Concluding Thoughts 327
The authors pay specific attention to the “steward of nature” script in its
multifaceted nature. This script is undergirded by an “ethics of stewardship”
that the introduction likens to a “situated ethics” (Puig de la Bellacasa, 2017,
p. 150) stemming from daily engagements with, and care of, all those which
– visible, invisible, humans, and non-humans – populates the land (the “land
community”: Leopold, 1991, p. 310). Within a new legal context marked by
the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement), Act 2017 (Byrnes,
2004; Iorns Magallanes, 2019; Magallanes, 2008; O’Bryan, 2017; Rodgers,
2017)
14 or the Atrato River case (Calzadilla, 2019; Cano Pecharroman, 2018),
BCPs may be read as part of a broader political strategy. This context has enabled IPLCs to construct their ecological identities and to reopen discussions,
this time informed by ontological investigations, about the political and legal
status of IPLCs.
Concluding this chapter, the authors argue that the mobilisation of the ethic
of stewardship allows for specifying the ethico-political status of the new subjects, i.e. the being of the persona (in this case a “group”) to whom these new
rights relate (Zarka, 1999). Furthermore, it makes room for more-than-humans
and new assemblages cutting across the subject-object divide.
Conclusion
Based on the reflections presented in this book, we propose now to distinguish
between different protocols according to the main functions they can perform
and their political significance. Indeed, some of them are primarily technical
tools and have a very limited scope, while at the other end of the spectrum, others carry political claims of the utmost importance and go so far as to put forward
alternative ontologies to the dominant naturalism. The following reading grid
allows us to explore how BCPs/CPs can become powerful tools and go beyond
the status of purely technical instruments to constitute political and ontological
claims.
We have distinguished the following types of protocols:
‒ Purely technical instruments. In this case, BCPs/CPs aim to connect local
PIC and MAT with customary rules and procedures to ensure that community values and inalienable parts of their heritage are respected throughout
the negotiations. Some legislation now clearly envisions these interlinkages,
as Fabien Girard, Ingrid Hall, and Christine Frison recall for Madagascar
and Benin in Chapter 1 (“Community Protocols and Biocultural Rights:
Unravelling the Biocultural Nexus in ABS”).
‒ Call for the recognition of local procedures in ABS. Next, one may
well imagine a law foreseeing a community PIC and benefit-sharing
process – as will be the case very soon in the Cook Islands (see Miri
(Margaret) Raven’s and Daniel Robinson’s chapter) – while falling short of
recognising BCPs.
The authors pay specific attention to the “steward of nature” script in its
multifaceted nature. This script is undergirded by an “ethics of stewardship”
that the introduction likens to a “situated ethics” (Puig de la Bellacasa, 2017,
p. 150) stemming from daily engagements with, and care of, all those which
– visible, invisible, humans, and non-humans – populates the land (the “land
community”: Leopold, 1991, p. 310). Within a new legal context marked by
the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement), Act 2017 (Byrnes,
2004; Iorns Magallanes, 2019; Magallanes, 2008; O’Bryan, 2017; Rodgers,
2017)
14 or the Atrato River case (Calzadilla, 2019; Cano Pecharroman, 2018),
BCPs may be read as part of a broader political strategy. This context has enabled IPLCs to construct their ecological identities and to reopen discussions,
this time informed by ontological investigations, about the political and legal
status of IPLCs.
Concluding this chapter, the authors argue that the mobilisation of the ethic
of stewardship allows for specifying the ethico-political status of the new subjects, i.e. the being of the persona (in this case a “group”) to whom these new
rights relate (Zarka, 1999). Furthermore, it makes room for more-than-humans
and new assemblages cutting across the subject-object divide.
Conclusion
Based on the reflections presented in this book, we propose now to distinguish
between different protocols according to the main functions they can perform
and their political significance. Indeed, some of them are primarily technical
tools and have a very limited scope, while at the other end of the spectrum, others carry political claims of the utmost importance and go so far as to put forward
alternative ontologies to the dominant naturalism. The following reading grid
allows us to explore how BCPs/CPs can become powerful tools and go beyond
the status of purely technical instruments to constitute political and ontological
claims.
We have distinguished the following types of protocols:
‒ Purely technical instruments. In this case, BCPs/CPs aim to connect local
PIC and MAT with customary rules and procedures to ensure that community values and inalienable parts of their heritage are respected throughout
the negotiations. Some legislation now clearly envisions these interlinkages,
as Fabien Girard, Ingrid Hall, and Christine Frison recall for Madagascar
and Benin in Chapter 1 (“Community Protocols and Biocultural Rights:
Unravelling the Biocultural Nexus in ABS”).
‒ Call for the recognition of local procedures in ABS. Next, one may
well imagine a law foreseeing a community PIC and benefit-sharing
process – as will be the case very soon in the Cook Islands (see Miri
(Margaret) Raven’s and Daniel Robinson’s chapter) – while falling short of
recognising BCPs.