10 Fabien Girard et al.
development [received] broader attention, frequently addressed in terms of ‘traditional ecological knowledge’ or local knowledge systems” (Buergin, 2013, p. 8).
Linking the “development crisis” to the “escalation of environmental problems”
and the “struggle for natural resources” (Banerjee, 2003, p. 151) opened the way
for the concept of “sustainable development” in the late 1980s. The Brundtland
Report (Brundtland & World Commission on Environment and Development,
1987, para. 74), which constitutes a milestone in this history, thus signalled, albeit
in an ambiguous fashion, the shift in focus to the local level, the link with cultural diversity, while promoting a new model of “participatory” and “inclusive”
development (Buergin, 2013, p. 8; Peet & Watts, 1996). Admittedly, the report is
still pervaded with the idea – very much in tune with the concept of “progress”
– of a time arrow, with IPLCs sitting on the first point – distant and fading away
(the “ancient origins” of humanity
29 ) and, of course, the reference to “productivity” (Brundtland & World Commission on Environment and Development,
1987, para. 76) which is yet more proof, if proof was needed, of the ambiguity
of the concept of “sustainable development”. However, the text encapsulates a
series of conceptual shifts that were underway: the awareness of the important
of “traditional” ways of life, “traditional rights to land”, “own institutions to
regulate rights and obligations” which have been translated into “harmony with
nature” and an “environmental awareness” and, therefore, the acceptance of the
pressing need to recognise and sustain “traditional rights”, which “must go hand
in hand with measures to protect the local institutions that enforce responsibility
in resource use” (ibid., para. 75).
The last movement is inseparable from the international recognition of
Indigenous peoples. As Anaya recounted, a new generation of Indigenous women
and men, well-versed in the dominant legal system, “began drawing increased
attention to demands for their continued survival as distinct communities with
historically based cultures, political institutions, and entitlements to land”
(Anaya, 2004, p. 46). This counter-narrative, which articulates new identities
based on distinct cultures and entrenched in the land, was disseminated by a
vast campaign that took place during major international conferences and was
relayed by academics and NGOs from the 1970s onwards (ibid.). The adoption of
ILO Convention No. 169 of 1989
30 represents “international law’s most concrete
manifestation of the growing responsiveness to indigenous peoples’ demands”
(Anaya, 2004, p. 47), followed, about 20 years later, by the 2007 UN Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
31 Importantly, the connection between
cultural diversity and biodiversity conservation underpinned the work of ILO,
as Buergin remarks:
[c]ultural diversity and environmental conservation were crucial issues in
the arguments about ‘indigenous peoples’ and their rights to lands, local
resources, self-determination, and particular identities from the beginning.
A particular relationship to the places they inhabit, often related to historical continuity, is at the core of their claims to lands and territories and
development [received] broader attention, frequently addressed in terms of ‘traditional ecological knowledge’ or local knowledge systems” (Buergin, 2013, p. 8).
Linking the “development crisis” to the “escalation of environmental problems”
and the “struggle for natural resources” (Banerjee, 2003, p. 151) opened the way
for the concept of “sustainable development” in the late 1980s. The Brundtland
Report (Brundtland & World Commission on Environment and Development,
1987, para. 74), which constitutes a milestone in this history, thus signalled, albeit
in an ambiguous fashion, the shift in focus to the local level, the link with cultural diversity, while promoting a new model of “participatory” and “inclusive”
development (Buergin, 2013, p. 8; Peet & Watts, 1996). Admittedly, the report is
still pervaded with the idea – very much in tune with the concept of “progress”
– of a time arrow, with IPLCs sitting on the first point – distant and fading away
(the “ancient origins” of humanity
29 ) and, of course, the reference to “productivity” (Brundtland & World Commission on Environment and Development,
1987, para. 76) which is yet more proof, if proof was needed, of the ambiguity
of the concept of “sustainable development”. However, the text encapsulates a
series of conceptual shifts that were underway: the awareness of the important
of “traditional” ways of life, “traditional rights to land”, “own institutions to
regulate rights and obligations” which have been translated into “harmony with
nature” and an “environmental awareness” and, therefore, the acceptance of the
pressing need to recognise and sustain “traditional rights”, which “must go hand
in hand with measures to protect the local institutions that enforce responsibility
in resource use” (ibid., para. 75).
The last movement is inseparable from the international recognition of
Indigenous peoples. As Anaya recounted, a new generation of Indigenous women
and men, well-versed in the dominant legal system, “began drawing increased
attention to demands for their continued survival as distinct communities with
historically based cultures, political institutions, and entitlements to land”
(Anaya, 2004, p. 46). This counter-narrative, which articulates new identities
based on distinct cultures and entrenched in the land, was disseminated by a
vast campaign that took place during major international conferences and was
relayed by academics and NGOs from the 1970s onwards (ibid.). The adoption of
ILO Convention No. 169 of 1989
30 represents “international law’s most concrete
manifestation of the growing responsiveness to indigenous peoples’ demands”
(Anaya, 2004, p. 47), followed, about 20 years later, by the 2007 UN Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
31 Importantly, the connection between
cultural diversity and biodiversity conservation underpinned the work of ILO,
as Buergin remarks:
[c]ultural diversity and environmental conservation were crucial issues in
the arguments about ‘indigenous peoples’ and their rights to lands, local
resources, self-determination, and particular identities from the beginning.
A particular relationship to the places they inhabit, often related to historical continuity, is at the core of their claims to lands and territories and