The Sovereign Stewards of Biodiversity 301
Notes
1 The authors would warmly like to thank Fitiavana Ranaivoson and Manohisoa
Rakotondrabe who aided in the gathering of data information in Madagascar, and
Benjamin Coudurier who provided helpful research assistance. This chapter was
greatly helped by the insightful comments of our colleagues Ingrid Hall, Christine
Frison, and Mélanie Congretel. We would sincerely like to thank them. We are solely
responsible for any remaining errors. *All URLs retrieved on 1 September 2021.
2 See Chapter 1 of this book.
3 This is examined at length in Giulia Sajeva’s Chapter 6 of this book.
4 CDB, COP 10, Decision X/42. The Tkarihwaié:ri Code of Ethical Conduct to
Ensure Respect for the Cultural and Intellectual Heritage of Indigenous and Local
Communities, Nagoya, UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/42, 29 October 2010, para. 20
(hereinafter: The Tkarihwaié:ri Code).
5 Corte Constitucional de Colombia, Sentencia de revisión de tutela T-622/16 (2016)
(hereinafter, Atrato River case (2016)).
6 The Tkarihwaié:ri Code, para. 20.
7 Also see Chapter 1 of this book.
8 On the history of BCP negotiations, please refer to Chapter 1 of this book.
9 The term ICCA does not refer to a specific category of lands and territories. It is a
generic term used by the ICCA consortium, but now also by the IUCN and CBD,
to encompass a wide variety of lands, areas, and territories that share a number of
common characteristics (Kothari et al., 2012, p. 16). According to Recommendation WPC Rec 5.26, these are “natural and modified ecosystems, including significant biodiversity, ecological services and cultural values, voluntarily conserved by
indigenous and local communities through customary laws or other effective means”
(IUCN & The World Conservation Union, 2005). Also see RES 3.049 Community
Conserved Areas (IUCN & World Conservation Congress, 2005) and RES 4.049 &
4.050 (IUCN & World Conservation Congress, 2009). ICCAs are now supported
by the COP of the CBD: COP, CBD, Decision X/31. Protected areas, UNEP/
CBD/COP/DEC/X/31, 27 October 2010; Decision XI/24, UNEP/CBD/COP/
DEC/XI/24, 5 December 2012, para. 1, e; Decision XIII/2. Progress towards the
achievement of Aichi Biodiversity Targets 11 and 12, CBD/COP/DEC/XIII/2, 12
December 2016, para. 7; Decision 14/8, Protected areas and other effective areabased conservation measures, CBD/COP/DEC/14/8, Annex II. Also see the ongoing
work on “other effective area-based conservation measures” (CBD/COP/DEC/14/,
para. 2) (IUCN & World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), 2019).
10 This is elaborated below.
11 As the shadow of Manicheism looms large on these issues, it should be said that
even (high) market economies hinge on what Gudeman calls the dialectic of trade
and mutuality (Gudeman, 2012, p. 14). Admittedly, as Comaroff and Comarrof
convincingly have shown, the irruption of commerce cannot straightforwardly be
likened to “alienation-by-abstraction”, “corrosion-by-commodification” (Comaroff
& Comaroff, 2010, p. 25). From the perspective of the “agents” of moral economies, penetration of market economies, the emergence of “ethno-preneurialism”
(Comaroff & Comaroff, 2010, p. 27; Rutert, 2020, p. 286) may also have a productive effect. In addition, Strathern made the important point that if market “disembeds
what is usable”, “the thrust of the indigenous IPR movement is to re-embed, recontextualise, indigenous ownership in indigenous traditional culture” (Strathern,
1996, p. 22). That said, what is stressed here is the effect of “reification, cascading,
and debasement” that may follow submersion of the “mutual realm” by the “market
realm” (Gudeman, 2012, p. 57). In sum, if the conclusion of this chapter probably
takes us closer to Comarrof and Comaroff’s analysis than to Gudeman’s, the disruptive effects of the “language of trade” on the “house economy” and the “base”
(Gudeman, 2001, p. 5) must not be overlooked.
Notes
1 The authors would warmly like to thank Fitiavana Ranaivoson and Manohisoa
Rakotondrabe who aided in the gathering of data information in Madagascar, and
Benjamin Coudurier who provided helpful research assistance. This chapter was
greatly helped by the insightful comments of our colleagues Ingrid Hall, Christine
Frison, and Mélanie Congretel. We would sincerely like to thank them. We are solely
responsible for any remaining errors. *All URLs retrieved on 1 September 2021.
2 See Chapter 1 of this book.
3 This is examined at length in Giulia Sajeva’s Chapter 6 of this book.
4 CDB, COP 10, Decision X/42. The Tkarihwaié:ri Code of Ethical Conduct to
Ensure Respect for the Cultural and Intellectual Heritage of Indigenous and Local
Communities, Nagoya, UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/42, 29 October 2010, para. 20
(hereinafter: The Tkarihwaié:ri Code).
5 Corte Constitucional de Colombia, Sentencia de revisión de tutela T-622/16 (2016)
(hereinafter, Atrato River case (2016)).
6 The Tkarihwaié:ri Code, para. 20.
7 Also see Chapter 1 of this book.
8 On the history of BCP negotiations, please refer to Chapter 1 of this book.
9 The term ICCA does not refer to a specific category of lands and territories. It is a
generic term used by the ICCA consortium, but now also by the IUCN and CBD,
to encompass a wide variety of lands, areas, and territories that share a number of
common characteristics (Kothari et al., 2012, p. 16). According to Recommendation WPC Rec 5.26, these are “natural and modified ecosystems, including significant biodiversity, ecological services and cultural values, voluntarily conserved by
indigenous and local communities through customary laws or other effective means”
(IUCN & The World Conservation Union, 2005). Also see RES 3.049 Community
Conserved Areas (IUCN & World Conservation Congress, 2005) and RES 4.049 &
4.050 (IUCN & World Conservation Congress, 2009). ICCAs are now supported
by the COP of the CBD: COP, CBD, Decision X/31. Protected areas, UNEP/
CBD/COP/DEC/X/31, 27 October 2010; Decision XI/24, UNEP/CBD/COP/
DEC/XI/24, 5 December 2012, para. 1, e; Decision XIII/2. Progress towards the
achievement of Aichi Biodiversity Targets 11 and 12, CBD/COP/DEC/XIII/2, 12
December 2016, para. 7; Decision 14/8, Protected areas and other effective areabased conservation measures, CBD/COP/DEC/14/8, Annex II. Also see the ongoing
work on “other effective area-based conservation measures” (CBD/COP/DEC/14/,
para. 2) (IUCN & World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), 2019).
10 This is elaborated below.
11 As the shadow of Manicheism looms large on these issues, it should be said that
even (high) market economies hinge on what Gudeman calls the dialectic of trade
and mutuality (Gudeman, 2012, p. 14). Admittedly, as Comaroff and Comarrof
convincingly have shown, the irruption of commerce cannot straightforwardly be
likened to “alienation-by-abstraction”, “corrosion-by-commodification” (Comaroff
& Comaroff, 2010, p. 25). From the perspective of the “agents” of moral economies, penetration of market economies, the emergence of “ethno-preneurialism”
(Comaroff & Comaroff, 2010, p. 27; Rutert, 2020, p. 286) may also have a productive effect. In addition, Strathern made the important point that if market “disembeds
what is usable”, “the thrust of the indigenous IPR movement is to re-embed, recontextualise, indigenous ownership in indigenous traditional culture” (Strathern,
1996, p. 22). That said, what is stressed here is the effect of “reification, cascading,
and debasement” that may follow submersion of the “mutual realm” by the “market
realm” (Gudeman, 2012, p. 57). In sum, if the conclusion of this chapter probably
takes us closer to Comarrof and Comaroff’s analysis than to Gudeman’s, the disruptive effects of the “language of trade” on the “house economy” and the “base”
(Gudeman, 2001, p. 5) must not be overlooked.