Conclusions

Over the years, international instruments concerning a range of matters, such as biodiversity, agriculture, cultural heritage and human rights, have addressed the ILK issue. Some of them have focused on means to protect ILK by allowing countries to provide property-like entitlements to groups or individual holders and set restrictions on the ways in which such knowledge may be used by third parties. Others, instead, have placed greater emphasis on establishing means by which ILK ought to be promoted, for instance, by facilitating its divulgation though inventorying processes. One area of crucial legal development has been that concerning the relation

between the consent of indigenous peoples and fair and equitable benefitsharing as a means to recognize, support and reward ILK holders for their contribution to the pursuit of global public goods. These developments, nevertheless, have only marginally influenced the climate regime, where measures to address ILK and its contribution to climate change adaptation, assessment and observation are yet to be adopted. In this regard, important lessons may be drawn from biodiversity law and the evolving experience of IPBES. For instance, many of the normative and aspirational principles developed within the remit of biodiversity and human rights law have been integrated in the work of IPBES. The operating principles and institutional arrangements of IPBES are formally respectful of fundamental requirements concerning IPLC participation and involvement in the Platform work and of the need to seek and obtain free prior informed consent. It is nevertheless true that the practical implementation of these requirements

is not straightforward in many cases. It depends on the extent to which capacity building under IPBES will match the needs of IPLCs to enable their participation and on the provision of adequate funding. It also depends on whether specific IPLCs (or groups of individuals within such communities) can be identified as the holders of relevant ILK. It depends on whether authoritative, representative and legitimate governance structures are available to discuss and provide their contributions to the science-policy interface. Moreover, it depends on national legislation and on the extent to which the latter recognizes and respects the interests, prerogatives and rights of IPLCs under different circumstances. Finally, it depends on governments’ political will to allow indigenous voices to be heard in national, regional and international assessments on biodiversity. In its treatment of ILK, IPBES is navigating unchartered waters and facing

unprecedented challenges. Yet these unchartered waters are not being navigated without the compass of international instruments and processes dealing with ILK. In taking the lead with implementing international guidance on ILK, IPBES is engaging in an exercise of potentially momentous consequences. The outcomes of this exercise will be crucial for the future of knowledge co-creation and management in relation to biodiversity and ecosystems. They are likely to have profound implications also for other international processes dealing