212 Miri (Margaret) Raven and Daniel Robinson
case (the Bulun Bulun case
7 ) over the reproduction of a waterhole design by
John Bulun Bulun, a Ganalbingu man of Arnhem Land, which was printed
in Indonesia and imported into Australia ( Janke, 2008; Mackay, 2009). In this
case, Judge Von Doussa found that a fiduciary relationship (one based on trust)
existed between John Bulun Bulun and the Ganalbingu clan, and that customary
laws influence what the artist can do with the work embodying the Indigenous
knowledge “in a way that he had to discuss and negotiate use of traditional
knowledge with relevant persons in authority within his clan” ( Janke, 2008,
p. 19). What the Bulun Bulun case highlighted and is often discussed in relation
to defining the use of Indigenous knowledge, and thus to customary law and
protocols, is the tension between individual and communal ownership of this
knowledge and the obligations related to this ownership.
Relational obligation is often captured through the terminology of
“guardianship” or “stewardship” (Argumedo et al., 2011; Bavikatte & Robinson,
2011; Carpenter et al., 2009; Kolig, 2002; Lai, 2014; Lotz, 2002; Stephens et al.,
2007; Wade, 1999; Whyte, 2013). Guardianship and stewardship lay the foundations on which protocols sit. This was clearly articulated by Argumedo, Asociación ANDES, Potato Park Communities and IIED in their “Community
Biocultural Protocol”, where they stated:
The fact that biocultural approaches […] are now emerging as useful
concepts is testament to the inadequacy of reductionist, disciplinary methods that continue to be the modus operandi of conservation and development
research, policy formulation, and action. Mainstream perspectives do not
value the role Indigenous Peoples have played historically – and continue
to play today – as stewards and guardians, innovators and developers, of
their eco- and knowledge systems.
(Argumedo et al., 2011, p. 19)
The very nature of protocols, as being based on customary law, encompasses an
“ethics of stewardship”. Stewardship is a concept used to encompass a duty of care
ethics that extends beyond people towards nature (Carpenter et al., 2009). The
notion of “stewardship”, as Carpenter et al. (2009) point out, is used elsewhere
in management literature (see, for example: Albanese et al., 1997; Arthurs &
Busenitz, 2003; Davis et al., 1997; Hernandez, 2008, 2012; Kuppelwieser, 2011;
Le Breton-Miller & Miller, 2009; McArthur, 2012; Preston, 1998; S chillemans,
2013; Van Slyke, 2006). Across this literature, stewardship theory focuses on
intrinsic motivation and rewards as a contrast to self-interested individuals
(Kuppelwieser, 2011).
It is useful to consider label BCPs and Indigenous peoples through “ stewardship”
because both of them fulfil communal obligations and responsibilities to
support the conservation of biological diversity and I ndigenous rights to
self-determination. However, overly prescriptive uses of the term risk simplifying the everyday lived realities of Indigenous peoples. Indigenous knowledge
case (the Bulun Bulun case
7 ) over the reproduction of a waterhole design by
John Bulun Bulun, a Ganalbingu man of Arnhem Land, which was printed
in Indonesia and imported into Australia ( Janke, 2008; Mackay, 2009). In this
case, Judge Von Doussa found that a fiduciary relationship (one based on trust)
existed between John Bulun Bulun and the Ganalbingu clan, and that customary
laws influence what the artist can do with the work embodying the Indigenous
knowledge “in a way that he had to discuss and negotiate use of traditional
knowledge with relevant persons in authority within his clan” ( Janke, 2008,
p. 19). What the Bulun Bulun case highlighted and is often discussed in relation
to defining the use of Indigenous knowledge, and thus to customary law and
protocols, is the tension between individual and communal ownership of this
knowledge and the obligations related to this ownership.
Relational obligation is often captured through the terminology of
“guardianship” or “stewardship” (Argumedo et al., 2011; Bavikatte & Robinson,
2011; Carpenter et al., 2009; Kolig, 2002; Lai, 2014; Lotz, 2002; Stephens et al.,
2007; Wade, 1999; Whyte, 2013). Guardianship and stewardship lay the foundations on which protocols sit. This was clearly articulated by Argumedo, Asociación ANDES, Potato Park Communities and IIED in their “Community
Biocultural Protocol”, where they stated:
The fact that biocultural approaches […] are now emerging as useful
concepts is testament to the inadequacy of reductionist, disciplinary methods that continue to be the modus operandi of conservation and development
research, policy formulation, and action. Mainstream perspectives do not
value the role Indigenous Peoples have played historically – and continue
to play today – as stewards and guardians, innovators and developers, of
their eco- and knowledge systems.
(Argumedo et al., 2011, p. 19)
The very nature of protocols, as being based on customary law, encompasses an
“ethics of stewardship”. Stewardship is a concept used to encompass a duty of care
ethics that extends beyond people towards nature (Carpenter et al., 2009). The
notion of “stewardship”, as Carpenter et al. (2009) point out, is used elsewhere
in management literature (see, for example: Albanese et al., 1997; Arthurs &
Busenitz, 2003; Davis et al., 1997; Hernandez, 2008, 2012; Kuppelwieser, 2011;
Le Breton-Miller & Miller, 2009; McArthur, 2012; Preston, 1998; S chillemans,
2013; Van Slyke, 2006). Across this literature, stewardship theory focuses on
intrinsic motivation and rewards as a contrast to self-interested individuals
(Kuppelwieser, 2011).
It is useful to consider label BCPs and Indigenous peoples through “ stewardship”
because both of them fulfil communal obligations and responsibilities to
support the conservation of biological diversity and I ndigenous rights to
self-determination. However, overly prescriptive uses of the term risk simplifying the everyday lived realities of Indigenous peoples. Indigenous knowledge