The Sovereign Stewards of Biodiversity 283
continuum of basic assumptions about IPLCs (inherently “traditional” in (i);
and potentially “rational” in (ii) – on the pervasiveness of “reason” in the
“premoderns” script – see Peet and Watts (1996, pp. 5–6)). Any other move is
doomed to wield less discursive force and fell short of counteracting harmful
scripts (see Figure 11.2). This can explain why the Ogiek’s BCP, after several
mentions to the ABS regime as a way to improve livelihood, moves on to
articulate the people’s relationship towards “nature” in terms of stewardship.
It is to this script that we now turn our attention.
A Dominant Script: IPLCs as Stewards of Biodiversity
The scripts of IPLCs as “stewards” or “custodians” of ecosystems are found across
almost all BCPs under study. This occurs where communities have to fight back
antagonistic representations – such as “enemy of nature”– but also every time the
communities are faced with assaults from outsiders on their lands or vindicate
rights over their territories, genetic resources, and/or TK. What does this pervasive reference mean?
If it cannot be disputed that the “small green entrepreneur” script fits well
within the international regime on ABS imbued with ideas about sustainable
development, the same does not hold for the “stewardship of nature” script
whose centrality in the BCPs is far more intriguing. In reality, this is precisely
at this point where the intellectual ferment of the biocultural jurisprudence on
BCPs appears most clearly (Bavikatte & Bennett, 2015; Bavikatte & Jonas, 2009;
Bavikatte et al., 2015). And this is precisely where one may argue that BCPs hold
out promises for IPLCs in terms of greater control over genetic resources/TK
and land claims, and perhaps in terms of negotiating spaces for “non-modern”
worlds to exist.
In light of the latter, it is little wonder that this script is heavily used in BCPs
mainly concerned with land claims and tenure security. Stewardship practices
are distinctively grounded in a sort of “land ethic” shaped by age-old links and
“attachments” to the territory.
28 Admittedly, and particularly in the A frican
context, a significant emphasis is fixed on cultural rights, given that “under
international law, the connection between cultural rights and land rights for
indigenous peoples forms a very important part of the international human rights
legal framework” (Gilbert, 2016; Gilbert & Sena, 2018, p. 204). Thus, the Ogiek
BCP forcefully stresses that: “We have a special relationship with our land and
the natural resources in it. This relationship has special importance to our culture and spiritual values and ultimately for our continued existence as distinct
peoples” (p. 3). The Lamu County BCP underlines in like manner: “We are
the guardians of our environment. We have utilized and conserved our natural
resources acknowledging their importance for future generations. Indeed, our
cultural identity depends on it” (p. 11).
But in general, what singles out BCPs developed in a land claim context is
the foregrounding of a holistic way of life, i.e. the substantial stress established
continuum of basic assumptions about IPLCs (inherently “traditional” in (i);
and potentially “rational” in (ii) – on the pervasiveness of “reason” in the
“premoderns” script – see Peet and Watts (1996, pp. 5–6)). Any other move is
doomed to wield less discursive force and fell short of counteracting harmful
scripts (see Figure 11.2). This can explain why the Ogiek’s BCP, after several
mentions to the ABS regime as a way to improve livelihood, moves on to
articulate the people’s relationship towards “nature” in terms of stewardship.
It is to this script that we now turn our attention.
A Dominant Script: IPLCs as Stewards of Biodiversity
The scripts of IPLCs as “stewards” or “custodians” of ecosystems are found across
almost all BCPs under study. This occurs where communities have to fight back
antagonistic representations – such as “enemy of nature”– but also every time the
communities are faced with assaults from outsiders on their lands or vindicate
rights over their territories, genetic resources, and/or TK. What does this pervasive reference mean?
If it cannot be disputed that the “small green entrepreneur” script fits well
within the international regime on ABS imbued with ideas about sustainable
development, the same does not hold for the “stewardship of nature” script
whose centrality in the BCPs is far more intriguing. In reality, this is precisely
at this point where the intellectual ferment of the biocultural jurisprudence on
BCPs appears most clearly (Bavikatte & Bennett, 2015; Bavikatte & Jonas, 2009;
Bavikatte et al., 2015). And this is precisely where one may argue that BCPs hold
out promises for IPLCs in terms of greater control over genetic resources/TK
and land claims, and perhaps in terms of negotiating spaces for “non-modern”
worlds to exist.
In light of the latter, it is little wonder that this script is heavily used in BCPs
mainly concerned with land claims and tenure security. Stewardship practices
are distinctively grounded in a sort of “land ethic” shaped by age-old links and
“attachments” to the territory.
28 Admittedly, and particularly in the A frican
context, a significant emphasis is fixed on cultural rights, given that “under
international law, the connection between cultural rights and land rights for
indigenous peoples forms a very important part of the international human rights
legal framework” (Gilbert, 2016; Gilbert & Sena, 2018, p. 204). Thus, the Ogiek
BCP forcefully stresses that: “We have a special relationship with our land and
the natural resources in it. This relationship has special importance to our culture and spiritual values and ultimately for our continued existence as distinct
peoples” (p. 3). The Lamu County BCP underlines in like manner: “We are
the guardians of our environment. We have utilized and conserved our natural
resources acknowledging their importance for future generations. Indeed, our
cultural identity depends on it” (p. 11).
But in general, what singles out BCPs developed in a land claim context is
the foregrounding of a holistic way of life, i.e. the substantial stress established