Concluding Thoughts 319
basket in ways that do not harm the environment, but actually promote its
protection. They are environmentally-conditioned rights.
(Saveja, this volume, also see, Sajeva, 2021)
In Chapter 8, “Biocultural Rights and Protocols in the Pacific”, Miri ( Margaret)
Raven and Daniel Robinson make the point that, apart from reactivating the
“noble savage” myth (Alcorn, 1994; Raymond, 2007; Redford, 1991), “overly prescriptive uses of the term [stewardship] risks simplifying the everyday lived realities
of Indigenous peoples”. Importantly, existing uses of the “stewardship” concept
may prove at odds with specific ontological schemes (Descola & Sahlins, 2014),
such as totemism, wherein humans entertain a kinship network and a relational
ethic with plants and animals (Robinson & Raven, 2020).
Biocultural Community Protocols, Access and
Benefit-Sharing, and Beyond
The book’s second section embarks upon a thorough examination of recent
BCPs/CPs informed by practical experience, community-based action research,
and ethnographic work. The chapters included under this heading mainly focus
on the ABS regime, although it strives to paint a broader picture through an
incursion into a community protocol developed outside the Nagoya Protocol
framework. This part addresses the content and functions of the BCPs/CPs, as
well as the process of negotiation.
Mapping BCPs/CPs: Content and Functions
The chapter written by Pía Marchegiani and Louisa Parks (Chapter 7,
“ Community Protocols as Tools for Collective Action beyond Legal Pluralism –
the Case of Tracks in the Salt”) studies the protocol produced by the Atacama
communities in the Salinas Grandes and Laguna de Guayatayoc area of northwest Argentina as an enlightening example beyond ABS laws. It confirms a
deep-rooted trend towards the increasing use of CPs as a tool for protecting a
territory against the extractive industry or massive state-led development programmes. Several CPs have been developed in Africa
11 and Latin America
12
by IPLCs along these lines to avoid or halt any encroachment upon, or breach
of, their customary tenure and resource rights, as well as innovation, practices,
sacred sites, rituals, and customary laws. In doing so, these CPs share a common
feature with the BCPs/CPs developed in an ABS context. In all but a tiny number of cases, land tenure and resource rights are mentioned as a matter of concern
or a contentious issue. They are the backbone of most BCPs/CPs, operating as
a living matrix connecting the communities’ spiritual, cultural, and reciprocal
relationships to nature.
Leslé Jansen and Rayna Sutherland’s sensitive account (Chapter 9, “The
Khoikhoi Community’s Biocultural Rights Journey with Rooibos”) of the San
basket in ways that do not harm the environment, but actually promote its
protection. They are environmentally-conditioned rights.
(Saveja, this volume, also see, Sajeva, 2021)
In Chapter 8, “Biocultural Rights and Protocols in the Pacific”, Miri ( Margaret)
Raven and Daniel Robinson make the point that, apart from reactivating the
“noble savage” myth (Alcorn, 1994; Raymond, 2007; Redford, 1991), “overly prescriptive uses of the term [stewardship] risks simplifying the everyday lived realities
of Indigenous peoples”. Importantly, existing uses of the “stewardship” concept
may prove at odds with specific ontological schemes (Descola & Sahlins, 2014),
such as totemism, wherein humans entertain a kinship network and a relational
ethic with plants and animals (Robinson & Raven, 2020).
Biocultural Community Protocols, Access and
Benefit-Sharing, and Beyond
The book’s second section embarks upon a thorough examination of recent
BCPs/CPs informed by practical experience, community-based action research,
and ethnographic work. The chapters included under this heading mainly focus
on the ABS regime, although it strives to paint a broader picture through an
incursion into a community protocol developed outside the Nagoya Protocol
framework. This part addresses the content and functions of the BCPs/CPs, as
well as the process of negotiation.
Mapping BCPs/CPs: Content and Functions
The chapter written by Pía Marchegiani and Louisa Parks (Chapter 7,
“ Community Protocols as Tools for Collective Action beyond Legal Pluralism –
the Case of Tracks in the Salt”) studies the protocol produced by the Atacama
communities in the Salinas Grandes and Laguna de Guayatayoc area of northwest Argentina as an enlightening example beyond ABS laws. It confirms a
deep-rooted trend towards the increasing use of CPs as a tool for protecting a
territory against the extractive industry or massive state-led development programmes. Several CPs have been developed in Africa
11 and Latin America
12
by IPLCs along these lines to avoid or halt any encroachment upon, or breach
of, their customary tenure and resource rights, as well as innovation, practices,
sacred sites, rituals, and customary laws. In doing so, these CPs share a common
feature with the BCPs/CPs developed in an ABS context. In all but a tiny number of cases, land tenure and resource rights are mentioned as a matter of concern
or a contentious issue. They are the backbone of most BCPs/CPs, operating as
a living matrix connecting the communities’ spiritual, cultural, and reciprocal
relationships to nature.
Leslé Jansen and Rayna Sutherland’s sensitive account (Chapter 9, “The
Khoikhoi Community’s Biocultural Rights Journey with Rooibos”) of the San