Biocultural Rights and Protocols in the Pacific 213
“is based on the premise that humans should not view themselves as responsible
for nature, i.e., we are not stewards of the natural world, but instead we are a
part of that world, not greater than any other part” (Pierotti & Wildcat, 2000,
p. 1336). Similarly, guardianship has its roots in the idea of the “noble savage”
which essentialises Indigenous peoples and risks Indigenous peoples being wed to
a static identity which is unable to legitimately respond to changes in the broader
global political economy (Wade, 1999). The association of Indigenous peoples
with “guardian” also obfuscates Indigenous peoples’ reality who use, whether
through choice or necessity, technological innovations from the industrial and
post-industrial eras in their farming and livelihood practices (for example, pesticides and firearms
8 (Wade, 1999)).
Challenges in Developing and Implementing
Community Protocols
In our own research and engagement with communities, we have noted a range
of challenges in developing and implementing community protocols. First, there
are challenges surrounding the scope of the protocol and the scope (or coherence) of the “community”. Communities are heterogeneous and so there are
often competing interests and agendas about the use of natural and biological
resources. There are often different interpretations of customary law, and different ideas about what should go into a protocol, or how it might best be used.
In some of the communities we worked with, at the village level in Vanuatu,
for example, there were individuals who were much more active in collecting
and trading the biological resources (bush foods and medicines) than others. So,
these specific individuals may have had more vested interests in the activities and
in ensuring their voices would be heard in community meetings. There are also
questions that can be asked about whether the scope of the community protocols
should just focus on ABS and biotrade, or if it should be broader and include cultural heritage concerns, protection of intangible cultural heritage and folklore.
In other circumstances, it seemed relevant that protocols might also be wider
in scope so as to also deal with tourism and its potential impacts on biological
resources and ecosystems. Because we have been focused on Indigenous knowledge relating to biological resources, the Nagoya Protocol clause on “community
protocols” has guided our project down a particular path. But that path could
certainly be wider if our project had been broader in scope.
Second, there were different ideas about what the protocol would look like.
We had originally envisaged BCPs along the lines of those produced and facilitated by Natural Justice. These often had been influenced by and included statements about the relevant international laws, such as the Nagoya Protocol and the
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP,
2007). However, many of the communities we met in the Pacific countries
(Vanuatu and Cook Islands) did not know about these conventions and international laws. Nor did it seem important to them to be included in our drafting of
“is based on the premise that humans should not view themselves as responsible
for nature, i.e., we are not stewards of the natural world, but instead we are a
part of that world, not greater than any other part” (Pierotti & Wildcat, 2000,
p. 1336). Similarly, guardianship has its roots in the idea of the “noble savage”
which essentialises Indigenous peoples and risks Indigenous peoples being wed to
a static identity which is unable to legitimately respond to changes in the broader
global political economy (Wade, 1999). The association of Indigenous peoples
with “guardian” also obfuscates Indigenous peoples’ reality who use, whether
through choice or necessity, technological innovations from the industrial and
post-industrial eras in their farming and livelihood practices (for example, pesticides and firearms
8 (Wade, 1999)).
Challenges in Developing and Implementing
Community Protocols
In our own research and engagement with communities, we have noted a range
of challenges in developing and implementing community protocols. First, there
are challenges surrounding the scope of the protocol and the scope (or coherence) of the “community”. Communities are heterogeneous and so there are
often competing interests and agendas about the use of natural and biological
resources. There are often different interpretations of customary law, and different ideas about what should go into a protocol, or how it might best be used.
In some of the communities we worked with, at the village level in Vanuatu,
for example, there were individuals who were much more active in collecting
and trading the biological resources (bush foods and medicines) than others. So,
these specific individuals may have had more vested interests in the activities and
in ensuring their voices would be heard in community meetings. There are also
questions that can be asked about whether the scope of the community protocols
should just focus on ABS and biotrade, or if it should be broader and include cultural heritage concerns, protection of intangible cultural heritage and folklore.
In other circumstances, it seemed relevant that protocols might also be wider
in scope so as to also deal with tourism and its potential impacts on biological
resources and ecosystems. Because we have been focused on Indigenous knowledge relating to biological resources, the Nagoya Protocol clause on “community
protocols” has guided our project down a particular path. But that path could
certainly be wider if our project had been broader in scope.
Second, there were different ideas about what the protocol would look like.
We had originally envisaged BCPs along the lines of those produced and facilitated by Natural Justice. These often had been influenced by and included statements about the relevant international laws, such as the Nagoya Protocol and the
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP,
2007). However, many of the communities we met in the Pacific countries
(Vanuatu and Cook Islands) did not know about these conventions and international laws. Nor did it seem important to them to be included in our drafting of