318 Fabien Girard et al.
in the ongoing and laborious work of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on
Farmers’ Rights as suitable mechanisms to implement farmers’ rights.
10
In Chapter 3 (“Sumaq kawsay (Good living) and indigenous potatoes: On
the delicate exercise of ontological diplomacy”), Ingrid Hall reveals that different philosophical underpinnings and fundamental assumptions about IPLCs and
the conservation of nature underwrite current discussions about BCPs/CPs. She
indicates that, in the Potato Park case, different biocultural concepts, methods,
and tools have been deployed and experimented with in order to establish the
emblematic Potato Park biocultural heritage territory as a project of in situ conservation; the biocultural protocol is only one of these tools.
The notion of “territory” remains the magnet, very much in line with the
belief held by Darrell Posey, Graham Dutfield, and Alejandro Argumedo that
the right to land and territory is an absolute prerequisite for the continuation
of IPLCs’ identities (Posey, 1995). As Posey asserts, “[c]ontrol over cultural, scientific, and intellectual property is de facto self-determination, although only
after rights to land and territory are secured by law and practice […]” (Posey,
2004b, p. 156). To achieve this goal, Posey et al. championed a “bundle of rights”
approach – dubbed “traditional resources rights” (TRRs) – understood as an
“integrated rights concept that recognises the inextricable link between cultural
and biological diversity” (Posey & Dutfield, 1996, p. 95). However, they firmly
believed that TRRs aimed first to secure the human rights of Indigenous peoples
and local communities, and then only by extension to sustain the right to development and environmental conservation (ibid.).
In contrast, Giulia Sajeva carries out a critical appraisal of the jurisprudential underpinnings of BCPs in Chapter 6, “The Legal Framework behind Biocultural Rights: An Analysis of Their Pros and Cons for Indigenous Peoples
and for Local Communities”. She exposes how much of the recent literature on
protocols draws on Kabir Bavikatte’s breakthrough book on biocultural rights,
Stewarding the Earth (Bavikatte, 2014), and his work within the South A frican
NGO Natural Justice, co-founded with Harry Jonas. Their work has been highly
influential in the process leading up to the adoption of the Nagoya Protocol.
Unlike TRRs, biocultural rights are overtly built upon two foundations: one
relates to the interests of IPLCs – as a group rights approach – and the other
pertains to a more general interest of humankind (or the biotic community at
large) in the conservation of the environment – a universal rights approach (also
see Sajeva, 2018, p. 99 and seq.). In other words, their international recognition
is premised on their instrumental role in the conservation and sustainable use of
the environment, taking the ethic of stewardship as its central node. This new
intellectual protection stresses the primordial role of the ethic of stewardship and
the continuation of sustainable practices and lifestyles. For Giulia Sajeva, this is
not without risks as
[b]iocultural rights may be claimed for only by sustainable Indigenous peoples and local communities and bind them to exercise the rights in their
in the ongoing and laborious work of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on
Farmers’ Rights as suitable mechanisms to implement farmers’ rights.
10
In Chapter 3 (“Sumaq kawsay (Good living) and indigenous potatoes: On
the delicate exercise of ontological diplomacy”), Ingrid Hall reveals that different philosophical underpinnings and fundamental assumptions about IPLCs and
the conservation of nature underwrite current discussions about BCPs/CPs. She
indicates that, in the Potato Park case, different biocultural concepts, methods,
and tools have been deployed and experimented with in order to establish the
emblematic Potato Park biocultural heritage territory as a project of in situ conservation; the biocultural protocol is only one of these tools.
The notion of “territory” remains the magnet, very much in line with the
belief held by Darrell Posey, Graham Dutfield, and Alejandro Argumedo that
the right to land and territory is an absolute prerequisite for the continuation
of IPLCs’ identities (Posey, 1995). As Posey asserts, “[c]ontrol over cultural, scientific, and intellectual property is de facto self-determination, although only
after rights to land and territory are secured by law and practice […]” (Posey,
2004b, p. 156). To achieve this goal, Posey et al. championed a “bundle of rights”
approach – dubbed “traditional resources rights” (TRRs) – understood as an
“integrated rights concept that recognises the inextricable link between cultural
and biological diversity” (Posey & Dutfield, 1996, p. 95). However, they firmly
believed that TRRs aimed first to secure the human rights of Indigenous peoples
and local communities, and then only by extension to sustain the right to development and environmental conservation (ibid.).
In contrast, Giulia Sajeva carries out a critical appraisal of the jurisprudential underpinnings of BCPs in Chapter 6, “The Legal Framework behind Biocultural Rights: An Analysis of Their Pros and Cons for Indigenous Peoples
and for Local Communities”. She exposes how much of the recent literature on
protocols draws on Kabir Bavikatte’s breakthrough book on biocultural rights,
Stewarding the Earth (Bavikatte, 2014), and his work within the South A frican
NGO Natural Justice, co-founded with Harry Jonas. Their work has been highly
influential in the process leading up to the adoption of the Nagoya Protocol.
Unlike TRRs, biocultural rights are overtly built upon two foundations: one
relates to the interests of IPLCs – as a group rights approach – and the other
pertains to a more general interest of humankind (or the biotic community at
large) in the conservation of the environment – a universal rights approach (also
see Sajeva, 2018, p. 99 and seq.). In other words, their international recognition
is premised on their instrumental role in the conservation and sustainable use of
the environment, taking the ethic of stewardship as its central node. This new
intellectual protection stresses the primordial role of the ethic of stewardship and
the continuation of sustainable practices and lifestyles. For Giulia Sajeva, this is
not without risks as
[b]iocultural rights may be claimed for only by sustainable Indigenous peoples and local communities and bind them to exercise the rights in their