Community Protocols and Biocultural Rights 23
“situated ethics” (ibid. 150). In the Potato Park, the centrality of “Sumaq kawsay”
(also spelled: “Sumaq cawsay”) or “well-living” (“buen vivir” in Spanish) which
stems from a balanced relationship between the three ayllus (runa or humans,
sallqas or flora and fauna, and awquis or high spirits) (Argumedo & Hall, n.d.;
Argumedo & Wong, 2011)
77 that make up the community stresses this “situated” ethical and holistic perspective. But what is to be seen as the mainstay of
“biocultural heritage” approaches is the territory as the “base” or “foundation”
(Gudeman, 2001, p. 27) which is to be constantly maintained and nurtured as it
sustains the identity (Nemogá et al., 2018, p. 24) and must be bequest to future
generations so as to ensure the continuity of the community. It echoes the biocultural dimension ascribed to Mexican Indigenous peoples’ territories (Martínez
Coria & Haro Encinas, 2015), particularly visible in the BCP of Capulálpam
de Méndez, Oaxaca (Mexico) and which has a firm foothold in the concept
of “communality” (“comunalidad”) that underlines a human’s belonging to the
land (Martinez Luna, 2010) and an individual’s embeddedness in the community
(Polo & Danielson, 2013).
78
How are these distinct theoretical foundations translated into practice? What
are the main differences that can be observed in the development process
79 and
in terms of the roles and functions of BCPs/CPs?
BCPs and Stewardship: “The Noble Savage” Redux
Finally, while the focus on the “ethic of stewardship” as the cornerstone of
biocultural jurisprudence has been hailed as a quantum leap for IPLCs, there are
concerns that this may only be a facade of consideration, masking what are in fact
only new forms of colonial representation, such as the “ecologically noble savage”
(Ramos, 1994; Raymond, 2007). It should not be forgotten that BCPs/CPs and
biocultural jurisprudence are part of a series of shifts that began in the late 1970s,
whereby Indigenous peoples “made efforts to represent, distinguish and promote
their own environmental practices and development views at the national and
international level” (Ulloa, 2005, p. 8), i.e. using Western language and figures.
And these Indigenous peoples’ environmental views “began also to be related to
global environmentalism, which prompted the construction of ecological natives”
(ibid.). This idea of the ecological native, of which the “stewardship of nature”
is a mere offshoot, certainly exposes IPLCs to the risks of being subordinated
to Western visions of global environmental development, or worse still, to see
their rights being conditional upon demonstrating their alignment with adequate
conservation practices (Reimerson, 2013, p. 993; Sajeva, 2021).
80 In particular,
consideration should be given as to whether pervasive representations such as
“steward of biodiversity”, “ecological native”, or “natural conservationist” are
not used, in domestic policies and international fora, as a strategic means to
shift environmental policies from the management of non-human nature to the
management of people, and also to replace political negotiations with managerial
interventions (Brosius, 1999; Coombe, 2011, p. 83).
“situated ethics” (ibid. 150). In the Potato Park, the centrality of “Sumaq kawsay”
(also spelled: “Sumaq cawsay”) or “well-living” (“buen vivir” in Spanish) which
stems from a balanced relationship between the three ayllus (runa or humans,
sallqas or flora and fauna, and awquis or high spirits) (Argumedo & Hall, n.d.;
Argumedo & Wong, 2011)
77 that make up the community stresses this “situated” ethical and holistic perspective. But what is to be seen as the mainstay of
“biocultural heritage” approaches is the territory as the “base” or “foundation”
(Gudeman, 2001, p. 27) which is to be constantly maintained and nurtured as it
sustains the identity (Nemogá et al., 2018, p. 24) and must be bequest to future
generations so as to ensure the continuity of the community. It echoes the biocultural dimension ascribed to Mexican Indigenous peoples’ territories (Martínez
Coria & Haro Encinas, 2015), particularly visible in the BCP of Capulálpam
de Méndez, Oaxaca (Mexico) and which has a firm foothold in the concept
of “communality” (“comunalidad”) that underlines a human’s belonging to the
land (Martinez Luna, 2010) and an individual’s embeddedness in the community
(Polo & Danielson, 2013).
78
How are these distinct theoretical foundations translated into practice? What
are the main differences that can be observed in the development process
79 and
in terms of the roles and functions of BCPs/CPs?
BCPs and Stewardship: “The Noble Savage” Redux
Finally, while the focus on the “ethic of stewardship” as the cornerstone of
biocultural jurisprudence has been hailed as a quantum leap for IPLCs, there are
concerns that this may only be a facade of consideration, masking what are in fact
only new forms of colonial representation, such as the “ecologically noble savage”
(Ramos, 1994; Raymond, 2007). It should not be forgotten that BCPs/CPs and
biocultural jurisprudence are part of a series of shifts that began in the late 1970s,
whereby Indigenous peoples “made efforts to represent, distinguish and promote
their own environmental practices and development views at the national and
international level” (Ulloa, 2005, p. 8), i.e. using Western language and figures.
And these Indigenous peoples’ environmental views “began also to be related to
global environmentalism, which prompted the construction of ecological natives”
(ibid.). This idea of the ecological native, of which the “stewardship of nature”
is a mere offshoot, certainly exposes IPLCs to the risks of being subordinated
to Western visions of global environmental development, or worse still, to see
their rights being conditional upon demonstrating their alignment with adequate
conservation practices (Reimerson, 2013, p. 993; Sajeva, 2021).
80 In particular,
consideration should be given as to whether pervasive representations such as
“steward of biodiversity”, “ecological native”, or “natural conservationist” are
not used, in domestic policies and international fora, as a strategic means to
shift environmental policies from the management of non-human nature to the
management of people, and also to replace political negotiations with managerial
interventions (Brosius, 1999; Coombe, 2011, p. 83).