20 Fabien Girard et al.
developed in relation to protected areas and land tenure (FAO, 2016; FAO et al.,
2017, p. 3; Pritchard et al., 2013, p. 65), extractive industry (Makagon et al.,
2016),
65 or REDD+ projects (Tyrrell & Alcorn, 2011, para. 4.7), BCPs/CPs are
often broad in scope and ambition. Thus, it is not uncommon that they outline (at
times with a great deal of detail) the community’s core ecological, cultural, and
spiritual values. They are also the vehicle through which a community strives to
self-define and/or reaffirm its rights over a land or territory, although this is in no
way a straightforward and frictionless process (Blaser, 2010; Ellison et al., 2009;
Escobar, 1997). Even in an ABS context, BCPs/CPs can hardly be confined to a
proactive or a defensive tool whereby a community either lays down in advance
what rules and procedures should apply for negotiations with a researcher or a
private company on access to genetic resources and TK or expounds all necessary
steps to be followed internally to make decisions on access and the distribution
of benefits within the community. Experience indicates, and the Mo’otz Kuxtal
Voluntary Guidelines hint at this,
66 that most BCPs/CPs have a protean dimension and go beyond legal relations on PIC and benefit-sharing to encompass
questions about how social actors interact, while simultaneously emphasising the
community’s spiritual, cultural, and reciprocal relationships with nature, or the
community’s role in the preservation of the environment; in other words, their
“stewardship” of biodiversity (Bavikatte, 2014).
In light of the intellectual and political contexts reviewed above, the
multifaceted nature of BCPs/CPs should come as no surprise. They are premised
on the idea, which owes much to Darrell Posey (1999, p. 7), of a deep interconnectedness between ecological and social systems, the idea that biodiversity
is part of the diversity of life, with multi-layered manifestations – biological,
cultural, linguistic – which “are interrelated (and likely coevolved) within a
complex socio-ecological adaptive system” (Maffi & Woodley, 2010, pp. 5–6). In
sum, the “biocultural axiom” interlinks biological diversity and IPLCs’ ways of
life.
67 Read against this paradigmatic shift that holds biodiversity conservation
and certain lifestyles together, BCPs/CPs can certainly not be reduced to mere
technical and “legalistic” instruments. If anything, BCPs aim at sustaining IPLCs
– to borrow language unmistakably associated with the “biological turn” – in
their traditional role as traditional guardians and custodians of ecosystems.
This was, at least, the firm belief of Sanjay Kabir Bavikatte and Harry Jonas, the two founders of Natural Justice, the South African NGO which has
been at the forefront of the development of BCPs for the last decade or so.
There is no question that these two international lawyers have been decisive
in mainstreaming the thought that IPLCs play a key role in the maintenance
of world biodiversity, due to their ways of life (deemed “traditional”), world
visions, and deep relationships with their lands and environment. Drawing from
Posey’s inspirational proposal to protect and nurture Indigenous peoples’ identity and socioeconomic development alongside environmental conservation
(Posey & D utfield, 1996, p. 95), through the bestowal upon them of a “bundle of
rights” (the so-called “traditional resource rights” – Posey, 2004, p. 163; Posey
developed in relation to protected areas and land tenure (FAO, 2016; FAO et al.,
2017, p. 3; Pritchard et al., 2013, p. 65), extractive industry (Makagon et al.,
2016),
65 or REDD+ projects (Tyrrell & Alcorn, 2011, para. 4.7), BCPs/CPs are
often broad in scope and ambition. Thus, it is not uncommon that they outline (at
times with a great deal of detail) the community’s core ecological, cultural, and
spiritual values. They are also the vehicle through which a community strives to
self-define and/or reaffirm its rights over a land or territory, although this is in no
way a straightforward and frictionless process (Blaser, 2010; Ellison et al., 2009;
Escobar, 1997). Even in an ABS context, BCPs/CPs can hardly be confined to a
proactive or a defensive tool whereby a community either lays down in advance
what rules and procedures should apply for negotiations with a researcher or a
private company on access to genetic resources and TK or expounds all necessary
steps to be followed internally to make decisions on access and the distribution
of benefits within the community. Experience indicates, and the Mo’otz Kuxtal
Voluntary Guidelines hint at this,
66 that most BCPs/CPs have a protean dimension and go beyond legal relations on PIC and benefit-sharing to encompass
questions about how social actors interact, while simultaneously emphasising the
community’s spiritual, cultural, and reciprocal relationships with nature, or the
community’s role in the preservation of the environment; in other words, their
“stewardship” of biodiversity (Bavikatte, 2014).
In light of the intellectual and political contexts reviewed above, the
multifaceted nature of BCPs/CPs should come as no surprise. They are premised
on the idea, which owes much to Darrell Posey (1999, p. 7), of a deep interconnectedness between ecological and social systems, the idea that biodiversity
is part of the diversity of life, with multi-layered manifestations – biological,
cultural, linguistic – which “are interrelated (and likely coevolved) within a
complex socio-ecological adaptive system” (Maffi & Woodley, 2010, pp. 5–6). In
sum, the “biocultural axiom” interlinks biological diversity and IPLCs’ ways of
life.
67 Read against this paradigmatic shift that holds biodiversity conservation
and certain lifestyles together, BCPs/CPs can certainly not be reduced to mere
technical and “legalistic” instruments. If anything, BCPs aim at sustaining IPLCs
– to borrow language unmistakably associated with the “biological turn” – in
their traditional role as traditional guardians and custodians of ecosystems.
This was, at least, the firm belief of Sanjay Kabir Bavikatte and Harry Jonas, the two founders of Natural Justice, the South African NGO which has
been at the forefront of the development of BCPs for the last decade or so.
There is no question that these two international lawyers have been decisive
in mainstreaming the thought that IPLCs play a key role in the maintenance
of world biodiversity, due to their ways of life (deemed “traditional”), world
visions, and deep relationships with their lands and environment. Drawing from
Posey’s inspirational proposal to protect and nurture Indigenous peoples’ identity and socioeconomic development alongside environmental conservation
(Posey & D utfield, 1996, p. 95), through the bestowal upon them of a “bundle of
rights” (the so-called “traditional resource rights” – Posey, 2004, p. 163; Posey