328 Fabien Girard et al.
‒ Political claim. A notch above, references to community PIC and
benefit-sharing and their reliance on customary law may signal a political claim to community’s rights over genetic resources, TK, and/or their
territory. BCPs/CPs, therefore, must be read as a direct challenge to the
State-centric approach to sovereignty over land and natural resources. BCPs/
CPs’ real value is thus political, activating claims for self-determination over
natural resources (see Gilbert, 2016, p. 26; Jansen and Sutherland, this book).
‒ Political-ontological claims. Finally, BCPs/CPs touch on fundamental
issues of sovereignty, but this time shifting the debate to the ontological
terrain. Claims to local PIC and benefit-sharing are associated with customary law and community’s cultural, spiritual, ecological, and economic
values and are attached to a specific land and territory. Thus, they necessarily
push for more encompassing recognition of any rights deemed necessary for
IPLCs’ survival, flourishing, and the maintenance of their alleged role in
biodiversity maintenance. Biocultural-based initiatives – such as the biocultural labels studied by Garrett Graddy-Lovelace (Anderson & Hudson,
2020), the “territories and areas conserved by indigenous peoples and local
communities” (Kothari et al., 2012) (ICCAs), or food sovereignty (Edelman
et al., 2014; Sarrazin & Scott, 2020) – are exemplars of these fresh attempts at
circumnavigating Westphalian sovereignty and giving a firmer foothold to
IPLCs’ claims to land, territory, culture, and self-government. Importantly,
underwriting these claims is the consideration of non-naturalistic ontologies
via the ethic of stewardship.
This last type of protocol calls for a comment on the notion of
Stewardship. The idea that connexions between the ethic of stewardship
and biodiversity conservation could support political-ontological (i.e. sovereignty entrenched in non-naturalistic ontologies) claims was envisioned
by Bavikatte and was not entirely foreign to Posey’s efforts to promote a
new bundle of rights (see, in particular, Posey, 2001, pp. 385–386, 2004a,
p. 135). However, it also carries risks: that of seeing the ethic of stewardship
converting into a contentious “duty of stewardship”
15 (Grear, 2015; Sajeva,
2018, 2021); and that of IPLCs being trapped in an essentialising fiction,
entrenching their subaltern status.
Overall, this classification highlights how BCPs/CPs can range from technical
instruments to political claims and even become enriched by ontological perspectives. This way, in addition to the recognition of their worldviews, IPLCs
are able to bolster their political claims by bringing to the fore their cosmological specificities. This growing complexity and richness makes BCPs and CPs
important and decisive tools for the recognition of the communities in their
uniqueness. As the debates on the post-2020 Biodiversity Agenda get underway
(Reyes-García et al., 2021), we can only hope that these discussions will fuel
the creativity and inform the work of those in charge of taking the next steps
forward.
‒ Political claim. A notch above, references to community PIC and
benefit-sharing and their reliance on customary law may signal a political claim to community’s rights over genetic resources, TK, and/or their
territory. BCPs/CPs, therefore, must be read as a direct challenge to the
State-centric approach to sovereignty over land and natural resources. BCPs/
CPs’ real value is thus political, activating claims for self-determination over
natural resources (see Gilbert, 2016, p. 26; Jansen and Sutherland, this book).
‒ Political-ontological claims. Finally, BCPs/CPs touch on fundamental
issues of sovereignty, but this time shifting the debate to the ontological
terrain. Claims to local PIC and benefit-sharing are associated with customary law and community’s cultural, spiritual, ecological, and economic
values and are attached to a specific land and territory. Thus, they necessarily
push for more encompassing recognition of any rights deemed necessary for
IPLCs’ survival, flourishing, and the maintenance of their alleged role in
biodiversity maintenance. Biocultural-based initiatives – such as the biocultural labels studied by Garrett Graddy-Lovelace (Anderson & Hudson,
2020), the “territories and areas conserved by indigenous peoples and local
communities” (Kothari et al., 2012) (ICCAs), or food sovereignty (Edelman
et al., 2014; Sarrazin & Scott, 2020) – are exemplars of these fresh attempts at
circumnavigating Westphalian sovereignty and giving a firmer foothold to
IPLCs’ claims to land, territory, culture, and self-government. Importantly,
underwriting these claims is the consideration of non-naturalistic ontologies
via the ethic of stewardship.
This last type of protocol calls for a comment on the notion of
Stewardship. The idea that connexions between the ethic of stewardship
and biodiversity conservation could support political-ontological (i.e. sovereignty entrenched in non-naturalistic ontologies) claims was envisioned
by Bavikatte and was not entirely foreign to Posey’s efforts to promote a
new bundle of rights (see, in particular, Posey, 2001, pp. 385–386, 2004a,
p. 135). However, it also carries risks: that of seeing the ethic of stewardship
converting into a contentious “duty of stewardship”
15 (Grear, 2015; Sajeva,
2018, 2021); and that of IPLCs being trapped in an essentialising fiction,
entrenching their subaltern status.
Overall, this classification highlights how BCPs/CPs can range from technical
instruments to political claims and even become enriched by ontological perspectives. This way, in addition to the recognition of their worldviews, IPLCs
are able to bolster their political claims by bringing to the fore their cosmological specificities. This growing complexity and richness makes BCPs and CPs
important and decisive tools for the recognition of the communities in their
uniqueness. As the debates on the post-2020 Biodiversity Agenda get underway
(Reyes-García et al., 2021), we can only hope that these discussions will fuel
the creativity and inform the work of those in charge of taking the next steps
forward.