, conservation administrators and policy makers as a threat to conservation of ecosystems. Consequently, both nomadic pastoralists and rangeland ecosystems have suffered a grim fate. On the contrary, the subsistence pastoralism is an established sustainable strategy of livelihood and ecosystem conservation in the rangelands. Unfortunately, some of the most nutritive foods and other sustainable products of nomadic pastoralists have not desirably been priced in modern markets. With the demonstrated cases exhibiting the nomadic pastoralists, such as Hutsul shepherd communities of Ukraine, as most sustainable societies on planet Earth, there is urgent need for restructuring the popular paradigm and State policies on rangeland commons. In isolation of nomadic people, the rangelands cannot truly be conserved or protected. To begin with, the resilience of nomadic pastoralists to the changing environments and their (unique) rangeland management can first be pondered. Accordingly, the policy and legal frameworks of States need to be reoriented and revised.Досліджено, що кочове населення, яке швидко зникає в усьому світі, стикалося з упередженнями стосовно способу життя та симбіозу з пасовищами. Зазначено, що кочовий випас є корисним для біорізноманіття, але сприймається і відстоюється екологами, керівниками у сфері охорони довкілля та політиками як загроза збереженню екосистем. З іншого боку, натуральне скотарство є усталеною стійкою стратегією існування та збереження екосистем на пасовищах. Виявлено, що ціни на окремі найбільш поживні продукти харчування та іншу усталену продукцію кочових скотарів на сучасних ринках низькі. Наведено випадки позиціонування кочових скотарів, зокрема гуцульських вівчарських громад України, як найбільш стійких суспільств на планеті Земля і визначено нагальну потребу реструктуризації популярної парадигми та державної політики щодо пасовищ. Наголошено на неможливості збереження чи захисту пасовищ ізольовано від кочових скотарів. Обґрунтовано, що стійкість корінних скотарських спільнот до мінливого середовища – екологічного, економічного та політичного – має великий потенціал для захисту та збереження ландшафтів пасовищ або пейзажів прибережної зони. Акцентовано увагу на важливості міжнародних та національних основ політики для екології та економіки пасовищ, зміна парадигми та рамок якої сприятиме захисту пасовищ і скотарських громад. У цьому напрямі найбільш плідною визначено міжнародну правову базу, що може координувати національне законодавство і політику у сфері охорони та управління пасовищами. Починати доцільно зі стійкості кочових скотарів до мінливого середовища та їх унікального управління пасовищами, що потребує переорієнтації та перегляду політики і правових рамок держав

Conceptual Challenges to the Recognition and Enforcement of the Right to Clean, Safe and Healthy Environment

The right to clean or healthy environment, or what may be called environmental right, is one of the most controversial emerging rights since the agitation for the recognition of the link between human rights and the environment started gaining momentum at international law forums. This is happening partly because, at the global level, no treaty attempts to delimit the scope of this right explicitly; an endeavour which would have served as a form of guide to national jurisdictions. Given that the UN General Assembly recently officially resolved that a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a universal human right, and considering the implication this may have on national jurisdictions, it has become more imperative to redefine this right for the ease of enforcement. This paper seeks to examine the conceptual and the theoretical conundrum as well as the criticisms of the right to clean, safe and healthy environment that have largely played a prominent role against the enforcement of the rights in general. The paper also examines constitutional challenges associated with the recognition of the rights in Nigeria and the judicial effort in the case of Gbemre v SPDC in attempting to expound the constitutional right to life to include the right to the environment. The paper finds that the right to the environment has been described and qualified diversely from one jurisdiction to another rendering the same susceptible to the challenges of interpretation. The paper, however, suggests that given the importance of the right, same should be interpreted, no matter how it is qualified, to mean a right to an environment fit for human living, the courts being sufficiently able to draw the line between what environment is fit and what is not for human habitation

Conceptual Challenges to the Recognition and Enforcement of the Right to Clean, Safe and Healthy Environment

The right to clean or healthy environment, or what may be called environmental right, is one of the most controversial emerging rights since the agitation for the recognition of the link between human rights and the environment started gaining momentum at international law forums. This is happening partly because, at the global level, no treaty attempts to delimit the scope of this right explicitly; an endeavour which would have served as a form of guide to national jurisdictions. Given that the UN General Assembly recently officially resolved that a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a universal human right, and considering the implication this may have on national jurisdictions, it has become more imperative to redefine this right for the ease of enforcement. This paper seeks to examine the conceptual and the theoretical conundrum as well as the criticisms of the right to clean, safe and healthy environment that have largely played a prominent role against the enforcement of the rights in general. The paper also examines constitutional challenges associated with the recognition of the rights in Nigeria and the judicial effort in the case of Gbemre v SPDC in attempting to expound the constitutional right to life to include the right to the environment. The paper finds that the right to the environment has been described and qualified diversely from one jurisdiction to another rendering the same susceptible to the challenges of interpretation. The paper, however, suggests that given the importance of the right, same should be interpreted, no matter how it is qualified, to mean a right to an environment fit for human living, the courts being sufficiently able to draw the line between what environment is fit and what is not for human habitation.THIS DATASET IS ARCHIVED AT DANS/EASY, BUT NOT ACCESSIBLE HERE. TO VIEW A LIST OF FILES AND ACCESS THE FILES IN THIS DATASET CLICK ON THE DOI-LINK ABOV