In this dissertation I explore how the international law principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) can enhance public participation, to promote environmental justice for communities affected by environmental decision-making in the mining sector in South Africa. Public participation required in terms of the mining sector environmental regulatory framework in South Africa is underscored by a requirement to ‘consult’. In chapter one, I describe how the requirement to consult differs from a requirement to secure consent in terms of FPIC. I describe public participation (i.e. consultation) requirements related to applications for rights, permits, licences and authorisations that must be in place prior to commencement of mining operations. I argue that where the level of public participation requires mere consultation, it can easily amount to a regulatory tick-box exercise given that the views of mining-affected communities can be manipulated or overlooked, with mining developments proceeding despite devastating effects on communities. In chapter two I describe how FPIC has become part of the regulatory framework governing mining activities through the court’s purposive interpretation of the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act 31 of 1996 (IPILRA) in Baleni and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Others and Maledu and Others v Itereleng Bakgatla Mineral Resources (Pty) Limited and Another. In chapter three, I engage with scholarly literature on FPIC to analyse why and how environmental justice should and can be enhanced by embedding FPIC into legislative public participation requirements. I argue that FPIC, which now forms part of South Africa’s law through the IPILRA, should be a prominent feature in public participation processes for mining-affected communities generally, and not only for informal land right holders. / Mini Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2021. / Public Law / LLM / Unrestricted

<p>There is a growing interplay of competing realities facing the international community in the general areas of innovation, technological advancement and overall economic development. The highly industrialised wealthy nations, largely located on the Northern hemisphere are on the one hand undoubtedly at the forefront in global research, technology and infrastructure development. The developing and least developed countries on the other hand are mostly situated on the Southern hemisphere. They are not as wealthy or technologically advanced as their&nbsp / Northern counterparts, but are naturally endowed with unique variations of plant, animal and micro-organism species occurring in natural ecosystems, as well as the traditional knowledge on&nbsp / how to use these unique species. This knowledge has been adjudged to be responsible for the sustainable maintenance of the earth&rsquo / s biodiversity. Increasing exploitation of biodiversity,&nbsp / spurred on by the competing realities identified above, has left the earth in a present state of alarm with respect to the uncontrolled loss of biodiversity. The traditional knowledge of local&nbsp / peoples has significantly offered leads to research institutes from the North in developing major advancements in drugs, cosmetics and agriculture. Little or no compensation has however been seen to go back to the indigenous&nbsp / communities and countries that provide resources, and indicate various possibilities through their traditional knowledge to the use of such resources. Efforts by some biodiversity rich countries to&nbsp / ddress this trend through legislation developed in accordance with the principles of the Convention on Biological Diversity have been frustrated due to the inability to enforce their domestic laws outside their borders. Theft of genetic resources and its associated traditional knowledge&nbsp / from such countries has therefore remained a major challenge. Against this backdrop, and on the&nbsp / insistence of biodiversity-rich developing countries, an international regime on access and benefit sharing was negotiated and its final text adopted in 2010. This international regime is as&nbsp / contained in the Nagoya Protocol. This research sets out to examine whether the Nagoya Protocol offers a final solution to the protection of traditional knowledge associated with biodiversity in&nbsp / biodiverse countries. It further examines the importance of domestic legislation in achieving the objectives of the Protocol. The research has been tailored to African biodiverse countries, and&nbsp / seeks these answers within the context of Africa.<br /> &nbsp / </p>

<p>There is a growing interplay of competing realities facing the international community in the general areas of innovation, technological advancement and overall economic development. The highly industrialised wealthy nations, largely located on the Northern hemisphere are on the one hand undoubtedly at the forefront in global research, technology and infrastructure development. The developing and least developed countries on the other hand are mostly situated on the Southern hemisphere. They are not as wealthy or technologically advanced as their&nbsp / Northern counterparts, but are naturally endowed with unique variations of plant, animal and micro-organism species occurring in natural ecosystems, as well as the traditional knowledge on&nbsp / how to use these unique species. This knowledge has been adjudged to be responsible for the sustainable maintenance of the earth&rsquo / s biodiversity. Increasing exploitation of biodiversity,&nbsp / spurred on by the competing realities identified above, has left the earth in a present state of alarm with respect to the uncontrolled loss of biodiversity. The traditional knowledge of local&nbsp / peoples has significantly offered leads to research institutes from the North in developing major advancements in drugs, cosmetics and agriculture. Little or no compensation has however been seen to go back to the indigenous&nbsp / communities and countries that provide resources, and indicate various possibilities through their traditional knowledge to the use of such resources. Efforts by some biodiversity rich countries to&nbsp / ddress this trend through legislation developed in accordance with the principles of the Convention on Biological Diversity have been frustrated due to the inability to enforce their domestic laws outside their borders. Theft of genetic resources and its associated traditional knowledge&nbsp / from such countries has therefore remained a major challenge. Against this backdrop, and on the&nbsp / insistence of biodiversity-rich developing countries, an international regime on access and benefit sharing was negotiated and its final text adopted in 2010. This international regime is as&nbsp / contained in the Nagoya Protocol. This research sets out to examine whether the Nagoya Protocol offers a final solution to the protection of traditional knowledge associated with biodiversity in&nbsp / biodiverse countries. It further examines the importance of domestic legislation in achieving the objectives of the Protocol. The research has been tailored to African biodiverse countries, and&nbsp / seeks these answers within the context of Africa.<br /> &nbsp / </p>

Magister Legum - LLM (Mercantile and Labour Law) / Traditional Knowledge (TK) has previously been considered a 'subject' in the public domain, unworthy of legal protection. However, the last few decades have witnessed increased discussions on the need to protect the knowledge of indigenous peoples for their economic sustenance, the conservation of biodiversity and modern scientific innovation. Questions remain as to how TK can best be protected through existing, adapted or sui generis legal frameworks. Based on an examination of the formal knowledge-protection mechanisms (i.e. the existing intellectual property system), this mini-thesis contends that these existing systems are inadequate for protecting TK. As a matter of fact, they serve as veritable platforms for incidences of biopiracy. It further argues that the many international initiatives designed to protect TK have so far failed owing to inherent shortcomings embedded in them. Furthermore, a comparative assessment of several national initiatives (in New Zealand, South Africa and Kenya) supports an understanding that several domestic efforts to protect TK have been rendered ineffective due to the insurmountable challenge of dealing with the international violations of local TK rights. It is therefore important that on-going international negotiations for the protection of TK, including the negotiations within the World Intellectual Property Organisation's Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC), do not adopt similar approaches to those employed in previous initiatives if TK must be efficiently and effectively protected. This mini-thesis concludes that indigenous peoples possess peculiar protection mechanisms for their TK within the ambit of their customary legal systems and that these indigenous mechanisms are the required anchors for effective global protections.

Magister Legum - LLM (Mercantile and Labour Law) / Traditional Knowledge (TK) has previously been considered a 'subject' in the public domain, unworthy of legal protection. However, the last few decades have witnessed increased discussions on the need to protect the knowledge of indigenous peoples for their economic sustenance, the conservation of biodiversity and modern scientific innovation. Questions remain as to how TK can best be protected through existing, adapted or sui generis legal frameworks. Based on an examination of the formal knowledge-protection mechanisms (i.e. the existing intellectual property system), this mini-thesis contends that these existing systems are inadequate for protecting TK. As a matter of fact, they serve as veritable platforms for incidences of biopiracy. It further argues that the many international initiatives designed to protect TK have so far failed owing to inherent shortcomings embedded in them. Furthermore, a comparative assessment of several national initiatives (in New Zealand, South Africa and Kenya) supports an understanding that several domestic efforts to protect TK have been rendered ineffective due to the insurmountable challenge of dealing with the international violations of local TK rights. It is therefore important that on-going international negotiations for the protection of TK, including the negotiations within the World Intellectual Property Organisation's Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC), do not adopt similar approaches to those employed in previous initiatives if TK must be efficiently and effectively protected. This mini-thesis concludes that indigenous peoples possess peculiar protection mechanisms for their TK within the ambit of their customary legal systems and that these indigenous mechanisms are the required anchors for effective global protections.

Magister Legum - LLM / There is a growing interplay of competing realities facing the international community in the general areas of innovation, technological advancement and overall economic development. The highly industrialised wealthy nations, largely located on the Northern hemisphere are on the one hand undoubtedly at the forefront in global research, technology and infrastructure development. The developing and least developed countries on the other hand are mostly situated on the Southern hemisphere. They are not as wealthy or technologically advanced as their Northern counterparts, but are naturally endowed with unique variations of plant, animal and micro-organism species occurring in natural ecosystems, as well as the traditional knowledge on how to use these unique species. This knowledge has been adjudged to be responsible for the sustainable maintenance of the earth biodiversity. Increasing exploitation of biodiversity spurred on by the competing realities identified above, has left the earth in a present state of alarm with respect to the uncontrolled loss of biodiversity. The traditional knowledge of local peoples has significantly offered leads to research institutes from the North in developing major advancements in drugs, cosmetics and agriculture. Little or no compensation has however been seen to go back to the indigenous communities and countries that provide resources, and indicate various possibilities through their traditional knowledge to the use of such resources. Efforts by some biodiversity rich countries to ddress this trend through legislation developed in accordance with the principles of the Convention on Biological Diversity have been frustrated due to the inability to enforce their domestic laws outside their borders. Theft of genetic resources and its associated traditional knowledge from such countries has therefore remained a major challenge. Against this backdrop, and on the insistence of biodiversity-rich developing countries, an international regime on access and benefit sharing was negotiated and its final text adopted in 2010. This international regime is as contained in the Nagoya Protocol. This research sets out to examine whether the Nagoya Protocol offers a final solution to the protection of traditional knowledge associated with biodiversity in biodiverse countries. It further examines the importance of domestic legislation in achieving the objectives of the Protocol. The research has been tailored to African biodiverse countries, and seeks these answers within the context of Africa. / South Africa

Submitted by Maicon Juliano Schmidt (maicons) on 2015-07-10T16:55:55Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Rodolfo Souza da Silva.pdf: 9923682 bytes, checksum: 9f79c4fb3d2f53bcdc1f92ae3f2b6fa0 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-07-10T16:55:55Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Rodolfo Souza da Silva.pdf: 9923682 bytes, checksum: 9f79c4fb3d2f53bcdc1f92ae3f2b6fa0 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-03-24 / CAPES - Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / PROSUP - Programa de Suporte à Pós-Gradução de Instituições de Ensino Particulares / Diante da chamada "Era do Acesso" o conhecimento tradicional associado à biodiversidade das sociedades tradicionais tornou-se uma verdadeira matéria-prima da indústria biotecnológica, sendo objeto de bioprospecção e direitos de propriedade intelectual por empresas alimentícias, farmacêuticas e entidades de pesquisa e desenvolvimento. Com base nos princípios do consentimento prévio informado e da repartição justa e equitativa dos benefícios, previstos na Convenção de Diversidade Biológica e na Medida Provisória 2.186-16, devem os interessados na bioprospecção do saber tradicional ser autorizados pelos seus detentores, assim como dividir os benefícios oriundos dos bioprodutos e das pesquisas desenvolvidas. Entretanto, no que pertine à repartição de benefícios, esta pode acarretar a imposição de valores privados e de cunho capitalista, causando riscos à dinâmica social e às práticas culturais dessas comunidades, as quais são construídas sob valores coletivos e comunitários. A partir desta constatação, o presente trabalho pretende analisar em que medida os princípios do consentimento prévio informado e da repartição de benefícios são capazes de promover a conservação dos bens socioambientais das sociedades tradicionais, quando os produtos desenvolvidos têm como base os conhecimentos tradicionais associados. Para tanto, a pesquisa utiliza quanto ao método de abordagem o dialético, com objetivo exploratório, mediante uma pesquisa bibliográfica e documental, a partir de uma perspectiva interdisciplinar. Mesmo diante de uma regulamentação internacional e nacional, indústria e pesquisadores se utilizam constantemente de discursos que pretendem desproteger o saber tradicional e legitimar a não obtenção e realização do consentimento prévio informado e da repartição de benefícios. Em razão das peculiaridades das sociedades tradicionais, as quais se autodeterminam em aspectos coletivos, comunitários e de solidariedade, estas possuem uma cultura diferenciada, pelo que o conhecimento tradicional associado à biodiversidade integra a sua diversidade cultural. Diante dessa diversidade e a sua relação com o meio ambiente, os movimentos sociais na América Latina e no Brasil, influenciaram a incorporação de direitos na Constituição Federal de 1988, fazendo surgir a sociobiodiversidade como nova categoria jurídica. Com a lógica capitalista e de desenvolvimento da indústria biotecnológica, a qual não considera os aspectos da sociobiodiversidade, um diálogo intercultural e uma gestão da inovação biotecnológica mostram-se um caminho para gerenciar a complexidade e as diferentes visões dos atores envolvidos na prática bioprospectiva do saber tradicional, inserindo os direitos socioambientais nesse contexto. A partir da constatação da existência de outros pressupostos jurídicos para bioprospecção, como os princípios da precaução, equidade intergeracional e da função social da propriedade, critica-se o consentimento prévio informado e a repartição de benefícios, demonstrando que o atendimento destes deve ser feito em harmonia com os demais pressupostos jurídicos existentes, de maneira a ser possível conservar a sociobiodiversidade das sociedades tradicionais, garantindo o seu uso sustentável e a manutenção de suas vidas. Sugere-se, nesse fio condutor, critérios a serem considerados quando da definição dos benefícios e sua repartição: 1) os aspectos da sociobiodiversidade dos grupos tradicionais, a partir dos valores, práticas culturais e organizações sociais; 2) o meio ambiente onde vivem esses grupos e onde será acessado o recurso genético da biodiversidade; 3) requerimento e concessão de patentes e de quaisquer benefícios de forma compartilhada com as sociedades tradicionais. / In the face of “The Age of Access", traditional knowledge associated with biodiversity of traditional societies has become raw material of the biotechnology industry, being subject of bioprospecting and intellectual property rights for food, pharmaceutical and research and development companies. Based on the principles of prior informed consent and benefits sharing, benefits provided by Convention on Biological Diversity and Medida Provisória nº.2.186-16/01, the interested in bioprospecting of traditional knowledge must be authorized by their holders and share the benefits derived from research and development of bioproducts. However, in respect the benefits sharing, this can lead to the imposition of private and capitalist values, causing risks to the social dynamics and cultural practices of these communities, which are performed under collective and community values. From this finding, the present study aims to analyze to what extent the principles of prior informed consent and benefit sharing are able to promote the conservation of environmental goods of traditional societies, when the developed products are based on the traditional knowledge. For this, the research uses the dialectic approach method, with exploratory objective, through a bibliographic and documentary research, from an interdisciplinary perspective. Even in the face of a international e and national regulation, researchers and industry constantly use discourses that seek unprotect the traditional knowledge and legitimize the non-obtainment and non-realization of the prior informed consent and benefit sharing. Because of the peculiarities of traditional societies, which consider themselves in collective, community and solidarity aspects, these communities have a different culture, being the traditional knowledge associated integrated in your cultural diversity. Given this diversity and its relationship with the environment, social movements in the Latin America and Brasil influenced the incorporation of rights in the Federal Constitution of 1988, emerging sociobiodiversity as new legal category. With the capitalist and development logic of the biotechnology industry, which does not consider aspects of sociobiodiversity, intercultural dialogue and management of biotechnology innovation shows a way to manage the complexity and the different views of the actors involved in the practice of bioprospecting traditional knowledge, inserting socioenvironmental rights in this context. From the establishment of the existence of other legal requirements for bioprospecting, such as the principles of precaution, intergenerational equity and social function of property, is criticized the prior informed consent and benefits sharing, showing that the treatment of these should be done in harmony with other existing legal requirements in order to be able to conserve the sociobiodiversity of traditional societies, ensuring the sustainable use of their resources and maintenance of their lives. It is suggested in this context, some criteria to be considered when defining the benefits and its allocations: 1) sociobiodiversity aspects of traditional groups, from the values, cultural practices and social organizations;2) the environment where live these groups and where will be accessed and where the genetic resources of biodiversity; 3)application and granting patents and any benefits jointly with traditional societies.