144 Garrett Graddy-Lovelace
thus biocultural – governance at large. In the Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 report
(issued in September 2020), the CBD chronicled dozens of biological indicators
failing to reach the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. The report concludes
[…] that opportunities for effective action in support of the Strategic Plan
for Biodiversity 2011–2020 were missed due to insufficient involvement of
women, indigenous peoples and local communities […]. The new global
framework can set stronger requirements for future action on biodiversity
to include all of these considerations as foundational prerequisites.
(Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2020, p. 136)
The press release for the 2nd edition of the Biodiversity Loutlooks (the sister
publication to the Outlook, which presents the expertise and experience of
indigenous peoples) went further to warn of “catastrophic loss of nature and
biodiversity and increasing risk of pandemics” unless indigenous peoples and
knowledges were heeded and honored. The summary reads:
• There is a way to protect the world’s biodiversity by listening to indigenous
peoples and local communities who have sustainably managed biodiversity
for millennia
• The majority of the world’s most biodiverse areas are found within the
ancestral lands of indigenous peoples and local communities; securing their
rights to land would secure biodiversity
• More than a quarter of the global land area is traditionally owned, managed,
used, or occupied by indigenous peoples, and has been for millennia (Forest
Peoples Programme et al., 2020, p. 1).
Indigenous peoples and local communities have worked hard for a generation in and
through the CBD. Though the CBD retains the tensions and limits of liberal internationalism to some degree, it has remained a key forum for IPLCs to voice their
claims and even actualize their worldviews. Importantly, it was within the context
of the CBD that Biocultural Protocols were first officially recognized a decade ago.
7
Tellingly, the U.S. has remained a global outlier in refusing to ratify this important
convention. Yet, all the while, perhaps because of the lack of U.S. presence, the
CBD has continued to advance and apply biocultural frameworks of governance.
Over the past decade, indigenous and local communities around the world
have begun articulating their place-based, plants-based, agroecologically
grounded protections as “biocultural heritage” and territories, as outlined and
enacted by the Potato Park in Andean Peru (Argumedo, 2008), and “biocultural
rights”, as formulated by the South African organization Natural Justice:
The term ‘biocultural rights’ denotes a community’s long established right,
in accordance with its customary laws, to steward its lands, waters and
resources. Such rights are being increasingly recognized in international
thus biocultural – governance at large. In the Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 report
(issued in September 2020), the CBD chronicled dozens of biological indicators
failing to reach the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. The report concludes
[…] that opportunities for effective action in support of the Strategic Plan
for Biodiversity 2011–2020 were missed due to insufficient involvement of
women, indigenous peoples and local communities […]. The new global
framework can set stronger requirements for future action on biodiversity
to include all of these considerations as foundational prerequisites.
(Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2020, p. 136)
The press release for the 2nd edition of the Biodiversity Loutlooks (the sister
publication to the Outlook, which presents the expertise and experience of
indigenous peoples) went further to warn of “catastrophic loss of nature and
biodiversity and increasing risk of pandemics” unless indigenous peoples and
knowledges were heeded and honored. The summary reads:
• There is a way to protect the world’s biodiversity by listening to indigenous
peoples and local communities who have sustainably managed biodiversity
for millennia
• The majority of the world’s most biodiverse areas are found within the
ancestral lands of indigenous peoples and local communities; securing their
rights to land would secure biodiversity
• More than a quarter of the global land area is traditionally owned, managed,
used, or occupied by indigenous peoples, and has been for millennia (Forest
Peoples Programme et al., 2020, p. 1).
Indigenous peoples and local communities have worked hard for a generation in and
through the CBD. Though the CBD retains the tensions and limits of liberal internationalism to some degree, it has remained a key forum for IPLCs to voice their
claims and even actualize their worldviews. Importantly, it was within the context
of the CBD that Biocultural Protocols were first officially recognized a decade ago.
7
Tellingly, the U.S. has remained a global outlier in refusing to ratify this important
convention. Yet, all the while, perhaps because of the lack of U.S. presence, the
CBD has continued to advance and apply biocultural frameworks of governance.
Over the past decade, indigenous and local communities around the world
have begun articulating their place-based, plants-based, agroecologically
grounded protections as “biocultural heritage” and territories, as outlined and
enacted by the Potato Park in Andean Peru (Argumedo, 2008), and “biocultural
rights”, as formulated by the South African organization Natural Justice:
The term ‘biocultural rights’ denotes a community’s long established right,
in accordance with its customary laws, to steward its lands, waters and
resources. Such rights are being increasingly recognized in international