From Obstruction to Decolonization? 151
Even liberal internationalism’s rallying cries – of multilateralism and
multiculturalism – belie its appropriative tendencies. The Treaty serves as an
illustrative microcosm of these tensions: the MLS strives for cooperative governance even as its La Via Campesina and other civil society coalitions critique it for
entrenching disproportionate Global North access to and benefit from the alleged
global commons. Likewise, the Treaty celebrates the cultural and agricultural
diversity of the world’s farmers, fishers, pastoralists, gardeners, and food systems.
Yet, civil society have long critiqued the Treaty for treating such (agri)cultural
diversity as objects of value, rather than subjects needing a seat at the table.
The limits of liberal internationalism manifest acutely in the case of the U.S.,
which has historically imposed its agricultural surpluses on international markets, pressured “harmonization” of intellectual property regimes via bilateral
trade agreements, and until very recently, obstructed international cooperation
on environmental regulation. The U.S. has paradoxically had an outsized role
in international fora, from UN to the WTO, even as it has refused to ratify key
international instruments. Again, the Treaty historically demonstrated the U.S.’s
heavy-handed isolationism. The recent ratification merely proved the point: that
the U.S. plays an over-represented role in the Treaty’s governance, even as the
actual seedkeepers and agrobiodiversity practitioners of Turtle Island remain
starkly underrepresented in the U.S. delegation to the Treaty. The burgeoning assertions of biocultural rights, principles, protocols, and even data labels,
however, are emerging as important counterweights to the limits of liberal
internationalism – in the U.S. and beyond.
Declaring Biocultural Diversity: Contested Seed Sovereignties
Indigenizing governance of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture
entails moving into legal pluralism so as to center the diversity of indigenous
customary governance. The South African legal advocacy organization Natural
Justice contends that Biocultural Protocols need only be used “where the communities are confronted with an identified threat or where they have already
been approached and there is a reasonable prospect that an agreement will be
reached” (this book, Chapter 13). They can only be studied through the lens of a
political ontology of IPLCs, and should be read as attempts at challenging Western worldviews and dominant forms of legal modernity (see Chapter 11 of this
book by Anquet and Girard and Chapter 3 of this book by Hall). Accordingly,
biocultural rights serve as a direct response to and defense against bi o-coloniality.
Biocultural Protocols deploy at the level of the law and politics, in an attempt to
reclaim the legal terrain of policy, accountability, and binding legislation. The
idea was expressed by Pierre du Plessis – expert at CRIAA SA-DC, Namibia, and
one of Africa’s lead negotiators of the Nagoya Protocol. Namibia was very active
during the negotiations toward the Nagoya Protocol – du Plessis was advised
by Natural Justice and Bavikatte (see IIED et al., 2012). The African Union
Commission guidelines on ABS specifically recognizes and respects community
Even liberal internationalism’s rallying cries – of multilateralism and
multiculturalism – belie its appropriative tendencies. The Treaty serves as an
illustrative microcosm of these tensions: the MLS strives for cooperative governance even as its La Via Campesina and other civil society coalitions critique it for
entrenching disproportionate Global North access to and benefit from the alleged
global commons. Likewise, the Treaty celebrates the cultural and agricultural
diversity of the world’s farmers, fishers, pastoralists, gardeners, and food systems.
Yet, civil society have long critiqued the Treaty for treating such (agri)cultural
diversity as objects of value, rather than subjects needing a seat at the table.
The limits of liberal internationalism manifest acutely in the case of the U.S.,
which has historically imposed its agricultural surpluses on international markets, pressured “harmonization” of intellectual property regimes via bilateral
trade agreements, and until very recently, obstructed international cooperation
on environmental regulation. The U.S. has paradoxically had an outsized role
in international fora, from UN to the WTO, even as it has refused to ratify key
international instruments. Again, the Treaty historically demonstrated the U.S.’s
heavy-handed isolationism. The recent ratification merely proved the point: that
the U.S. plays an over-represented role in the Treaty’s governance, even as the
actual seedkeepers and agrobiodiversity practitioners of Turtle Island remain
starkly underrepresented in the U.S. delegation to the Treaty. The burgeoning assertions of biocultural rights, principles, protocols, and even data labels,
however, are emerging as important counterweights to the limits of liberal
internationalism – in the U.S. and beyond.
Declaring Biocultural Diversity: Contested Seed Sovereignties
Indigenizing governance of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture
entails moving into legal pluralism so as to center the diversity of indigenous
customary governance. The South African legal advocacy organization Natural
Justice contends that Biocultural Protocols need only be used “where the communities are confronted with an identified threat or where they have already
been approached and there is a reasonable prospect that an agreement will be
reached” (this book, Chapter 13). They can only be studied through the lens of a
political ontology of IPLCs, and should be read as attempts at challenging Western worldviews and dominant forms of legal modernity (see Chapter 11 of this
book by Anquet and Girard and Chapter 3 of this book by Hall). Accordingly,
biocultural rights serve as a direct response to and defense against bi o-coloniality.
Biocultural Protocols deploy at the level of the law and politics, in an attempt to
reclaim the legal terrain of policy, accountability, and binding legislation. The
idea was expressed by Pierre du Plessis – expert at CRIAA SA-DC, Namibia, and
one of Africa’s lead negotiators of the Nagoya Protocol. Namibia was very active
during the negotiations toward the Nagoya Protocol – du Plessis was advised
by Natural Justice and Bavikatte (see IIED et al., 2012). The African Union
Commission guidelines on ABS specifically recognizes and respects community