BCPs and Boundary Work in Madagascar 257
In my opinion, it is of utmost importance to protect them. We can plant them
in our garden to start with […]. They are real medicines, and we don’t need to
spend money to get them.
FACILITATOR (NATURAL JUSTICE): What resources do you think are covered
by this BCP? Is that only PGRFA or all Genetic Resources?
MRS B.: For the time being, it is only genetic resources for food and agriculture.
FACILITATOR (NATURAL JUSTICE): So, if there are people who want to access
medicinal plants in our area, will you or won’t you use this BCP?
MRS B. (PEASANT): In my opinion, these medicinal plants are not yet covered
by this BCP.
MR T2 (PEASANT): In my opinion, we should not have put in the title of the
BCP that it only concerns PGRFA, because these are plants that are not
grown but which are very useful to us […]. So, in my opinion, we should
change the title of the BCP.
FACILITATOR (NATURAL JUSTICE): But what is the current title of the BCP?
MR H. (DRAEP) [HE READS THE TITLE]: “Arofenitra Iombonan’ny Tantsaha Analavory” […]. Biocultural Community Protocol of the peasants of Analavory.
MRS M. (MAEP): It is clear from the title that the BCP concerns all Genetic
Resources including PGRFA.
FACILITATOR (NATURAL JUSTICE): You’ve probably forgotten what we put in
it [laughter].
33
The very first part of the exchanges stumbles over a translation issue which
extends the space of communicability to breaking point. Even when translated
into Malagasy, the foreignness or “otherness” of the word fototarazo persists
(“it’s all Greek [French] to me”).
34 Certainly, Mr R, the first speaker, is able
to grasp the meaning of the word through a referent that appeals to vernacular
representations. But this comes at a cost: the protocol is stripped of half of its
substance, for it is then limited to “traditional crops”, i.e. PGRFA (or “ fototarazo famboly sy fanao sakafo” in Malagasy). Through a series of deceptively
naive questions, the facilitator scrambles to bring “genetic resources other
than” PGRFA back into the BCP.
And this raises a new challenge. As we shall see, PGRFA are almost c onsistently
referred to as “traditional knowledge” which, by extension, causes a mismatch
between the vernacular definition and the international and legal sense of the
expression. A subsequent sequence of exchanges illustrates this point. It begins
with a question raised by a ministry representative: “On the other hand, what
I don’t find in the BCP, but maybe I’m reading it too quickly, is the traditional
knowledge dimension”. Following a lengthy silence, one member of our team
brings the issue up again. Here are the replies:
MRS B. (PEASANT): There was a meeting, it was even in this room where we are
meeting right now, and we discussed traditional knowledge [pause]. So, I am
quite surprised and I wonder why we talked about this subject during the
In my opinion, it is of utmost importance to protect them. We can plant them
in our garden to start with […]. They are real medicines, and we don’t need to
spend money to get them.
FACILITATOR (NATURAL JUSTICE): What resources do you think are covered
by this BCP? Is that only PGRFA or all Genetic Resources?
MRS B.: For the time being, it is only genetic resources for food and agriculture.
FACILITATOR (NATURAL JUSTICE): So, if there are people who want to access
medicinal plants in our area, will you or won’t you use this BCP?
MRS B. (PEASANT): In my opinion, these medicinal plants are not yet covered
by this BCP.
MR T2 (PEASANT): In my opinion, we should not have put in the title of the
BCP that it only concerns PGRFA, because these are plants that are not
grown but which are very useful to us […]. So, in my opinion, we should
change the title of the BCP.
FACILITATOR (NATURAL JUSTICE): But what is the current title of the BCP?
MR H. (DRAEP) [HE READS THE TITLE]: “Arofenitra Iombonan’ny Tantsaha Analavory” […]. Biocultural Community Protocol of the peasants of Analavory.
MRS M. (MAEP): It is clear from the title that the BCP concerns all Genetic
Resources including PGRFA.
FACILITATOR (NATURAL JUSTICE): You’ve probably forgotten what we put in
it [laughter].
33
The very first part of the exchanges stumbles over a translation issue which
extends the space of communicability to breaking point. Even when translated
into Malagasy, the foreignness or “otherness” of the word fototarazo persists
(“it’s all Greek [French] to me”).
34 Certainly, Mr R, the first speaker, is able
to grasp the meaning of the word through a referent that appeals to vernacular
representations. But this comes at a cost: the protocol is stripped of half of its
substance, for it is then limited to “traditional crops”, i.e. PGRFA (or “ fototarazo famboly sy fanao sakafo” in Malagasy). Through a series of deceptively
naive questions, the facilitator scrambles to bring “genetic resources other
than” PGRFA back into the BCP.
And this raises a new challenge. As we shall see, PGRFA are almost c onsistently
referred to as “traditional knowledge” which, by extension, causes a mismatch
between the vernacular definition and the international and legal sense of the
expression. A subsequent sequence of exchanges illustrates this point. It begins
with a question raised by a ministry representative: “On the other hand, what
I don’t find in the BCP, but maybe I’m reading it too quickly, is the traditional
knowledge dimension”. Following a lengthy silence, one member of our team
brings the issue up again. Here are the replies:
MRS B. (PEASANT): There was a meeting, it was even in this room where we are
meeting right now, and we discussed traditional knowledge [pause]. So, I am
quite surprised and I wonder why we talked about this subject during the