The Sovereign Stewards of Biodiversity 277
ontological threads of modernity and negotiating spaces for the advent of a new
form of legal subjectivity. This is a subjectivity that would not be grounded in the
aptitude of monadic agent to exert her dominion over inanimate nature. Instead,
it would be based on the entanglements between plants, microorganisms, ecosystems, and a “person-in-community” (Gudeman, 1992) such as a carer, steward,
custodian of a place where identities unfold. The result, it is argued, would be to
open up space for IPLCs to sustain their identities by shrinking the reach of the
naturalistic matrix.
These questions are addressed in the following sections of this chapter.
We start with a critical appraisal of a string of BCPs developed in Africa and
Latin America. We investigate the kind of scripts that are played out in their
drafting and implementation. We analyse the type of counter-narratives and
counter-hegemonic discursive practices that they may contain and deploy as
an antidote. The chapter then moves on to examine the effects of entrenching
BCPs in “stewardship”, “custodian”, “caretaker” representations and narratives on tradition, asking in particular whether the associated script is not
subjecting peoples to new forms of eco-power (Brosius, 1999, p. 37). Finally,
the chapter replaces BCPs and the “ethic stewardship” within the context of
IPLCs’ political struggle aimed at opening up space within Western ontologies. It is argued, in particular, that the use of the ethic of stewardship,
together with bonds with transnational coalitions and networks, helps unveil
and anchor a new form of legal subjectivity.
Unravelling the Imaginaries Bound Up with
Environmental Scripts
The BCPs that we have examined bear testimony to the kind of ontological
politics (Mol, 1999) that is now played out around the ABS regime and IPLCs.
There are seven BCPs included in the scope of this study, covering both Africa
(Benin, Kenya, Madagascar) and Latin America (Mexico, Panama). These BCPs
offer a wide diversity of ABS regimes, legislative and regulatory frameworks on
IPLCs’ rights, experiences of colonialism, and socioeconomic and environmental conditions. The full list is provided in the Annex (see Table 11.1), which also
contains a brief account of domestic legal regimes regarding local or community
PIC and BCPs.
In what follows, we will examine BCPs through the lens of ontology and
eco-power and pay attention to the discourses and narratives that unfold,
understood as many performative scripts on IPLCs and the environment. The
narratives and scripts that our chapter unveils are summarised in F igure 11.1.
All these scripts are embedded in the Western or European “ontological
matrix” (Blaser, 2009), but the two present-day scripts are much more important and therefore receive the greatest attention in the following pages for
two reasons. First, the “stewardship of biodiversity” script is the dominant
script, in the sense that it is pervasively present within the BCPs under study
ontological threads of modernity and negotiating spaces for the advent of a new
form of legal subjectivity. This is a subjectivity that would not be grounded in the
aptitude of monadic agent to exert her dominion over inanimate nature. Instead,
it would be based on the entanglements between plants, microorganisms, ecosystems, and a “person-in-community” (Gudeman, 1992) such as a carer, steward,
custodian of a place where identities unfold. The result, it is argued, would be to
open up space for IPLCs to sustain their identities by shrinking the reach of the
naturalistic matrix.
These questions are addressed in the following sections of this chapter.
We start with a critical appraisal of a string of BCPs developed in Africa and
Latin America. We investigate the kind of scripts that are played out in their
drafting and implementation. We analyse the type of counter-narratives and
counter-hegemonic discursive practices that they may contain and deploy as
an antidote. The chapter then moves on to examine the effects of entrenching
BCPs in “stewardship”, “custodian”, “caretaker” representations and narratives on tradition, asking in particular whether the associated script is not
subjecting peoples to new forms of eco-power (Brosius, 1999, p. 37). Finally,
the chapter replaces BCPs and the “ethic stewardship” within the context of
IPLCs’ political struggle aimed at opening up space within Western ontologies. It is argued, in particular, that the use of the ethic of stewardship,
together with bonds with transnational coalitions and networks, helps unveil
and anchor a new form of legal subjectivity.
Unravelling the Imaginaries Bound Up with
Environmental Scripts
The BCPs that we have examined bear testimony to the kind of ontological
politics (Mol, 1999) that is now played out around the ABS regime and IPLCs.
There are seven BCPs included in the scope of this study, covering both Africa
(Benin, Kenya, Madagascar) and Latin America (Mexico, Panama). These BCPs
offer a wide diversity of ABS regimes, legislative and regulatory frameworks on
IPLCs’ rights, experiences of colonialism, and socioeconomic and environmental conditions. The full list is provided in the Annex (see Table 11.1), which also
contains a brief account of domestic legal regimes regarding local or community
PIC and BCPs.
In what follows, we will examine BCPs through the lens of ontology and
eco-power and pay attention to the discourses and narratives that unfold,
understood as many performative scripts on IPLCs and the environment. The
narratives and scripts that our chapter unveils are summarised in F igure 11.1.
All these scripts are embedded in the Western or European “ontological
matrix” (Blaser, 2009), but the two present-day scripts are much more important and therefore receive the greatest attention in the following pages for
two reasons. First, the “stewardship of biodiversity” script is the dominant
script, in the sense that it is pervasively present within the BCPs under study