316 Fabien Girard et al.
subsistence economies and global markets point towards the local as a locus of
political agency, legal innovation, and creative normative strategies driven by
subaltern actors (de Sousa Santos & Rodríguez-Garavito, 2005). Subaltern
actors, social movements, and indigenous activists have been able to sustain a
“cosmopolitanism from below” (Appadurai, 2013), or at times an “insurgent
cosmopolitanism” (de Sousa Santos, 2006) advocated locally for more recognition of communities’ customary laws – an overarching aim of the African
Group throughout the Nagoya negotiations – and sovereignty over natural
resources. At the same time, they have shaped a counter-narrative with a global
reach allowing them to break free from Western hegemony and making room
for non-Western epistemologies and ontologies in international fora. As Kelly
Bannister puts it, “[i]ntentional and thoughtful unearthing and uprooting of
entrenched western ethical traditions and assumptions, and how these are institutionalized in scientific, legal and educational systems, can make space and
create more hospitable ground for c o-creating a shared biocultural ethic that
respects the different values, worldviews and systems involved” (Chapter 2, this
book). In her chapter, exploring consent from a bioethics perspective, she illustrates the depth of these locally driven initiatives within the specific context of
the process of reconciliation in Canada (see already, Bannister, 2018). She shows
how the relational emphasis of biocultural ethics can complement biocultural
rights-based approaches by encouraging a “justice of rights” and a “relational
justice” through right relationships. Looking at cultural protocols, ethical codes,
and codes of practice across different cases, Bannister brings the different aspects
of “consent” to the forefront. She shows that it can become more than a transactional process with an outcome (an exchange of goods and services) – to being
a truly “relational” one, i.e. reflecting a “community’s broader principles and
values”, its worldview and its understanding of relationships among humans, and
between humans and the natural world.
The terminology of “collaborative consent” and “meaningful consenting” proposes to reflect and reform the relationship between Indigenous and
non-Indigenous actors on ABS and beyond, “representing more of an interactive
verb [i.e. consenting] rather than a transactional noun”. As Phare et al. (2018,
p. 1) state, “collaborative consent” implies a “committed engagement between
Indigenous and non-Indigenous governments— acting as equal partners, each
with their asserted authority—to secure mutual consent on proposed paths forward related to matters of common concern and all aspects of governance”.
This form of consent enables “Indigenous values and principles to be living and
embodied (rather than merely aspirational) through co-creation of intentional
and meaningful relationships and fostering concomitant relational accountability” (Bannister, this volume).
Ingrid Hall’s Chapter 4 (“Unmaking the Nature/Culture Divide: The
Ontological Diplomacy of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities at the
CBD”) highlights the interconnectedness of local creativity, locally driven and
indigenous-inspired concepts, tools and counter-narratives on the one hand,
subsistence economies and global markets point towards the local as a locus of
political agency, legal innovation, and creative normative strategies driven by
subaltern actors (de Sousa Santos & Rodríguez-Garavito, 2005). Subaltern
actors, social movements, and indigenous activists have been able to sustain a
“cosmopolitanism from below” (Appadurai, 2013), or at times an “insurgent
cosmopolitanism” (de Sousa Santos, 2006) advocated locally for more recognition of communities’ customary laws – an overarching aim of the African
Group throughout the Nagoya negotiations – and sovereignty over natural
resources. At the same time, they have shaped a counter-narrative with a global
reach allowing them to break free from Western hegemony and making room
for non-Western epistemologies and ontologies in international fora. As Kelly
Bannister puts it, “[i]ntentional and thoughtful unearthing and uprooting of
entrenched western ethical traditions and assumptions, and how these are institutionalized in scientific, legal and educational systems, can make space and
create more hospitable ground for c o-creating a shared biocultural ethic that
respects the different values, worldviews and systems involved” (Chapter 2, this
book). In her chapter, exploring consent from a bioethics perspective, she illustrates the depth of these locally driven initiatives within the specific context of
the process of reconciliation in Canada (see already, Bannister, 2018). She shows
how the relational emphasis of biocultural ethics can complement biocultural
rights-based approaches by encouraging a “justice of rights” and a “relational
justice” through right relationships. Looking at cultural protocols, ethical codes,
and codes of practice across different cases, Bannister brings the different aspects
of “consent” to the forefront. She shows that it can become more than a transactional process with an outcome (an exchange of goods and services) – to being
a truly “relational” one, i.e. reflecting a “community’s broader principles and
values”, its worldview and its understanding of relationships among humans, and
between humans and the natural world.
The terminology of “collaborative consent” and “meaningful consenting” proposes to reflect and reform the relationship between Indigenous and
non-Indigenous actors on ABS and beyond, “representing more of an interactive
verb [i.e. consenting] rather than a transactional noun”. As Phare et al. (2018,
p. 1) state, “collaborative consent” implies a “committed engagement between
Indigenous and non-Indigenous governments— acting as equal partners, each
with their asserted authority—to secure mutual consent on proposed paths forward related to matters of common concern and all aspects of governance”.
This form of consent enables “Indigenous values and principles to be living and
embodied (rather than merely aspirational) through co-creation of intentional
and meaningful relationships and fostering concomitant relational accountability” (Bannister, this volume).
Ingrid Hall’s Chapter 4 (“Unmaking the Nature/Culture Divide: The
Ontological Diplomacy of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities at the
CBD”) highlights the interconnectedness of local creativity, locally driven and
indigenous-inspired concepts, tools and counter-narratives on the one hand,