40 Fabien Girard et al.
78 See, this volume, Chapter 11.
79 For instance, ANDES and IIED, which facilitated the development of the Potato
Park, attached great importance to the methodology of the development process and
deployed a framework for research action, while considering ways to “decolonise”
methodologies (Smith, 2012).
80 Also see UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural
Heritage (2003), art. 2.1:
For the purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such
intangible cultural heritage as is compatible with existing international human
rights instruments, as well as with the requirements of mutual respect among
communities, groups and individuals, and of sustainable development.
In the report of the independent expert in the field of cultural rights, Farida Shaheed
(2011, para. 74) clearly refers to the limits set on cultural heritage protection by international human rights law. And yet, the aforementioned article also opens the door to
environmentally conditioned cultural rights (Savaresi, 2018, pp. 41–42).
81 This is increasingly acknowledged in the field of on-farm conservation: along a
continuum ranging from “intentionality by default” to “conscious intentionality”
(Almekinders et al., 2019, p. 122), small-scale farmers “do not typically choose
agrobiodiversity for its own sake but rather because it fits with underlying farming
rationales or trait preferences” (ibid.). Intentionality is more visible at the natural
landscape level where subsistence farmers, driven by their needs, operate as “multiuse strategists” and seem to “play the game of subsistence through the manipulation
of ecological components and processes (including forest succession, life cycles, and
movement of materials)” (Toledo, 1990, pp. 55–56, 2001, p. 460). As Toledo stressed,
“[t]he acclaimed and somewhat enigmatic ecological rationality of the peasant and
traditional producer is just a subsistence strategy developed within a non-commodity
system of production” (Toledo, 1990, p. 57).
References
Agnoletti, M., Emanueli, F., Agnoletti, M., & Emanueli, F. (Eds.). (2016). Biocultural
Diversity and Landscape in Europe: Framing the Issue. In Biocultural Diversity in Europe
(pp. 1–18). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26315-1
Almeida, F. (2017). Legislative Pathways for Securing Community-Based Property Rights.
Rights and Resources Initiative.
Almekinders, C. J. M., Stone, G. D., Baranski, M., Carney, J. A., Hanspach, J., Krishna,
V. V., Ramirez-Villegas, J., Etten, J. van, & Zimmerer, K. S. (2019). Socioecological
Interactions Amid Global Change. In K. S. Zimmerer & S. de Haan (Eds.), Agrobiodiversity
Integrating Knowledge for a Sustainable Future (pp. 117–143). MIT Press. https://research.
wur.nl/en/publications/socioecological-interactions-amid-global-change
Altieri, M. A., Anderson, M. K., & Merrick, L. C. (1987). Peasant Agriculture and the
Conservation of Crop and Wild Plant Resources. Conservation Biology, 1(1), 49–58.
Anaya, S. J. (2004). Indigenous Peoples in International Law (2nd ed.). Oxford University
Press.
Anderson, J. E. (2015). Indigenous Knowledge and Intellectual Property Rights. In
J. D. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.,
pp. 769–778). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.64078-3
Anderson, J., & Hudson, M. (2020). The Biocultural Labels Initiative: Supporting
Indigenous Rights in Data Derived from Genetic Resources. Biodiversity Information
Science and Standards, 4, e59230. https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.4.59230
78 See, this volume, Chapter 11.
79 For instance, ANDES and IIED, which facilitated the development of the Potato
Park, attached great importance to the methodology of the development process and
deployed a framework for research action, while considering ways to “decolonise”
methodologies (Smith, 2012).
80 Also see UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural
Heritage (2003), art. 2.1:
For the purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such
intangible cultural heritage as is compatible with existing international human
rights instruments, as well as with the requirements of mutual respect among
communities, groups and individuals, and of sustainable development.
In the report of the independent expert in the field of cultural rights, Farida Shaheed
(2011, para. 74) clearly refers to the limits set on cultural heritage protection by international human rights law. And yet, the aforementioned article also opens the door to
environmentally conditioned cultural rights (Savaresi, 2018, pp. 41–42).
81 This is increasingly acknowledged in the field of on-farm conservation: along a
continuum ranging from “intentionality by default” to “conscious intentionality”
(Almekinders et al., 2019, p. 122), small-scale farmers “do not typically choose
agrobiodiversity for its own sake but rather because it fits with underlying farming
rationales or trait preferences” (ibid.). Intentionality is more visible at the natural
landscape level where subsistence farmers, driven by their needs, operate as “multiuse strategists” and seem to “play the game of subsistence through the manipulation
of ecological components and processes (including forest succession, life cycles, and
movement of materials)” (Toledo, 1990, pp. 55–56, 2001, p. 460). As Toledo stressed,
“[t]he acclaimed and somewhat enigmatic ecological rationality of the peasant and
traditional producer is just a subsistence strategy developed within a non-commodity
system of production” (Toledo, 1990, p. 57).
References
Agnoletti, M., Emanueli, F., Agnoletti, M., & Emanueli, F. (Eds.). (2016). Biocultural
Diversity and Landscape in Europe: Framing the Issue. In Biocultural Diversity in Europe
(pp. 1–18). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26315-1
Almeida, F. (2017). Legislative Pathways for Securing Community-Based Property Rights.
Rights and Resources Initiative.
Almekinders, C. J. M., Stone, G. D., Baranski, M., Carney, J. A., Hanspach, J., Krishna,
V. V., Ramirez-Villegas, J., Etten, J. van, & Zimmerer, K. S. (2019). Socioecological
Interactions Amid Global Change. In K. S. Zimmerer & S. de Haan (Eds.), Agrobiodiversity
Integrating Knowledge for a Sustainable Future (pp. 117–143). MIT Press. https://research.
wur.nl/en/publications/socioecological-interactions-amid-global-change
Altieri, M. A., Anderson, M. K., & Merrick, L. C. (1987). Peasant Agriculture and the
Conservation of Crop and Wild Plant Resources. Conservation Biology, 1(1), 49–58.
Anaya, S. J. (2004). Indigenous Peoples in International Law (2nd ed.). Oxford University
Press.
Anderson, J. E. (2015). Indigenous Knowledge and Intellectual Property Rights. In
J. D. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.,
pp. 769–778). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.64078-3
Anderson, J., & Hudson, M. (2020). The Biocultural Labels Initiative: Supporting
Indigenous Rights in Data Derived from Genetic Resources. Biodiversity Information
Science and Standards, 4, e59230. https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.4.59230