![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
The growing value of forest resources has produced an increasing regulation of the use of forest resources in the national states of the Amazonian region. The new generation of forest norms have established a standardised system for the utilisation of forest resources based on two main aspects: the elaboration of forest management plans, and the granting of forest licences by the State’s authorities. However, this system has also increased the barriers for applying TFRK in indigenous lands because the current forest norms do not always consider their knowledge, their customary law, and their values. In view of this problem, this paper identifies the gaps and opportunities of the ICH Convention for protecting the TFRK of Amazonian indigenous peoples, considering the national legal frameworks of Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador and Peru. For doing this, firstly the connection between TFRK and intangible cultural heritage is shown. Secondly, the duties of the national States in relation to TFRK established by the ICH Convention are identified. Thirdly, it is discussed the form TFRK of Amazonian indigenous peoples is regulated in the national legal systems. Finally, it is analysed how the national norms that regulate TFRK of Amazonian indigenous peoples accommodate the ICH Convention.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank the generous and kind support from Jan Carl Welzholz, who made valuable comments to my draft paper, and Prof. Dr. Beatriz Barreiro Carril, who provided relevant material for this research
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 There are studies about the correlation between the variety of languages and a high number of flora and fauna species in the same geographical places. See: William Balée, Cultural Forests of the Amazon: A Historical Ecology of People and Their Landscapes (Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 2013), 123–4.
2 This conclusion is based in information of the Index of Biocultural Diversity which is built by three components: a biocultural diversity richness component, an areal component and a population component. See: Jonathan Loh and David Harmon, ‘A Global Index of Biocultural Diversity’, Ecological Indicators 5 (2005): 231.
3 César Sabogal and others, eds., Manejo Forestal Comunitario en América Latina: Experiencias, lecciones aprendidas y retos para el futuro (Belém: CIFOR, 2008).
4 For instance in the Biodiversity Convention, art. 8, j.
5 For further details about the concept of TK, see: Kuei-Jung Ni, ‘Traditional Knowledge and Global Law Making’, Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights 10, no. 2 (2011): 85.
6 Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore of the World Intellectual Property Organization, ‘List and Brief Technical Explanation of Various Forms in Which Traditional Knowledge May be Found’ (Seventeenth Session. December 6–10, 2010. Geneva) WIPO/GRTKF/IC/17/INF/9. 3.
7 ‘Traditional’ is already a problematic word for researchers of several areas (anthropologist, sociologists and also jurists), because in their view ‘traditional’ is associated with something simple, savage and static. In contrast with these opinions, other researchers consider that the term ‘traditional’ refers to its belonging to a specific region in the world and to the social context of reciprocity under which it develops, in their view ‘traditional’ can also be innovative and in continuous development. See: Friket Berkes, Johan Colding, and Carl Folke, ‘Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as Adaptive Management’, Ecological Applications 10, no. 5 (2000): 1251; René Kuppe, ‘Die Herausforderung des Immaterialgüterrechts durch traditionelles Wissen’, in Geistiges Eigentum und Originalität: Zur Politik des Wissens- und Kulturproduktion, ed. Odin Kroeger and others (Turia+Kant, 2011); Janet Blake, ‘UNESCO’s 2003 Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage: The Implications of Community Involvement in “Safeguarding”’, in Intangible Heritage, ed. Laurajane Smith and Natsuko Akagawa (Key Issues in Cultural Heritage. Routledge, 2009), 255–6. An overview about the different, and sometimes contradictory meanings of ‘traditional’ in the context of ‘traditional knowledge’ can be also found in: Committee on Science and Technology – Conference of the parties of the Convention to Combat Desertification, ‘Traditional Knowledge: Report of the Ad Hoc Panel’ (September 8th, 1999) ICCD/COP(3)/CST/3. Paragraph 6.
8 Ronald L. Trosper and John Parrotta, ‘Introduction: The Growing Importance of Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge’, in Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge: Sustaining Communities, Ecosystems and Biocultural Diversity, ed. John Parrotta and Ronald L. Trosper (World Forests. Springer, 2012), 6.
9 Berkes, Colding, and Folke, ‘Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge’, 1252.
10 United Nations, ‘United Nations Forum on Forests: Report on the Fourth Session (6 June 2003 and 3 to 14 May 2004)’ (New York 2004) E/2004/42. Par. 10–14.
11 Trosper and Parrotta, ‘Introduction: The Growing Importance’.
12 See, for instance: Micaela Guadalupe Guillen Ramirez and Marlene Castillo Fernández, SAIPE: Innovaciones en Sistemas Agroforestales Indígenas y Adopción en el Alto Marañón (Lima: SAIPE, 2019), 16–19.
13 Miguel Pinedo-Vasquez, Susanna Hecht, and Christina Padoch, ‘Amazonia’, in Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge: Sustaining Communities, Ecosystems and Biocultural Diversity, ed. John Parrotta and Ronald L. Trosper (World Forests. Springer, 2012), 119. See also: Estela Quintero-Vallejo and others, ‘Amazonian Dark Earth Shapes the Understory Plant Community in a Bolivian Forest’, Biotropica 47, no. 2 (2015): 152.
14 Glend Martin Seitz Lozada, ‘Ruptura generacional y relaciones de género en las comunidades Awajún de Shushug, Nayumpim y Wawas del distrito de Imaza (Amazonas) en las tres últimas décadas’ (Master thesis, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, 2013), 116–21.
15 Other cases of application of TFRK can be found in: Balée, Cultural Forests of the Amazon. Cher Weixia Chen and Michael Gilmore, ‘Biocultural Rights: A New Paradigm for Protecting Natural and Cultural Resources of Indigenous Communities’, The International Indigenous Policy Journal 6, no. 3 (2015): 1.
16 Noriko Aikawa, ‘An Historical Overview of the UNESCO International Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage’, Museum International Policies and International Debates 56, no. 1–2 (2004): 137, 146. See also: Lucas Lixinski, ‘Regional and International Treaties on Intangible Cultural Heritage: Between Tradition and Contemporary Culture’, in Research Handbook on Contemporary Intangible Cultural Heritage: Law and Heritage, ed. Charlotte Waelde and others (Edwar Elgar, 2018), 16–18.
17 Craig Forrest, International Law and the Protection of Cultural Heritage (London: Routledge, 2010), 368.
18 Lucas Lixinski, Intangible Cultural Heritage in International Law (Cultural Heritage Law and Policy. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2013) 8.
19 Federico Lenzerini, ‘Intangible Cultural Heritage: The Living Culture of Peoples’, The European Journal of International Law 22, no. 1 (2011): 101, 108.
20 In fact, according to the World Heritage Convention, the Amazon rainforest could be considered as ‘Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage’ because it fullfills both definitions. See: Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage – UNESCO, ‘Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention’, 2019, WHC.19/01. Para. 46.
21 Cristian G. Caubet, ‘Le traité de coopération amazonienne. Régionalisation et développement de l'Amazonie’, Annuaire français de droit international 30 (1984): 803. In the past, there were similar discussions for the protection of other rainforests. See: Susan Nicole Krohn, Die Bewahrung tropischer Regenwälder durch völkerrechtliche Kooperationsmechanismen: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Ausgestaltung eines Rechtsregimes zur Erhaltung von Waldökosystemen, dargestellt am Beispiel tropischer Regenwälder (Veröffentlichungen des Walther-Schücking-Instituts für Internationales Recht an der Universität Kiel 140. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2002; Doctoral thesis).
22 This compromise is expressed in the Amazon Cooperation Treaty, a regional agreement between the eight countries (Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Suriname and Venezuela) of the Amazon basin with the objective of promoting the cooperation for its sustainable development. See: http://www.otca-oficial.info/home (accessed April 15, 2019).
23 Through the agreement of the UNDRIP and the ILO Convention 169.
24 In fact, there are researches who consider the distinction between tangible and intangible cultural heritage as an artificial one, that do not reflect the reality. See: Janet Blake, International Cultural Heritage Law (Cultural Heritage Law and Policy, Oxford University Press, 2015), 10–11.
25 There is a discussion between researcher about which type of heritage predominates. See: Lixinski Intangible Cultural Heritage in International Law, 19–22. See also: Chiara Bortolotto, ‘Introduzione: Il Processo di Definizione del Concetto di “patrimonio culturale imateriale”. Elementi per una riflessione’, in Il Patrimonio Immateriale secondo l' UNESCO: analisi e prospettive, ed. Chiara Bortolotto (Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 2008), 16.
26 Lucas Lixinski, ‘Sustainable Development in International Heritage Law: Embracing a Backwards Look for the Sake of Forwardness?’, in Australian Year Book of International Law, ed. Sarah Heathcote and others (2014), 71.
27 UNESCO General Assembly of the States Parties to the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Seventh Session. ‘Operational Directives for the Implementation of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage’ (Paris June 4, 2018), 170.
28 See: Abbe E. L. Brown, ‘ICH, Cultural Diversity and Sustainable Development’, in Research Handbook on Contemporary Intangible Cultural Heritage: Law and Heritage, ed. Charlotte Waelde and others (Edwar Elgar, 2018).
29 Blake, International Cultural Heritage Law, 126–7.
30 Honorio M. Velasco, ‘UNESCO: Cultural Diversity or Biocultural Diversity?’, in UNESCO: Current Issues and Challenges, ed. Miyako Ali Government Procedures and Operations (Nova Science, 2018), 8.
31 Ibid., 5.
32 Ibid., 15–20.
33 http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/special-themes/biodiversity/biodiversity-culture/unesco-cbd-joint-programme/ (accessed April 15, 2019). See also: https://www.cbd.int/lbcd/about (accessed November 12, 2019).
34 Secretariat of the Convention on Biodiversity and UNESCO, ‘International Conference on Biological and Cultural Diversity: Diversity for Development – Development for Diversity: A proposed joint programme of work on biological and cultural diversity lead by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biodiversity and UNESCO’ (Working document, Montreal – Canada June 8, 2010), para 12.
35 Giulia Sajeva, When Rights Embrace Responsabilities: Biocultural Rights and the Conservation of Environment (Oxford University Press, 2018), Introduction.
36 Ibid.
37 Forrest, International Law and the Protection of Cultural Heritage, 369.
38 Blake, International Cultural Heritage Law, 11–12.
39 Forrest, International Law and the Protection of Cultural Heritage, 369.
40 Sarah Harding, ‘Contemporary ICH and the Right to Exclude’, in Research Handbook on Contemporary Intangible Cultural Heritage: Law and Heritage, ed. Charlotte Waelde and others (Edwar Elgar, 2018), 87.
41 Ibid.
42 Lixinski, ‘Regional and International Treaties on Intangible Cultural Heritage’, 22.
43 Forrest, International Law and the Protection of Cultural Heritage, 370.
44 Ibid.
45 Lucky Belder and Aydan Figaroa, ‘Living cultural Heritage in the Netherlands: The Debate on the Dutch Tradition of Sinterklaas’, in Research Handbook on Contemporary Intangible Cultural Heritage: Law and Heritage, ed. Charlotte Waelde and others (Edwar Elgar, 2018), 346.
46 Ibid., 347.
47 General Assembly of the States Parties to the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention, ‘Operational Directives for the Implementation of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage’ (Seventh session (June 4–6, 2018)), para 80.
48 Janet Blake, ‘Engaging “Communities, Groups and Individuals” in the International Mechanisms of the 2003 Intangible Heritage Convention’, International Journal of Cultural Property 2019: 113, 119.
49 General Assembly of the States Parties to the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention. ‘Operational Directives for the Implementation of the Convention’, para 27.
50 Blake, ‘Engaging “Communities, Groups and Individuals”’,120.
51 The role and the value of indigenous knowledge in the development of sciences and innovations has been already recognized by the UNESCO Policy on engaging with indigenous peoples. See: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization – UNESCO, ‘UNESCO Policy on engaging with indigenous peoples’ (202 EX/SR.11, 2017), para 35–7, para 40–1.
52 See further discussions about the protection of indigenous cultural heritage in international law (including CBD, ILO Convention 169, UNDRIP and others) in: Alexandra Xanthaki ‘International Instruments on Cultural Heritage: Tales of Fragmentation’, in Indigenous Peoples’ Cultural Heritage:Rights, Debates and Challenges, ed. Alexandra Xanthaki and others (Brill Nijhoff, 2017), 1–19.
53 These norms are: In Bolivia see: Ley Forestal N° 1700 12 June 1996 (Congreso Nacional de Bolivia). Directriz SF-IDS N° 003/2008. Reglamentación para la Elaboración de Planes de Gestión Integral del Bosque por Organizaciones Forestales Comunitarias. 2008 (Superintendencia Forestal de Bolivia). Resolución administrativa ABT N° 250-2013. Directriz técnica para la elaboración de planes de gestión integral de bosques y tierra (PGIBT) en comunidades campesinas indígena originarias, interculturales y afrobolivianas 12 August 2013 (Autoridad de Fiscalización y Control Social de Bosques y Tierras). In Brazil see: Lei 12.651 25 May 2012 (Congresso Nacional do Brasil). Decreto N° 5.975 30 November 2006 (Presidência da República). Instrução Normativa N.° 5 11 December 2006 (Ministério do Meio Ambiente). In Ecuador see: Codificación de la Ley Forestal y de Conservación de Áreas Naturales y Vida Silvestre. Codificación 2004-017 10 September 2004 (Congreso Nacional de Ecuador). Acuerdo Ministerial N° 037. Normas de procedimientos administrativos para autorizar el aprovechamiento y corta de madera 4 June 2004 (Ministerio del Ambiente de Ecuador). Acuerdo Ministerial N° 039. Normas para el manejo forestal sustentable para aprovechamiento de madera en bosque húmedo 4 June 2004 (Ministerio del Ambiente de Ecuador). In Peru see: Ley Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre. Ley 29763. 22 July 2011 (Congreso de la República del Perú). Decreto Supremo N° 021-2015-MINAGRI. Decreto Supremo que aprueba el Reglamento para la Gestión Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre en Comunidades Nativas y Comunidades Campesinas 30 September 2015 (Ministerio de Agricultura y Riego).
54 Sabogal and others, Manejo Forestal Comunitario en América Latina, 23.
55 Brazil
Decreto 3.551. Institui o Registro de Bens Culturais de Natureza Imaterial que constituem patrimônio cultural brasileiro, cria o Programa Nacional do Patrimônio Imaterial e dá outras providências. 4 August 2000 (Presidente da República Federativa do Brasil).
Bolivia
Ley N° 530. Ley del Patrimonio Cultural Boliviano 23 May 2014 (Asamblea Legislativa Plurinacional).
Ley 1220. Ley que modifica la ley 530. 2 September 2019 (Asamblea Legislativa Plurinacional).
Ecuador
Ley Orgánica de Cultura.30 December 2016 (Asamblea Nacional de Ecuador).
Peru
Ley 28296. Ley General del Patrimonio Cultural de la Nación 21 July 2004 (Congreso de la República del Perú).
Decreto Supremo N° 011-2006-ED. Aprueban Reglamento de la Ley N° 28296, Ley General del Patrimonio Cultural de la Nación. 2 June 2006 (Ministerio de Educación).
56 Ley N° 530. Ley del Patrimonio Cultural Boliviano 23 May 2014 (Asamblea Legislativa Plurinacional) art 12.
57 Ley 28296. Ley General del Patrimonio Cultural de la Nación 21 July 2004 (Congreso de la República del Perú) art 2.
58 Ley Orgánica de Cultura. 30 December 2016 (Asamblea Nacional de Ecuador) art 82.
59 Known as: ‘Instituto do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional – IPHAN’. See: Decreto 3.551. Institui o Registro de Bens Culturais de Natureza Imaterial que constituem patrimônio cultural brasileiro, cria o Programa Nacional do Patrimônio Imaterial e dá outras providências. 4 August 2000 (Presidente da República Federativa do Brasil), art 3.
60 See: Ecuador:
Constitución de la República del Ecuador 20 October 2008 (Asamblea Constituyente) art 57, §8.
Brazil:
Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988 5 October 1988 (Asssembléia Nacional Constituinte) art 215.
Bolivia:
Constitución Política del Estado 7 February 2009 (Asamblea Constituyente de la República de Bolivia) art 30, §2, 11.
Ley 337. Ley de apoyo a la producción de alimentos y restitución de bosques 11 January 2013 (Asamblea Legislativa Plurinacional) art 1.
Peru:
Constitución Política del Perú 31 December 1993 (Congreso Constituyente Democrático) art 2, § 18.
Ley 27811. Ley que establece el régimen de protección de los conocimientos colectivos de los pueblos indígenas vinculados a los recursos biológicos. 2002 (Congreso de la República del Perú).
61 http://portal.iphan.gov.br/pagina/detalhes/496 (accessed March 30, 2020).
62 http://www.patrimoniocultural.gob.ec/sistema-de-informacion-del-patrimonio-cultural-ecuatoriano-sipce/ (accessed March 30, 2020).
63 See for instance: http://portal.iphan.gov.br/pagina/detalhes/75 (accessed March 30, 2020).
64 http://www.iiap.org.pe/web/probosques.aspx (accessed November 24, 2019).
65 http://sociobosque.ambiente.gob.ec/ (accessed November 24, 2019).
66 http://www.florestal.gov.br/florestas-comunitarias/68-fomento-florestal/602-programa-federal-de-manejo-florestal-comunitario-e-familiar (accessed November 24, 2019).
67 http://ibifbolivia.org.bo/ (accessed November 24, 2019).
68 Francesco Francioni, ‘The Evolving Framework for the Protection of Cultural Heritage in International Law’, in Cultural Heritage, Cultural Rights, Cultural Diversity: New Developments in International Law, ed. Silvia Borelli and Federico Lenzerini (Studies in Intercultural Human Rights vol 4. Martinus Nijhoff, 2012).
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Siu Lang Carrillo Yap
Dr Siu Lang Carrillo Yap, Georg August University of Göttingen, is a lawyer and researcher with an interdisciplinary background and several years of work experience in Amazonia.