Legal Framework Behind Biocultural Rights 171
for Securing Sustainable Small-scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and
Poverty Eradication, addressed at small-scale fishing communities; and the 2005
Voluntary Guidelines to support the progressive realization of the right to adequate food
in the context of national food security meant for “local and indigenous communities and farmers”. These instruments were adopted by the FAO Committee on
World Food Security after years of negotiations and deliberation that involved
governments, civil society organizations, and representatives of the private sector and the of philanthropic organizations. The Guidelines in fact, even though
they are a voluntary instrument, might be said to represent the position of the
international community “as to how global food security should be addressed”
(De Shutter & Rajagopal 2020, p. 215) and might be able to provide frameworks that States may use when developing relevant strategies, policies, laws,
programs, and activities.
Biocultural Rights: A More Comprehensive Approach
Chaos
This chaotic list of collective rights of local communities creates a complex
scenario of entitlements concerning the environment that can easily confuse
any local community. Such complexity often concerns indigenous peoples as
well, and is due partially to the nature of international law, whose lack of
centralized hierarchy makes it an ever-evolving corpus, pulled and twisted by
heterogeneous interests, needs, and institutions (Payandeh, 2015); and partially
to a lack of consensus on the definitions of local communities and indigenous people. Indeed, the aforementioned rights also depend on several different
factors ( Jonas, 2020, p. 2), including their ways of life, the type of territory
where they reside, and the institutional settings (protected area, recognized/
non-recognized territories and areas conserved by indigenous peoples and local
communities
22 – community-owned land, private land) they live within. Each
of these factors intersects with the others, making the description of the collective rights of indigenous peoples and local communities an exceedingly difficult enterprise.
To further complicate matters, it shall be reminded that the history of environmental protection and conservation movements bears the original sin of a
cumbersome colonial past (Adams & Milligan, 2003; Dowie, 2009; MacKenzie,
1988), whose influence on indigenous peoples and local communities is not yet
completely over (Brechin et al., 2002; Wilshusen et al., 2002). Disregarding the
stewardship-based relationship they have kept with nature, the actions aimed at
nature’s conservation have often resulted in the creation of only nature areas that
have led (and still lead) to the eviction of indigenous peoples and local communities from their ancestral lands (Dowie, 2009; Tauli-Corpuz, 2016), and have
hampered their access to natural resources on the ground of assumptions about
the incompatibility of people’s lives and conservation activities.
23
for Securing Sustainable Small-scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and
Poverty Eradication, addressed at small-scale fishing communities; and the 2005
Voluntary Guidelines to support the progressive realization of the right to adequate food
in the context of national food security meant for “local and indigenous communities and farmers”. These instruments were adopted by the FAO Committee on
World Food Security after years of negotiations and deliberation that involved
governments, civil society organizations, and representatives of the private sector and the of philanthropic organizations. The Guidelines in fact, even though
they are a voluntary instrument, might be said to represent the position of the
international community “as to how global food security should be addressed”
(De Shutter & Rajagopal 2020, p. 215) and might be able to provide frameworks that States may use when developing relevant strategies, policies, laws,
programs, and activities.
Biocultural Rights: A More Comprehensive Approach
Chaos
This chaotic list of collective rights of local communities creates a complex
scenario of entitlements concerning the environment that can easily confuse
any local community. Such complexity often concerns indigenous peoples as
well, and is due partially to the nature of international law, whose lack of
centralized hierarchy makes it an ever-evolving corpus, pulled and twisted by
heterogeneous interests, needs, and institutions (Payandeh, 2015); and partially
to a lack of consensus on the definitions of local communities and indigenous people. Indeed, the aforementioned rights also depend on several different
factors ( Jonas, 2020, p. 2), including their ways of life, the type of territory
where they reside, and the institutional settings (protected area, recognized/
non-recognized territories and areas conserved by indigenous peoples and local
communities
22 – community-owned land, private land) they live within. Each
of these factors intersects with the others, making the description of the collective rights of indigenous peoples and local communities an exceedingly difficult enterprise.
To further complicate matters, it shall be reminded that the history of environmental protection and conservation movements bears the original sin of a
cumbersome colonial past (Adams & Milligan, 2003; Dowie, 2009; MacKenzie,
1988), whose influence on indigenous peoples and local communities is not yet
completely over (Brechin et al., 2002; Wilshusen et al., 2002). Disregarding the
stewardship-based relationship they have kept with nature, the actions aimed at
nature’s conservation have often resulted in the creation of only nature areas that
have led (and still lead) to the eviction of indigenous peoples and local communities from their ancestral lands (Dowie, 2009; Tauli-Corpuz, 2016), and have
hampered their access to natural resources on the ground of assumptions about
the incompatibility of people’s lives and conservation activities.
23