BCPs and Boundary Work in Madagascar 243
“Mutually supportive implementation of the Plant Treaty and the Nagoya
Protocol in Benin and Madagascar”, hereinafter referred to as the “ Darwin project”. Bioversity International was the contract holder, with funding covering a
period of three years (from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2018). It took two years
to negotiate and draft the Analavory BCP (2016–2017), which was signed on
27 December 2017 by the deputy Mayor of the commune and the two regional
heads of the Ministries directly concerned: the Ministry of Agriculture, L ivestock
and Fisheries (MAEP) and the Ministry of the Environment and S ustainable
Development (MEDD). The development of the BCP was outsourced to Natural
Justice (the facilitator).
3
As the title indicates, the project initially aimed at mutually supportive implementation of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture (ITPGRFA or Plant Treaty) and the Nagoya Protocol in Benin and
Madagascar. The Nagoya Protocol,
4 which complements the legal framework
established by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), was ratified by
Madagascar on 3 July 2014.
5 It significantly strengthens the obligations of States
Parties regarding access to genetic resources and traditional knowledge (TK)
held by indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs). Importantly, all parties are bound to take measures with a view to ensuring that TK and genetic
resources are accessed with the prior and informed consent (PIC) or approval
and involvement of IPLCs, and that mutually agreed terms (MAT) have been
established. States are also obliged to take measures to ensure that benefits arising from the use of this TK and these genetic resources are shared in a fair and
equitable way with the communities concerned (Morgera et al., 2014). In Madagascar, one outcome of this component of the Darwin project (together with the
GIZ-PAGE programme)
6 was Decree No. 2017–066 of 31 January 2017 on the
regulation of Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) arising from the use of genetic
resources, which mandates community PIC from “local custodians (gestionnaires)
of natural resources” and “holders of TK” associated with genetic resources and
also encourages the development of BCPs, while making compliance with their
provisions mandatory.
7 The Plant Treaty
8 was also ratified by Madagascar on 11
June 2006.
9 It should be recalled that this treaty only covers a sub-category of
genetic resources, referred to as “plant genetic resources for food and agriculture” (PGRFA). Central to the Plant Treaty is the Multilateral System (MLS) of
ABS, whereby contracting parties agreed to “virtually” pool 35 food crops and
29 forages that are listed in Annex 1 of the Treaty, in order to facilitate access to
these resources and to fairly and equitably share the benefits arising from their
use (Frison, 2018).
It should be stressed that the general theme of this chapter sits at the interface between the global regime of biodiversity governance and the regulation
of access to genetic resources and associated TK “held” by local communities.
Resituating the debate in this way and specifying the spatio-temporal scales are
critical: the interface between global and local has gone through a sea change
in recent decades, which has led to international recognition of IPLCs as the
“Mutually supportive implementation of the Plant Treaty and the Nagoya
Protocol in Benin and Madagascar”, hereinafter referred to as the “ Darwin project”. Bioversity International was the contract holder, with funding covering a
period of three years (from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2018). It took two years
to negotiate and draft the Analavory BCP (2016–2017), which was signed on
27 December 2017 by the deputy Mayor of the commune and the two regional
heads of the Ministries directly concerned: the Ministry of Agriculture, L ivestock
and Fisheries (MAEP) and the Ministry of the Environment and S ustainable
Development (MEDD). The development of the BCP was outsourced to Natural
Justice (the facilitator).
3
As the title indicates, the project initially aimed at mutually supportive implementation of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture (ITPGRFA or Plant Treaty) and the Nagoya Protocol in Benin and
Madagascar. The Nagoya Protocol,
4 which complements the legal framework
established by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), was ratified by
Madagascar on 3 July 2014.
5 It significantly strengthens the obligations of States
Parties regarding access to genetic resources and traditional knowledge (TK)
held by indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs). Importantly, all parties are bound to take measures with a view to ensuring that TK and genetic
resources are accessed with the prior and informed consent (PIC) or approval
and involvement of IPLCs, and that mutually agreed terms (MAT) have been
established. States are also obliged to take measures to ensure that benefits arising from the use of this TK and these genetic resources are shared in a fair and
equitable way with the communities concerned (Morgera et al., 2014). In Madagascar, one outcome of this component of the Darwin project (together with the
GIZ-PAGE programme)
6 was Decree No. 2017–066 of 31 January 2017 on the
regulation of Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) arising from the use of genetic
resources, which mandates community PIC from “local custodians (gestionnaires)
of natural resources” and “holders of TK” associated with genetic resources and
also encourages the development of BCPs, while making compliance with their
provisions mandatory.
7 The Plant Treaty
8 was also ratified by Madagascar on 11
June 2006.
9 It should be recalled that this treaty only covers a sub-category of
genetic resources, referred to as “plant genetic resources for food and agriculture” (PGRFA). Central to the Plant Treaty is the Multilateral System (MLS) of
ABS, whereby contracting parties agreed to “virtually” pool 35 food crops and
29 forages that are listed in Annex 1 of the Treaty, in order to facilitate access to
these resources and to fairly and equitably share the benefits arising from their
use (Frison, 2018).
It should be stressed that the general theme of this chapter sits at the interface between the global regime of biodiversity governance and the regulation
of access to genetic resources and associated TK “held” by local communities.
Resituating the debate in this way and specifying the spatio-temporal scales are
critical: the interface between global and local has gone through a sea change
in recent decades, which has led to international recognition of IPLCs as the