302 Reia Anquet and Fabien Girard
12 Sylvie Poirier (2008, p. 83) insists that this “[…] is a form of symbolic violence that is
imposed on indigenous people”
13 See below.
14 UN Doc. A/CONF.151/PC/78 of 26 July 1991.
15 UNEP/Bio. Div. 3/12, 13 August 1990, para. 7.
16 UNEP/Bio.Div.3/6 20 June 1990, para. 9 – drawn from UNEP/Bio.Div.3/Inf.4,
para. 40.
17 UNEP, Governing Council, Decision 15/34 of 25 May 1989, (A/44/25), p. 161.
18 UNEP/CBD/COP/3/7, para. 7.
19 Refer to Chapter 10 in this book.
20 The programme was funded by the Darwin Initiative, the UK government grants
scheme focusing on biodiversity protection. Bioversity International was the contract
holder, with funding covering a period of three years (1/04/2015-31/03/2018). It is
further described in Chapter 10 of this book.
21 For these two countries, see Chapter 10 (this book) and Annex of this chapter. In
Kenya, see the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Act,
2016 (No. 33 of 2016) (also see the Annex of this chapter).
22 For the sake of brevity, only the page referred to in each BCP is kept between brackets. Further information about each BCP is provided in the Annex of this chapter.
23 See Chapter 10 (this book).
24 Semi-directed interview, Bioversity International, Project Leader, 23/05/2019.
25 And more broadly when it comes to mitigation projects funded in the context of
climate finance (Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples & Human
Rights Council, 2017).
26 See, for instance, Simion Swakey Ole Kaapei & Others v Commissioner of Lands & Others
[2014] eKLR (Ole Kaapei), para. 33, where the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru
alludes to the need to protect a community of pastoralists from “the vagaries of nature
by ensuring pastoralist venture or way of life does not condemn the pastoralist to a life
entirely subjected to nature”.
27 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Kenya, App 006/2012, (006/2012)
[2017] AfCHPR 28; (26 May 2017), para 130.
28 See the direct reference to “attachment to the land” under the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (2018), Art. 1.1.
29 See below.
30 The notion of sacred spaces can be strategically used by IPLCs and their advocates
(Borman, 2017), as natural sacred sites enjoy a certain level of protection under international human rights law, notably through the right to freedom of religion. This is
especially true in the African human rights system (Gilbert, 2018, pp. 138–141).
31 The community claims an area of about 8,000 Ha following the “primordial titles”
(pre-existent or historic rights) granted in 1599, and recognising their bienes comunales,
i.e. their communal property system. The community therefore disputes those land
rights recognised through agrarian reform in 1952, and ratified through the so-called
“partial titling” of 1995 which transferred only 3,843 Ha of land (Tribunal unitario agrario
no. 21, 1995 - Consejo Municipal de Desarrollo Rural Sustentable & Morales Santiago,
2009, p. 38). The 1952 reform was revoked in August 1952 on appeal filed by the neighbouring communities of Yotao and Tepanzacoalco. The same judgment ordered the
application for titling to be filed again and the case reconsidered for the purpose of
solving the conflict over boundaries. The title deed issued in 1995 is said to be “partial”
as the communities are still in dispute over the border area (López Bárcenas, 2016, pp.
105–106). The community has also been fighting since 2015 with private companies
over mining operations on its lands, and seeks the termination of all mining concessions.
32 There are two forms of communal land tenure in Mexico, also referred to as
“social” forms of property (as against private or public property). The agrarian
reform of 1917 established the Ejidos (as in the community of Ek Balam) and the
12 Sylvie Poirier (2008, p. 83) insists that this “[…] is a form of symbolic violence that is
imposed on indigenous people”
13 See below.
14 UN Doc. A/CONF.151/PC/78 of 26 July 1991.
15 UNEP/Bio. Div. 3/12, 13 August 1990, para. 7.
16 UNEP/Bio.Div.3/6 20 June 1990, para. 9 – drawn from UNEP/Bio.Div.3/Inf.4,
para. 40.
17 UNEP, Governing Council, Decision 15/34 of 25 May 1989, (A/44/25), p. 161.
18 UNEP/CBD/COP/3/7, para. 7.
19 Refer to Chapter 10 in this book.
20 The programme was funded by the Darwin Initiative, the UK government grants
scheme focusing on biodiversity protection. Bioversity International was the contract
holder, with funding covering a period of three years (1/04/2015-31/03/2018). It is
further described in Chapter 10 of this book.
21 For these two countries, see Chapter 10 (this book) and Annex of this chapter. In
Kenya, see the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Act,
2016 (No. 33 of 2016) (also see the Annex of this chapter).
22 For the sake of brevity, only the page referred to in each BCP is kept between brackets. Further information about each BCP is provided in the Annex of this chapter.
23 See Chapter 10 (this book).
24 Semi-directed interview, Bioversity International, Project Leader, 23/05/2019.
25 And more broadly when it comes to mitigation projects funded in the context of
climate finance (Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples & Human
Rights Council, 2017).
26 See, for instance, Simion Swakey Ole Kaapei & Others v Commissioner of Lands & Others
[2014] eKLR (Ole Kaapei), para. 33, where the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru
alludes to the need to protect a community of pastoralists from “the vagaries of nature
by ensuring pastoralist venture or way of life does not condemn the pastoralist to a life
entirely subjected to nature”.
27 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Kenya, App 006/2012, (006/2012)
[2017] AfCHPR 28; (26 May 2017), para 130.
28 See the direct reference to “attachment to the land” under the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (2018), Art. 1.1.
29 See below.
30 The notion of sacred spaces can be strategically used by IPLCs and their advocates
(Borman, 2017), as natural sacred sites enjoy a certain level of protection under international human rights law, notably through the right to freedom of religion. This is
especially true in the African human rights system (Gilbert, 2018, pp. 138–141).
31 The community claims an area of about 8,000 Ha following the “primordial titles”
(pre-existent or historic rights) granted in 1599, and recognising their bienes comunales,
i.e. their communal property system. The community therefore disputes those land
rights recognised through agrarian reform in 1952, and ratified through the so-called
“partial titling” of 1995 which transferred only 3,843 Ha of land (Tribunal unitario agrario
no. 21, 1995 - Consejo Municipal de Desarrollo Rural Sustentable & Morales Santiago,
2009, p. 38). The 1952 reform was revoked in August 1952 on appeal filed by the neighbouring communities of Yotao and Tepanzacoalco. The same judgment ordered the
application for titling to be filed again and the case reconsidered for the purpose of
solving the conflict over boundaries. The title deed issued in 1995 is said to be “partial”
as the communities are still in dispute over the border area (López Bárcenas, 2016, pp.
105–106). The community has also been fighting since 2015 with private companies
over mining operations on its lands, and seeks the termination of all mining concessions.
32 There are two forms of communal land tenure in Mexico, also referred to as
“social” forms of property (as against private or public property). The agrarian
reform of 1917 established the Ejidos (as in the community of Ek Balam) and the