Concluding Thoughts 329
Notes
1 The chapter is part of research project n° ANR-18-CE03-0003-01 funded by the
French National Research Agency (ANR). *All URLs retrieved on 1 September
2021.
2 COP CBD, Decision XIII/18, CBD/COP/13/25 (17 December 2016).
3 Mo’otz Kuxtal Voluntary Guidelines; see footnote 2.
4 Another example is the BCP for territories of the Community Council of Alto San
Juan – ASOCASAN (Colombia) (2012) (Protocolo Comunitario Biocultural para el
Territorio del Consejo Comunitario Mayor del Alto San Juan Asocasan, Tado, Chocó,
Colombia, 2012) (English version: http://www.pnuma.org/publicaciones/PCB%20
ASOCASAN_espanol_2012.pdf ), which sets out in detail, in the A ppendices, the
legal standards (including international ones) on territorial rights of Colombian Black
communities, the right of ownership over natural resources, the rights related to
valuing, protecting, and controlling TK, and the right to prior consultation and FPIC.
5 Along the same lines, the Raika biocultural protocol (India) calls on the National
Biodiversity Authority of India and the CBD Secretariat to recognise substantial elements of the instrument, notably their “local breeds and associated traditional knowledge as set out in the Raika Biodiversity Register and to include it in the Peoples
Biodiversity Register (under Rule 22(6) of the Biological Diversity Rules)” (http://
www.abs-initiative.info/uploads/media/Nairobi-0909-Raika_02.pdf ).
6 Protocolo Comunitario de Capulálpam de Méndez, Oaxaca, para la gestión de los
recursos genéticos y su conocimiento tradicional en el ámbito del Protocolo de
Nagoya. México (2018) (ABSCH-CPP-SCBD-240739-3); Protocolo Comunitario
de Ek Balam, X-Kumil, Yucatán, para la gestión de los recursos genéticos y su conocimiento tradicional en el ámbito del Protocolo de Nagoya. México (2018) (ABSCHCPP-SCBD-240737-4); Protocolo Comunitario Biocultural de Isla Yunuén,
Pátzcuaro, Michoacán, para la gestión de los recursos genéticos y su conocimiento
tradicional en el ámbito del Protocolo de Nagoya. México (2018) (ABSCH-CPPSCBD-240740-4); Protocolo Comunitario Biocultural del Territorio Comcáac,
Sonora, México (2018) (ABSCH-CPP-SCBD-240738-3); Protocolo Comunitario
Biocultural de Vicente Guerrero, Españita, Tlaxcala. México (2020) (https://absch.
cbd.int/api/v2013/documents/D8188070-3FD1-EA8B-360B-0EEF80D38ECD/
attachments/PCB%20Vicente%20Guerrero%20M%C3%A9xico.pdf ); (Hernández
Ordoñez, 2019).
7 https://www.cbd.int/portals/culturaldiversity/docs/north-american-regionaldeclaration-on-biocultural-diversity-en.pdf
8 Corte Constitucional República de Colombia (2016) Centro de Estudios para la Justicia
Social “Tierra Digna” contra la Presidencia de la República y otros, Sentencia T-622/16
(hereinafter Atrato River case). Here, the Court cites Chen & Gilmore (2015). English
version available at http://files.harmonywithnatureun.org/uploads/upload838.pdf
9 Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Access and Benefit-Sharing, Seventh meeting, Provisional Agenda item 3, Study on Compliance in Relation to the Customary
Law of Indigenous and Local Communities, National Law, Across Jurisdictions, and
International Law, UNEP/CBD/WG-ABS/7/INF/5, 6 March 2009, para. 26–27.
10 FAO, Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Farmers’ Rights, IT/GB-9/
AHTEG-FR-3/20/2 ( June 2020), pp. 13, 27-28, referring to two of the four BCPs
developed in Madagascar and Benin as part of the Darwin Initiative project evoked
in Chapter 11 and Chapter 12 (this book).
11 See, for instance, in Kenya, the Ogiek Bio-Cultural Community Protocol (Ogiek
Peoples’ Development Program (OPDP), 2005) and the Lamu County Biocultural
Community Protocol (Save Lamu, 2018) (also see, this book, Chapter 11).
12 See the BCP for territories of the Community Council of Alto San Juan – ASOCASAN
(Colombia) (Consejo Comunitario Mayor del Alto San Juan, 2012).
13 See below and, this book, Chapter 1.
Notes
1 The chapter is part of research project n° ANR-18-CE03-0003-01 funded by the
French National Research Agency (ANR). *All URLs retrieved on 1 September
2021.
2 COP CBD, Decision XIII/18, CBD/COP/13/25 (17 December 2016).
3 Mo’otz Kuxtal Voluntary Guidelines; see footnote 2.
4 Another example is the BCP for territories of the Community Council of Alto San
Juan – ASOCASAN (Colombia) (2012) (Protocolo Comunitario Biocultural para el
Territorio del Consejo Comunitario Mayor del Alto San Juan Asocasan, Tado, Chocó,
Colombia, 2012) (English version: http://www.pnuma.org/publicaciones/PCB%20
ASOCASAN_espanol_2012.pdf ), which sets out in detail, in the A ppendices, the
legal standards (including international ones) on territorial rights of Colombian Black
communities, the right of ownership over natural resources, the rights related to
valuing, protecting, and controlling TK, and the right to prior consultation and FPIC.
5 Along the same lines, the Raika biocultural protocol (India) calls on the National
Biodiversity Authority of India and the CBD Secretariat to recognise substantial elements of the instrument, notably their “local breeds and associated traditional knowledge as set out in the Raika Biodiversity Register and to include it in the Peoples
Biodiversity Register (under Rule 22(6) of the Biological Diversity Rules)” (http://
www.abs-initiative.info/uploads/media/Nairobi-0909-Raika_02.pdf ).
6 Protocolo Comunitario de Capulálpam de Méndez, Oaxaca, para la gestión de los
recursos genéticos y su conocimiento tradicional en el ámbito del Protocolo de
Nagoya. México (2018) (ABSCH-CPP-SCBD-240739-3); Protocolo Comunitario
de Ek Balam, X-Kumil, Yucatán, para la gestión de los recursos genéticos y su conocimiento tradicional en el ámbito del Protocolo de Nagoya. México (2018) (ABSCHCPP-SCBD-240737-4); Protocolo Comunitario Biocultural de Isla Yunuén,
Pátzcuaro, Michoacán, para la gestión de los recursos genéticos y su conocimiento
tradicional en el ámbito del Protocolo de Nagoya. México (2018) (ABSCH-CPPSCBD-240740-4); Protocolo Comunitario Biocultural del Territorio Comcáac,
Sonora, México (2018) (ABSCH-CPP-SCBD-240738-3); Protocolo Comunitario
Biocultural de Vicente Guerrero, Españita, Tlaxcala. México (2020) (https://absch.
cbd.int/api/v2013/documents/D8188070-3FD1-EA8B-360B-0EEF80D38ECD/
attachments/PCB%20Vicente%20Guerrero%20M%C3%A9xico.pdf ); (Hernández
Ordoñez, 2019).
7 https://www.cbd.int/portals/culturaldiversity/docs/north-american-regionaldeclaration-on-biocultural-diversity-en.pdf
8 Corte Constitucional República de Colombia (2016) Centro de Estudios para la Justicia
Social “Tierra Digna” contra la Presidencia de la República y otros, Sentencia T-622/16
(hereinafter Atrato River case). Here, the Court cites Chen & Gilmore (2015). English
version available at http://files.harmonywithnatureun.org/uploads/upload838.pdf
9 Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Access and Benefit-Sharing, Seventh meeting, Provisional Agenda item 3, Study on Compliance in Relation to the Customary
Law of Indigenous and Local Communities, National Law, Across Jurisdictions, and
International Law, UNEP/CBD/WG-ABS/7/INF/5, 6 March 2009, para. 26–27.
10 FAO, Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Farmers’ Rights, IT/GB-9/
AHTEG-FR-3/20/2 ( June 2020), pp. 13, 27-28, referring to two of the four BCPs
developed in Madagascar and Benin as part of the Darwin Initiative project evoked
in Chapter 11 and Chapter 12 (this book).
11 See, for instance, in Kenya, the Ogiek Bio-Cultural Community Protocol (Ogiek
Peoples’ Development Program (OPDP), 2005) and the Lamu County Biocultural
Community Protocol (Save Lamu, 2018) (also see, this book, Chapter 11).
12 See the BCP for territories of the Community Council of Alto San Juan – ASOCASAN
(Colombia) (Consejo Comunitario Mayor del Alto San Juan, 2012).
13 See below and, this book, Chapter 1.