Community Protocols and Biocultural Rights 11
discussed in the context of particular conceptualizations of and relations to
‘nature’ different from ‘modern’ environmental relations.
(Buergin, 2013, p. 11)
32
As mentioned above, the Declaration of Belém (1988)
33 represented a further
milestone by stressing the “inextricable link” between cultural and biological
diversities, calling for the recognition and protection of “cultural and linguistic
identity”, and articulating the idea that Indigenous peoples are “stewards” of
biodiversity. Agreements and documents adopted at the Earth Summit in 1992
abound in similar references to “traditional lifestyles” dependent on biological resources
34 and, conversely, on “traditional” knowledge, innovations, and
practices of Indigenous and local communities “relevant for the conservation
and sustainable use of biological diversity”.
35 This echoes Principle 22 of the
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992), which states that
“ Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have
a vital role in environmental management and development because of their
knowledge and traditional practices”. Additionally, Agenda 21, the action plan
adopted at the Rio Conference, stresses that “Indigenous people and their communities have an historical relationship with their lands […]” and “[t]hey have
developed over many generations a holistic traditional scientific knowledge of
their lands, natural resources and environment” (Chapter 26.1) that needs to be
recognised (Chapter 26.3 (iii)) (UNCED, 1992).
In sum, at the beginning of the 1990s, the main features that would go
on to feed into the “biocultural diversity” concept began to be fleshed out.
Biological diversity was conceived of as being linked to culture, in particular
that of IPLCs which have developed a holistic (Nelson, 2009) knowledge of
their land, resources, and environment. This specific knowledge is conceived
of as being particularly relevant for the conservation of biodiversity and begins
to support the idea that IPLCs are “stewards” of their environment. In 1996, as
it became possible to pair maps of biodiversity with maps of cultural (and particularly linguistic) diversity (Maffi, 2001b; UNESCO et al., 2003), the concept
of biocultural diversity received the final impetus
36 that enabled it to gain a
foothold in the scientific vocabulary (Cámara-Leret & Bascompte, 2021). The
1996 Berkley Conference on “Endangered Languages, Endangered Knowledge,
Endangered Environments”,
37 organised by Luisa Maffi (the proceedings only
appeared in 2001) (Maffi, 2001a), is an important academic landmark in this
respect. Posey accelerated the dissemination of the concept by entrusting Luisa
Maffi with the chapter on “Linguistic Diversity” (Maffi, 1999) published in his
Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity (Posey, 1999), a stand-alone volume,
but which was part of the influential Global Biodiversity Assessment undertaken
by UNEP in 1995 (Heywood et al., 1995). As Figure 1.1 (Annex) illustrates,
references to biocultural diversity – or connections between cultural heritage
and natural heritage/biodiversity – have multiplied since the 1990s in binding
international instruments, soft law, and declarations from major international
discussed in the context of particular conceptualizations of and relations to
‘nature’ different from ‘modern’ environmental relations.
(Buergin, 2013, p. 11)
32
As mentioned above, the Declaration of Belém (1988)
33 represented a further
milestone by stressing the “inextricable link” between cultural and biological
diversities, calling for the recognition and protection of “cultural and linguistic
identity”, and articulating the idea that Indigenous peoples are “stewards” of
biodiversity. Agreements and documents adopted at the Earth Summit in 1992
abound in similar references to “traditional lifestyles” dependent on biological resources
34 and, conversely, on “traditional” knowledge, innovations, and
practices of Indigenous and local communities “relevant for the conservation
and sustainable use of biological diversity”.
35 This echoes Principle 22 of the
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992), which states that
“ Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have
a vital role in environmental management and development because of their
knowledge and traditional practices”. Additionally, Agenda 21, the action plan
adopted at the Rio Conference, stresses that “Indigenous people and their communities have an historical relationship with their lands […]” and “[t]hey have
developed over many generations a holistic traditional scientific knowledge of
their lands, natural resources and environment” (Chapter 26.1) that needs to be
recognised (Chapter 26.3 (iii)) (UNCED, 1992).
In sum, at the beginning of the 1990s, the main features that would go
on to feed into the “biocultural diversity” concept began to be fleshed out.
Biological diversity was conceived of as being linked to culture, in particular
that of IPLCs which have developed a holistic (Nelson, 2009) knowledge of
their land, resources, and environment. This specific knowledge is conceived
of as being particularly relevant for the conservation of biodiversity and begins
to support the idea that IPLCs are “stewards” of their environment. In 1996, as
it became possible to pair maps of biodiversity with maps of cultural (and particularly linguistic) diversity (Maffi, 2001b; UNESCO et al., 2003), the concept
of biocultural diversity received the final impetus
36 that enabled it to gain a
foothold in the scientific vocabulary (Cámara-Leret & Bascompte, 2021). The
1996 Berkley Conference on “Endangered Languages, Endangered Knowledge,
Endangered Environments”,
37 organised by Luisa Maffi (the proceedings only
appeared in 2001) (Maffi, 2001a), is an important academic landmark in this
respect. Posey accelerated the dissemination of the concept by entrusting Luisa
Maffi with the chapter on “Linguistic Diversity” (Maffi, 1999) published in his
Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity (Posey, 1999), a stand-alone volume,
but which was part of the influential Global Biodiversity Assessment undertaken
by UNEP in 1995 (Heywood et al., 1995). As Figure 1.1 (Annex) illustrates,
references to biocultural diversity – or connections between cultural heritage
and natural heritage/biodiversity – have multiplied since the 1990s in binding
international instruments, soft law, and declarations from major international