326 Fabien Girard et al.
intervention, or eco-governmentality that is only distinguishable from past
politics in the fact that there is “[…] a shift from the management of non-human
nature to the management of people” (Roach et al., 2006)? In short, are BCPs,
through the hypostasis of “nature” and “tradition”, a conduit for control dynamics and community reification?
In their chapter, Fabien Girard and Reia Anquet (Chapter 11, “Biocultural
Community Protocols and the Ethic of Stewardship: The Sovereign Stewards of
Biodiversity”) explore these different avenues.
They begin by resituating BCPs in a context, shaped by the nature-culture
mould, wherein we have seen the proliferation of community-based initiatives
aimed at protecting biocultural heritage (e.g. ICCAs, Biocultural Territories, and
biocultural rights). The study examines seven BCPs developed in Africa (Benin,
Kenya, and Madagascar) and Latin America (Mexico and Panama), all of which
strive to a greater or lesser extent to open space (Mulrennan & Bussières, 2020;
Nemogá et al., 2018) to non-naturalistic ontologies.
Grounding its analysis in political ontology, the chapter questions this optimistic vision, arguing that the ABS framework is embedded in Western/European legal constructs and their naturalistic underpinnings. For example, if BCPs
certainly endeavour to protect IPLCs’ biocultural heritage, they remain within
the economist model (“win-win” approach) underwriting the ABS regime.
There is much proof of this in the grey and scholarly literatures alike, making the
point that BCPs are conciliatory tools allowing economic development, biodiversity maintenance, and the preservation of IPLCs’ identities. This model also
reflects Bavikatte’s deepest convictions (Bavikatte et al., 2010, p. 298), when he
saw in BCPs a powerful device to navigate the two extreme poles of commodification and inalienability in an ABS context (building on Radin’s “incomplete
modification”, 1987).
Drawing further on the sociology of sciences and Science and Technology
Studies (STS), the authors identify different “scripts”, defined as stories and
non-discursive elements (e.g. objects, conducts, and institutions), that are able to
“define actors” (Akrich, 1992, p. 207), allocate roles and tasks, and finally enrol
and “enscript”. Scripts are powerful, for they partake in the “institutional and
regulatory spaces in which the knowledge and practices are encoded, negotiated,
and contested” (Peet & Watts, 1996, p. 11) – further, they can mould “social
practices and relationships of power” (Ulloa, 2005, p. 5).
Fabien Girard and Reia Anquet unveil four scripts in the corpus of BCPs under
review. The authors demonstrate that they can all be traced back to the naturalist ontological matrix (Blaser, 2013), even though some are present-day scripts
(IPLCs as stewards of nature and IPLCs as small green entrepreneurs). Others,
though, belong to the past but regularly resurface in post- or neo-colonial contexts. Furthermore, the authors show that protocols may result in reification
processes whereby the only practices allowed to subsist are those conforming to
the developer’s or conservationist’s vision of what development and conservation
should be.
intervention, or eco-governmentality that is only distinguishable from past
politics in the fact that there is “[…] a shift from the management of non-human
nature to the management of people” (Roach et al., 2006)? In short, are BCPs,
through the hypostasis of “nature” and “tradition”, a conduit for control dynamics and community reification?
In their chapter, Fabien Girard and Reia Anquet (Chapter 11, “Biocultural
Community Protocols and the Ethic of Stewardship: The Sovereign Stewards of
Biodiversity”) explore these different avenues.
They begin by resituating BCPs in a context, shaped by the nature-culture
mould, wherein we have seen the proliferation of community-based initiatives
aimed at protecting biocultural heritage (e.g. ICCAs, Biocultural Territories, and
biocultural rights). The study examines seven BCPs developed in Africa (Benin,
Kenya, and Madagascar) and Latin America (Mexico and Panama), all of which
strive to a greater or lesser extent to open space (Mulrennan & Bussières, 2020;
Nemogá et al., 2018) to non-naturalistic ontologies.
Grounding its analysis in political ontology, the chapter questions this optimistic vision, arguing that the ABS framework is embedded in Western/European legal constructs and their naturalistic underpinnings. For example, if BCPs
certainly endeavour to protect IPLCs’ biocultural heritage, they remain within
the economist model (“win-win” approach) underwriting the ABS regime.
There is much proof of this in the grey and scholarly literatures alike, making the
point that BCPs are conciliatory tools allowing economic development, biodiversity maintenance, and the preservation of IPLCs’ identities. This model also
reflects Bavikatte’s deepest convictions (Bavikatte et al., 2010, p. 298), when he
saw in BCPs a powerful device to navigate the two extreme poles of commodification and inalienability in an ABS context (building on Radin’s “incomplete
modification”, 1987).
Drawing further on the sociology of sciences and Science and Technology
Studies (STS), the authors identify different “scripts”, defined as stories and
non-discursive elements (e.g. objects, conducts, and institutions), that are able to
“define actors” (Akrich, 1992, p. 207), allocate roles and tasks, and finally enrol
and “enscript”. Scripts are powerful, for they partake in the “institutional and
regulatory spaces in which the knowledge and practices are encoded, negotiated,
and contested” (Peet & Watts, 1996, p. 11) – further, they can mould “social
practices and relationships of power” (Ulloa, 2005, p. 5).
Fabien Girard and Reia Anquet unveil four scripts in the corpus of BCPs under
review. The authors demonstrate that they can all be traced back to the naturalist ontological matrix (Blaser, 2013), even though some are present-day scripts
(IPLCs as stewards of nature and IPLCs as small green entrepreneurs). Others,
though, belong to the past but regularly resurface in post- or neo-colonial contexts. Furthermore, the authors show that protocols may result in reification
processes whereby the only practices allowed to subsist are those conforming to
the developer’s or conservationist’s vision of what development and conservation
should be.