Legal Framework Behind Biocultural Rights 173
instance, farming, fishing, or nomadic communities will have different needs).
These ever-changing rights (depending on each community needs) may be clustered under four, very general, themes (see Sajeva, 2018, pp. 105–109):
• rights to land, waters, and natural resources: including the right to access
and use of traditional lands and waters; special access to sacred natural sites;
access to and use of biotic and abiotic resources present in the land; protection from external threats to the environment;
• rights to self-government: including the right to internal self-determination
and to regulate its internal matters through the use of its legal institutions
and rules;
• rights to cultural identity: including the rights necessary to safeguard the
integrity of values, worldviews, practices, and knowledge;
• associated procedural rights: such as the right to access to justice, the right
to free, prior, and informed consent, and the right to the application of a
precautionary approach.
Biocultural rights place themselves in the Anthropocene debate as powerful tools
that provide answers to both human rights and environmental issues. Moreover,
it is precisely because of their environmental genesis and focus that they bring
to life a basket of rights which conflates many of the different elements of the
biocultural landscapes of indigenous peoples and local communities. They may
be used by indigenous peoples and local communities to put forward a single
overarching claim for the protection of their needs and interests vis-à-vis their
lands, waters, and natural resources, without having to reference many different
treaties, conventions, declarations, and guidelines. Moreover, when dealing with
projects and policies addressed at the conservation of the environment, biocultural rights may be a (political and legal) trump to be used against the threat of
being evicted from traditional lands or impeded to pursue traditional practices
and governance of natural resources. As many developing countries are facing
strong international pressure to conserve their ecosystems, while having to deal
with a constant lack of economic resources, biocultural rights may be an instrument to seek a balance between conservation and human rights, the interests of
the environment, and the interests of peoples and communities. Indeed, biocultural rights simultaneously imply the possibility to protect the environment and
the cultural diversity and self-governance of a community or people, precisely
because they are rights to environmental stewardship.
Beware
Nevertheless, the environmental core of biocultural rights reveals to be both
their power and limit: they are environmentally conditioned rights. Their double
foundation may be interpreted as meaning that, with both indigenous peoples
and local communities on the one side and the environment on the other, all
instance, farming, fishing, or nomadic communities will have different needs).
These ever-changing rights (depending on each community needs) may be clustered under four, very general, themes (see Sajeva, 2018, pp. 105–109):
• rights to land, waters, and natural resources: including the right to access
and use of traditional lands and waters; special access to sacred natural sites;
access to and use of biotic and abiotic resources present in the land; protection from external threats to the environment;
• rights to self-government: including the right to internal self-determination
and to regulate its internal matters through the use of its legal institutions
and rules;
• rights to cultural identity: including the rights necessary to safeguard the
integrity of values, worldviews, practices, and knowledge;
• associated procedural rights: such as the right to access to justice, the right
to free, prior, and informed consent, and the right to the application of a
precautionary approach.
Biocultural rights place themselves in the Anthropocene debate as powerful tools
that provide answers to both human rights and environmental issues. Moreover,
it is precisely because of their environmental genesis and focus that they bring
to life a basket of rights which conflates many of the different elements of the
biocultural landscapes of indigenous peoples and local communities. They may
be used by indigenous peoples and local communities to put forward a single
overarching claim for the protection of their needs and interests vis-à-vis their
lands, waters, and natural resources, without having to reference many different
treaties, conventions, declarations, and guidelines. Moreover, when dealing with
projects and policies addressed at the conservation of the environment, biocultural rights may be a (political and legal) trump to be used against the threat of
being evicted from traditional lands or impeded to pursue traditional practices
and governance of natural resources. As many developing countries are facing
strong international pressure to conserve their ecosystems, while having to deal
with a constant lack of economic resources, biocultural rights may be an instrument to seek a balance between conservation and human rights, the interests of
the environment, and the interests of peoples and communities. Indeed, biocultural rights simultaneously imply the possibility to protect the environment and
the cultural diversity and self-governance of a community or people, precisely
because they are rights to environmental stewardship.
Beware
Nevertheless, the environmental core of biocultural rights reveals to be both
their power and limit: they are environmentally conditioned rights. Their double
foundation may be interpreted as meaning that, with both indigenous peoples
and local communities on the one side and the environment on the other, all