The Sovereign Stewards of Biodiversity 287
The international NGO and UN communities are aware of the intricate links
between environmental degradation and social inequity, and therefore a concern
for social justice for IPLCs exists (Brosius et al., 1998, p. 158). This is especially true of BCPs, which are also part of a process towards a greater recognition of IPLCs’ rights over their genetic resources and TK, and are thus likely to
meet several “justice challenges” associated with genetic resources and TK (see
Deplazes-Zemp, 2019).
The above paragraph is proof of how politicised biodiversity conservation
has become (Brosius & Hitchner, 2010, p. 146) and the consequences it has
on people-centred conservation and BCPs (“who the people are” is a political question – see Peet & Watts, 1996, p. 27). Attention, therefore, needs to
be paid to the way the “stewardship of biodiversity” script and its attendant
narrative (the centrality of “tradition”) may be used by multilateral lending
agencies, donor institutions, and conservation organisations as a “disciplinary
tool for national and regional planning” (Brosius et al., 1998, p. 163). In this
section, we consider the concrete operation of the script and how actors are
being recruited into it (Lewis & Mosse, 2006, p. 13). We also determine to
what extent this script, through concepts such as tradition, stewardship, and
nature, is involved in community-level changes that multilateral agencies,
development institutions, NGOs, and facilitators may prompt (even inadvertently) through their dealing with a community. Framed in more radical terms,
the problem that we wish to raise is whether BCPs, through the hypostasis of
tradition, stewardship, and nature, are not a conduit for control dynamics and
the reification of communities (Roach et al., 2006, p. 60).
At this point in our chapter, we could be accused of adopting a one-sided
stance. We will, however, critically examine the political potential of the “ethic
of stewardship” in the closing section of this chapter. From the maze of this complex script, we advance that there is a new form of legal subjectivity that BCPs
have created; and that this legal subjectivity is more in tune with the worlds of
the IPLCs.
Co-Opting Tradition, Managing Differences
At this juncture, it should come as no surprise that much of the cases making
up our corpus show pervasive references to “tradition”, together with appeals to
territory, indigeneity (or autochthony as in Kenya),
41 and “communality” (see
above in Mexico). These references are undoubtedly aimed at building “[…]
images of coherent, long-standing, localized sources of authority tied to what
are assumed to be intrinsically sustainable resources management regimes. They
are also used to legitimize, and to render attractive […]” (Brosius et al., 1998,
pp. 164–165).
The BCPs of the community of Degbe Aguinninnou (p. 16) and of the
Municipality of Tori-Bossito (p. 4) stress what they call “traditional management” of territories and natural resources. In the Biocultural Protocol of
The international NGO and UN communities are aware of the intricate links
between environmental degradation and social inequity, and therefore a concern
for social justice for IPLCs exists (Brosius et al., 1998, p. 158). This is especially true of BCPs, which are also part of a process towards a greater recognition of IPLCs’ rights over their genetic resources and TK, and are thus likely to
meet several “justice challenges” associated with genetic resources and TK (see
Deplazes-Zemp, 2019).
The above paragraph is proof of how politicised biodiversity conservation
has become (Brosius & Hitchner, 2010, p. 146) and the consequences it has
on people-centred conservation and BCPs (“who the people are” is a political question – see Peet & Watts, 1996, p. 27). Attention, therefore, needs to
be paid to the way the “stewardship of biodiversity” script and its attendant
narrative (the centrality of “tradition”) may be used by multilateral lending
agencies, donor institutions, and conservation organisations as a “disciplinary
tool for national and regional planning” (Brosius et al., 1998, p. 163). In this
section, we consider the concrete operation of the script and how actors are
being recruited into it (Lewis & Mosse, 2006, p. 13). We also determine to
what extent this script, through concepts such as tradition, stewardship, and
nature, is involved in community-level changes that multilateral agencies,
development institutions, NGOs, and facilitators may prompt (even inadvertently) through their dealing with a community. Framed in more radical terms,
the problem that we wish to raise is whether BCPs, through the hypostasis of
tradition, stewardship, and nature, are not a conduit for control dynamics and
the reification of communities (Roach et al., 2006, p. 60).
At this point in our chapter, we could be accused of adopting a one-sided
stance. We will, however, critically examine the political potential of the “ethic
of stewardship” in the closing section of this chapter. From the maze of this complex script, we advance that there is a new form of legal subjectivity that BCPs
have created; and that this legal subjectivity is more in tune with the worlds of
the IPLCs.
Co-Opting Tradition, Managing Differences
At this juncture, it should come as no surprise that much of the cases making
up our corpus show pervasive references to “tradition”, together with appeals to
territory, indigeneity (or autochthony as in Kenya),
41 and “communality” (see
above in Mexico). These references are undoubtedly aimed at building “[…]
images of coherent, long-standing, localized sources of authority tied to what
are assumed to be intrinsically sustainable resources management regimes. They
are also used to legitimize, and to render attractive […]” (Brosius et al., 1998,
pp. 164–165).
The BCPs of the community of Degbe Aguinninnou (p. 16) and of the
Municipality of Tori-Bossito (p. 4) stress what they call “traditional management” of territories and natural resources. In the Biocultural Protocol of