Managing beyond designations: supporting endogenous processes for nurturing biocultural development

Abstract

Over the past decade the concept of biocultural diversity has emerged in scholarly and policy circles as an acknowledgement that biological and cultural diversity are interconnected and interdependent, and equally threatened. A significant portion of the world’s biocultural diversity is found within indigenous territories, where indigenous peoples have historically managed a coevolutionary relationship between their communities and their land. This suggests that endogenous processes within indigenous territories are important for a continued nurturing of biocultural diversity. Emerging designations used for conservation of biocultural diversity can be useful, but by themselves are unable to protect the ongoing relationships and processes that create and nurture the diversity. In this paper, we argue that it is important to move beyond conservation-driven management models towards models that support endogenous processes. Designations for biocultural diversity, accordingly, need to recognise that people, biodiversity and place are best managed as an interconnected whole, and actively support the well-being and self-determination of indigenous peoples. We use examples from Panama (indigenous Kuna Yala territory) and New Zealand (Mataura Mātaitai Reserve, Southland) to reflect upon the ongoing role of endogenous processes and how they interact with exogenous designations. Through the case studies we illustrate the importance of contextualising our understanding of biocultural diversity as part of endogenous development to recognise wider issues of indigenous rights. Finally, we offer some lessons for managing beyond designations and supporting endogenous processes.

Keywords:

• endogenous development
• self-determination
• indigenous peoples
• interconnected
• conservation
• biocultural diversity
• Kuna Yala
• Mataura
• mātaitai

Acknowledgements

We would like to respectfully acknowledge the wisdom and guidance provided to us by the elders of Kuna Yala and Murihiku that have inspired our journey in writing this paper. We thank the Congreso General Kuna and the Congreso General de la Cultural Kuna for permission granted to Marina Apgar to conduct collaborative research in Kuna Yala. We also want to recognise the input of Rewi Anglem (Tangata Tiaki, Mataura River Mātaitai Reserve) and Rodney Trainor of Murihiku to drafts of the paper.

Notes

1. Comarca is a Panamanian special political division for indigenous territories. Kuna Yala was the first to be established, in 1954. Since then, several other Comarcas of other indigenous peoples have also been established.

2. The term onmaked refers to the community gathering which takes place in the central gathering house, and forms the basic structre for the Kuna community participatory democratic governance system.

3. Marae-based councils administering the affairs of the hapū (sub-tribe). The Papatipu Rūnanga of Ngāi Tahu Whānui, ‘the collective of the individuals who descend from the primary hapū of Waitaha, Ngāi Tahu and Ngāti Māmoe’ (section 9 of the Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Act 1996).

4. Rodney Trainor was a key tangata whenua representative responsible for the drafting and submission of the Mataura Mātaitai application to the New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries.