https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5234-8784
![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article assess the degree of cross-fertilisation of international human rights and environmental law on fair and equitable benefit-sharing in relation to the human rights of indigenous peoples and local communities over natural resources. It also explores further avenues to develop a mutually supportive interpretation by strategically analysing the interplay of international benefit-sharing obligations with environmental assessment and free prior informed consent. This will serve to substantiate four inter-linked claims. Benefit-sharing has a substantive core linked to communities’ choice and capabilities, as well as a procedural one linked to communities’ agency as part of a concerted, culturally appropriate and iterative dialogue with the State. Benefit-sharing expands considerably the scope and approach of environmental assessments and consultation practices, having the potential to move towards a transformative collaboration in light of multiple worldviews. Benefit-sharing should then be distinguished from compensation, with which it is often conflated, as it does not depend upon a violation of a right. Finally, the proposed interpretation has implications for understanding the status of fair and equitable benefit-sharing in international law, as well as for businesses’ due diligence to respect the human rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.
Acknowledgements
The author is very grateful for the comments of the BENELEX team and advisors, colleagues from Natural Justice and FARN, Prof Jeremie Gilbert and Dr Federica Cittadino on previous drafts of this article. All mistakes remain the author’s own.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Elisa Morgera is Professor of Global Environmental Law at Strathclyde University Law School, Glasgow, UK; and PI of the BENELEX project (‘Benefit-sharing for an equitable transition to the green economy’).
ORCID
Elisa Morgera http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5234-8784
Notes
1. Indigenous peoples’ right to natural resources is considered self-standing with respect to their right to land: e.g. Final Report of the Special Rapporteur Erica-Irene Daes on Indigenous Peoples’ Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources (2004) UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/30, para 39; and Jérémie Gilbert, ‘The Right to Freely Dispose of Natural Resources: Utopia or Forgotten Right?’, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 31 (2013): 314.
2. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Issue of Human Rights and the Environment John Knox: Framework Principles on Human Rights and the Environment (2017) UN Doc A/HRC/34/49, Principle 15.
3. U. Linderfalk, ‘Cross-Fertilization in International Law’, Nordic J Int’l L 84 (2015): 428, 436–8.
4. It is not explicitly referred to in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP: UNGA Res. 61/295, 2007). Even international human rights lawyers specifically focusing on international biodiversity law do not address benefit-sharing: e.g. Ellen Desmet, Indigenous Rights Entwined with Nature Conservation (Intersentia, 2011).
5. E.g. UN Expert Mechanism, Advice no. 4: Follow-up report on indigenous peoples and the right to participate in decision- making, with a focus on extractive industries, UN Doc. A/HRC/21/55, paras 38(b), 39(h) and 43 (2012); M. Århén, Indigenous Peoples in the International Legal System (Oxford University Press, 2016), 217–18; and C. Rodríguez-Garavito, ‘Ethnicity.gov: Global Governance, Indigenous Peoples, and the Right to Prior Consultation in Social Minefields’, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 18 (2011): 263.
6. E.g. F. Lenzerini, ed., Reparations for Indigenous Peoples: International and Comparative Perspectives (Oxford University Press, 2008).
7. I-AmCtHR, Kichwa Indigenous Communitiy of Sarayaku v Ecuador (Merits and reparations, Judgment of 27 June 2012), para. 194.
8. Ibid., paras. 193–94.
9. Ibid., para. 186. J. Gilbert and C. Doyle, ‘A New Dawn over the Land: Shedding Light on Collective Ownership and Consent’, in Reflections on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, eds. S. Allen and A. Xanthaki (2011), 289.
10. N. Gomez, ‘Indigenous Peoples and Psychosocial Reparations: The Experience with Latin American Indigenous Communities’ in Lenzerini (note 6), 143, 158.
11. G. Citrioni and K. Quintana Osuna, ‘Reparations for Indigenous Peoples in the Case of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ in Lenzerini (note 6), 317, 340 and 324.
12. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Afr. Comm.), Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group International on behalf of Endorois Welfare Council v Kenya (4 February 2010) Case 276/2003, para. 274.
13. IACtHR, Case of Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v Suriname, Judgment (Merits, Reparations and Costs), 25 November 2015, paras. 77–84 and 183.
14. Kichwa, para. 186. Gilbert and Doyle (note 9), 289.
15. F. Francioni, ‘Natural Resources and Human Rights’, in Research Handbook of International Law and Natural Resources, eds. E. Morgera and K. Kulovesi (Edward Elgar, 2016), 66, in light of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), 16 December 1966, 993 UNTS 3, art 1(2) and 2(1).
16. E.g. Francioni (note 15); V. Barral, ‘National Sovereignty over Natural Resources: Environmental Challenges and Sustainable Development’, in Morgera and Kulovesi (note 15), 3; Århén (note 5), 55; and F. Lenzerini, ‘Sovereignty Revisited: International Law and Parallel Sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples’, Tex Int’l LJ 42 (2006): 155.
17. A. Barros, ‘The Fetish Mechanism: A Post-Dogmatic Case Study of the Atacama Desert Peoples and the Extractive Industries’, in Handbook of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, eds. C. Lennox and D. Short (Routledge, 2016), 223, 231–2.
18. G. Pentassuglia, ‘Towards a Jurisprudential Articulation of Indigenous Land Rights’, EJIL 22 (2011): 165, 176; D. McGregor, ‘Living Well with the Earth: Indigenous Rights and the Environment’ in Lennox and Short (note 17), 167, 175; Desmet (note 4), 58 and 175; and Francioni (note 15).
19. E. Reimerson, ‘Between Nature and Culture: Exploring Space for Indigenous Agency in the Convention on Biological Diversity’, Envtl. Pol. 22 (2013): 992; Y. Uggla, ‘What is this Thing Called “Natural”? The Nature-culture Divide in Climate Change and Biodiversity Policy’, J. Pol. Ecology 17 (2009): 79.
20. It has been argued elsewhere that fair and equitable benefit-sharing is a multi-dimensional international law concept, encompassing an inter-State as well as an intra-State dimension: E. Morgera, ‘The Need for an International Legal Concept of Fair and Equitable Benefit-sharing’, EJIL 27 (2016): 353. The present article focuses specifically on the intra-State dimension of benefit-sharing.
21. UN Special Rapporteur Anaya, Progress report on extractive industries, UN Doc. A/HRC/21/47, paras 52 and 62 (2012).
22. Making reference more consistently to ‘ensur[ing] reasonable benefit or compensation for indigenous peoples impacted by natural resource exploitation’: OHCHR, Mapping Human Rights Obligations Relating to the Enjoyment of a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment: Individual Report on the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2013), 16–18 (emphasis added).
23. A. Fodella, ‘Indigenous Peoples, the Environment, and International Jurisprudence’, in International Courts and the Development of International Law: Essays in Honour of Tullio Treves, eds. N. Boschiero, et al. (Springer, 2013), 360, develops this argument about international human rights law, not international biodiversity law.
24. International Labour Organization's (ILO) Convention no. 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries 1989, 28 ILM 1382, art 15.
25. L. Swepston, ‘New Step in the International Law on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples: ILO Convention No. 169 of 1989’, Okla. City U. L. Rev. 15 (1990): 677, 703. The only other reference to benefit-sharing in human rights law is in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights: Blogpost by Mikel Mancisidor, Is There Such a Thing as a Human Right to Science in International Law? (April 2015), http://www.esil-sedi.eu/node/896. While the ILO Convention uses the verb to ‘participate’ in benefits, its interpretative materials refer to benefit-sharing: e.g. Observation of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Experts, adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010), para. 11.
26. ILO, Monitoring Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights through ILO Conventions: A Compilation of ILO Supervisory Bodies’ Comments 2009–2010, Observation (Norway), Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council 2009/80th session (2009), 95; ILO, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights in Practice: A Guide to ILO Convention No 169 (2009), 107–108; and L. Sargent, ‘The Indigenous Peoples of Bolivia’s Amazon Basin Region and ILO Convention No. 169: Real Rights or Rhetoric?’, U. Miami Inter-Am. L Rev 29 (1998): 451, 510.
27. Swepston (note 25), 704–6.
28. ILO, Report of the Committee Set Up to Examine the Representation Alleging Non-Observance by Ecuador of ILO Convention No. 169, Doc. GB.282/14/4 (2001), para. 44(3); Report of the Committee set up to Examine the Representation alleging non-observance by Ecuador of ILO Convention No. 169, ILO Doc. GB.282/14/4, para. 44(3) (2001).
29. Special Rapporteur Anaya, Report on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, (2010) UN Doc. A/HRC/15/37, para. 80.
30. R. Wynberg and M. Hauck, ‘People, Power and the Coast: Towards an Integrated, Just and Holistic Approach’, in Sharing Benefits from the Coast: Rights, Resources and Livelihoods, eds. R. Wynberg and M. Hauck (UCT Press, 2014), 143, 158.
31. ILO Convention, art 7(3).
32. Combined reading with ILO Convention, arts 5–6.
33. ILO Convention, art 7(4).
34. ILO Convention, art 15(2); Swepston (note 25), 698; and Desmet (note 4), 88.
35. IACtHR, Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, Judgment (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), 28 November 2007.
36. For a recount of this line of case law, see Kaliña and Lokono Joint Concurring Opinion of Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto and Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot, paras. 4–9.
37. Saramaka (Merits), paras. 93–95 on the basis also of Inter-American Convention, art 29(b). Reiterated in Kaliña and Lokono, para. 124; e.g. Århén (note 5), 93.
38. G. Pentassuglia, ‘Indigenous Groups and the Developing Jurisprudence of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights: Some Reflections’, UCL Hum. Rts. Rev. 3 (2010): 150, 158 with respect to the Endorois case. See also African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, African Commission of Human and Peoples’ Rights v The Republic of Kenya (26 May 2017) App. No 006/2012, para 191.
39. Independent Expert on Environment and Human Rights, John Knox, Preliminary Report on the Issue of Human Rights Obligations Relating to the Enjoyment of a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment, UN Doc. A/HRC/22/43, para. 41 (2012) and Mapping Report, UN Doc. A/HRC/25/53, para. 78 (2013); UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Oliver de Schutter, Large-scale land acquisitions and leases: A set of minimum principles and measures to address the human rights challenge, UN Doc. A/HRC/13/33/Add.2, paras. 30–33 (2009); Special Rapporteur Anaya, A/HRC/21/47 (note 21), paras. 52 and 62; UN Expert Mechanism, Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights, Setting a Framework for Consultation, Benefit-Sharing and Dispute Resolution, UN Doc. A/HRC/EMRIP/2009/5 (2008); and UN Expert Mechanism, Follow-up report on indigenous peoples and the right to participate in decision-making, with a focus on extractive industries, UN Doc. A/HRC/EMRIP/2012/2, para. 40 (2012). But it remains unclear whether the Human Rights Committee (HRC) relies upon the same notion of benefit-sharing found in Saramaka: note the lack of reference to benefit-sharing in Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Mapping Human Rights Obligations Relating to the Enjoyment of a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment: Individual Report on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (2013).
40. See Endorois and Kaliña and Lokono; and Special Rapporteur Anaya, Cases examined by the Special Rapporteur (June 2009–July 2010), UN Doc. A/HRC/15/37/Add.1, paras. 257–67 (2010); and Report of the Special Rapporteur Anaya to the General Assembly (2016) UN Doc A/71/229, which does not refer to benefit-sharing as such, but to partnership building (paras 74 and 80).
41. Saramaka (Merits), paras. 122–23; P. Thornberry, Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights (Manchester University Press, 2002), 352, 282.
42. Saramaka (Merits), paras. 155–58.
43. S. Errico, ‘The Controversial Issue of Natural Resources: Balancing States’ Sovereignty with Indigenous Peoples’ Rights’ in Allen and Xanthaki (note 9), 348.
44. Pentassuglia (note 38), 160.
45. Saramaka (Merits), para. 130 and fn 128; and para. 138 and fn 137.
46. Pentassuglia (note 38), 169.
47. UNDRIP, art 31; Special Rapporteur Anaya, A/HRC/15/37 (note 29), paras. 67 and 76–78 (2010); UNPFII, Review of World Bank operational policies, UN Doc. E/C.19/2013/15, para. 27 (2013); OHCHR, Mapping Human Rights Obligations Relating to the Enjoyment of a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment: Individual Report on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2013), 45–6.
48. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 7 March 1966, 660 UNTS 195; Fn 138, para. 140 referring to CERD, Consideration of Reports submitted by State Parties under Article 9 of the Convention, Concluding Observations on Ecuador, UN Doc. CERD/C/62/CO/2, para. 16 (2003). Note that a benefit-sharing requirement does not feature in the CERD General Recommendation n. 23 on Indigenous Peoples UN Doc. A/52/18, annex V (1997), but references to profit-sharing from natural resource use were made by CERD: Consideration of Reports, Comments and Information Submitted by States Parties: Bolivia, UN Doc. A/66/18, para. 43(7)(f) (2012); and Consideration of Reports, Comments and Information Submitted by States Parties: Bolivia, UN Doc. A/56/18, para. 335 (2001).
49. Referring to ‘mutually acceptable benefit-sharing’ as part of FPIC: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/90, para. 66 (2003); which was reiterated in his Progress report on preparatory work for the study regarding best practices carried out to implement the recommendations contained in the annual reports of the Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/78/Add.4, para. 11.
50. Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, Judgment (Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), 12 August 2008, para. 41 and fn 23.
51. Which appears confirmed in CERD, Concluding observations on the combined thirteenth to fifteenth periodic reports of Suriname, (2015) UN Doc. CERD/C/SUR/CO/13-15, para. 26.
52. CBD art 8(j) was referred to by UNPFII, Review of Developments pertaining to the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/AC.4/2001/2, para. 15 (2001). The Akwé: Kon Guidelines (CBD Decision VII/16C (2004), Annex) were referred to as a pre-condition for benefit-sharing by CERD (note 51); Special Rapporteur Anaya, A/HRC/15/37 (note 29), para. 73, and by the Expert Mechanism, Progress report on the study on indigenous peoples and the right to participate in decision-making, (2010) UN Doc. A/HRC/15/35, para. 37. The CBD work programme on protected areas (CBD Decision VII/28 (2004), Annex) was referred to by the Expert Mechanism, UN Doc. A/HRC/15/35, para. 37 (2010).
53. Akwé: Kon Guidelines (note 52), paras. 46 and 56.
54. Work programme on protected areas (note 52), paras. 2(1) and 2(1)(4) (while the latter refers to both benefit- and cost-sharing, the focus on benefit-sharing is clarified in CBD Decision IX/18 (2008), preamble para. 5).
55. See generally Reimerson (note 19).
56. CBD arts 8(j), 10 and 14: Kaliña and Lokono, paras. 173–74, 177–78, 181 and 214 fn 247, making reference to the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity, CBD Decision VII/12 (2004), Annex II and the CBD work programme on protected areas (note 52).
57. Kaliña and Lokono, paras. 181 and 193.
58. Kichwa, para. 300; Kaliña and Lokono, para. 214; CERD (note 51), para. 26.
59. Saramaka (Interpretation), para. 41; Kichwa, para. 206; Kaliña and Lokono, para. 215; also citing Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) ‘UN Doc A/CONF.151/26 vol 1, Annex 1.
60. Kaliña and Lokono, paras. 197 and 202–203.
61. Ibid., para. 17.
62. Ibid., paras. 18 and 64–66 and 70.
63. Ibid., para. 46.
64. Ibid., para. 193.
65. UN Expert Mechanism (note 5), para. 43; Special Rapporteur Anaya, A/HRC/15/37 (note 29), para 46.
66. UNPFII (note 47), para. 29.
67. ILO, Observation on Norway (note 26).
68. Kaliña and Lokono, paras. 239–40.
69. Ibid.
70. Ibid., para. 251(3).
71. Ibid., para. 251(5).
72. Ibid., para 134; referring to Saramaka, para 115.
73. Saramaka (Merits), para. 194.d; Kaliña and Lokono, para. 305(d); and Kichwa paras. 299–300.
74. P. Birnie, A. Boyle, and C. Redgwell, International Law and the Environment (Oxford University Press, 2009), 626–8; D. Shelton, ‘Principle 22: Indigenous People and Sustainable Development’, in The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: A Commentary, ed. Jorge Viñuales (Oxford University Press, 2015), 541, 543.
75. Note, for instance, the continued opposition of some CBD parties to making unequivocal reference to the right to ‘prior informed consent’ of indigenous peoples (e.g. CBD, Mo’otz Kuxtal voluntary guidelines for the development of mechanisms, legislation or other appropriate initiatives to ensure the ‘prior informed consent’, ‘free prior informed consent’ or ‘approval and involvement’, depending on national circumstances, of indigenous peoples and local communities for accessing their knowledge, innovations and practices, the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use and application of such knowledge, innovations and practices and for reporting and preventing unauthorised access to such knowledge, innovations and practices, CBD Decision XIII/18, para. 6 (2016)).
76. E. Morgera, ‘Against All Odds: The Contribution of the Convention on Biological Diversity to International Human Rights Law’, in Unity and Diversity of International Law, eds. Denis Alland et al. (2014), 983. For a recent report of CBD parties’ views on importing international human rights law terminology with regard to indigenous peoples, see E. Tsioumani et al., “Summary and Analysis of the UN Biodiversity Conference”, 9:678 Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) 12–13 (2016).
77. CBD art 8(j). Other provisions in the Convention (notably arts 1 and 15) focus instead on an inter-State notion of benefit-sharing in the specific context of bioprospecting, although in time they have come to be understood also in an intra-State perspective: E. Morgera et al., Unraveling the Nagoya Protocol: A Commentary of the Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing to the Convention on Biological Diversity (Martinus Nijhoff, 2014), 24–30.
78. CBD art 10(c).
79. Principles of the Ecosystem Approach, Decision V/6 (2000), para. 9, and CBD Decision VII/11 (2004), Annex I, annotations to rationale to Principle 4’. This appears to be reflected in the General Assembly, Strategic Framework for the period 2012–2013 (UN Doc. A/65/6/Rev.1), para. 11(24)(b) and for 2014–2015 (UN Doc. A/67/6 (prog 11)), para. 11(16). See discussion in E. Morgera, ‘Ecosystem and Precautionary Approach’, in Encyclopedia of Environmental Law: Biodiversity and Nature Protection Law, eds. E. Morgera and J. Razzaque (Edward Elgar, 2017), 70.
80. In the light of the placement of CBD art 8(j) in the context of in situ conservation (CBD Art 8). J Gibson, ‘Community Rights to Culture: The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ in Allen and Xanthaki (note 9) 434, 434–5.
81. On the basis of the wording of CBD Article 8(j): see definition of traditional knowledge in Akwé: Kon Guidelines (note 53).
82. See generally B. Tobin, Indigenous Peoples, Customary Law and Human Rights: Why Living Law Matters (Routledge, 2014).
83. Thornberry (note 41), 334 and 353.
84. Addis Ababa Guidelines (note 56), rationale to Principle 4 and operational guideline to Principle 12.
85. Principles of the Ecosystem Approach (note 79), para 9.
86. Endorois, para 297.
87. Akwé: Kon Guidelines (note 52), para. 46. See M. Menton and A. Bennett, ‘PES: Payments for Ecosystem Services and Poverty Alleviation?’ and I. Porras and N. Asquith, ‘Scaling-up Conditional Transfers for Environmental Protection and Poverty Alleviation’, in Ecosystem Services and Poverty Alleviation: Trade-offs and Governance, eds. K. Schreckenberg et al. (Routledge, 2018), 189 and 204 respectively.
88. CBD, Guidelines on Biodiversity and Tourism, Decision V/25 (2000), paras. 22–23, 43.
89. Principles of the Ecosystem Approach (note 79), para 9; CBD expanded work programme on forest biodiversity, Decision VI/22 (2002), at goal 5, objective 1, activities; CBD work programme on mountain biodiversity, CBD decision VII/27 (2004), Annex, para. 1.3.7; Akwé: Kon Guidelines (note 23), paras. 40 and 46; Addis Ababa Guidelines (note 56), rationale to Principle 4; CBD, Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising out of their Utilization, CBD Decision VI/24 (2002) Annex, para. 50.
90. E.g. CBD Decision VI/22 (note 89), para. 31 and programme element 1, Goal 4, objective 3; CBD work programme on mountain biodiversity (note 89), paras 2.2.1–2.2.5.
91. Akwé: Kon Guidelines (note 52), para. 56.
92. Addis Ababa Guidelines (note 56), operational guidelines to Principle 4; and CBD work programme on forest biodiversity (note 89), para 34. See also Agenda 21 (1992) UN Doc A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 vol. 1, Annex II, para. 15(4)(g) and Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (2002) UN Doc A/CONF.199/20, Resolution 2, para. 44(j).
93. E. Morgera, ‘Justice, Equity and Benefit-Sharing Under the Nagoya Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity’, Italian Y.B. Int’l L. 25 (2015): 113.
94. The CBD work programme on protected areas, for instance, links the goal of promoting equity and benefit-sharing with engaging communities in participatory planning and governance: n 52, paras. 2(1)(3)–2(1)(5).
95. Note reference to legislative, policy or administrative measures in the Nagoya Protocol, although in that context benefit-sharing is specifically related to bioprospecting.
96. C. O’Faircheallaigh and T. Corbett, ‘Indigenous Participation in Environmental Management of Mining Projects: The Role of Negotiated Agreements’, Envtl. Pol. 14 (2015): 629, 635.
97. Morgera (note 20), 356.
98. Principles of the Ecosystem Approach (note 79), Principle 8.
99. See Desmet (note 4), 41.
100. Ibid., 131–2.
101. CBD art 22(1).
102. E Morgera, ‘Far Away, So Close: A Legal Analysis of the Increasing Interactions between the Convention on Biological Diversity and Climate Change Law’, Climate Law 2, (2011): 85.
103. Kaliña and Lokono, paras. 181 and 193.
104. M. Fitzmaurice, ‘The Question of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights: A Time for Reappraisal?’, in Statehood and Self-Determination: Reconciling Tradition and Modernity in International Law, eds. D French (Cambridge University Press, 2013), 361; Desmet (note 4), 186–7; and S. Wiessner, ‘The Cultural Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Achievements and Continuing Challenges’, EJIL 22 (2011): 121.
105. J. Ife, Human Rights from Below: Achieving Rights through Community Development (Cambridge University Press, 2010), 151. See also increasing references under the CBD to the ‘contribution of the collective action of indigenous peoples and local communities’: CBD COP Decision XIII/3, Strategic actions to enhance the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the achievement of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, including with respect to mainstreaming and the integration of biodiversity within and across sectors, paras 15, 18(b) and 98 (2016) and Decision XIII/ XIII/20. Resource mobilisation (2016), paras 18–21 and Annex (‘Guiding principles on assessing the contribution of collective action by indigenous peoples and local communities’).
106. R. Pavoni, ‘Mutual Supportiveness as a Principle of Interpretation and Law-Making: A Watershed for the WTO-and-Competing-Regimes Debate?’, EJIL 21 (2010): 649, 665.
107. There is no such qualification for benefit-sharing in the text of ILO Convention No. 169. The CERD, UNPFII and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have referred to equitable benefit-sharing: CERD, Concluding Observations on Ecuador (note 48), para. 16 (2003); UNPFII, Report of the International Workshop on Methodologies regard Free, Prior Informed Consent and Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc. E/C.19/2005/3, para. 46(i)(e) (2005); and Saramaka (Merits), para. 140 (‘reasonable equitable’) and Endorois, paras. 269 and 297.
108. Special Rapporteur Anaya, A/HRC/15/37 (note 29), paras. 67 and 76–78.
109. F. Francioni, ‘Equity’, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, ed. R Wolfrum (Oxford University Press 2010, online ed.), para. 25.
110. Kaliña and Lokono, paras. 227–29 and 159. See A. Lucas, ‘Participatory Rights and Strategic Litigation: Benefits Forcing and Endowment Protection in Canadian Natural Resource Development’, in Sharing the Costs and Benefits of Energy and Resource Activity, eds. L Barrera-Hernandez et al. (Oxford University Press, 2016), 339, 342–5.
111. The suggestion to draw on the evolution of fair and equitable treatment to better understand fair and equitable benefit sharing was put forward by F. Francioni, ‘International Law for Biotechnology: Basic Principles’, in Biotechnology and International Law, eds. F Francioni and T Scovazzi (2006), 3, 24.
112. P.M. Dupuy and J. Viñuales, ‘Human Rights and Investment Disciplines: Integration in Progress’, in International Investment Law: A Handbook, eds. M. Bungenberg et al. (2015), 1739.
113. See generally T. Franck, Fairness in International Law and Institutions (1995), and reflections by R. Klager, Fair and Equitable Treatment in International Investment Law (Cambridge University Press, 2013), 141–52.
114. Saramaka (Interpretation), paras. 25–2; CBD, Refinement and Elaboration of the Ecosystem Approach (note 79), paras 1(8), 2(1); CBD, Tkarihwaié:ri Code of Ethical Conduct to Ensure Respect for the Cultural and Intellectual Heritage of Indigenous and Local Communities, CBD Decision X/42 (2010), para. 14.
115. Kaliña and Lokono, para. 251(4).
116. UN Expert Mechanism (note 5), para. 39(h); also Special Rapporteur Anaya, Report to the General Assembly, UN Doc. A/67/301, para. 78 (2012).
117. ILO, Observation (Norway) (note 30), 95.
118. Morgera (note 20), 363–4 and Mancisidor (note 26).
119. Saramaka (Interpretation), paras. 25–2; CBD, Refinement and Elaboration of the Ecosystem Approach (note 79), paras 1(8), 2(1); CBD, Tkarihwaié:ri Code (note 114), para. 14.
120. Morgera (note 20), 363–4.
121. Special Rapporteur Anaya, Report on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples, UN Doc. A/HRC/12/34, para. 53 (2009); and Special Rapporteur Anaya, Study on Extractive Industries and Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc. A/HRC/24/41, para. 88 (2013).
122. N. Craik, ‘Process and Reconciliation: Integrating the Duty to Consult with Environmental Assessment’, Osgoode Hall L.J. 52 (2016): 1, 42 and 48.
123. P. Keenan, ‘Business, Human Rights, and Communities: The Problem of Community Contest in Development’, Illinois Public Law Research Paper No. 14–18 (2013), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2353493.
124. CBD Mo’otz Kuxtal Guidelines (note 75), para 23(a) and 8.
125. See section 1.1. above.
126. Klager, (note 113), 163.
127. C. Burke, An Equitable Framework for Humanitarian Intervention (Hart Publishing, 2014), 250.
128. E.g. Special Rapporteur Anaya, A/HRC/12/34 (note 121), paras. 51 and 53; UNDRIP prembular para. 25 (and H Quane, ‘The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: New Directions for Self-Determination and Participatory Rights?’ in Allen and Xanthaki (note 9), 259, 270 and 276–77); UN Expert Mechanism (note 5), Annex, para. 28; and Report of the High-level Task Force on the Implementation of the Right to Development on its Second Meeting, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2005/WG.18/TF/3, para. 82 (2005).
129. Fitzmaurice (note 104), 375; and Special Rapporteur Anaya, A/HRC/12/34 (note 121), paras. 53 and 43(b).
130. Saramaka (Interpretation), para. 2.
131. Klager (note 113), 145.
132. O. Corten, ‘Reasonableness in International Law’ in Wolfrum (note 109). See also Reports of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights for the Forty-Second and Forty-Third sessions, Consideration of reports of States parties: Cambodia, UN Doc. E/C.12/2009/3, para. 193 (2009), and for the Forty-Second and Forty-Third sessions, Consideration of reports of States parties: Democratic Republic of Congo, UN Doc. E/C.12/2009/3, para. 289 (2009); OHCHR, Mapping Human Rights Obligations Relating to the Enjoyment of a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment: Individual Report on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2013), para. 48 (2013) and Report on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (note 47), paras. 45–46; and 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme on Action, UN Doc. A/CONF.157/23, part I, para. 20 (1993).
133. Endorois, para. 15.
134. IACtHR, Comunidad Garífuna de Punta Piedra y sus miembros vs Honduras (Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs), 8 October 2015, para. 215; Kaliña and Lokono, para. 168.
135. Kaliña and Lokono, para. 191.
136. Gibson (note 80), 450.
137. CBD work programme on protected areas (note 52), para 19; Addis Ababa Guidelines (note 56), practical principle 12, operational guidelines.
138. Endorois, para. 212. Århén (note 5), 207–12.
139. Endorois, para. 294–98. The right to development is explicitly protected under the African Charter (art. 22), and is understood as an expression of the right to self-determination of indigenous and tribal peoples comprising a distinctive bundle of rights to participation, culture and natural resources: see Pentassuglia (note 38), 157, and generally and C. Doyle and J. Gilbert, ‘Indigenous Peoples and Globalization: From “Development Aggression” to “Self-Determined Development”’, Eur. Y.B. Minority Issues 7 (2008/9): 219.
140. Endorois, para. 279. C. Morel, ‘From Theory to Practice: Holistic Strategies for Effective Advocacy’ in Lennox and Short (note 17), 355, 359. S. Coulthard, J. McGregor, and C. White, ‘Multiple Dimensions of Wellbeing in Practice’ in Schreckenberg et al. (note 87), 243.
141. J. Castellino, ‘Indigenous Rights and the Right to Development: Emerging Synergies or Collusion?’ in Allen and Xanthaki (note 9), 367, 369 fn 8. On wellbeing as the substantive aim of benefit-sharing, see also Report of the Special Rapporteur in the Field of Cultural Rights: The Right to Enjoy the Benefits of Scientific Progress and Its Applications, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/26, para. 22 (2012); and ILO Conference 87th Session 1999, Report III (Part 1a), 434.
142. Endorois, para. 283, as well as paras. 127–29 and 135. See, however, words of caution again understanding of wellbeing in economic and spatial terms, rather than cultural terms, by Thornberry (note 41), 298.
143. A/HRC/24/41 (note 121), paras. 75 and 59.
144. Endorois, paras. 294 and 296; CERD, General Recommendation No. 23: Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc. A/52/18, annex V, para. 4 (1997); CERD, Concluding Observations on Ecuador, UN Doc. A/58/18, para. 62 (2003).
145. M. Orellana, ‘Saramaka People v Suriname Judgment’, AJIL 102 (2008): 841, 846. Although note limited cross-fertilisation between the Inter-American and European courts of human rights: see generally R. Pavoni, ‘Environmental Jurisprudence of the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights: Comparative Insights’, in Environmental Law Dimensions of Human Rights, ed. B. Boer (Oxford University Press, 2015), 69, 105.
146. On the ‘glocalization’ of right to development, see R. Stavenhagen, ‘Making the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Work: The Challenge Ahead’ in Allen and Xanthaki (note 9), 147, 152–3. See also Pentassuglia (note 18), 201.
147. K. Sing' Oei and J. Shepherd, ‘In Land We Trust’: The Endorois’ Communication and the Quest for Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Africa’, Buff. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 16 (2010): 57, 108–9.
148. For their own primary benefit, including in terms of environmental sustainability, albeit without excluding opportunities for benefits to others according to views of broader society: see generally Y. Omorogbe, ‘Resource Control and Benefit-sharing in Nigeria’ in Barrera-Hernandez et al. (note 110).
149. E.g. generally M. Nussbaum and A. Sen, The Quality of Life (Clarendon Press, 1993).
150. Shelton (note 74), 554.
151. Note the mixed picture arising in this regard from benefit-sharing as part of community-based wildlife management initiatives in Africa. F Nelson, ‘Introduction’, in Community Rights, Conservation and Contested Lands: The Politics of Natural Resource Governance in Africa, ed. F Nelson (Earthscan, 2010), 3, 4 and 11.
152. Special Rapporteur on the human rights obligations related to environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and waste, Report, (2012) UN Doc. A/HRC/21/48, paras. 36 and 69(h).
153. N. Craik, ‘Biodiversity-inclusive Impact Assessment’ in Morgera and Razzaque (note 79), 431, argues that consideration of biodiversity concerns more generally expands the range of issues and values to be included in environmental assessments. See also C. Doyle, Indigenous Peoples, Title to Territory, Rights and Resources: The Transformative Role of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (Routledge, 2015), 94.
154. Saramaka (Merits), para. 133; Kichwa, para. 205; Kaliña and Lokono, para. 214.
155. Akwé: Kon Guidelines (note 52), para. 23.
156. Ibid., para. 36.
157. Ibid., paras. 8(e) and 53.
158. Ibid., Forward, and para. 3, and 13–14.
159. Ibid., para. 37.
160. See Craik (note 153), 443.
161. Rio Principles 10 and 22; International Law Commission, Draft Articles on the Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, (2001) UN Doc A/56/1, Ch 5.E, art 13; Independent Expert Knox, Mapping Report (note 40).
162. S. Vermeylen et al., ‘Intellectual Property, Rights Systems and the Assemblage of Local Knowledge Systems’, Int’l J. Cultural Prop. 15 (2008): 201.
163. N. Schabus, ‘Traditional Knowledge’ in Morgera and Razzaque (note 79), 264.
164. Akwé: Kon Guidelines (note 52), para 6(f).
165. Ibid., paras 24 and 27–28, 34.
166. Ibid., para. 42.
167. Ibid., para. 6(d).
168. Ibid., para. 49.
169. Ibid., para. 57.
170. Keenan (note 123).
171. Akwé: Kon Guidelines (note 52), para. 51.
172. On such a transformational potential of impact assessment, see generally Craik (note 122).
173. N. Craik, H. Gardner, and D. McCarthy, ‘Indigenous – Corporate Private Governance and Legitimacy: Lessons Learned from Impact and Benefit Agreements’, Resources Policy 52 (2017): 379.
174. Ibid.
175. See generally Craik et al. (note 173); and also Desmet (note 4), 186–7. Note, however, Birnie et al. (note 74), 287.
176. Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), ICJ 20 April 2010, para. 205.
177. N. Craik, ‘Principle 17: Environmental Impact Assessment’ in Viñuales (note 74), 451, 460.
178. M. Barelli, ‘Free, Prior and Informed Consent in the Aftermath of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Developments and Challenges Ahead’, Int'l J. Hum. Rts. 16 (2012): 1, 15. See, e.g. HRC, Jouni E. Länsman et al. v. Finland, Communication No. 671/1995, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/58/D/671/1995 (1996), para 10.7.
179. S. Vermeylen, ‘Benefit-sharing, Justice and the Global South’ BENELEX blog post (April 2016).
180. See generally Craik et al. (note 173).
181. Craik (note 153), 437–8.
182. N 177.
183. CBD art 14(2).
184. E.g. UN Expert Mechanism, Final report of the study on indigenous peoples and the right to participate in decision-making, UN Doc A/HRC/18/42, 2011, para. 63, criticised by Doyle (note 153), 5.
185. See generally Doyle (note 153).
186. Kichwa, para. 180.
187. Kaliña and Lokono, Joint Concurring Opinion of Judges Sierra Porto and Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot, paras. 14; UNPFII, Report on the tenth session, UN Doc E/2011/43-E/C.19/2011/14, paras. 34–38 (2011), particularly para. 34.
188. Kaliña and Lokono, Joint Concurring Opinion of Judges Sierra Porto and Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot, para. 14.
189. Kichwa, paras. 166 and 177; Endorois, para. 289; Kaliña and Lokono, Joint Concurring Opinion of Antonio Sierra Porto and Mac-Gregor Poisot, para. 15.
190. Gilbert and Doyle (note 9), 325.
191. Akwé: Kon Guidelines (note 52, paras. 29, 52–53 and 60) refer consistently only to ‘prior informed consent’.
192. Nagoya Protocol art 6(2), with ‘approval and involvement’ being found in the wording of CBD art 8(j); Bonn Guidelines (note 89), para. 31; and CBD Decision V/16, para. 5. For an indication of continued diverge of views on utilising UNDRIP language in the context of the CBD, see C. Benson et al., Summary of the Seventh Meeting of the Working Group on Article 8(j), 9:557 ENB (2011) 5–6; and B Antonich et al., Summary of the Eighth Meeting of the Working Group on Article 8(j) and 17th Meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 9:611 ENB (2013), 4, 6–7 and 20.
193. G. Burton, ‘Implementation of the Nagoya Protocol in JUSCANZ Countries: The Unlikely Lot’, in The 2010 Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing in Perspective: Implications for International Law and Implementation Challenges, eds. Morgera et al. (Martinus Nijhoff, 2013), 295, 318, particularly 318–19.
194. ‘Joint submission Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)’, 133–6, and comments by A. Savaresi, ‘The International Human Rights Law Implications of the Nagoya Protocol’ in Morgera et al. (note 193), 53, 69; Special Rapporteur Anaya, A/67/301 (note 116), paras. 58–59.
195. Special Rapporteur Anaya, A/HRC/24/41 (note 121), paras. 26–36.
196. E.g. S. Nijar, The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing: An Analysis, (2011); and Special Rapporteur Anaya, A/67/301 (note 116), paras. 92 and 61, where the Special Rapporteur specifically expresses the ‘hopeful expectation’ that the provisions of the Nagoya Protocol will be implemented ‘in harmony with’ UNDRIP.
197. Doyle (note 153), 154; Thornberry (note 41), 349.
198. Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Advice No. 2, Indigenous peoples and the right to participate in decision-making, (2011), para. 1, emphasis added. Århén (note 5), 141.
199. Kichwa, paras. 165–66.
200. Endorois, para. 212. Compare with K. Gover, ‘Settler-State Political Theory, ‘CANZUS’ and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’, Eur. J. Int’l L. 26 (2015): 345, 372.
201. See contra, the argument that the right to consultation is procedural, whereas FPIC as a core element of the internal aspect of the right to self-determination is substantive (the right to effectively determine the material outcome of decision-making process): see Århén (note 5), 135–8. The present author is rather persuaded that procedural and substantive dimensions are intertwined in consultation as well as in FPIC, impact assessment and benefit-sharing.
202. In light of ILO Convention 169, Article art 7(1): A. Fuentes, ‘Judicial Interpretation and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights to Lands, Participation and Consultation. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ Approach’, Int’l J. Minority & Group Rts 23 (2015): 39, 74–6 and 79.
203. E.g. Special Rapporteur De Schutter, Interim Report, UN Doc. A/67/268, para. 39 (2012); ECOWAS, Directive on the Harmonization of Guiding Principles and Policies in the mining Sector (2009); UN-REDD Programme, ‘Guidelines on Free, Prior and Informed Consent’ (2013), 11–12; Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels, Principles and Criteria (2012): Morgera et al. (note 77), 40; and L. Cotula and K. Tienhaara, ‘Reconfiguring Investment Contracts to Promote Sustainable Development’, Y.B. Int’l L. Inv. & Pol’y 2011–2012 (2013): 281, 301 and 303.
204. Doyle (note 154), 16.
205. Ibid., 154; see Thornberry (note 41), 349.
206. UNGA Res 17/4, para. 11 (2011).
207. Ibid.
208. CBD, Mo’otz Kuxtal guidelines (note 75), para. 6.
209. Ibid., para 14.
210. See generally Morgera (note 76).
211. Kaliña and Lokono, Joint Concurring Opinion of Judges Sierra Porto and Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot.
212. N 124 above.
213. See Saramaka (Merits), para. 134; and Fodella (note 23), 356 and 360.
214. Doyle (note 153), 131.
215. See generally Doyle (note 153) and V Tauli-Corpuz, ‘The Concept of Indigenous Peoples’ Self-Determined Development or Development with Identity and Culture: Challenges and Trajectories’, UN Doc. CLT/CPD/CPO/2008/IPS/02, 2008.
216. Århén (note 5), 225.
217. Gilbert and Doyle (note 9), 313–15 and Tauli-Corpuz (note 215).
218. Århén (note 5), 138.
219. UN Expert Mechanism, Advice No 2 (note 198), para 23. Gilbert and Doyle (note 9), 316; Thornberry (note 41), 217 and 349; Doyle (note 154), 98–9; and M. Barelli, ‘Development Projects and Indigenous Peoples’ Land: Defining the Scope of Free, Prior and Informed Consent’ in Lennox and Short (note 17), 69, 75.
220. Endorois, para. 289; Anaya A/HRC/12/34 (note 121), para 46. On the lack of a unified approach to FPIC at the international level, see Barelli (note 219), 75.
221. Special Rapporteur Anaya, A/HRC/12/34 (note 121), para. 53.
222. Which are considered premised on principles of good faith, justice, friendship and solidarity, as a notion that affirms and protects the rights of both parties and clarify their duties towards one another: Doyle (note 153), 41.
223. Ibid., 8. See also ILA, Report on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2010).
224. J. Anaya, Indigenous Peoples in International Law (OUP, 2004), 155.
225. Århén (note 5), 139.
226. CBD, principles of the ecosystem approach (note 79), Operational Guidance 2, para. 9; CBD refinement and elaboration of the ecosystem approach (note 79), para 12.5.
227. Saramaka (Merits), para. 144; Endorois, paras. 235 and 249; and Kaliña and Lokono, paras 35–36.
228. Saramaka (Merits), paras. 138–40; Kaliña and Lokono, para. 227; Endorois, paras. 298–99 and 295. J. Pasqualucci, ‘International Indigenous Land Rights: A Critique of the Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Light of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’, Wis. Int’l L.J. 27 (2009): 51, 92.
229. Gomez (note 10), 147–8.
230. Inter-American Convention on Human Rights, art 21(2).
231. Saramaka (Merits), paras. 13 and 140; see also paras. 143, 153, 156 making reference to reasonable share of benefits.
232. Endorois, para. 295.
233. Special Rapporteur Anaya, A/HRC/15/37 (note 29), paras. 67, 89 and 91; and A/HRC/24/41 (note 121), para. 76.
234. Special Rapporteur Anaya, A/HRC/24/41 (note 121), para. 76.
235. Section 2.3.
236. Orellana (note 145), 845 and 847.
237. Saramaka (Merits), paras. 201–202; Garífuna de Punta Piedra, paras. 316 and 333; Kaliña and Lokono, para. 272; IACtHR, Comunidad Garífuna Triunfo de la Cruz y Sus Miembros vs Honduras (Merits, Reparations and Costs), 8 October 2015, para. 296 and concurrent opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, para. 26. Note also the inclusion of benefit-sharing among forms of compensation in T. Ankowiak, ‘A Dark Side of Virtue: The Inter-American Court and Reparations for Indigenous Peoples’, Duke J. Comp. & Int’l L. 25 (2014): 1, 5.
238. Special Rapporteur Anaya, A/HRC/24/41 (note 121), para. 76. Other bodies have not elaborated on the point: UNPFII (note 57), para. 27 (2013); Ecuador, ILO Doc. GB.282/14/2, para. 44(c)(3) (2001), and Bolivia, ILO Doc. GB.272/8/1:GB.274/16/7, para. 40 (1999).
239. F. Lenzerini, ‘Reparations for Indigenous Peoples in International and Comparative Law: An Introduction’ in Lenzerini (note 6) 3, 13–14. See also D. Shelton, ‘Reparations for Indigenous Peoples: The Present Value of Past Wrongs’ in Lenzerini (note 6) 47, 60–61 and 66–69.
240. Morgera (note 20), on the basis of Special Rapporteur Anaya, A/HRC/21/47 (note 21), paras. 68, 74 and 76 and A/HRC/24/41 (note 121), para. 75.
241. See Section 2.2 above.
242. See discussion on potential for reparations to aim at restorative justice and be forward-looking (and controversy around that notion) in Shelton (note 239), 72. See also Gomez (note 10), 147–8.
243. Garífuna Triunfo de la Cruz, para. 295; Garífuna de Punta Piedra, 332; Kaliña and Lokono, para. 295.
244. In light of UNDRIP art 29(1): Garífuna de Punta Piedra, para. 333. Note, however, that the distinction between primary duties to fulfil general human rights from the secondary duty to provide reparation for violations of indigenous and tribal peoples’ rights connected to natural resources remains to be clearly drawn: Gomez (note 10), 149.
245. Such as ILO Convention 169, art 2.2.b: ‘promoting the full realization of the social, economic and cultural rights of these peoples with respect for their social and cultural identity, their customs and traditions and their institutions’: Garífuna Triunfo de la Cruz, concurrent opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, para. 30–31.
246. This interpretation appears supported by ILA (note 22, 42–43) with regard to UNDRIP art 32(2) and opportunities offered by indigenous lands to develop economic projects.
247. Orellana (note 145), 845 and 847.
248. And generally ‘restricts damage to provable, proximate losses to avoid excessive recovery’, although it includes some flexibility in the name of proportionality and equity: Shelton (note 239), 60.
249. Ankowiak (note 237), 5.
250. Wynberg and Hauck (note 30), 158.
251. Knox (note 2), paras 7–8.
252. To use the terminology employed by Knox (note 2), paras 7–9. See generally, C. Buckley, A. Donald, and P. Leach, eds., Towards Convergence in International Human Rights Law: Approaches of Regional and International Systems (Brill, 2016).
253. See generally S. Harrop and D. Pritchard, ‘A Hard Instrument Goes Soft: The Implications of the Convention on Biological Diversity's Current Trajectory’ Global Envt’l Change 21 (2011): 474; and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), ICJ 16 December 2015, (Road Case) para. 164, which focused on CBD art 14 on environmental assessments that has provided the basis for interpretative developments related to benefit-sharing in international biodiversity and human rights law, as discussed above.
254. E. Morgera, ‘Dawn of a New Day? The Evolving Relationship between the Convention on Biological Diversity and International Human Rights Law’, Wake Forest Law Review 54 (2018).
255. Comunidad Garífuna Triunfo de la Cruz, para. 167. This interpretation is now enshrined in American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2016), Art XXIX. See also Endorois, paras. 120–24.
256. Saramaka (Merits), paras. 93–95 on the basis also of Inter-American Convention, art 29(b). Reiterated in Kaliña and Lokono, para. 124. For a succinct discussion of previous case law, see e.g. Århén (note 5), 93.
257. Kaliña and Lokono, paras. 181 and 193.
258. Art 21 of American Convention on Human Rights (adopted 22 November 1969, entered into force 18 July 1978) 1144 UNTS 123. Saramaka (Merits), paras. 115 and 120; based on IACtHR, Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v Nicaragua (Judgment) (31 August 2001).
259. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 26 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171. See generally J. Anaya, Indigenous Peoples in International Law (OUP, 2004), 104–6 and 129–31; and Århén (note 5).
260. HRC, Lubicon Lake Band v Canada, Comm No 167/1984 (26 March 1990) UN Doc. Supp No 40 (A/45/40) and Ángela Poma Poma v Peru, Comm No 1457/2006 (27 March 2009) UN Doc. CCPR/C/95/D/1457/2006. This approach has been confirmed by the ICJ, Navigational and Related Rights (Nicaragua v Costa Rica) (Judgment) 13 July 2009, [2009] ICJ Reports 213.
261. Endorois, paras. 294 and 296. As to the former, the African Commission presumably referred to Saramaka (Merits), paras, 93–95, and Saramaka (Interpretation), para. 46. CERD, General Recommendation No. 23: Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc. A/52/18, annex V, para. 4 (1997); CERD, Concluding Observations on Ecuador, UN Doc. A/58/18, para. 62 (2003).
262. Comunidad Garífuna Triunfo de la Cruz, para. 102; Comunidad Garífuna de Punta Piedra, para. 167.
263. Kaliña and Lokono, para. 197, relying on CBD art 14 and Rio Principle 17.
264. G. Pentassuglia, ‘Ethnocultural Diversity and Human Rights: Legal Categories, Claims, and the Hybridity of Group Protection’ Yb Polar L 6 (2015): 251, 293, 276–7, 294 and 317; IACtHR, Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, Judgment (Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), 12 August 2008, paras. 25–27; Endorois para 151; Ogiek, para 191.
265. At the beginning of his mandate, UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, James Anaya, hypothesised that benefit-sharing could be a right in itself: A/HRC/15/37 (note 29), paras. 67 and 76–78, but his more definite argument focused on benefit-sharing as a safeguard ancillary to existing rights: A/HRC/21/47 (note 22), paras. 52 and 62.
266. Comunidad Garífuna de Punta Piedra, para. 222; Pentassuglia (note 18), 176 sees benefit-sharing as ‘expanding on the principle of effective participation’.
267. A. Boyle and C. Chinkin, The Making of International Law (Oxford University Press, 2007), 222–5.
268. UN Framework Principle 15 (note 2); CBD, arts 8(j) and 10(c); Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (VGGT) (2012), art 8.6; and FAO, Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (2013), para 5.1.
269. UN Framework Principle 15 (note 2), para 41(d) and (g) and 48; O. De Schutter, ‘The Emerging Human Right to Land’, Int'l Community L Rev 12 (2010): 303, 319 and 324–5; Pentassuglia (note 38), 157; and C. Doyle and J. Gilbert, ‘Indigenous Peoples and Globalization: From “Development Aggression” to “Self-Determined Development”’, Eur. Y.B. Minority Issues 7 (2008/9): 219.
270. Note, e.g. votes against and abstentions concerning the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas, UN Doc. A/HRC/39/12 (2018) at the Human Rights Council; CBD Decisions X/43 (2010), para 21 and XI/14 (2012), para 19.
271. UN Framework Principles (note 2), para 9.
272. Endorois, paras. 204–207.
273. Endorois, para. 209.
274. Århén (note 5), 179. Ogiek, para 185. Note that the concept of ‘tradition’ is contested in anthropological studies: e.g. R. Ellen et al. eds., Indigenous Environmental Knowledge and Its Transformation: Critical Anthropological Perspectives (Harwood Academics, 2000).
275. E.g. CERD (note 51).
276. J. Gilbert, ‘CERD's Contribution to the Development of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples under International Law’, in Fifty Years of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination: A Living Instrument, eds. D. Keane and A. Waughray (Manchester University Press, 2017) on the basis of CERD/C/63/CO/2 and CERD/C/PER/CO/18-21.
277. IACtHR, Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Judgment (24 August 2010), Sect. 3.1 and n. 37; see Fodella (note 24), 358.
278. Kaliña and Lokono, paras. 181 and 193 referring to the ‘right to a dignified life … connected with natural resources on … traditional territories’.
279. E. Daly, Dignity Rights: Courts, Constitutions and the Worth of the Human Person (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 5, 40, 59–60 and 119.
280. Ibid., 119–21.
281. Special Representative Ruggie, ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to implement the UN Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework’, UN Doc. A/HRC/17/31 (2011), adopted by the Human Rights Council (Res 17/4 (2011)) and ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy: A Framework for Business and Human Rights’, UN Doc. A/HRC/8/35 (2008), which the Human Rights Council recognised the need to operationalise (Res 8/7 (2008), para. 2) and the Expert Mechanism (note 5), para 21, considered ‘authoritative global standard for addressing business-related human rights challenges’. Note, however, that the Human Rights Council established in 2014 a process to elaborate an international legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises and human rights: HRC Res 26/9 (June 25, 2014). See also ILA, Second Report of the Study Group on Due Diligence in International Law (July 2016), 27–39.
282. E. Morgera, Corporate Accountability in International Environmental Law (Oxford University Press, 2009).
283. Special Rapporteur Anaya, Extractive industries operating within or near indigenous territories, UN Doc. A/HRC/18/35, para. 63 (2011); UN Expert Mechanism (note 5), para. 8; and Shelton (note 74), 553.
284. Draft General Comment on State Obligations under the ICESCR in the context of Business Activities, UN Doc. E/C.12/60/R.1, paras. 17–21 (2016).
285. Albeit to different extents: S. Seck, ‘Indigenous Rights, Environmental Rights, or Stakeholder Engagement? Comparing IFC and OECD Approaches to the Implementation of the Business Responsibility to Respect Human Rights’, Mcgill J. Int’l Sustainable Dev. L. & Prac 12 (2016): 51. See contra C. Lewis, ‘Indigenous Peoples and the Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights’ in Lennox and Short (note 17), 201, 215.
286. E. Morgera, ‘Benefit-sharing as a Bridge between the Environmental and Human Rights Accountability of Multinational Corporations’ in Boer (note 145), 37. CBD decisions are routinely addressed directly also to private operators, thereby providing an intergovernmentally adopted source of more specific corporate accountability standards. E.g. Addis Ababa Guidelines (note 56), para. 1; Guidelines on Biodiversity and Tourism (note 88), para. 2, and Tkarihwaié:ri Code (note 114), section 6/3. The Akwé: Kon Voluntary Guidelines, albeit directed to parties and governments (note 52), para. 1), are expected to provide a collaborative framework for governments, indigenous and local communities, decision makers and managers of developments (ibid., para. 3).
287. See generally Special Rapporteur Anaya, A/HRC/21/47 (note 21), and A/HRC/24/41 (note 121), para. 62; and UN Expert Mechanism (note 5) and (note 198), paras. 8–29.
288. Special Rapporteur Anaya, A/HRC/15/37 (note 29), paras. 46 and 79.
289. Special Rapporteur Anaya, A/HRC/24/41 (note 121), paras. 62, 66, and 72.
290. CBD, Mo’otz Kuxtal Guidelines (note 75), para. 17(c)(iii).
291. Special Rapporteur Anaya, A/HRC/15/37 (note 29), para. 46.
292. Special Rapporteur Anaya, Report on the rights of indigenous peoples, (2011) UN Doc. A/HRC/66/288, para. 102 and A/HRC/21/47 (note 21), paras. 68, 74 and 76.
293. Special Rapporteur Anaya, A/HRC/15/37 (note 29), paras 79, 89 and 91.
294. Special Rapporteur Anaya, A/HRC/24/41 (note 121), para. 75.
295. UN Expert Mechanism (note 5), para. 39(h) and implicitly UK National Contact Point, Final Statement on the Complaint from Survival International against Vedanta Resources plc, at http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file53117.doc, para. 73 (2009).
296. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment John Knox, Report on biodiversity and human rights, (2017) UN Doc. A/HRC/34/49, para 72.
297. H. Jonas, ‘Indigenous Peoples’ and Community Conserved Territories and Areas (ICCAs): Evolution in International Biodiversity Law’ in Morgera and Razzaque (note 79), 145.
298. CBD Decisions X/31/B (2010) para 31, XII/19 (2014) para 4(f) and X/33 (2010) para 8(i) in relation to climate change (which area addressed to ‘other/relevant organizations’); and XII/5 (2014) para 11 (which is addressed to ‘relevant stakeholders’).
299. Cotula and Tienhaara (note 203), 293.
300. Kaliña and Lokono, paras. 227–29 and 159. For a discussion, Lucas (note 110).
301. Morgera et al. (note 77), 7.
302. For a reflection on the challenges of legal pluralism in the context of benefit-sharing from bioprospecting, see S. Vermeylen, ‘The Nagoya Protocol and Customary Law: The Paradox of Narratives in the Law’, L. Envt & Dev. J. 9 (2013): 185.
303. Craik et al. (note 173), 386.
304. K. Carpenter and A. Riley, ‘Indigenous Peoples and the Jurisgenerative Moment in Human Rights’, Cal. L. Rev. 102 (2014): 173.
305. Cotula and Tienhaara (note 203), 302.
306. Craik et al. (note 173), 384.
307. K. Caine and N. Krogman, ‘Powerful or Just Plain Power-Full? A Power Analysis of Impact and Benefit Agreements in Canada's North’, 23 Org. & Envt 76 (2010). See also M. Langton, ‘The Resource Curse Compared: Australian Aboriginal Participation in the Resource Extraction Industry and Distribution of Impacts’, in Community Futures, Legal Architecture: Foundations for Indigenous Peoples in the Global Mining Boom, eds. M. Langton and J. Longbottom (Routledge, 2012), 23, 29 and 38.
308. Special Rapporteur Anaya, A/66/288 (note 292), para. 102.
309. Cotula and Tienhaara (note 203), 293.
310. See generally M. Langton, ‘Introduction’, in Langton and Longbottom (note 307), 1.
311. K. Doohan et al., ‘From Paternalism to Partnership: The Good Neighbour Agreement and the Argyle Diamond Mine Indigenous Land Use Agreement in Western Australia’ in Langton and Longbottom (note 307), 232, 244–6.
312. See section 2.1.2 above.
313. See generally Craik et al. (note 173).
314. Ibid., 383.
315. Akwé: Kon Guidelines (note 52), para. 40.
316. CBD Secretariat, ‘How tasks 7, 10 and 12 could best contribute to work under the Convention and to the Nagoya Protocol’, (2012) UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/WG8J/8/4/Rev.2, para. 23. Community development funds were also referred to in Saramaka (Merits), para. 201 and ILO (note 31), 107–8.
317. Craik et al. (note 173), 385.
318. Ibid.
319. Special Rapporteur Anaya, A/HRC/18/35 (note 283), para. 49.
320. C Filer, ‘The Development Forum in Papua New Guinea: Evaluating Outcomes for Local Communities’ in Langton and Longbottom (note 307), 145, 158.
321. Ibid.
322. Francioni (note 111), 3, 23–24 and 27.
323. Special Rapporteur Anaya, A/HRC/24/41 (note 121), para. 62.
324. Ibid.
325. Ibid., paras. 88 and 92.
326. Langton (note 307), 32.
327. Craik et al. (note 173), 385.
328. Cotula and Tienhaara (note 203), 292.
329. Albeit to the extent allowed by the State's bilateral investment treaties: ibid., 303 and 294.
330. Ibid., 303 and 293.
331. Ibid., 293.
332. C. Kamphuis, ‘Contesting Indigenous-Industry Agreements in Latin America’, in The Law and Politics of Indigenous-Industry Agreements, eds. D. Newman and I. Odumosu-Ayanu (Routledge, forth 2018).
333. Note, however, serious questions with regard to the degree of compliance with their decisions: e.g. X. Dai, ‘The Compliance Gap and the Efficiency of International Human Rights Institutions’, in The Persistent Power of Human Rights, ed. T. Risse (Cambridge University Press, 2013), 85.
334. See generally F. Francioni, ‘Realism, Utopia and the Future of International Environmental Law’, in Realizing Utopia: The Future of International Law, ed. A. Cassese (Oxford University Press, 2012), 443, 442; and specifically E. Morgera, ‘Compliance under Biodiversity-Related Conventions: The Case of the Convention on Biological Diversity’, in International Environmental Law-Making and Diplomacy Review 2016, eds. M. Lewis, T. Honkonen, and S. Romppanen (UNEP, 2017), 133.