The Sovereign Stewards of Biodiversity 289
As a second step, authenticated tradition needs to be strengthened or revived.
In the BCP for the community of El Piro, for example, a strong emphasis is
anchored on “initiatives for the recovery of indigenous knowledge, biological
resources associated with genetic resources”, an inventory of the community’s
biological resources, genetic resources and TK, and the rolling out of an “environmental education programme based on traditional rules and practices” (p. 11).
Along the same lines, four BCPs developed as part of the Darwin Project (ToriBossito, Degbe Aguinninnou, Analavory, and Ampangalatsary) include a section
on Community Biodiversity Registers, set up as “repository of the community’s
past” (BCP of Degbe Aguinninnou, p. 25). They also have a section on community seed banks that preserve “traditional” varieties and farmers’ landraces –
especially those on the verge of extinction – and help reintroduce lost varieties.
The final step is to abandon all those practices that cannot qualify as “traditional” by accepted standards as they display too close a proximity with the
Western world. In general, the process takes on a very subtle form. Targeted
“traditional” practices are not pigeonholed – and therefore not disqualified – as
“modern”. Instead, they are left unlabelled and presented alongside impugned
modern practices. This projects them instantaneously into a sphere of illegitimacy. In Tori-Bossito, for instance, shifting cultivation and bush fires are lumped
together with industrial crops (p. 9) and placed under the heading of problematic
practices.
There is certainly some unfairness in this broad-strokes account and onesided criticism of protocols. While the relevance of some traditional practices
to biodiversity conservation is indisputable, some others probably need to be
challenged and, if needed, abandoned. There remains a problem of form, which
reverberates further through every aspect of IPLCs’ identities: creating the illusion that “tradition” is a vital lifeline for IPLCs, while at the same time doing
away with practices (such as slash-and-burn or bush fires)
43 which may be deeply
ingrained in cosmovisions and play a role in sustaining traditional institutions
and livelihoods (Reyes-García et al., 2021; Whyte, 2013). This is at best a dangerous practice. Just as labelling communities “traditional” cannot be used to
chain IPLCs to a romanticised past (Berkes, 2008, p. 239; Holt, 2005, p. 209),
44
so too it cannot be used for a sleight of hand to conceal managerial interventions
and eco-power on subaltern groups.
Triggering Institutional Changes: Fixing Social Regularities,
Rendering Legible
Through a sort of “cherry-picking” process, some BCPs tend to selectively retain
as “traditional” only these practices that fit the funders’ or facilitators’ purposes
or the vision of nature conservation embedded in global environmental agendas. This, it can be argued, is a tool for States and international institutions to
conciliate the Western dream of managing biodiversity and the need to deal with
differences.
As a second step, authenticated tradition needs to be strengthened or revived.
In the BCP for the community of El Piro, for example, a strong emphasis is
anchored on “initiatives for the recovery of indigenous knowledge, biological
resources associated with genetic resources”, an inventory of the community’s
biological resources, genetic resources and TK, and the rolling out of an “environmental education programme based on traditional rules and practices” (p. 11).
Along the same lines, four BCPs developed as part of the Darwin Project (ToriBossito, Degbe Aguinninnou, Analavory, and Ampangalatsary) include a section
on Community Biodiversity Registers, set up as “repository of the community’s
past” (BCP of Degbe Aguinninnou, p. 25). They also have a section on community seed banks that preserve “traditional” varieties and farmers’ landraces –
especially those on the verge of extinction – and help reintroduce lost varieties.
The final step is to abandon all those practices that cannot qualify as “traditional” by accepted standards as they display too close a proximity with the
Western world. In general, the process takes on a very subtle form. Targeted
“traditional” practices are not pigeonholed – and therefore not disqualified – as
“modern”. Instead, they are left unlabelled and presented alongside impugned
modern practices. This projects them instantaneously into a sphere of illegitimacy. In Tori-Bossito, for instance, shifting cultivation and bush fires are lumped
together with industrial crops (p. 9) and placed under the heading of problematic
practices.
There is certainly some unfairness in this broad-strokes account and onesided criticism of protocols. While the relevance of some traditional practices
to biodiversity conservation is indisputable, some others probably need to be
challenged and, if needed, abandoned. There remains a problem of form, which
reverberates further through every aspect of IPLCs’ identities: creating the illusion that “tradition” is a vital lifeline for IPLCs, while at the same time doing
away with practices (such as slash-and-burn or bush fires)
43 which may be deeply
ingrained in cosmovisions and play a role in sustaining traditional institutions
and livelihoods (Reyes-García et al., 2021; Whyte, 2013). This is at best a dangerous practice. Just as labelling communities “traditional” cannot be used to
chain IPLCs to a romanticised past (Berkes, 2008, p. 239; Holt, 2005, p. 209),
44
so too it cannot be used for a sleight of hand to conceal managerial interventions
and eco-power on subaltern groups.
Triggering Institutional Changes: Fixing Social Regularities,
Rendering Legible
Through a sort of “cherry-picking” process, some BCPs tend to selectively retain
as “traditional” only these practices that fit the funders’ or facilitators’ purposes
or the vision of nature conservation embedded in global environmental agendas. This, it can be argued, is a tool for States and international institutions to
conciliate the Western dream of managing biodiversity and the need to deal with
differences.