272 Reia Anquet and Fabien Girard
life. This inevitably endowed IPLCs with a “bundle of rights” which comprised
the “control over cultural, scientific, and intellectual property”. Posey dubbed
this “bundle”, “traditional resource rights” and set as a fundamental prerequisite
for its achievement the “rights to land and territory” (Posey, 2004, p. 163; Posey
& Dutfield, 1996). Posey’s inspirational work (Bavikatte, 2014, pp. 234–235) has
paved the way for subsequent insightful “integrated” approaches to help IPLCs
secure their ways of life.
International environmental and human rights lawyers Sanjay Bavikatte and
Harry Jonas pushed further ahead with this concept by referring to IPLCs as stewards of nature. Through their theoretical work and grass-roots involvement, they
succeeded in effectively harnessing the open-textured (see Posey, 2004, 163) language of Articles 8(j) and 10(c) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
(apparently intended by their main initiators – see Halewood, 1999), in light of
the progressive provisions of the Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration. The bundle
of “biocultural rights”
3 – as they were to be conceptualised by Sanjay Bavikatte
and colleagues – closely resembles the concept of “traditional resource rights”. This
bundle encompasses the rights to land, territory, and natural resources, the right
to self-determination, i.e. self-government (Anaya, 2004), and the rights to culture and cultural heritage. Most importantly, biocultural rights are built upon two
cornerstones: one relates to the direct interests of IPLCs (a group rights approach),
while the other pertains to a more general interest of humankind (or the biotic community at large) in the conservation of the environment. Therefore, the recognition
of biocultural rights does not take as its point of departure the right of a group or
community to flourish, but rather the ethic of stewardship, i.e. the ethic entrenched
in the role of IPLCs as conservationists or custodians of local ecosystems.
One of the core assumptions of biocultural jurisprudence is that much of this
role of guardianship/stewardship of biodiversity is underwritten by an “ethic of
stewardship”, itself embodied in “a way of life” and rooted “within a moral universe” (Bavikatte, 2014, pp. 168–169). The last IPBES’ report (IPBES, 2019, p. 42)
leaves no doubt that it is through this idea of “stewardship of biodiversity” that
IPLCs have recently gained a more substantial status in the international regime
for the conservation of biodiversity. An important point to make is the recent
reinforcement of the underlying theoretical canvas: both the Tkarihwaié:ri Code
of Ethical Conduct
4 and the Atrato River case of the Constitutional Court of
Colombia
5 (Macpherson et al., 2020) – one of the first decisions to formally recognise “biocultural rights” – make it clear that the ethic of stewardship touches upon
the “holistic interconnectedness of humanity with ecosystems and obligations and
responsibilities of indigenous and local communities”.
6 Emphasis on possible different worldviews, ontologies, and epistemologies naturally produces deep philosophical tension when faced with “Euro-modernity” or “Western-modernity”.
In the Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) regime, these theoretical changes
have gone hand in hand with the advent and the consolidation of the concept
of “biocultural diversity” (Maffi, 2001).
7 The ethic of stewardship has opened
new avenues to “protect” IPLCs’ “customary use of biological resources” and
life. This inevitably endowed IPLCs with a “bundle of rights” which comprised
the “control over cultural, scientific, and intellectual property”. Posey dubbed
this “bundle”, “traditional resource rights” and set as a fundamental prerequisite
for its achievement the “rights to land and territory” (Posey, 2004, p. 163; Posey
& Dutfield, 1996). Posey’s inspirational work (Bavikatte, 2014, pp. 234–235) has
paved the way for subsequent insightful “integrated” approaches to help IPLCs
secure their ways of life.
International environmental and human rights lawyers Sanjay Bavikatte and
Harry Jonas pushed further ahead with this concept by referring to IPLCs as stewards of nature. Through their theoretical work and grass-roots involvement, they
succeeded in effectively harnessing the open-textured (see Posey, 2004, 163) language of Articles 8(j) and 10(c) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
(apparently intended by their main initiators – see Halewood, 1999), in light of
the progressive provisions of the Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration. The bundle
of “biocultural rights”
3 – as they were to be conceptualised by Sanjay Bavikatte
and colleagues – closely resembles the concept of “traditional resource rights”. This
bundle encompasses the rights to land, territory, and natural resources, the right
to self-determination, i.e. self-government (Anaya, 2004), and the rights to culture and cultural heritage. Most importantly, biocultural rights are built upon two
cornerstones: one relates to the direct interests of IPLCs (a group rights approach),
while the other pertains to a more general interest of humankind (or the biotic community at large) in the conservation of the environment. Therefore, the recognition
of biocultural rights does not take as its point of departure the right of a group or
community to flourish, but rather the ethic of stewardship, i.e. the ethic entrenched
in the role of IPLCs as conservationists or custodians of local ecosystems.
One of the core assumptions of biocultural jurisprudence is that much of this
role of guardianship/stewardship of biodiversity is underwritten by an “ethic of
stewardship”, itself embodied in “a way of life” and rooted “within a moral universe” (Bavikatte, 2014, pp. 168–169). The last IPBES’ report (IPBES, 2019, p. 42)
leaves no doubt that it is through this idea of “stewardship of biodiversity” that
IPLCs have recently gained a more substantial status in the international regime
for the conservation of biodiversity. An important point to make is the recent
reinforcement of the underlying theoretical canvas: both the Tkarihwaié:ri Code
of Ethical Conduct
4 and the Atrato River case of the Constitutional Court of
Colombia
5 (Macpherson et al., 2020) – one of the first decisions to formally recognise “biocultural rights” – make it clear that the ethic of stewardship touches upon
the “holistic interconnectedness of humanity with ecosystems and obligations and
responsibilities of indigenous and local communities”.
6 Emphasis on possible different worldviews, ontologies, and epistemologies naturally produces deep philosophical tension when faced with “Euro-modernity” or “Western-modernity”.
In the Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) regime, these theoretical changes
have gone hand in hand with the advent and the consolidation of the concept
of “biocultural diversity” (Maffi, 2001).
7 The ethic of stewardship has opened
new avenues to “protect” IPLCs’ “customary use of biological resources” and