Biocultural Rights
Marta Solari, UPO
2025
Biocultural rights emerged alongside environmental and Indigenous rights and are considered part of “third-generation” or minority rights. However, they stand out by explicitly aiming at the conservation and the sustainable use of biodiversity. The concept, inspired by Posey’s notion of biocultural diversity, recognizes a bond of unity between Indigenous tribes and the land on which their traditions and culture are based. Biocultural rights have been internationally recognised in various documents: in the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), the first international treaty to have explicitly declared the existing link between the traditions of indigenous communities and the conservation of their territories; in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), which recognises their rights to natural resources as well as their right to cultural resources as a whole; and in the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (2010), which explicitly recognises biocultural rights.
These rights combine two key aspects, namely protecting Indigenous peoples’ self-determination and cultural diversity and preserving the environment. A balance between the two is essential—neither should override the other. Indeed, biocultural rights put together human rights and environmental conservation, but, although biocultural rights overlap with human rights, they go further, as they aspire to simultaneously preserve the interests of their right-holders and to protect a general interest of humankind in the conservation of the environment.
They are considered sui generis and collective rights, which aim to guarantee communities the management of their land and waters. Biocultural rights’ content varies by community, depending on their local traditions and knowledge, but can generally be grouped into four categories:
- Rights to land, water, and natural resources – including access to traditional lands, sacred sites, and protection from environmental threats.
- Rights to self-governance – including internal self-determination and regulation.
- Cultural identity rights
- Procedural rights – including access to justice, free prior and informed consent, and the precautionary principle.
Biocultural rights have also attained legal recognition in some landmark judicial decisions. One of the most notable examples is the 2016 T-622 judgment issued by the Constitutional Court of Colombia, also known as the Atrato River Decision. This legal action, brought against 26 local and national authorities, was carried out in representation of the communities that inhabit the Atrato river’s basin, whose livelihoods and health were jeopardize by illegal mining and logging activities in the area. Claimants showed how the drastic pollution of the Atrato river had significant repercussions on the rights of the communities to enjoy their basic human rights – considering their strong cultural, social and economic relationship with the surrounding ecosystem, and the same river basin’s health. Accordingly, claimants then asked the Court to enforce and guarantee the protection of the Atrato river communities’ rights by requiring the Colombian State’s authorities to restore the ecosystem on which their lives and habits are strictly interdependent.
Ph. Guillermo Ossa
In this ruling, the Court declared the Atrato River a legal subject with rights. The decision was grounded in the concept of biocultural rights, which helped the Court articulate a new jurisprudence linking environmental protection to the legal rights of Indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities inhabiting the river’s basin. Moreover, the adoption of the biocultural rights concept in the Atrato case enabled the Court to support the ‘jurisdiction’ of Indigenous peoples as regulators and decision makers on the management of the river, creating the opportunity for them ‘to participate in river sharing, governance and use’ of the Atrato.
Biocultural rights may be used by Indigenous peoples and local communities as a legitimate basis for a single legal action to protect their needs and interests vis-à-vis their lands, waters, and natural resources. They may also constitute the reason to grant rights to Nature itself – Rights of Nature -, this way justifying the conferral of legal personality to its elements (as in judgment T-622/2016). In addition, when dealing with projects and policies addressed at the conservation of the environment, biocultural rights may be a political and legal trump card to be used against the threat of being evicted from traditional lands or impeded from pursuing traditional practices and governance of natural resources.
Biocultural rights must be approached with care to avoid unintended burdens on their holders. While they empower Indigenous peoples, they also place responsibilities on them to remain sustainable and act in an environmentally responsible manner. There is then the risk of a shift of responsibility that may not always be fulfilled without adequate support. Though primarily linked to Indigenous communities, urban groups seeking to protect local ecosystems could also benefit from such rights. However, these communities often lack formal recognition, making it harder for them to claim biocultural rights. Finally, legally recognizing these rights does not guarantee their direct, smooth implementation. New legal and institutional frameworks may be required, as shown by the Atrato River case.
Source: Chen C., Gilmore M. (2015) Biocultural Rights: A New Paradigm for Protecting Natural and Cultural Resources of Indigenous Communities, in International Indigenous Policy Journal, vol. 6(3).
Further readings and resources:
Bavikatte K.S., Bennett. T. (2015). Community Stewardship: The Foundation of Biocultural Rights, in Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, vol. 6(1), 7-29
Chen C., Gilmore M. (2015) Biocultural Rights: A New Paradigm for Protecting Natural and Cultural Resources of Indigenous Communities, in International Indigenous Policy Journal, vol. 6(3).
Posey D.A. (2000). Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity: A Complementary Contribution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment, Practical Action Pub, 2000.
Sajeva G. (2022). The Legal Framework Behind Biocultural Rights. An Analysis of their Pros and Cons for Indigenous Peoples and for Local Communities, in Girard F., Hall I., Frison C. (eds.), Biocultural Rights, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. Protecting Culture and the Environment, Routledge.
Sajeva G. (2018). When Rights Embrace Responsibilities: Biocultural Rights and the Conservation of Environment, Oxford University Press.
Zanetti G. (2019). Diritti Bioculturali: percorrendo la strada che separa diverse tradizioni, in Diritto & Questioni Pubbliche, 2019.
