Namibia Passes their National Bill on ABS and Traditional Knowledge

Namibia recently passed their national law on bioprospecting called Access to Biological and Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge Bill.  This is an historic moment as Namibia’s enactment of their law implements the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Nagoya Protocol.

Their legislation applies to biological and genetic resources as found in or outside of their natural habitat, the derivatives of such resources, associated traditional knowledge, and benefits arising from their use, including commercial use. The law also sets out both to recognize and protect the rights of local communities over their genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge.

The legislation recognizes and protects community intellectual property rights over genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. It states that the “State must recognize and protect the community intellectual property rights as they are enshrined and protected under the norms, practices and customary law found in, and recognized by, the concerned local communities, whether such law is written or not.”

Namibia is therefore leading in the Africa region in explicitly protecting communities’ rights to recognition of their associated traditional knowledge. This is often the area where the Africa region is still vulnerable.

The text of the bill can be accessed here: 

African Commission Passes Resolution to Protect Sacred Natural Sites

At its 60 Ordinary Session in Niamey (Niger), the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights passed Resolution 372 on the Protection of Sacred Natural Sites and Territories.

In this resolution, the African Commission recognises that sacred natural sites are one of the oldest forms of cultural conservation, and often harbour rich biodiversity. It highlights the role that custodian communities and their customary systems play in preserving traditional values, and that they require legal recognition and support to do so. At the same time, it expresses concern about the continued rapid growth of environmentally damaging industrial activity and infrastructure development causing irreparable damage in these sacred sites.

The Resolution therefore calls on state parties to recognise sacred natural sites and territories and their customary governance systems, as well as to uphold their commitments under regional and international law and the rights of custodian communities. It urges state parties and other stakeholders, including businesses, to recognise and respect the intrinsic value of sacred natural sites and territories.

In developing this resolution, the African Commission drew on a “Call for Legal Recognition of Sacred Natural Sites and Territories, and their Customary Governance Systems”, which carried the voices of custodian communities from six African countries. Natural Justice was able to facilitate the presentation of this report by the Gaia Foundation to the African Commission’s Working Group on Indigenous Populations/Communities. In a joint press release with the African Biodiversity Network, Liz Hoskins, the Director of the Gaia Foundation, states that “in this landmark resolution, the African Commission opens a space for affirming plurilegal systems, which recognise the Earth as the primary source of law. The Commission positions itself with other progressive initiatives to transform the dominant industrial jurisprudence and recognize indigenous rights and Nature’s rights.”

Picture: Benin is one of the few African countries that legally recognize Sacred Natural Sites. Natural Justice works with local partners to support the custodians of these forests, for example through the development of community protocols. 

Kukula Traditional Health Practitioners Association BCP Finalization Workshop, South Africa

Kukula Workshop Participants

On the 28^th and 29^th June, Natural Justice and K2C facilitated a meeting with the Kukula Traditional Health Practitioners Association at the Timbavati Bush School, Bushbuckridge, South Africa. The overall aims of the meeting were to review the developments of the previous year, to finalize the text of the revised Bio-Cultural Protocol (BCP) and discuss strategies related to leveraging the BCP.

The Kukula traditional health practitioners established the BCP with the intention of regulating their interactions with third parties and protecting their knowledge to enable fair and equitable benefits to their members.

The first day of the meeting focused on a review of the previous year and internal community discussions with Kukula representatives. On the second day of the meeting wider stakeholders were invited to participate in the meeting. Representatives from researchers (Benelex and Dr. Britta Rutert), South African National Parks (SANParks), governmental representatives and legal experts provided an overview of issues that had been identified by the Kukula.

Dr. Louisa Parks (The Benelex Project)

Dr. Louisa Parks (The Benelex Project) shared findings from the first 3 years of the Benelex research project of particular relevance to communities, she highlighted that benefits are more than just limiting damage from a proposed project, they are not compensation, and that they should reflect what a community sees as a benefit – not what others tell them is a good thing. Dr. Britta Rutert (Free University, Berlin) shared the preliminary findings of the ‘Indigenous Entrepreneurs’  research project conducted with the Kukula, she highlighted that entrepreneurship in rural, economically deprived areas with limited infrastructure must be looked as at a “procedural enterprise rather than an economic enterprise”, and organisation, cooperation and negotiation skills were learned and utilized by organisations such as the Kukula in making use of their indigenous knowledge.

Dr. Louise Swemmer (SANParks)

The Kukula have been engaging with South African National Parks (SANParks) on issues related to sustainably harvesting medicinal plants. Discussions focused on opportunities regards integrating Kukula representatives into the roll out of distribution of the medicinal Pepper Bark tree (Warburgia salutaris), which is classified as an endangered on the IUCN Red list. SANParks has been growing hundreds of these tress from seed in their nursery, these trees are in high demand by healers, and SANPaks is spearheading planting of saplings in communal areas, and sustainable harvesting using leaves rather than the bark.

During a legal session, Johan Lorenzen (Richard Spoor Attorneys) provided an update on various laws and policies related to the Kukula, including regulations related to the Traditional Health Practitioners Act as well as the Indigenous Knowledge Systems Bill. This was followed by a presentation by Mr Wiseman Rikhotso (Director, Biodiversity Compliance, Department Environmental Affairs) related to the Threatened or Protected Species (TOPS) Regulations and the compliance awareness drive related to “muthi” (traditional medicine) markets.

The Kukula also discussed the finalization of the update of their bio-cultural protocol (BCP) and how to leverage it moving forwards

.Looking forward the revised BCP text will be finalized, the Kukula together with the Department of Environmental Affairs will host a workshop regards legislation around Threatened and Protected Species (TOPS), and the Kukula will engage with SANParks on supporting the Pepper Bark project in their villages.

Kukula participants

A New Dawn: The African Court on Human and People’s Rights Historic Judgment on the Indigenous Peoples Rights

Logo Courtesy of African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights   

“The forest is what we call land”

James Sang, Ogiek community member

On 26^th May 2017, the African Court on Human and Peoples Rights delivered a historic judgment in favour of the Ogiek, a forest dwelling community.[1] This came after a eight year long legal battle and decades of routinely being subjected to forced eviction, without consultation and compensation, from their ancestral lands by the Government of Kenya (GoK). At the heart of forced eviction was the alleged need to preserve Kenya’s largest closed-canopy forest ecosystem and a water catchment area,[2] spanning about 4000 hectares in five counties,[3] and which has been under threat from illegal settlement and illegal extraction of natural resources.[4]

Following the GoK’s decision in 2009 to evict people living in the Mau forest complex in order to protect the water catchment zone, the Minority Rights Group (MRG), Ogiek Peoples Development Programme (OPDP) and Centre for Minority Rights Development (CEMIRIDE), also the original complainants, on behalf of 30,000 Ogiek members, filled a suit against the Government of Kenya (GoK) at the African Commission of Human and Peoples Rights (“the Commission”) citing the far reaching implications the order had on the political, social and economic well-being of the Ogiek community. Along with it, they requested the commission to issue measures requiring the GoK to halt any land transactions in the Mau Forest Complex and to refrain from any act that would irreparably prejudice the application pending determination.  Subsequent repeated violation of these measures by the GoK led the Commission to transfer the case to the African Court on Human and People’s Rights in 2012 (the current application). The applicant further alleged violation of Article 1,2,4,8, 14, 17(2)(3), 22 and 23 of the Charter and prayed that the court order respondent to halt the eviction, recognize Ogieks historical land, and issue orders as to compensation for the loss suffered through the loss of property, natural resources and freedom to practice religion and culture.

Before addressing the substantive issues of the application, the court at the 28^th Ordinary session issued an order of provisional measure on the ground that the respondent, through the Ministry of Land, issued a directive lifting the restriction imposed on all transactions for land measuring five acres or less within the Mau forest complex.[5]

Substantively, the court heard and dismissed objections raised by the GoK on its material and temporal jurisdiction to hear the application as well as the objection on admissibility of the application in as far as the Locus Standi of the of the original complainants, exhaustion of local legal remedies and the nature of the case is concerned. Further, the court addressed the alleged violations of rights provided for in the Charter. Most importantly, the violation of the right to life (Article 4), right to culture and the protection of traditional values (Article 17(2)(3), the right to practice religion (Article 8), the right to property (Article 14) and the right to development (Article 22). It also considered the question of remedy, which in whole included an order to halt the eviction of the Ogiek from East Mau complex, recognizing Ogiek’s historic land and order of payment of compensation.

In the end, the court determined that the Ogiek, having a clear historic attachment to the Mau Forest, are a distinct indigenous people. It also found that the Ogiek had property rights over the land they traditionally occupied and used, even though the colonial and Kenyan authorities had denied them a formal title. The court determined that the practice of religion was inextricably linked to land and any interference with access to land was an interference with this right. In this case, it noted that the Mau Forest is a spiritual home of the Ogiek and that the limitation imposed were unjustifiable. The court further considered the right to culture in a dual dimension: individual nature and the collective nature. It noted that this right was essential to the Ogiek’s identify and that the eviction for the preservation of the natural environment could not constitute a legitimate aim but was rather a measure that violated this right leaving the Ogiek community vulnerable and forcing them to assimilate. Finally, the court found that the GoK had not taken adequate legislative measures to implement the rights violated in the Charter. To this effect, the court ordered the GoK to take appropriate measures within a reasonable period to remedy all violations established. Finally, the court reserved its’ ruling on reparation and instead directed the issue to be dealt with in a different application by the applicant.

This judgment is a huge victory not only for the Ogiek community but also other Indigenous communities in general. Most importantly, by ruling that through a persistent denial of Ogiek land rights, their religious and associated cultural and hunter-gatherer practices were also violated, a strong message was sent to the GoK and other governments on the the need to respect the rights of the indigenous peoples and further, put measures for the realization of these rights. In this case, the court was generous enough to lay down the duty of the GoK to put measures for the implementation of the judgment.  However, the implementation of the orders/ judgment cannot be analyzed without addressing the government’s attitude during this case and in other similar presided cases.  In any event, the GoK has, time and again demonstrated a pattern of empty promises towards implementation of measures and orders made against them.

The Ogiek ought not to lose hope. They must push for the implementation of the court’s decision by lobbying the national government, maintaining a presence in Parliament and using other spaces to remind the GoK of its duty.

[1] ACPHR v GoK

[2] The Mau water catchment feeds into Lakes Victoria, Nakuru, Baringo, Turkana and Natron, and supports the ecosystems and livelihoods of millions of people.

[3] J Sang “Kenya: Ogiek in the Mau Forest” (2001) Forest Peoples Programme

[4] Mau Task Force 17-18. The forest is divided into seven blocs comprising South-West Mau (Tinet), East Mau, Ol’donyo Purro, Transmara, Maasai Mau, Western Mau and Southern Mau.

[5] Summary of fact 2 paragraph 5

Author: Rose Birgen

Seven communities gather to draft the Mariarano community protocol, Madagascar

Drafting group working on the Mariarano community protocol

During the first week of May, Natural Justice and GIZ facilitated a workshop with the local communities of Mariarano, in the Boeny region of Madagascar, to advance on their community protocol concerning the access and use of the Motrobe plant. Motrobe is the local name for Cinnamosma fragrans, a plant used in essential oils in Madagascar and abroad.

The community protocol brings together seven communities who harvest the plant and provide it to local and international biotrade operators. Through their protocol, the communities want to clarify their own decision-making regarding access to the plant, and to hold the operators accountable regarding permits and the fair sharing of benefits from the use of the plant. At the same time, this is the first community protocol process in Madagascar, and the lessons emerging from it are being used to inform the new national framework for Access to genetic resources and Benefit Sharing (ABS).

Role play on the process for obtaining harvesting permits,
during the legal training

The workshop was attended by the members of a local committee that the communities decided to create for the development of the community protocol. The meeting started with a legal training session about the new ABS law in Madagascar and about the general regulatory framework for the access and commercial use of plant resources. In the second half, the community representatives drafted the text of the elements of the community protocol. This draft text will now be edited by the GIZ / Natural Justice team. The result will be discussed and validated in each of the communities, before being officially presented at a stakeholder workshop with representatives of the private sector and government administration.

The Mariarano community protocol will contain the following elements:

• Local decision-making structures inside and between the seven communities
• Processes that commercial operators, researchers and others have to follow to access the community’s genetic resources and traditional knowledge
• Traditional rules and values of the communities
• Modalities for benefit sharing and conditions for the buying of plant material
• Processes for conflict resolution
• Commitments by the community to conserve their natural resources, specifically the Motrobe plant
• The rights of the local communities to their natural resources under the law

Open and Collaborative Science in Development 2017 Workshop

OCSDNet Workshop
(Photo Credit: OCSDNet)

The Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network (OCSDNet) goal is to nurture an interactive community of Open Science practitioners and leaders in the Global South to learn together and contribute towards a pool of open knowledge on how networked collaboration could address local and global development challenges. The network is composed of twelve researcher-practitioner teams, and Natural Justice’s Dr. Cath Traynor manages the project team focused on South Africa and the ‘Empowering Indigenous Peoples and Knowledge Systems related to Climate Change and Intellectual Property Rights’ Project. Dr. Traynor and project partner Dr. Laura Foster (Indiana University) participated in the OCSDNet 2017 Workshop, in Limassol, Cyprus 2-5 June, 2017.

During the workshop the network launched the ‘Open and Collaborative Science Manifesto’, this was developed through a participatory consultative process with the network members from 26 countries to understand what are the values at the core of open science in development. Discussions revealed that there is not one way to do open science, but that it requires constant negotiation, reflection and the process will differ according to context. The network identified seven values and principles at the core of our vision for a more inclusive open science in development. These principles include, amongst others:

• Recognizing cognitive justice and the need for diverse understandings of knowledge making to co-exist in science production;
• That open science practices situated openness by addressing the ways in which context, power and inequality condition scientific research;
• Every individual’s right to research and enables different forms of participation at all stages of the research process;
• Equitable collaboration between scientists and social actors and cultivates co-creation and social innovation in society; and that,
• Open and collaborative science strives to use knowledge as a pathway to sustainable development, equipping every individual to improve well-being of our society and planet.

The Manifesto is available in English, Afrikaans, French and Spanish, there is a short video explaining the concepts, and a suggested reading list for those keen to find out more.

Workshop participants also joined a series of panel discussions around four themes and chapters in the forthcoming ‘Situating and Contextualising Openness’ book which the network team is currently producing and finalizing. Each project within the network has produced an evidence-based chapter for the book, in which they explore the different issues around open and collaborative science. The official project time frame of OCSDNet is drawing to a close, and thus the issue of ‘field building’ was discussed with the aim to understand what a situated understanding of OCS tells us about the conditions necessary to build a common field and its potential development outcomes and impacts. Issues included who can do science? Who can produce science and write about science? The current power structure of global scientific production and dissemination is hierarchical and market-driven – can open science challenge this and create the potentials for new spaces of collaboration and co-creation of science? The workshop closed with participants thinking to the future regards policy implications and future research questions. The Storify from the conference is available here if you missed the tweets from the workshop.

Capturing Community Images - Ethics and Ownership

Photo credit: Cath Traynor/Natural Justice

Natural Justice has been engaging with the Indigenous Nama community in Khuboes, Richtersveld, South Africa on a suite of issues related to climate change, indigenous knowledge, intellectual property rights and academic research processes. Cath Traynor and international intern, Andrew Williamson visited Kuboes together with a professional photographer. Our objective was to work together with community representatives to capture images that will illustrate the issues we have been exploring together.

Inspired by on-going work with our research partners on ethics and socially-just research processes, we applied the learnings to inform our engagement on issues related to capturing images of the landscape and community.  The idea had arisen through discussions with youth, we developed the concept, produced individual consent forms specifically for photographs that would include community members, and sought community-level consent from the traditional leader. We then worked with a community elder who advised on us locations and imagery and joined us for the duration. The framing is that the final photographs will be owned by the community and we request licence to use the images for specific purposes related to our joint areas of work. 

The activity surfaced issues related to ethics, consent processes, ownership and use of images, different generational perspectives around photographs and privacy particularly in light of the ubiquity of cell phone cameras and use of social media platforms, and the possible burden of consent processes and practicalities. Through purposely engaging on these issues we are developing insights regards what implementation means in practice.

Indigenous Peoples and Conservation: A Call to Action

The United Nations' Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has made a series of recommendations to promote the rights of indigenous peoples in the context of conservation activities. The Permanent Forum met in New York, and, as part of the proceedings, heard from Milka Chepkorir, a Sengwer woman from Kenya, who presented a joint statement on behalf of Forest Peoples Programme, Natural Justice and 20 other organisations. The statement highlighted the lack of implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the context of conservation policies and practices.

Milka Chepkorir (see photo below) shared with delegates recent human rights infringements from Kenya, where well over 90 Sengwer homes were burned down, allegedly by the Kenya Forest Service (KFS), a government body. The incident was not isolated but was one of many forced evictions resulting in the destruction of Sengwer homes since the 1970s: evictions that have intensified since first the World Bank and now the EU began funding KFS. The apparent justification for the human rights violations is that the Sengwer should not be on conserved areas, yet, under international law and according to Kenyan Constitution, the Sengwer have a right to their ancestral lands, lands they have occupied – and indeed have conserved effectively – for generations.

Speaking after the Forum, Milka Chepkorir said: “Too often, indigenous peoples like the Sengwer are evicted from their land in the name of conservation. We Sengwer have lived in harmony with our forests for generations. Evicting us from our land doesn’t protect it; it makes our lands vulnerable to exploitation by others, including those who present themselves as conservationists in order to try to justify evicting us and taking our ancestral lands. We need protection to stop this happening, and to secure our communities, our forests and our future.”

Joji Carino, senior policy advisor at Forest Peoples Programme, added: “This year marks 10 years since the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The conservation community must show greater commitment and action to address the continuing human rights violations inflicted on indigenous peoples, on whose lands and territories, biological diversity is sustainably used and most effectively conserved”.

The Permanent Forum made a number of recommendations for action over the coming year, including undertaking a study to examine Conservation and Indigenous Peoples’ Human Rights by two of its expert members: The Forum addressed the specific situation in Kenya, urging the government there to recognise and formally protect the land and resource rights of the Ogiek and Sengwer peoples. The Forum also urged the International Union for the Conservation of Nature to establish a task force on conservation and human rights to work with indigenous peoples’ communities and organisations both to articulate the rights of indigenous peoples in the context of conservation initiatives, and to continue to promote grievance mechanisms and avenues for redress in the context of conservation action, including the Whakatane Mechanism.

The full recommendations will be published in June.

Johanna von Braun, from Natural Justice, noted in response to the challenge faced: “While we certainly have seen over the last 10-15 years improved rhetoric by conservation actors on the need to respect human rights when establishing protected areas, implementation has been poor. It is time to fully implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, not only when we are dealing with more ‘traditional’ land-related conflicts like infrastructure development or the extractive sector, but also in the conservation context.”

FPP and Natural Justice look forward to working together with partners across the world, and with the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, in making sure that concrete steps are taken to reduce the gap that persists between policy commitments and conservation practice in some areas.

Too little and too late? Realising the Rights of Indigenous People in Conservation

---

A side event by Natural Justice and the Forest Peoples Programme during this year’s UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues called “Too little and too late? Realising the Rights of Indigenous People in Conservation” took place on Friday, 28 April, 2017, with the aim of pushing for a renewed focus on the issues surrounding conservation and human rights.  

While over the last few years we have seen an increasing recognition of the crucial role indigenous people play in conservation, highlighting the linkages between community rights to land and resources and biological diversity, the conservation sector continues to be accused of infringing the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. 

From the first denials of access of Native Americans to Yellowstone National Park in the 1860s to the on-going plight of the Sengwer community in Kenya (see photo above), there are many documented cases of indigenous peoples being evicted and subjugated in the name of conservation. A 2016 report on the matter by UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Vicky Tauli-Corpuz (see photo left), states that worldwide, 50% of Protected Areas were established on the territories and lands of Indigenous Peoples. This incidence is as high as 90% in Central America. 

Conservation interventions can impact on indigenous and other local communities in a number of ways, including: denial to the right to self determination, denial of free, prior and informed consent; lack of engagement by outsiders with indigenous institutions; eviction; unjust resettlement; destruction of property and livelihoods; denial of access and use of natural resources; intimidation and physical harm; and exploitative employment.

Recently, increasing attention has been paid to these kinds of infringements, including by the reports by two Special Rapporteurs, namely the aforementioned Ms Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, and Professor John Knox, Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment.

It should be noted that these injustices have not been ignored by the conservation sector. Indeed, the adoption of the Durban Accord at the World Parks Congress in 2003 marked a shift as the conservation movement adopted a new paradigm of ‘People and Parks’ which recognised the central role of indigenous peoples in the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.

On top of that the conservation community has adopted some principles and policies recognising its legacy and the on-going human rights violations in many protected areas. These include:

• IUCN initiated the Whakatane Mechanism in 2011 to enable visits to assess, address and redress injustices carried out in the name of conservation against indigenous peoples and local communities, on the ground.
• A number of the larger conservation NGOs have established the Conservation Initiative on Human Rights.
•  Several conservation NGOs have set up indigenous advisory groups or working groups on Human Rights

However, in spite of this improved rhetoric, implementation on the ground continues to be problematic, with on-going cases of human rights violations in the name of conservation.

The aim of the side-event was to build momentum towards a new focus on conservation and human rights by linking recent UN reports and recommendations with local experiences and proposals for ways forwards.

Speakers included Ms Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, who spoke about the recommendations coming out of her report on the matter; Ms Milka Chepkorir, who spoke about the plight of the Sengwer community in Kenya, which is suffering abuses  at the hands of the Kenya Forest Service; Mr Onel Maserdule, who spoke about conflicts between indigenous peoples and conservation initiatives in Panana; and Ms Tuhi Martukaw, from the Kasavakan Community, who added additional examples of such conflict from Taiwan (ROC).

Before opening up the floor for discussion, Milka Chepkorir also read the recommendations that were included in a formal submission called “Joint Submission on the Lack of implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the context of conservation policies and practices” to the Forum during its first week of deliberations. The submission was endorsed by a range of indigenous peoples organisations and their supporting organisations.

The recommendations are as follows:

We call on the Permanent Forum to:

a)   Take the lead in convening an Expert Group Meeting on Conservation and Human Rights in 2018, in collaboration with the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to further explore options for UN action to promote and protect the rights of indigenous peoples in the context of conservation activities, recognising that conservation science makes very clear that securing indigenous peoples’ collective tenure rights is the surest basis for effective, as well as just, conservation;

b)   Develop an Expert Report on Conservation and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to follow-up the recommendations and reports of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the UN Special Rapporteur on Environment and Human Rights and to inform the work of relevant UN agencies and conventions;

c)  Pursue its recommendations to key global conservation organisations, with a focus on the members of the Conservation Initiative on Human Rights, and to request CIHR members to report in 2018 to the Forum on the implementation of the Initiative;

d)  Urge the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to establish a joint Task Force on Conservation and Human Rights to work with indigenous peoples' organisations to clearly articulate the rights of indigenous peoples in the context of conservation initiatives, and to continue to promote grievance mechanisms and avenues to redress in the context of conservation action, including the Whakatane Mechanism (in turn, contributing to implementation of IUCN Resolution 6.072)[1];

e)  Urge International Financial Institutions, the European Commission, the Global Environment Facility and other donors to apply the strongest possible safeguards in the financing of conservation programmes and projects, including climate change mitigation and adaptation actions, and to recognise collective tenure as the most effective basis for effective conservation and sustainable use of natural resources;

We also call the attention of the Permanent Forum to the following specific case and associated recommendation:

f)   Recommend to the European Union and the Government of Kenya that financing and planned actions in the Cherangany Hills in western Kenya be contingent on the recognition and formal protection of the rights of the forest indigenous peoples, including the Ogiek and the Sengwer, to their lands, as provided for under the Community Land Act, 2016, and the 2010 Constitution, especially Article 63 (2) d ii.

[1] https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/46489

Contracting Justice Workshop: Exploring socially just research processes

Participants at the Contracting Justice Workshop
(Photo credit: Cath Traynor/Natural Justice)

On the 13^th and 14^th March Natural Justice hosted a workshop centred on community-research contracts ensuring socially just research processes. This workshop aimed to gain valuable insights from indigenous communities through exploring the development of a ‘community-researcher contract’ between communities and researchers within the context of researching indigenous knowledge related to climate change.

The objectives of the workshop included legally empowering participants on issues related to laws and policies on indigenous knowledge systems, intellectual property rights and research ethics, and exploring the concept of contracts as a tool, and also critically reflecting upon the trail implementation of ‘community-researcher contract’ between two indigenous communities and three institutions conducting research with them.

The first day focused on legal empowerment and internal community discussions with representatives from the Nama, Griqua and Khomani San communities and a legal adviser.  The following day wider stakeholders were invited, including representatives from the University of Cape Town, Indiana University (USA), legal experts, civil society organisations including the Heinrich Boell Stiftung Southern Africa, the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa, and the Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network (OCSDNet). These varied interests and opinions contributed to a productive discussion regards where the tensions lie between the respective parties regards how research with indigenous peoples, both in terms of the frameworks that guide research processes and how in practice research with indigenous communities is conducted. Areas of tensions were identified and the role that community-researcher contracts could play to resolve these discussed.

Important aspects concerning policies alongside ethical and legal approaches were raised and considered in detail throughout the session. Issues were voiced surrounding the importance of consent processes, openness of research – but also some of the dangers of making indigenous knowledge open, particularly regards intellectual property issues, and that research process should benefit communities.

A particular notable and worthwhile moment of the workshop was hearing the opinions and viewpoints of the indigenous community’s youth representatives who stressed the importance of transparency, participatory action, capacity for further legal empowerment of the community members and beneficiation. Their involvement in this session was especially valuable for other participants in order to better understand from the community perspective, where and what the key issues were regards the development and implementation of research projects with communities or in their traditional lands.

Looking forward, these discussions will feed into the final analysis of the potential role of ‘community-researcher contracts’ as a tool to protect communities rights and to enable communities to negotiate mutually-beneficial research processes with research institutions. This analysis is being conducted by Natural Justice’s Climate Change Program together with research partners Dr. Laura Foster (Indiana University) and Dr. Tobias Schonwetter (Intellectual Property Unit, University of Cape Town), the Nama community in Khuboes, and the Griqua community in Vredendal.