Indigenous Environmental Rights in the CBD: Opportunities and Limitations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This contribution argues that the international biodiversity regime, established by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its protocols, offers further opportunities to reinforce and operationalize the rights of indigenous peoples both as a complement and in addition to the international human rights’ realm. It first describes the CBD regime on benefit-sharing with indigenous and local communities, consent-like rights granted to these groups under the CBD and its protocols, and the recognition of indigenous and community conserved areas (ICCAs) within the CBD. It then relates these provisions to well-recognized collective rights of indigenous peoples, such as the right to self-determination, the right to land and natural resources, free prior and informed consent (FPIC), and cultural rights. It further explains both how provisions in the CBD may reinforce and operationalize established indigenous rights, with reference also to recent decisions of international human rights bodies and courts, and how CBD-recognized environmental rights may expand on the content of indigenous rights as protected under human rights law. An example of that is the role of community protocols and mutually agreed terms (MATs) in the CBD and in the Nagoya Protocol as a way to operationalize indigenous cultural and consent rights. The contribution finally discusses the limitations of the CBD framework, in particular with reference to the concrete implementation of this regime, and potential new impulses given by the newly adopted Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it