Protecting Indigenous and Local Knowledge Through a Biocultural Diversity Framework

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/10704965221104781
• Published date: 01 September 2022
• Date: 01 September 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

The Journal of Environment &

Development

2022, Vol. 31(3) 223–252

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/10704965221104781

journals.sagepub.com/home/jed

Protecting Indigenous and

Local Knowledge Through

a Biocultural Diversity

Framework

Gabriel R. Nemog´

a

1,2

,

Amanda Appasamy

3

, and

Cora A. Romanow

4



Abstract

Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) is intrinsically connected to knowledge holders’

worldviews and relationships to their environments. Mainstream rights-based ap-

proaches do not recognize this interconnection and are hence limited at protecting the

integrity of ILK. This paper presents two cases in Colombia in which, by recognizing

community-environment interconnections, the biocultural diversity framework ad-

vanced the protection of communities’ILK. The first case draws on court findings that

recognized Indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples’biocultural rights and granted

legal personhood to the Atrato River—a pioneering ruling in the American hemi-

sphere. The second case involved participatory fieldwork with the Embera peoples in

designing a biocultural community protocol, reinforcing their relationship with the

forest and protecting their biocultural heritage. The two cases illustrate that the bi-

ocultural diversity framework is inclusive of Indigenous and local communities’

worldviews and is hence an essential tool for the development of culturally appropriate

protective mechanisms for ILK.

1

Master in Indigenous Governance Program, Indigenous Studies Department, University of Winnipeg,

Winnipeg, MB, Canada

2

Research Group Policy and Legislation on Biodiversity, Genetic Resources, and Traditional Knowledge

(PLEBIO), National University of Colombia, Bogot´

a, Colombia

3

Masters in Development Practice Graduate, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

4

Bachelor of Science Honours in Biology, Minor in Mathematics, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, MB,

Canada

Corresponding Author:

Cora Anne Romanow, Bachelor of Science Honours in Biology, Minor in Mathematics, University of

Winnipeg, 599 Portage Ave, Winnipeg, MB R3B 2E9, Canada.

Email: coraanneromanow@gmail.com

Keywords

traditional ecological knowledge, intellectual property rights, access and benefits

sharing, indigenous and local knowledge, biocultural diversity conservation

Introduction

Protecting ILK and Biodiversity

The protection of Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) requires a conceptual ap-

proach that accounts for biocultural diversity, that is, the diversity of life in its bio-

logical, cultural, and linguistic forms (Maffi& Woodley,2010). Su ch an approach must

also recognize ILK as interconnected with diverse peoples’ways of life. This paper

discusses two cases in Colombia where the biocultural framework was used to advance

the protection of ILK through the recognition of community-land interconnections. We

highlight the limitations of the two predominant rights-based streams often proposed

for protecting ILK: Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Access and Benefit-Sharing

(ABS). These two streams were not created with the goal of protecting ILK, do not

acknowledge it as an integral part of peoples’livelihoods, and therefore they fail to

guarantee its preservation.

The importance of ILK for biodiversity conservation is undeniable. Indigenous

territories are home to 80% of global biodiversity and store 73% more carbon than lands

managed by non-Indigenous peoples (IUCN, 2019). Knowledge and practices of

Indigenous Peoples and Like-Minded Local Communities (IPLMLC) are valued as

critical assets for biodiversity conservation, for the sustainable management of natural

resources, co-management of natural areas, water conservation, and climate change

resilience (Burkett, 2013;Cameron et al., 2019;CBD, 1992;CBT-NP, 2014;Gautam,

2014;Green & Raygoredetsky, 2010;IPBES, 2019a;Schmitdt & Peterson, 2009;

Whyte, 2017). Simultaneously, ILK is rapidly vanishing (Carson et al., 2018;Peschard,

2014;Reyes-Garc´

ıa et al., 2013;UN-ESC, 2015) as biodiversity erosion continues

(IPBES, 2019a). The commercial use of ILK and biological resources is growing in

megadiverse countries (Afanadaor et al., 2014;Beattie et al., 2002;Mgbeoji, 2006;

Velez-Torres, 2014) without fair and equitable distribution of benefits. There is

mounting recognition for ILK in international environmental fora, but national bio-

diversity conservation policies, which are rooted in biological and economic per-

spectives, concede marginal recognition and participation of IPLMLC (Deranger,

2021;Nemog´

a, 2014a;2014b;Xu et al., 2021). One of the main shortcomings in

addressing the protection of ILK is that it is often envisioned as a body of useful data

that can be extracted, stored, fragmented, and used, separate from peoples’ways of life.

ILK entails intimate and pluridiverse relations to marine or continental ecosystems that

are guided and shaped by the worldviews, languages, and practices of IPLMLC

(Fern´

andez-Llamazares et al., 2021;Knudtson & Suzuki, 2006;LaDuke, 1999;Posey,

1999). Thus, the preservation of ILK requires the integral protection of IPLMLC ways

of life. Similarly, if linguistic diversity was to focus only on preserving digital records

224 The Journal of Environment & Development 31(3)