292 Reia Anquet and Fabien Girard
and non-humans) and reach into practices of cultural belonging, i.e. identities.
This script diffusion is unmistakable in the operation of the “steward of biodiversity” script which partakes in the construction and institutionalisation of what
Astrid Ulloa calls the “ecological native” or “political-ecological agent” (Ulloa,
2005). This is exactly the dual phenomenon of institutionalising an ecological
identity and this identity’s anchoring in tradition that tends to crush the agency
and historicity of IPLCs. It also conceals that these peoples are perfectly connected to, and influenced by, global socioecological and political changes. This is
because it homogenises, naturalises, and reifies diverse cultural practices (Brosius
& Hitchner, 2010, p. 146) that remain mediated by the evolving and adapting
social sphere of values.
To counteract this opinion is Ulloa’s observation: “Despite all the many negative connotations and implications of ecological native representations, indigenous peoples’ movements are using them to transform non-indigenous peoples’
ideas of their identities not only within the nation-state, but also in transnational
arenas” (Ulloa, 2005, p. 215). It is this thought of Ulloa’s that we would like to
explore briefly in this last section. To do this, we place the question of the steward of nature or native ecological in the political ontology debate opened in the
introduction. Is the mobilisation of “the ethic of stewardship” in particular likely
to advance the cause of IPLCs, notably by severing the link with tradition? Is this
ethic able to contribute forging a new ethical and political status as a crucial step
towards the delineation of a new legal subjectivity for the holders of biocultural
rights? What is this likely to yield in terms of space opening for discrete IPLCs’
identities? Is a new process of legal subjectivation a potential antidote to the
subject- making power of scripts?
The ethic of stewardship that can be traced back to Posey’s (1999) work
and environmental ethicists’ breakthroughs, such as Callicott’s (1994), has
been mainstreamed in the scientific literature on property rights and biodiversity conservation and recently found its way into policy documents. The best
example of this is undoubtedly the Tkarihwaié:ri Code of Ethical Conduct,
which now includes the definition of “Traditional guardianship/custodianship”, stressing the “holistic interconnectedness of humanity with ecosystems”
and making the case that
Indigenous and local communities may also view certain species of plants
and animals as sacred and, as custodians of biological diversity, have
responsibilities for their well-being and sustainability, and this should be
respected and taken into account in all activities/interactions.
51
While the risk that this ethic be construed in a way that would impose a “duty of
stewardship” on IPLCs cannot be wiped out with a stroke of a pen,
52 we would
like to bring forward a different interpretation. As both the Tkarihwaié:ri Code
of Ethical Conduct and the Colombian Constitutional Court's decision in the
and non-humans) and reach into practices of cultural belonging, i.e. identities.
This script diffusion is unmistakable in the operation of the “steward of biodiversity” script which partakes in the construction and institutionalisation of what
Astrid Ulloa calls the “ecological native” or “political-ecological agent” (Ulloa,
2005). This is exactly the dual phenomenon of institutionalising an ecological
identity and this identity’s anchoring in tradition that tends to crush the agency
and historicity of IPLCs. It also conceals that these peoples are perfectly connected to, and influenced by, global socioecological and political changes. This is
because it homogenises, naturalises, and reifies diverse cultural practices (Brosius
& Hitchner, 2010, p. 146) that remain mediated by the evolving and adapting
social sphere of values.
To counteract this opinion is Ulloa’s observation: “Despite all the many negative connotations and implications of ecological native representations, indigenous peoples’ movements are using them to transform non-indigenous peoples’
ideas of their identities not only within the nation-state, but also in transnational
arenas” (Ulloa, 2005, p. 215). It is this thought of Ulloa’s that we would like to
explore briefly in this last section. To do this, we place the question of the steward of nature or native ecological in the political ontology debate opened in the
introduction. Is the mobilisation of “the ethic of stewardship” in particular likely
to advance the cause of IPLCs, notably by severing the link with tradition? Is this
ethic able to contribute forging a new ethical and political status as a crucial step
towards the delineation of a new legal subjectivity for the holders of biocultural
rights? What is this likely to yield in terms of space opening for discrete IPLCs’
identities? Is a new process of legal subjectivation a potential antidote to the
subject- making power of scripts?
The ethic of stewardship that can be traced back to Posey’s (1999) work
and environmental ethicists’ breakthroughs, such as Callicott’s (1994), has
been mainstreamed in the scientific literature on property rights and biodiversity conservation and recently found its way into policy documents. The best
example of this is undoubtedly the Tkarihwaié:ri Code of Ethical Conduct,
which now includes the definition of “Traditional guardianship/custodianship”, stressing the “holistic interconnectedness of humanity with ecosystems”
and making the case that
Indigenous and local communities may also view certain species of plants
and animals as sacred and, as custodians of biological diversity, have
responsibilities for their well-being and sustainability, and this should be
respected and taken into account in all activities/interactions.
51
While the risk that this ethic be construed in a way that would impose a “duty of
stewardship” on IPLCs cannot be wiped out with a stroke of a pen,
52 we would
like to bring forward a different interpretation. As both the Tkarihwaié:ri Code
of Ethical Conduct and the Colombian Constitutional Court's decision in the