From Obstruction to Decolonization? 145
environmental law. Biocultural rights are not simply claims to property, in
the typical market sense of property being a universally commensurable,
commodifiable and alienable resource; rather, as will be apparent from the
discussion offered here, biocultural rights are collective rights of communities to carry out traditional steward- ship roles vis-à-vis Nature, as conceived of by indigenous ontologies.
(Bavikatte & Bennett, 2015, p. 7)
The biocultural rights framework has helped mobilize indigenous groups to contest dominant intellectual property regimes, particularly in nations with high
levels of biodiversity and with contested histories with their own indigenous
peoples (India, Peru, and South Africa, for instance).
In the Turtle Island North American context, the legal framework for
integrating biocultural territories or legal rights has only begun to make its way
into national policies. Mexico has instituted various legislation for protection of
indigenous maize territories, most notably the recent moratorium on genetically
modified corn. Canada, meanwhile, has laid groundwork for such legal rights in
the Truth & Reconciliation Commission and in its application at the intersection
of genetic resources, justice, and reconciliation (see Oguamanam’s 2019 edited
volume). The Innu First Nation in Canada have successfully declared the River
Magpie as a Living Being with Rights (Alliance Muteshekau-shipu, 2021). The
U.S. however has largely failed to integrate biocultural rights, much less recognition of biocultural heritage into policies.
Nevertheless, diverse biocultural heritages abound as do the movements for
their upkeep and protection. Indigenous, Black agrarian, and grassroots seed sovereignty initiatives that have arisen in the U.S. and “territories”, and that align
with the central concepts of BCP – farmers rights and self-determination – as
well as its central principles: interconnectedness, pluralism, ecocentrism, and
environmental stewardship.
As an exemplar of these movements, indigenous Hawaiian leaders, scholars, and
activists have created the Moku system to manage biocultural resources “for abundance within social-ecological regions” in Hawaii (Winter et al., 2018, p. 1). This
overlaps with efforts to restore “Aina Malo’o” on Hawaii island, with the goal of
“expanding biocultural relationships” (Lincoln et al., 2018, p. 1). Such biocultural
restoration, rooted in indigenous Hawaiian cosmological principles, has proven its
efficacy in achieving dominant conservation goals – but has gone such much further
to expand and indigenize the very notion of conservation (Winter et al., 2020).
Meanwhile, scholars and activists are documenting indigenous movements
under the term “biocultural”. A 2012 compilation Sacred Species and Sites:
Advances in Biocultural Conservation featured a Diné-Navajo initiative to protect
Dook’ oo’ sliid, or the “Abolone Shell Mountain”, which is the westernmost
of the four pillars of Dine cosmology/land. Known by its colonial name, the
Holy San Francisco Peaks of northern Arizona, the mountain range is sacred to
13 different indigenous nations and cultural significant to 22 in the region: it
environmental law. Biocultural rights are not simply claims to property, in
the typical market sense of property being a universally commensurable,
commodifiable and alienable resource; rather, as will be apparent from the
discussion offered here, biocultural rights are collective rights of communities to carry out traditional steward- ship roles vis-à-vis Nature, as conceived of by indigenous ontologies.
(Bavikatte & Bennett, 2015, p. 7)
The biocultural rights framework has helped mobilize indigenous groups to contest dominant intellectual property regimes, particularly in nations with high
levels of biodiversity and with contested histories with their own indigenous
peoples (India, Peru, and South Africa, for instance).
In the Turtle Island North American context, the legal framework for
integrating biocultural territories or legal rights has only begun to make its way
into national policies. Mexico has instituted various legislation for protection of
indigenous maize territories, most notably the recent moratorium on genetically
modified corn. Canada, meanwhile, has laid groundwork for such legal rights in
the Truth & Reconciliation Commission and in its application at the intersection
of genetic resources, justice, and reconciliation (see Oguamanam’s 2019 edited
volume). The Innu First Nation in Canada have successfully declared the River
Magpie as a Living Being with Rights (Alliance Muteshekau-shipu, 2021). The
U.S. however has largely failed to integrate biocultural rights, much less recognition of biocultural heritage into policies.
Nevertheless, diverse biocultural heritages abound as do the movements for
their upkeep and protection. Indigenous, Black agrarian, and grassroots seed sovereignty initiatives that have arisen in the U.S. and “territories”, and that align
with the central concepts of BCP – farmers rights and self-determination – as
well as its central principles: interconnectedness, pluralism, ecocentrism, and
environmental stewardship.
As an exemplar of these movements, indigenous Hawaiian leaders, scholars, and
activists have created the Moku system to manage biocultural resources “for abundance within social-ecological regions” in Hawaii (Winter et al., 2018, p. 1). This
overlaps with efforts to restore “Aina Malo’o” on Hawaii island, with the goal of
“expanding biocultural relationships” (Lincoln et al., 2018, p. 1). Such biocultural
restoration, rooted in indigenous Hawaiian cosmological principles, has proven its
efficacy in achieving dominant conservation goals – but has gone such much further
to expand and indigenize the very notion of conservation (Winter et al., 2020).
Meanwhile, scholars and activists are documenting indigenous movements
under the term “biocultural”. A 2012 compilation Sacred Species and Sites:
Advances in Biocultural Conservation featured a Diné-Navajo initiative to protect
Dook’ oo’ sliid, or the “Abolone Shell Mountain”, which is the westernmost
of the four pillars of Dine cosmology/land. Known by its colonial name, the
Holy San Francisco Peaks of northern Arizona, the mountain range is sacred to
13 different indigenous nations and cultural significant to 22 in the region: it