This concluding chapter resituates each contribution within the broader
intellectual framework canvassed in the introduction. In so doing, it follows the
three thematic focuses that make up the three parts of the book.
Conceptual Insights: Biocultural Diversity, Biocultural Rights, and
Space Making
The first part of the book aimed to provide the reader with some historical
background on BCPs/CPs, their philosophical and political underpinnings, as
well as the expected aims and functions within and beyond ABS laws.
Scholarly literature on “cultural protocols” and “community research protocols”
insists that they stand as “community-level strategies for protecting intangible cultural heritage” (Bannister, 2009, pp. 278–279). However, they fall short of merely
codifying customary laws and traditional governance systems. Besides, diversity
is the rule rather than the exception. As Kelly Bannister states in a previous study
based on a substantial body of protocols that she reiterates in her chapter (Chapter 2, “A Biocultural Ethics Approach to Biocultural Rights: Exploring Rights,
Responsibilities and Relationships through Ethics Initiatives in Canada”):
[s]ome [protocols] are general and overarching, others are specific. Some
are wholly or partly derived from traditional beliefs and practices, others
are negotiated between contracting parties as a strategic tool for governance of a specific project or economic advantage in the market economy.
(ibid., 288)
This echoes what Miri (Margaret) Raven and Daniel Robinson write
in their chapter (Chapter 8, “Biocultural Rights and Protocols in the
12
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Biocultural Jurisprudence in Hindsight: Lessons
for the Way Forward
Fabien Girard, Christine Frison and Ingrid Hall
1
DOI: 10.4324/9781003172642-15
intellectual framework canvassed in the introduction. In so doing, it follows the
three thematic focuses that make up the three parts of the book.
Conceptual Insights: Biocultural Diversity, Biocultural Rights, and
Space Making
The first part of the book aimed to provide the reader with some historical
background on BCPs/CPs, their philosophical and political underpinnings, as
well as the expected aims and functions within and beyond ABS laws.
Scholarly literature on “cultural protocols” and “community research protocols”
insists that they stand as “community-level strategies for protecting intangible cultural heritage” (Bannister, 2009, pp. 278–279). However, they fall short of merely
codifying customary laws and traditional governance systems. Besides, diversity
is the rule rather than the exception. As Kelly Bannister states in a previous study
based on a substantial body of protocols that she reiterates in her chapter (Chapter 2, “A Biocultural Ethics Approach to Biocultural Rights: Exploring Rights,
Responsibilities and Relationships through Ethics Initiatives in Canada”):
[s]ome [protocols] are general and overarching, others are specific. Some
are wholly or partly derived from traditional beliefs and practices, others
are negotiated between contracting parties as a strategic tool for governance of a specific project or economic advantage in the market economy.
(ibid., 288)
This echoes what Miri (Margaret) Raven and Daniel Robinson write
in their chapter (Chapter 8, “Biocultural Rights and Protocols in the
12
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Biocultural Jurisprudence in Hindsight: Lessons
for the Way Forward
Fabien Girard, Christine Frison and Ingrid Hall
1
DOI: 10.4324/9781003172642-15