From the late twentieth-century and continuing, there has been significant traction in the recognition of the contributions of the knowledge of Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) to human development across diverse disciplines, especially in the environmental and life sciences. A feature of this trend is support for the participation of IPLCs in the making of relevant laws and policies as well as for them to equitably share in the benefits resulting from research and development (R&D) and various technological interventions in the utilization of their knowledge and their stewardship of genetic and various natural resources. The period under reference is characterized by rapid pace in technological evolution, notably at the interface of digital and information processing technologies and in the biological or general life sciences. While these technological revolutions have capacity to enhance the protection of the rights and interests of IPLCs, they also raise significant concerns and obstacles to the latter’s ability to optimally realize their rights and interests in the new and increasingly complex technological landscape. Nowhere is this technologically propelled conundrum more evident than in the context of IPLCs’ rights in access and equitable benefit sharing (ABS) over genetic resources and associated indigenous or traditional knowledge and the broad spectrum of transformations in life sciences R&D as symbolized in the inchoate concept of digital sequence information (DSI) on genetic resources. This chapter maps the legal framework for IPLCs rights in the ABS dynamic and how mutually reinforcing developments around DSI and synthetic biology present a significant threat in law, science and policy to the realization of those rights. It supports a more prudent and less hasty but pragmatic policy directions to address the challenges which the new and emergent technological dynamics pose for IPLCs.
'The Rights of Nature as a Bridge between Land-Ownership Regimes: The Potential of Institutionalized Interplay in Post-Colonial Societies' by Alex Putzer, Tineke Lambooy, Ignace Breemer and Aafje Rietveld in Transnational Environmental Law comments
Despite the growing prominence and use of Rights of Nature (RoN), doubts remain as to their tangible effect on environmental protection efforts. By analyzing two initiatives in post-colonial societies, we argue that they do influence the creation of institutionalized bridges between differing land-ownership regimes. Applying the methodology of inter-legality, we examine the Ecuadorian Constitution of 2008 and the Ugandan National Environment Act 2019. We identify five normative spheres that influence land-ownership regimes. We find that the established Ecuadorian RoN have an institutionalized effect on the nation's legal system. Their more recently established Ugandan counterpart shows potential to develop in the same direction.
The authors state
Rights of Nature (RoN) do not represent one single train of thought, but many – they ‘have both multiple histories and multiple meanings’. Despite, or precisely because of, this heterogeneity, the idea is increasingly used to address Earth's ecological crises by challenging overly anthropocentric mindsets. Up to June 2021, at least 409 legal RoN initiatives have emerged across 39 countries. Regardless of their mounting use, Darpö, in a recent report for the European Parliament, submits that RoN are not a ‘paradigmatic revolution for environmental law’. He argued that the movement faces the same problems as conventional protection efforts, including insufficient access to justice and financial difficulties. We agree that RoN are not a panacea for nature protection issues. However, as we argue in this article, RoN can be a promising ally in bridging conflicting land-ownership regimes.
The ownership of nature has long been identified as an important factor within environmental protection efforts. Relatively new is the connection of ownership rights with RoN. Among the authors who do address it is Boyd, who sees the vision of nature as property as one of ‘three damaging ideas’ that stand as the root for the ‘ongoing use and misuse of other animals, species, and nature’. Burdon looks at private property, reconceptualizing it ‘as a relationship between and among members of the Earth community’. Bradshaw discusses an extension of property rights holders to include non-human animals. Kauffman and Martin reject a complete abandonment of property, reflecting upon an interplay between RoN, property, and markets instead. Similarly, Sanders writes about natural self-ownership. It becomes evident that the relationship between RoN and ownership has all but a common trajectory. Consequently, rather than adopting any particular prescription, we conduct an empirical analysis of the practical implementation. In particular, we look at how RoN affect land-ownership regimes in post-colonial societies.
Post-colonial societies experience frequent conflict with regard to land ownership; the reasons for this vary. A dominant explanation refers to economic growth as a motivator for colonial land grabs. A less scrutinized explanation looks at the, at times, fundamentally opposing understandings of nature. While colonizing normative spheres have largely reproduced an anthropocentric concept of land ownership, colonized ones have offered non-anthropocentric alternatives. Chthonic legal traditions are exemplary of the latter. National and international efforts are increasingly considering the perspectives of a global chthonic population of 476.6 million. While they represent little more than 6% of humanity, their ‘ownership’ of nature is disproportionately higher. In 2018, Garnett and co-authors estimated that chthonic peoples ‘influence land management across at least 28.1% of the [world's] land area’; 20% of that territory overlaps with at least 40% of global protected areas and intact landscapes. Put differently, while accounting for little more than 1/16th of the global population, chthonic peoples manage 2/5ths of the world's protected land.
A major limitation to making efficient use of this disproportionately high share is these people's ambiguous ‘influence on land management’, which can range from full governance to occasional consultancy. Conceptual clarity is crucial to combat legal uncertainty, not only for chthonic peoples.
With these connections and overlapping interests in mind, we analyze two cases: namely, the 2008 Ecuadorian Constitution and the 2019 Ugandan National Environment Act. Whereas both countries share similar histories regarding their evolution of land-ownership regimes, we compare the differing institutionalization effects of their respective RoN initiatives. To explicate the resulting ‘bridge’, we use inter-legality – a method that formally considers all ‘vantage points’ that contribute to the creation of a specific law. We consider this perspective to be promising because it explicitly avoids enforcing or reproducing post-colonial legal hegemonies. By scrutinizing every relevant normative sphere and evaluating its respective importance in a given context, inter-legality aims to heighten the legitimacy of any legal norm-creation process.
Keeping such an inclusive approach in mind, we examine both case studies, following a similar structure. We start with a general introduction and subsequently identify the relevant normative spheres that have historically influenced land-ownership regimes. These spheres include (i) post-colonial political and legal systems; (ii) chthonic legal traditions; (iii) civil society organizations; (iv) international (soft) law; and (v) local and multinational corporations (Sections 2 and 3). In the second step, we analyze the process that led to the respective RoN initiatives (Section 4). While we find elements of a bridging function, we remain only cautiously optimistic regarding future developments (Section 5).
'The Right to Social Security' by Beth Goldblatt in Malcolm Langford and Katharine Young (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Economic and Social Rights (Oxford University Press) states
The chapter considers the origins and purpose of the right to social security and its status in international law, regional human rights instruments, and national constitutions. It discusses the developing interpretation of the right in international law and in national jurisprudence and examines the right in relation to welfare cutbacks in the context of increasing austerity in the Global North and the growth in social security provision in the Global South as a response to poverty, including with regard to the ILO’s recommendation for social protection floors. The chapter gives particular consideration to the relationship between the right to social security and equality. It also focuses on two further issues that touch on core questions regarding the interpretation of the right to social security: conditionality and a basic income. All three discussions point to central considerations of access to the right, its scope, and its purpose. It should be noted that, since the time of writing, the COVID-19 pandemic has presented an extreme new context in which to consider how the right to social security links with vulnerability, equality, and solidarity. While this analysis, especially in relation to conditionality, basic income, and equality, is pertinent to the response to the health and economic crisis that has followed COVID-19, this chapter does not incorporate a discussion of international and national responses.
