BIO-CULTURAL COMMUNITY PROTOCOLS - Portal do Professor

PART II / CHAPTER 5
processes of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) and
community research agreements that establish mutually
agreed terms (MAT). During the course of the study, there
should be periodic participatory evaluations that assess the
perspectives of a broad range of community members to
ensure there is general agreement about the research
approach, methods and results. A BCP can serve to establish
the terms and conditions of any transfer of knowledge and
resources outside the community, which should cover
disclosure through internal reports, published materials
and web-based bioinformatics and mapping approaches
such as searchable ethno-biological databases and
online mapping.
Bio-prospecting has yielded valuable commercial products in
recent history and protected areas are seen as reservoirs of
genetic materials that might serve important functions in
agriculture or medicine. Bio-prospecting in protected areas is
bound to increase as they contain much of the world’s
biodiversity and are likely to serve as increasingly important
repositories of disappearing habitats, species and genetic
resources. 12
As national ABS frameworks are developed, bioprospecting
agreements with protected areas are also likely
to increase because management authorities see them as
a promising source of sustainable financing. In this context,
BCPs can be a crucial instrument to ensure that the rights
of ILCs in and around protected areas over their resources
and knowledge are respected, that bio-prospecting activities
take place only after FPIC is established, and that ILCs receive
a fair share of the benefits arising out of such agreements.
BCPs can inform researchers about appropriate researcher
behavior, the community’s research priorities, local
requirements for obtaining FPIC, and the types of
benefits that should be shared.
2.3 Bio-cultural Community Protocols
and Indigenous and Community
Conserved Areas
ICCAs are defined as “natural and/or modified ecosystems
containing significant biodiversity values, ecological services
and cultural values, voluntarily conserved by indigenous
BIO-CULTURAL COMMUNITY PROTOCOLS AND PROTECTED AREAS
peoples and local communities – both sedentary and
mobile – through customary laws or other effective means”. 13
Territories and lands occupied or used by ILCs encompass a
considerable proportion of areas important for biodiversity
and wildlife conservation. They are found in both terrestrial
and marine areas and range in size from sacred groves of less
than 1 ha to over 30 000 km 2 indigenous territories in Brazil. 14
Many of these ICCAs encompass conservation knowledge
and practices intertwined with local strategies for livelihoods,
the spiritual and material values of ILCs and a variety
of customary and legal collective rights over land and
natural resources.
ICCAs have until recently largely been ignored, if not
undermined, by formal conservation policies and many are
under severe threat. However, the recent recognition of
ICCAs at the international policy level is encouraging, and
in some countries ICCAs have been recognized and
incorporated into national protected area systems.
For example, about 20% of Australia’s protected area consists
of 20 indigenous protected areas. 15
Despite this, the interface
between state-based institutions and the customary
institutions of ILCs remains a challenging and complex arena.
All too often, the official recognition of the conservation
value of ICCAs and their incorporation into national protected
area systems is achieved through the imposition of new
institutions that undermine the very customary governance
structures and bio-cultural values that conserve the ICCAs
in the first place. Additionally, under the influence of rapid
economic, demographic and cultural changes, the traditional
knowledge, values and practices linked to ICCAs are often
being abandoned or lost.
At the same time, public recognition of ICCAs can be crucial
for some communities to be able to defend these areas against
external threats or to seek various forms of support for the
management of their natural resources. Indeed, the recognition
of ICCAs needs to be based on the respect of the communities’
strategies for conservation and sustainable use and their
customary governance institutions. It should take into account
the range of bio-cultural values that help conserve the area
and the role these values play in the communities’ ways of life.
12. United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies (UNU/IAS), Biodiversity Access and Benefit–Sharing Policies for Protected Areas, an Introduction. UNU/IAS, Tokyo, 2003.
13. Borrini-Feyerabend, Grazia, Recognizing and Supporting Indigenous and Community Conservation – Ideas and Experiences from the Grassroots, IUCN CEESP.
Briefing Note 9, September 2008.
14. See: Kothari, Ashish, Community Conserved Areas: Towards Ecological and Livelihood Security, in: PARKS 16, pp 14-20, 2006; and Berkes, Fikret, Community
Conserved Areas: Policy Issues in Historic and Contemporary Context, in: Conservation Letters 2, pp 19-24, 2009.
15. Smyth, Dernoth, Indigenous Protected Areas in Australia, in: PARKS 16, pp 14-20, 2006.
55