l Community protocols and free, prior informed consent – overview and lessons learnt 31
Box 5: Developing this special issue of
PLA
The issue was initiated by IIED in May 2011, to share
experiences of these new rights-based tools with the
broader biodiversity and development communities,
and to promote awareness of the need to avoid topdown blueprints in responding to the Nagoya
Protocol requirements. The articles were selected on
the basis of abstracts submitted. The guest editors
from IIED, Kalpavriksh, Natural Justice, COMPAS and
Ethical Biotrade put together abstracts based on their
own experiences and invited others in their networks
to do so. The call for abstracts was circulated mainly
amongst the biodiversity community. A broader call
was not issued due to limited capacity for review. The
abstracts were reviewed by the guest editors and
selection decisions made on the basis of the
relevance to the theme, the potential for learning
lessons, the degree of participation and the diversity
of experiences represented. The articles went through
an extensive peer review process – first by the guest
editors, and then by participation practitioners.
The process of compiling this issue has stimulated
a great deal of mutual learning amongst biodiversity
researchers and legal experts supporting community
protocols and FPIC, and has brought this community
of practice closer together. It has also deepened their
understanding of participatory approaches, helping
to steer these rights-based tools onto a more
participatory path.
Africa with developing and using CPs, and
with FPIC processes, mainly within the
biodiversity community. It covers a range
of contexts, including: developing mechanisms for access and benefit-sharing (ABS)
for genetic resources and traditional
knowledge; confronting threats from
mining and protected areas; and improving forestry partnerships. It also looks at
some government experiences of establishing institutional processes for FPIC and
benefit-sharing. It identifies practical
lessons and guidance based on these experiences. The issue also includes some cases
from the forestry and mining sectors,
where there is quite a bit of experience with
FPIC. Box 5 explains how the issue was
developed.
Objectives of the issue
CPs and FPIC are relatively new, and understanding and capacity to support them in
practice is still limited. This special issue
aims to strengthen the capacity of a range of
actors (e.g. local organisations, practitioners, NGOs, donors and governments) to
support these rights-based tools effectively
in practice. It also aims to highlight the
need to support bottom-up processes
designed by communities, and avoid predefined processes and procedures imposed
from outside which do not reflect the
distinct and diverse cultural norms of
communities. This is important for the
implementation of the Nagoya Protocol,
where governments and donors may be
tempted to adopt rigid, top-down procedures which fit more easily with their ways
of working and the interests of business.
By promoting understanding of CPs
and FPIC, and capacity to support them,
the issue will help inform the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol provisions on
prior informed consent and community
protocols, and the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as
other situations and legal contexts where
CPs and FPIC are of value, for example to
claim rights under indigenous rights laws
in India (Ramdas).
Structure of the issue
The issue is divided into four parts.
Part I: Setting the scene: research partnerships and ABS from the perspective
of communities highlights the need for
community participation beyond FPIC,
throughout the research and development
cycle (Pimbert). It also explains the limitations of the Nagoya Protocol from the
perspective of indigenous communities in
India (Ramdas).
Part II: Institutional innovations for
FPIC and benefit-sharing reviews experiences with national laws and institutional
mechanisms for FPIC and benefit-sharing
(Buxton; Ritter). It also explores how
participatory plant breeding and related
ABS contracts with farmers in China are
helping to promote institutional change (Li
and Jiggins with Song).