The Sovereign Stewards of Biodiversity 285
worldview according to which the individual forms a part of the community and
has particular duties and rights”, and covers community life in its civic, judicial,
and territorial dimensions (Polo & Danielson, 2013, 170; also see Juan Martínez,
2013, 141).
The “usos y costumbres” system is used in Capulálpam de Méndez, but with
a distinctive feature. The town comprises one single nucleus of human settlement,
35 i.e. one community only. This means that the town and the agrarian
community
36 are governed, respectively, by a local assembly of citizens (“asamblea
general de ciudadanos”) and a community assembly governing the agrarian community (“asamblea comunitaria”).
37 But both institutions are entrenched in the
cargos system and tequio (unpaid work to benefit the community) as embodiments
of the local “usos y costumbres”.
Cargos are a system of rotating civic and religious responsibilities among community members (citizens for the municipality and comuneros for the agrarian
community) based “on merit accumulated by service in a rising hierarchy of civic
positions” (Antinori & Rausser, 2003, p. 5). Even if the cargo system originated
in the colonial period, it is often considered a pre-Hispanic institution – mainly
“indigenous” – that needs to be revived or reconstituted where it has disappeared
(Blanco, 2012). This is of course part of political project geared towards territorial rights and political autonomy that goes along with attempts at giving an
ethico-political foundation and tools for resistance to communities through such
concepts as “communality” (“comunalidad”)
38 that underlines a human’s belonging to the land (Martinez Luna, 2010) and an individual’s embeddedness in the
community (Polo & Danielson, 2013).
In summary, most protocols under consideration in this chapter draw
heavily on the idea that IPLCs are “stewards” of their lands, territories, and
resources. This is less true for the Mexican protocols, where different philosophical foundations give greater weight to the land and acknowledge a
foundational dimension for community life and cosmovision. All the other
BCPs in this study state that the communities are “guardians” of their environment, “conservators of biodiversity”, and at the very least that they have
managed “traditionally” and “sustainably” their environment from generation
to generation. In most instances, and it is where all the protocols can be said
to coalesce, the “stewardship” role is described as stemming from historical, spiritual, and sociocultural attachments to the land, which translates into
customary rules and institutional arrangements that regulate, and at times
prohibit,
39 access to, and use of, resources and knowledge. Ultimately, these
BCPs tell of a “natural conservationist” representation stressing that IPLCs
have obligations and responsibilities towards their land, biocultural heritage,
and future generations. The presence of this representation is no accident: it
conveys that which makes IPLCs unique. It also eschews attempts to deprive
IPLCs of history, culture, and agency – while at the same time opening spaces
for discussing ontologically what is needed to support their distinctive identities and worlds.
worldview according to which the individual forms a part of the community and
has particular duties and rights”, and covers community life in its civic, judicial,
and territorial dimensions (Polo & Danielson, 2013, 170; also see Juan Martínez,
2013, 141).
The “usos y costumbres” system is used in Capulálpam de Méndez, but with
a distinctive feature. The town comprises one single nucleus of human settlement,
35 i.e. one community only. This means that the town and the agrarian
community
36 are governed, respectively, by a local assembly of citizens (“asamblea
general de ciudadanos”) and a community assembly governing the agrarian community (“asamblea comunitaria”).
37 But both institutions are entrenched in the
cargos system and tequio (unpaid work to benefit the community) as embodiments
of the local “usos y costumbres”.
Cargos are a system of rotating civic and religious responsibilities among community members (citizens for the municipality and comuneros for the agrarian
community) based “on merit accumulated by service in a rising hierarchy of civic
positions” (Antinori & Rausser, 2003, p. 5). Even if the cargo system originated
in the colonial period, it is often considered a pre-Hispanic institution – mainly
“indigenous” – that needs to be revived or reconstituted where it has disappeared
(Blanco, 2012). This is of course part of political project geared towards territorial rights and political autonomy that goes along with attempts at giving an
ethico-political foundation and tools for resistance to communities through such
concepts as “communality” (“comunalidad”)
38 that underlines a human’s belonging to the land (Martinez Luna, 2010) and an individual’s embeddedness in the
community (Polo & Danielson, 2013).
In summary, most protocols under consideration in this chapter draw
heavily on the idea that IPLCs are “stewards” of their lands, territories, and
resources. This is less true for the Mexican protocols, where different philosophical foundations give greater weight to the land and acknowledge a
foundational dimension for community life and cosmovision. All the other
BCPs in this study state that the communities are “guardians” of their environment, “conservators of biodiversity”, and at the very least that they have
managed “traditionally” and “sustainably” their environment from generation
to generation. In most instances, and it is where all the protocols can be said
to coalesce, the “stewardship” role is described as stemming from historical, spiritual, and sociocultural attachments to the land, which translates into
customary rules and institutional arrangements that regulate, and at times
prohibit,
39 access to, and use of, resources and knowledge. Ultimately, these
BCPs tell of a “natural conservationist” representation stressing that IPLCs
have obligations and responsibilities towards their land, biocultural heritage,
and future generations. The presence of this representation is no accident: it
conveys that which makes IPLCs unique. It also eschews attempts to deprive
IPLCs of history, culture, and agency – while at the same time opening spaces
for discussing ontologically what is needed to support their distinctive identities and worlds.