Legal Framework Behind Biocultural Rights 169
One of the difficulties of listing the rights of local communities lies in the
fact that they are heterogeneous.
15 They may indeed be “small-scale farmers,
artisanal fishing communities, island, and mountain communities” (Bessa, 2015,
p. 332), as well as communities of mainstream religions living in European countries that have protected sacred natural sites (Frascaroli et al., 2016; Verschuuren
et al., 2010), or may even be newly born local communities of peoples that gathered with the precise aim to live sustainably (e.g. ecovillages; see Ergas, 2010,
p. 34), or communities that have migrated to peri-urban or urban areas, which
maintain a special relationship with the environment, and groups of citizens
claiming the right to care for urban green areas, without necessarily “liv[ing]
geographically close to natural environment[s] hold[ing] spiritual, social, and
cultural value” (Cocks, 2006, p. 194).
Consequently, very often, national and international laws and policies concern
local communities and recognize them as holders of collective rights, without
using this general term, because they exclusively address more specific types of
local communities such as farmers, peasants, and tenure holders; small-scale fishing communities, pastoralists, traditional hunting, herding, or nomadic peoples.
Farmers, for example, are recognized as holders of farmers’ rights under
the 2001 FAO International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture (ITPGRFA) that requires States to give them recognition and
implementation through national law. ITPGRFA, established to facilitate the
exchange of seeds and germplasm to develop new plant varieties for food and
agriculture, recognizes the contribution that “local and indigenous communities
and farmers of all regions of the world” have made “for the conservation and
development of plant genetic resources” (art. 9). It calls States, through discretional national measures (Frison, 2018, p. 91), to promote the conservation of traditional knowledge and practices of farmers, share benefits arising from the use
of farmers’ plant genetic resources, and involve them in relevant decision-making
procedures. These rights of farmers stand in explicit contrast with “plant breeders’ rights and patents” – professional selectors that breed, discover, or develop
new plant varieties – but their contours are still quite unclear (Lawson, 2015).
Indeed, ITPGRFA does not seem to impose specific binding obligations on
states to protect farmers’ rights, but simply to suggest that they adopt policies,
fund projects, and administrative measures to promote the realization of farmers’
rights (Haugen, 2020; Lawson, 2015).
The remaining imbalance of rights between breeders and farmers – that de
facto lack formalized recognition of “the right to save, use, exchange and sell
farm-saved seeds” (Frison, 2018, p. 90) – led to a strong politicization of agricultural negotiations and, thanks to the work of international movements such as La
Via Campesina,
16 to the adoption of a new instrument: the UN Declaration on
the Rights of Peasants and Other Peoples living in Rural Areas (UNDROP; see
Claeys & Edelman, 2020). UNDROP is addressed to all peasants ( Edelman &
Carwil, 2011), the people of the land, without any necessary reference to them being
the owners or tenants (Paoloni & Vezzani, 2019, p. 11),
17 as long as production is
One of the difficulties of listing the rights of local communities lies in the
fact that they are heterogeneous.
15 They may indeed be “small-scale farmers,
artisanal fishing communities, island, and mountain communities” (Bessa, 2015,
p. 332), as well as communities of mainstream religions living in European countries that have protected sacred natural sites (Frascaroli et al., 2016; Verschuuren
et al., 2010), or may even be newly born local communities of peoples that gathered with the precise aim to live sustainably (e.g. ecovillages; see Ergas, 2010,
p. 34), or communities that have migrated to peri-urban or urban areas, which
maintain a special relationship with the environment, and groups of citizens
claiming the right to care for urban green areas, without necessarily “liv[ing]
geographically close to natural environment[s] hold[ing] spiritual, social, and
cultural value” (Cocks, 2006, p. 194).
Consequently, very often, national and international laws and policies concern
local communities and recognize them as holders of collective rights, without
using this general term, because they exclusively address more specific types of
local communities such as farmers, peasants, and tenure holders; small-scale fishing communities, pastoralists, traditional hunting, herding, or nomadic peoples.
Farmers, for example, are recognized as holders of farmers’ rights under
the 2001 FAO International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture (ITPGRFA) that requires States to give them recognition and
implementation through national law. ITPGRFA, established to facilitate the
exchange of seeds and germplasm to develop new plant varieties for food and
agriculture, recognizes the contribution that “local and indigenous communities
and farmers of all regions of the world” have made “for the conservation and
development of plant genetic resources” (art. 9). It calls States, through discretional national measures (Frison, 2018, p. 91), to promote the conservation of traditional knowledge and practices of farmers, share benefits arising from the use
of farmers’ plant genetic resources, and involve them in relevant decision-making
procedures. These rights of farmers stand in explicit contrast with “plant breeders’ rights and patents” – professional selectors that breed, discover, or develop
new plant varieties – but their contours are still quite unclear (Lawson, 2015).
Indeed, ITPGRFA does not seem to impose specific binding obligations on
states to protect farmers’ rights, but simply to suggest that they adopt policies,
fund projects, and administrative measures to promote the realization of farmers’
rights (Haugen, 2020; Lawson, 2015).
The remaining imbalance of rights between breeders and farmers – that de
facto lack formalized recognition of “the right to save, use, exchange and sell
farm-saved seeds” (Frison, 2018, p. 90) – led to a strong politicization of agricultural negotiations and, thanks to the work of international movements such as La
Via Campesina,
16 to the adoption of a new instrument: the UN Declaration on
the Rights of Peasants and Other Peoples living in Rural Areas (UNDROP; see
Claeys & Edelman, 2020). UNDROP is addressed to all peasants ( Edelman &
Carwil, 2011), the people of the land, without any necessary reference to them being
the owners or tenants (Paoloni & Vezzani, 2019, p. 11),
17 as long as production is