284 Reia Anquet and Fabien Girard
on the inextricable links between the ecosystem, the land, the resources, and
the knowledge, culture, and livelihoods of the communities. This is what the
Lamu County BCP terms “bio-culture” (p. 45) and the BCP of the community
of Degbe Aguinninnou (Benin) “bio cultural heritage” (p. 18). In
Benin, for example, despite it being mainly focused on the ABS process, the
Degbe Aguinninnou BCP unveils a struggle for greater control over their sacred
forests (Gbèvozoun and Gnanhouizoun) and the recognition of their traditional
“social structures”. In preliminary documents, “community rules and procedures
for managing” their resources and forests (p. 18) were, indeed, the main concerns
of this indigenous community.
29 The BCP registers a strong holistic approach
revolving around what the community calls “areas of ancestral and cultural heritage”. These are the “[…] the sacred forests ‘Gbèvozoun’ and ‘Gnahouizou’ and
the sacred lake ‘Houèdagba’”, whose cultural, socioeconomic, and ecological
roles and impact on the well-being of the community and the traditional healers
are highlighted several times (pp. 10–11).
30
The most glaring example of this holistic approach is the BCP of C apulálpam
de Méndez, Oaxaca, developed by the Zapotec indigenous community, located
in the Sierra Juárez (state of Oaxaca). Because of alleged past experiences of
biopiracy, an important part of the BCP is about spelling out local ABS procedure (local PIC, mutually agreed terms – MAT – and benefit- sharing) based
on customary law. It resembles the Ek Balam BCP, another Mexican protocol
developed with the support of the same partners. There is, however, a substantial difference between the two. In the case of C apulálpam, the indigenous community is in dispute with the Mexican state and two neighbouring
communities over the limits of their territory and communal land.
31 Thus,
it emphasises the protection of ancestral territory as a precondition for their
collective identity, sustenance, and survival; and the interconnection of the
elements that populate it. As the community states,
32 we “have historically
developed our life and our cosmovision around our territory and everything
that coexists there” (p. 42).
This echoes the biocultural dimension ascribed to Mexican indigenous
peoples’ territories (Martínez Coria & Haro Encinas, 2015).
33 We should not,
however, overlook the specific sociocultural situation of Capulálpam de Méndez. Capulálpam de Méndez is a town located in Oaxaca, a state accounting
for the largest number of indigenous peoples in Mexico. Oaxaca’s constitution
recognised in 1995 the system of “usos y costumbres” (usages and customs) for
local elections.
34 The constitutional amendment bears testimony to the local
and subaltern struggles for greater territorial autonomy (akin to the nationwide
Zapatista project that has grown into autonomous territories and practices of
local governments) and more broadly for self-determination ( Juan Martínez,
2013, pp. 136–137) within the state. The term “usos y costumbres” refers to an
alternative system to the national electoral regime based on competition between
political parties (ibid., p. 144). But this is also a system “in which civil life mingles with and is incorporated into religious practices. This system is rooted in a
on the inextricable links between the ecosystem, the land, the resources, and
the knowledge, culture, and livelihoods of the communities. This is what the
Lamu County BCP terms “bio-culture” (p. 45) and the BCP of the community
of Degbe Aguinninnou (Benin) “bio cultural heritage
Benin, for example, despite it being mainly focused on the ABS process, the
Degbe Aguinninnou BCP unveils a struggle for greater control over their sacred
forests (Gbèvozoun and Gnanhouizoun) and the recognition of their traditional
“social structures”. In preliminary documents, “community rules and procedures
for managing” their resources and forests (p. 18) were, indeed, the main concerns
of this indigenous community.
29 The BCP registers a strong holistic approach
revolving around what the community calls “areas of ancestral and cultural heritage”. These are the “[…] the sacred forests ‘Gbèvozoun’ and ‘Gnahouizou’ and
the sacred lake ‘Houèdagba’”, whose cultural, socioeconomic, and ecological
roles and impact on the well-being of the community and the traditional healers
are highlighted several times (pp. 10–11).
30
The most glaring example of this holistic approach is the BCP of C apulálpam
de Méndez, Oaxaca, developed by the Zapotec indigenous community, located
in the Sierra Juárez (state of Oaxaca). Because of alleged past experiences of
biopiracy, an important part of the BCP is about spelling out local ABS procedure (local PIC, mutually agreed terms – MAT – and benefit- sharing) based
on customary law. It resembles the Ek Balam BCP, another Mexican protocol
developed with the support of the same partners. There is, however, a substantial difference between the two. In the case of C apulálpam, the indigenous community is in dispute with the Mexican state and two neighbouring
communities over the limits of their territory and communal land.
31 Thus,
it emphasises the protection of ancestral territory as a precondition for their
collective identity, sustenance, and survival; and the interconnection of the
elements that populate it. As the community states,
32 we “have historically
developed our life and our cosmovision around our territory and everything
that coexists there” (p. 42).
This echoes the biocultural dimension ascribed to Mexican indigenous
peoples’ territories (Martínez Coria & Haro Encinas, 2015).
33 We should not,
however, overlook the specific sociocultural situation of Capulálpam de Méndez. Capulálpam de Méndez is a town located in Oaxaca, a state accounting
for the largest number of indigenous peoples in Mexico. Oaxaca’s constitution
recognised in 1995 the system of “usos y costumbres” (usages and customs) for
local elections.
34 The constitutional amendment bears testimony to the local
and subaltern struggles for greater territorial autonomy (akin to the nationwide
Zapatista project that has grown into autonomous territories and practices of
local governments) and more broadly for self-determination ( Juan Martínez,
2013, pp. 136–137) within the state. The term “usos y costumbres” refers to an
alternative system to the national electoral regime based on competition between
political parties (ibid., p. 144). But this is also a system “in which civil life mingles with and is incorporated into religious practices. This system is rooted in a