Community Protocols and Biocultural Rights 9
heralding the concept of “biocultural diversity”. This is a complex history –
which is still in the making – but three movements seem to have prompted its
emergence and have moulded and refined its meaning over time.
The first movement is most directly related to nature conservation and shakes
up the deeply ingrained dogma of conservation science, the so-called “fortress
conservation” model that had presided over the fate of IPLCs living in or near
protected areas for almost three centuries (Colchester, 2003; Doolittle, 2007).
As the model met with mounting criticism (Freeman, 1989), new bottom-up
and community-based approaches gained traction from the early 1980s on wards
(Buergin, 2013, p. 5 and the literature referred to therein).
27 The notion that
relationships between humans, their social organisation, and their natural
environment cannot be universally understood along the nature-culture divide,
irrelevant for numerous populations around the world, underpins and drives
new approaches to conservation. The so-called “ontological turn” in philosophy
and anthropology (Castro, 1992; Descola, 1996 [1986]; Descola & Sahlins, 2014;
Kohn, 2015; MacCormack & Strathern, 1978) gave ground to the academic recognition of non-Western ontologies (Blaser, 2009b, 2013) and evidence of how
those populations shape the worlds they know, see, and interact with, and especially the way they consider elements of the so-called “natural world” beyond
the subject-object divide. These reflections have undoubtedly contributed to the
idea that IPLCs are, due to their non-naturalist ontologies, repositories of vast
bodies of knowledge that may be relevant for biodiversity conservation (Buergin,
2013, p. 4).
This was already contemplated in the World Heritage Convention (1972)
28
which is certainly one of the first international instruments to recognise that
conservation of nature goes hand in hand with the protection of cultural identities, thereby confirming the “relationship between indigenous peoples and the
environment” (Ulloa, 2005, p. 137; also see Kari & Rössler, 2017). Also of note
is the major step taken through the 1980 World Conservation Strategy, in which
the IUCN, WWF, and UNEP stressed the importance of “traditional knowledge”, even though there is no mention of Indigenous peoples in the text, only
of “rural communities” (IUCN et al., 1980, Chapter 14, para. 10).
In the 1970s and 1980s, the coming together of the notions of capital, progress, and technology ushered in a period of certainty known as “development”. The second movement arose against the backdrop of the prescriptions
produced by major institutions such as the World Bank and Western universities, which were meant to actively transform “traditional” into “modern” societies through major investments and new technologies (Escobar, 1995). The
concept of development has engendered essential critical theories – liberal,
Marxist, post- structuralist, post-development – which are of particular interest within the context of the construction of environmental issues as a global
problem (Buergin, 2013, p. 7). Their differences apart, these movements share
a common base: the “intrinsic values of culture and cultural diversity as well as
opportunities this diversity p rovides regarding sustainable or alternative ways of
heralding the concept of “biocultural diversity”. This is a complex history –
which is still in the making – but three movements seem to have prompted its
emergence and have moulded and refined its meaning over time.
The first movement is most directly related to nature conservation and shakes
up the deeply ingrained dogma of conservation science, the so-called “fortress
conservation” model that had presided over the fate of IPLCs living in or near
protected areas for almost three centuries (Colchester, 2003; Doolittle, 2007).
As the model met with mounting criticism (Freeman, 1989), new bottom-up
and community-based approaches gained traction from the early 1980s on wards
(Buergin, 2013, p. 5 and the literature referred to therein).
27 The notion that
relationships between humans, their social organisation, and their natural
environment cannot be universally understood along the nature-culture divide,
irrelevant for numerous populations around the world, underpins and drives
new approaches to conservation. The so-called “ontological turn” in philosophy
and anthropology (Castro, 1992; Descola, 1996 [1986]; Descola & Sahlins, 2014;
Kohn, 2015; MacCormack & Strathern, 1978) gave ground to the academic recognition of non-Western ontologies (Blaser, 2009b, 2013) and evidence of how
those populations shape the worlds they know, see, and interact with, and especially the way they consider elements of the so-called “natural world” beyond
the subject-object divide. These reflections have undoubtedly contributed to the
idea that IPLCs are, due to their non-naturalist ontologies, repositories of vast
bodies of knowledge that may be relevant for biodiversity conservation (Buergin,
2013, p. 4).
This was already contemplated in the World Heritage Convention (1972)
28
which is certainly one of the first international instruments to recognise that
conservation of nature goes hand in hand with the protection of cultural identities, thereby confirming the “relationship between indigenous peoples and the
environment” (Ulloa, 2005, p. 137; also see Kari & Rössler, 2017). Also of note
is the major step taken through the 1980 World Conservation Strategy, in which
the IUCN, WWF, and UNEP stressed the importance of “traditional knowledge”, even though there is no mention of Indigenous peoples in the text, only
of “rural communities” (IUCN et al., 1980, Chapter 14, para. 10).
In the 1970s and 1980s, the coming together of the notions of capital, progress, and technology ushered in a period of certainty known as “development”. The second movement arose against the backdrop of the prescriptions
produced by major institutions such as the World Bank and Western universities, which were meant to actively transform “traditional” into “modern” societies through major investments and new technologies (Escobar, 1995). The
concept of development has engendered essential critical theories – liberal,
Marxist, post- structuralist, post-development – which are of particular interest within the context of the construction of environmental issues as a global
problem (Buergin, 2013, p. 7). Their differences apart, these movements share
a common base: the “intrinsic values of culture and cultural diversity as well as
opportunities this diversity p rovides regarding sustainable or alternative ways of