158 Garrett Graddy-Lovelace
issue remains epistemic tensions between what constitutes intellectual property,
data, consent, and innovation – the fundamental tensions of agrobiodiversity
governance and policy.
The TK/BC Labels and Notices serve as a key product, but even more
generatively, as a foundation for a process: a process of building relationships
and collaboration toward decolonizing intellectual property relations into indigenous and Black Diasporic epistemic justice, sovereignty, and recovery. One
of the key Labels declares “Non-Verified” to contest generations of appropriative and incorrect classifications. Other labels, such as “Outreach”, work to
lay groundwork for constructive community-building between institutions and
indigenous nations. The TK/BC Labels project seeks to “decolonize attribution”
and extricate from colonialist intellectual property regimes (Anderson & Christen, 2019). Going even further, following the lead of such scholars and activists
as Miri (Margaret) Raven,
16 the goal is to move beyond using colonialism as a
referent – even in post-colonial, anti-colonial, or decolonial efforts – but rather
to indigenize intellectual property law and agrobiodiversity policy all together
(Argumedo, 2012; Conway, 2009).
What would it take for the U.S. representation at the UN and the FAO,
and the Treaty to move in the direction of Biocultural Community Protocols,
TK and BC Labels and CARE Principles, and even the Atateken D eclaration
and Policy Briefs? What would it take for the U.S. to even ratify the CBD
itself, after a generation of obstruction? These are the questions moving forward, for frontline community-based organizations, indigenous and African
Diaspora-based seedkeeper practitioners, and civil society organizations.
It is also a pressing question for policymakers and for scholars. Within academia, the discipline of international relations is acutely relevant and implicated. The fact that the U.S. representation operationally comes from the State
Department risks entrenching the state-centric, Bretton Woods geopolitical
imaginary, with its Eurocentric biases, colonial erasures, and developmentalist
hierarchies of modern nation-states over indigenous, nomadic, diasporic, and
migrant geographies.
Conclusion: Scales of Reference and Reckoning
This chapter began in recognition of the diverse worldviews and practices
working to upkeep agricultural biodiversity in the U.S./Turtle Island and
beyond, even in the face of steep legal, intellectual property, epistemic, financial, and material obstacles, much less, lack of support. Amidst this admirable
topology of (agri)cultural survival grounded in biocultural principles are explicit
attempts to protect and advance the work through Biocultural Community Protocols. This comprises a key research, advocacy, and policy engagement need:
a compilation of all the initiatives within Turtle Island territories that have
expressly endeavored Biocultural Community Protocols, or that want to. These
issue remains epistemic tensions between what constitutes intellectual property,
data, consent, and innovation – the fundamental tensions of agrobiodiversity
governance and policy.
The TK/BC Labels and Notices serve as a key product, but even more
generatively, as a foundation for a process: a process of building relationships
and collaboration toward decolonizing intellectual property relations into indigenous and Black Diasporic epistemic justice, sovereignty, and recovery. One
of the key Labels declares “Non-Verified” to contest generations of appropriative and incorrect classifications. Other labels, such as “Outreach”, work to
lay groundwork for constructive community-building between institutions and
indigenous nations. The TK/BC Labels project seeks to “decolonize attribution”
and extricate from colonialist intellectual property regimes (Anderson & Christen, 2019). Going even further, following the lead of such scholars and activists
as Miri (Margaret) Raven,
16 the goal is to move beyond using colonialism as a
referent – even in post-colonial, anti-colonial, or decolonial efforts – but rather
to indigenize intellectual property law and agrobiodiversity policy all together
(Argumedo, 2012; Conway, 2009).
What would it take for the U.S. representation at the UN and the FAO,
and the Treaty to move in the direction of Biocultural Community Protocols,
TK and BC Labels and CARE Principles, and even the Atateken D eclaration
and Policy Briefs? What would it take for the U.S. to even ratify the CBD
itself, after a generation of obstruction? These are the questions moving forward, for frontline community-based organizations, indigenous and African
Diaspora-based seedkeeper practitioners, and civil society organizations.
It is also a pressing question for policymakers and for scholars. Within academia, the discipline of international relations is acutely relevant and implicated. The fact that the U.S. representation operationally comes from the State
Department risks entrenching the state-centric, Bretton Woods geopolitical
imaginary, with its Eurocentric biases, colonial erasures, and developmentalist
hierarchies of modern nation-states over indigenous, nomadic, diasporic, and
migrant geographies.
Conclusion: Scales of Reference and Reckoning
This chapter began in recognition of the diverse worldviews and practices
working to upkeep agricultural biodiversity in the U.S./Turtle Island and
beyond, even in the face of steep legal, intellectual property, epistemic, financial, and material obstacles, much less, lack of support. Amidst this admirable
topology of (agri)cultural survival grounded in biocultural principles are explicit
attempts to protect and advance the work through Biocultural Community Protocols. This comprises a key research, advocacy, and policy engagement need:
a compilation of all the initiatives within Turtle Island territories that have
expressly endeavored Biocultural Community Protocols, or that want to. These