2 Fabien Girard et al.
traditional knowledge, communities are better placed to determine for
themselves how to negotiate with a variety of actors.
2
While these guidelines address “prior and informed consent”, “free, prior and
informed consent”, or the “approval and involvement” of Indigenous peoples
and local communities (IPLCs) in order to access their knowledge, innovations, and practices, the expansive acceptance of CPs shows the extent to
which theoretical work on biocultural rights has percolated into the framing
of BCPs/CPs. Bavikatte conceived of biocultural rights as a “bundle” encompassing (i) the right to land, territory, and natural resources; (ii) the right to
self- determination, principally understood here in its “internal” dimension, i.e.
the right of communities to autonomy and self-administration; and (iii) cultural
rights. Additionally, “stewardship” (or “guardianship”), which Bavikatte saw
as the cornerstone of biocultural jurisprudence (Bavikatte & Bennett, 2015),
is now enshrined in another document emanating from the Convention on
Biological Diversity
3 (CBD), the Tkarihwaié:ri Code of Ethical Conduct.
4 It is
also reflected in the first decision to build on biocultural rights and BCPs, the
Atrato River Case from the C onstitutional Court of Colombia (Macpherson
et al., 2020).
5
The remaining part of this introductory chapter investigates the popularisation of BCPs within the Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) context, linking
it to the rise of biocultural jurisprudence and against the short history of the
interlinkages between cultural diversity and biological diversity in conservation. It begins with the context, marked by the high profile which has been
progressively gained by “traditional” communities at the end of the last century.
It situates this progression within an institutional and political context markedly
concerned with North-South imbalances in access to genetic resources and the
shifting ground in conservation which saw a dramatic reappraisal of the role of
IPLCs and peasants/farmers in the management of biodiversity. This series of
shifts, to which biocultural approaches gave decisive impetus, have gone so far
as to open fresh, sweeping debates on self-determination and sovereignty over
resources for IPLCs.
The chapter then moves on to introduce the scope of the book. To begin
with, the first section traces the history of BCPs/CPs from the emergence of
the so-called “cultural protocols” to the enshrinement of CPs in the Nagoya
Protocol. BCPs/CPs are then successively assessed as legal and political tools,
against the backdrop of biocultural jurisprudence, while a final note investigates
the contentious concept of “stewardship” in conservation. The last section briefly
outlines the content of the remaining chapters in the volume.
While this book is not devoid of Indigenous voices, it does not claim to speak
on behalf of Indigenous peoples, local communities, or peasants. We do hope, at
the very least, that it speaks to the depth of knowledge and perspectives shared
with us by Indigenous peoples, local communities, and peasants over the course
of our research.
traditional knowledge, communities are better placed to determine for
themselves how to negotiate with a variety of actors.
2
While these guidelines address “prior and informed consent”, “free, prior and
informed consent”, or the “approval and involvement” of Indigenous peoples
and local communities (IPLCs) in order to access their knowledge, innovations, and practices, the expansive acceptance of CPs shows the extent to
which theoretical work on biocultural rights has percolated into the framing
of BCPs/CPs. Bavikatte conceived of biocultural rights as a “bundle” encompassing (i) the right to land, territory, and natural resources; (ii) the right to
self- determination, principally understood here in its “internal” dimension, i.e.
the right of communities to autonomy and self-administration; and (iii) cultural
rights. Additionally, “stewardship” (or “guardianship”), which Bavikatte saw
as the cornerstone of biocultural jurisprudence (Bavikatte & Bennett, 2015),
is now enshrined in another document emanating from the Convention on
Biological Diversity
3 (CBD), the Tkarihwaié:ri Code of Ethical Conduct.
4 It is
also reflected in the first decision to build on biocultural rights and BCPs, the
Atrato River Case from the C onstitutional Court of Colombia (Macpherson
et al., 2020).
5
The remaining part of this introductory chapter investigates the popularisation of BCPs within the Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) context, linking
it to the rise of biocultural jurisprudence and against the short history of the
interlinkages between cultural diversity and biological diversity in conservation. It begins with the context, marked by the high profile which has been
progressively gained by “traditional” communities at the end of the last century.
It situates this progression within an institutional and political context markedly
concerned with North-South imbalances in access to genetic resources and the
shifting ground in conservation which saw a dramatic reappraisal of the role of
IPLCs and peasants/farmers in the management of biodiversity. This series of
shifts, to which biocultural approaches gave decisive impetus, have gone so far
as to open fresh, sweeping debates on self-determination and sovereignty over
resources for IPLCs.
The chapter then moves on to introduce the scope of the book. To begin
with, the first section traces the history of BCPs/CPs from the emergence of
the so-called “cultural protocols” to the enshrinement of CPs in the Nagoya
Protocol. BCPs/CPs are then successively assessed as legal and political tools,
against the backdrop of biocultural jurisprudence, while a final note investigates
the contentious concept of “stewardship” in conservation. The last section briefly
outlines the content of the remaining chapters in the volume.
While this book is not devoid of Indigenous voices, it does not claim to speak
on behalf of Indigenous peoples, local communities, or peasants. We do hope, at
the very least, that it speaks to the depth of knowledge and perspectives shared
with us by Indigenous peoples, local communities, and peasants over the course
of our research.