BCPs and Boundary Work in Madagascar 245
While none of the above is inaccurate, a cursory examination of the few
protocols established throughout the world (Delgado, 2016; Parks, 2019) indicates
that BCPs cannot be reduced to mere technical tools. They commonly encapsulate recurring discursive patterns which extend the instrument’s scope beyond its
procedural dimension. For instance, one may commonly find strong calls to tradition, pervasive references to a holistic way of life and, above all, an emphasis on
the “stewardship” role of IPLCs in biodiversity conservation, itself systematically
linked to “traditional” ways of life.
11 These recurring patterns and tropes can certainly be read as a form of “strategic essentialism” (Banerjee, 2003, p. 144; Hughes
& Lamont, 2018, p. 162) which is already apparent in the way representations of
“stewards” and “ecological natives” have been used, with some success, by indigenous peoples “to transform nonindigenous peoples’ ideas of their identities not
only within the nation-state, but also in transnational arenas” (Ulloa, 2005, p. 215).
As was the case for the discourse around biodiversity, which was wrought
globally by dominant players but “transformed and re-inscribed into other
knowledge- power constellations” as it circulated through local networks
(Escobar, 1998, p. 56), so too are BCPs re-inscribing into new local constellations the discourses that are being framed in international arenas as “naturein-the-making” (Harvey & Haraway, 1995, p. 517). Furthermore, as alluded
to while referring to strategic essentialism, BCPs are part of a political project
which is ontological in nature. This means that BCPs are not about promoting
and securing the acceptance of different representations of seed, plant and TK, but
more radically about recognising and conciliating different “worlds” (Cadena
& Blaser, 2018; Demeulenaere, 2014). In other words, BCPs touch upon fundamental “assumptions” about “what kinds of things do or can exist, and what
might be their conditions of existence, relations of dependency” (Scott & Marshall, 2009, quoted by Blaser, 2009, p. 887).
For this reason, we argue that BCPs should be approached as processes (rather
than textual sources) that call upon and engage all the tangible and intangible
elements of community life and should be analysed through the conceptual lens
of “boundary work”. We draw here upon theoretical insights from anglophone
human geography, which itself largely borrows from science and technology
studies and actor-network theory. In what follows, the concept of “boundary
work” is used to describe the questions of interactions and interfaces between
communities of researchers or developers and IPLCs in the governance of biodiversity (“place-based governance”). Boundary work covers those “arrangements” that ensure “the creation and transformation of boundaries between
different social worlds that are inhabited by specific communities of actors”
(Koehrsen, 2017, p. 2), so as to navigate knowledge systems and even conciliate
“diverging ontological claims” (Löfmarck & Lidskog, 2017, p. 28). In addition to
the concepts of mediation and translation (sometimes referred to as “boundary
concepts”, Mollinga, 2010), boundary work generally involves a whole range of
methods intended to support the sharing and co-creation of knowledge between
partners (Robinson & Wallington, 2012).
While none of the above is inaccurate, a cursory examination of the few
protocols established throughout the world (Delgado, 2016; Parks, 2019) indicates
that BCPs cannot be reduced to mere technical tools. They commonly encapsulate recurring discursive patterns which extend the instrument’s scope beyond its
procedural dimension. For instance, one may commonly find strong calls to tradition, pervasive references to a holistic way of life and, above all, an emphasis on
the “stewardship” role of IPLCs in biodiversity conservation, itself systematically
linked to “traditional” ways of life.
11 These recurring patterns and tropes can certainly be read as a form of “strategic essentialism” (Banerjee, 2003, p. 144; Hughes
& Lamont, 2018, p. 162) which is already apparent in the way representations of
“stewards” and “ecological natives” have been used, with some success, by indigenous peoples “to transform nonindigenous peoples’ ideas of their identities not
only within the nation-state, but also in transnational arenas” (Ulloa, 2005, p. 215).
As was the case for the discourse around biodiversity, which was wrought
globally by dominant players but “transformed and re-inscribed into other
knowledge- power constellations” as it circulated through local networks
(Escobar, 1998, p. 56), so too are BCPs re-inscribing into new local constellations the discourses that are being framed in international arenas as “naturein-the-making” (Harvey & Haraway, 1995, p. 517). Furthermore, as alluded
to while referring to strategic essentialism, BCPs are part of a political project
which is ontological in nature. This means that BCPs are not about promoting
and securing the acceptance of different representations of seed, plant and TK, but
more radically about recognising and conciliating different “worlds” (Cadena
& Blaser, 2018; Demeulenaere, 2014). In other words, BCPs touch upon fundamental “assumptions” about “what kinds of things do or can exist, and what
might be their conditions of existence, relations of dependency” (Scott & Marshall, 2009, quoted by Blaser, 2009, p. 887).
For this reason, we argue that BCPs should be approached as processes (rather
than textual sources) that call upon and engage all the tangible and intangible
elements of community life and should be analysed through the conceptual lens
of “boundary work”. We draw here upon theoretical insights from anglophone
human geography, which itself largely borrows from science and technology
studies and actor-network theory. In what follows, the concept of “boundary
work” is used to describe the questions of interactions and interfaces between
communities of researchers or developers and IPLCs in the governance of biodiversity (“place-based governance”). Boundary work covers those “arrangements” that ensure “the creation and transformation of boundaries between
different social worlds that are inhabited by specific communities of actors”
(Koehrsen, 2017, p. 2), so as to navigate knowledge systems and even conciliate
“diverging ontological claims” (Löfmarck & Lidskog, 2017, p. 28). In addition to
the concepts of mediation and translation (sometimes referred to as “boundary
concepts”, Mollinga, 2010), boundary work generally involves a whole range of
methods intended to support the sharing and co-creation of knowledge between
partners (Robinson & Wallington, 2012).