22 Fabien Girard et al.
The importance of the question cannot be overstated. The answer is key
to a clear understanding of the recent overgrowth in bottom-up, bioculturalbased, and NGO-driven initiatives helping IPLCs and farmers/peasants to regain political and legal spaces to control their territory, protect their cultural
heritage, and continue to use, trade in, and access traditional crop varieties,
semi- domesticated varieties, and wild relatives. A few examples illustrate this
trend: the “territories and areas conserved by indigenous peoples and local communities” (ICCAs) developed by the ICCA Consortium (Kothari et al., 2012;
Stevens, 2014, p. 71)
72 ; the Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems of
the FAO ( Harrop, 2009; Santilli, 2016, pp. 289–294); the recent “other effective
area-based conservation measures” discussed at the CBD ( Jonas et al., 2014)
73 ;
the labelling system for biocultural heritage-based products (Swiderska et al.,
2016); and the TK and Biocultural (BC) Labels to address issues of Indigenous
data sovereignty (A nderson & Hudson, 2020; Liggins et al., 2021). These initiatives, some of which have gained high-profile attention and even support in
international fora,
74 have in common some distinctive features which are worth
stressing: an emphasis on culturally important practices relevant to the maintenance of genetic resources and TK; the importance of social organisation and
self-governance through community-level decision-making processes; attachment to land and territories grounding an “ethic of stewardship” (Bavikatte &
Bennett, 2015; Mulrennan & Bussières, 2020), itself defining a set of rights and
duties between community members and towards non-humans. In sum, all these
initiatives share the basic premise that “[…] the conservation of Nature is a result
of a holistic way of life” (Bavikatte, 2014, p. 233; also see Reyes-García et al.,
2021).
At the same time, as the reference to the Potato Park suggests, we should be
wary of over-reliance on too narrow a genealogy of BCPs/CPs. For instance, the
work by Darrell Posey, Graham Dutfield, and Alejandro Argumedo on “biocultural heritage” has left a deep mark on current debates on biodiversity conservation and continues to influence international actors, such as the IIED
75 which
was involved in the Potato Park project and which continues to develop BCPs
worldwide, but as part of a broader strategy revolving around the concept of
“ Indigenous Biocultural Territories” (Argumedo & Pimbert, 2008). This begs
the question of the different influences that may shape the development of BCPs/
CPs and how to make sense of and do justice to them.
As a recent opinion of the Mexican Committee on the Environment,
Sustainability, Climate Change and Natural Resources (Comisión de Medio
Ambiente, Sustentabilidad, Cambio Climático y Recursos Naturales), including a draft
decree on the protection of biocultural heritage in Mexico, testifies, “biocultural
heritage” is understood as the “legacy made up of the environment, the culture
and the territory in a reciprocal relationship”.
76 The idea of “heritage” certainly
carries a holistic way of life (ANDES et al., 2012) and sustains a praxis which
is grounded in “ethical doings” (Puig de la Bellacasa, 2017, p. 151) rather than
following a predefined set of ethical principles – insofar as it ushers in a form of
The importance of the question cannot be overstated. The answer is key
to a clear understanding of the recent overgrowth in bottom-up, bioculturalbased, and NGO-driven initiatives helping IPLCs and farmers/peasants to regain political and legal spaces to control their territory, protect their cultural
heritage, and continue to use, trade in, and access traditional crop varieties,
semi- domesticated varieties, and wild relatives. A few examples illustrate this
trend: the “territories and areas conserved by indigenous peoples and local communities” (ICCAs) developed by the ICCA Consortium (Kothari et al., 2012;
Stevens, 2014, p. 71)
72 ; the Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems of
the FAO ( Harrop, 2009; Santilli, 2016, pp. 289–294); the recent “other effective
area-based conservation measures” discussed at the CBD ( Jonas et al., 2014)
73 ;
the labelling system for biocultural heritage-based products (Swiderska et al.,
2016); and the TK and Biocultural (BC) Labels to address issues of Indigenous
data sovereignty (A nderson & Hudson, 2020; Liggins et al., 2021). These initiatives, some of which have gained high-profile attention and even support in
international fora,
74 have in common some distinctive features which are worth
stressing: an emphasis on culturally important practices relevant to the maintenance of genetic resources and TK; the importance of social organisation and
self-governance through community-level decision-making processes; attachment to land and territories grounding an “ethic of stewardship” (Bavikatte &
Bennett, 2015; Mulrennan & Bussières, 2020), itself defining a set of rights and
duties between community members and towards non-humans. In sum, all these
initiatives share the basic premise that “[…] the conservation of Nature is a result
of a holistic way of life” (Bavikatte, 2014, p. 233; also see Reyes-García et al.,
2021).
At the same time, as the reference to the Potato Park suggests, we should be
wary of over-reliance on too narrow a genealogy of BCPs/CPs. For instance, the
work by Darrell Posey, Graham Dutfield, and Alejandro Argumedo on “biocultural heritage” has left a deep mark on current debates on biodiversity conservation and continues to influence international actors, such as the IIED
75 which
was involved in the Potato Park project and which continues to develop BCPs
worldwide, but as part of a broader strategy revolving around the concept of
“ Indigenous Biocultural Territories” (Argumedo & Pimbert, 2008). This begs
the question of the different influences that may shape the development of BCPs/
CPs and how to make sense of and do justice to them.
As a recent opinion of the Mexican Committee on the Environment,
Sustainability, Climate Change and Natural Resources (Comisión de Medio
Ambiente, Sustentabilidad, Cambio Climático y Recursos Naturales), including a draft
decree on the protection of biocultural heritage in Mexico, testifies, “biocultural
heritage” is understood as the “legacy made up of the environment, the culture
and the territory in a reciprocal relationship”.
76 The idea of “heritage” certainly
carries a holistic way of life (ANDES et al., 2012) and sustains a praxis which
is grounded in “ethical doings” (Puig de la Bellacasa, 2017, p. 151) rather than
following a predefined set of ethical principles – insofar as it ushers in a form of