BCPs and Boundary Work in Madagascar 261
Notes
1 *All URLs retrieved on 1 September 2021.
2 In the local dialect: “Arofenitra Iombonan’ny Tantsahan’Analavory”. The fieldwork was
conducted between October and November 2019.
3 On this NGO, which was founded in 2007 in Cape Town, see Chapter 1.
4 Nagoya Protocol, Nagoya, 29 October 2010.
5 Ratification authorised by Act No. 2013-010 of 31 October 2013.
6 The Programme d’Appui à la Gestion de l’Environnement (PAGE) is a support programme
for the Ministry of the Environment.
7 “Local custodians of natural resources” are defined as “groups of inhabitants who
legally and/or traditionally manage the resources for which access is requested and
whose way of life is of relevance to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity”. The text adds that for the local custodians of natural resources and holders of
associated TK, consent shall be given in a written contract. This contract is established according to customary rules, traditional values and practices as prescribed in
the locality and must not be contrary to the statues and regulations in force (Art. 14).
Finally, a paragraph specifies that in cases where traditional values and practices are
already documented in an instrument implemented by the communities, the instrument shall be consulted and embedded in the contract (Art. 14).
8 ITPGRFA, Rome, 3 November 2001.
9 Ratification authorised by Act No. 2005-042 of 15 December 2005.
10 See, this volume, Chapter 1.
11 See, this volume, Chapter 11.
12 In the field of the conservation of crop genetic resources, the blueprint was created by
the economist Swanson and his colleagues (1994) in the first Background Study Paper
commissioned by the FAO’s Commission on Genetic Resources from 1994 onwards
(see also, Cooper et al., 1994).
13 On incentives, see Chapter 1 (this volume).
14 In truth, there is mounting evidence that “[f ]armers carry out both unconscious and
deliberate selection through their various agronomic practices (for example, thinning
of emerged seedlings, transplanting, rogueing of off-types” ( Jarvis et al., 2016, p. 264).
This is something that is progressively accounted for in policies and strategies on the
in situ management of biodiversity. In fact, as recently argued, along a continuum
ranging from “intentionality by default” to “conscious intentionality” (Almekinders
et al., 2019, p. 122), small-scale farmers “do not typically choose agrobiodiversity
for its own sake but rather because it fits with underlying farming rationales or trait
preferences” (ibid.). Intentionality is more visible at the natural landscape level where
subsistence farmers, driven by their needs, operate as “multiuse strategists” and seem
to “play the game of subsistence through the manipulation of ecological components
and processes (including forest succession, life cycles, and movement of materials)”
(Toledo, 2001, p. 460).
15 CBD, COP, Characteristics Specific to Biological Diversity and Suggestions to
Funding Institutions on How to Make their Activities more Supportive of the
Convention. A Preliminary Consideration. Note by the Executive Secretary, UNEP/
CBD/COP/3/7 (22 September 1996), para. 7.
16 CBD, COP, Sharing of Experiences on Incentive Measures for Conservation and
Sustainable Use. Note by the Executive Secretary, UNEP/CBD/COP/3/24 (20
September 1996), para. 68.
17 SBSTTA, Sustainable Use of the Components of Biological Diversity. Note by the
Executive Secretary UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/5/13 (12 November 1999), para. 5.
18 UNEP/CBD/COP/3/24, paras 13, 68-69.
19 As far as we grasp the meaning, “underuse” is understood here in a radically different
sense. The assumption is that, from the perspective of the “global crop commons”
(total crop genetic diversity available), small-scale farmers, as “diversity managers”,
Notes
1 *All URLs retrieved on 1 September 2021.
2 In the local dialect: “Arofenitra Iombonan’ny Tantsahan’Analavory”. The fieldwork was
conducted between October and November 2019.
3 On this NGO, which was founded in 2007 in Cape Town, see Chapter 1.
4 Nagoya Protocol, Nagoya, 29 October 2010.
5 Ratification authorised by Act No. 2013-010 of 31 October 2013.
6 The Programme d’Appui à la Gestion de l’Environnement (PAGE) is a support programme
for the Ministry of the Environment.
7 “Local custodians of natural resources” are defined as “groups of inhabitants who
legally and/or traditionally manage the resources for which access is requested and
whose way of life is of relevance to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity”. The text adds that for the local custodians of natural resources and holders of
associated TK, consent shall be given in a written contract. This contract is established according to customary rules, traditional values and practices as prescribed in
the locality and must not be contrary to the statues and regulations in force (Art. 14).
Finally, a paragraph specifies that in cases where traditional values and practices are
already documented in an instrument implemented by the communities, the instrument shall be consulted and embedded in the contract (Art. 14).
8 ITPGRFA, Rome, 3 November 2001.
9 Ratification authorised by Act No. 2005-042 of 15 December 2005.
10 See, this volume, Chapter 1.
11 See, this volume, Chapter 11.
12 In the field of the conservation of crop genetic resources, the blueprint was created by
the economist Swanson and his colleagues (1994) in the first Background Study Paper
commissioned by the FAO’s Commission on Genetic Resources from 1994 onwards
(see also, Cooper et al., 1994).
13 On incentives, see Chapter 1 (this volume).
14 In truth, there is mounting evidence that “[f ]armers carry out both unconscious and
deliberate selection through their various agronomic practices (for example, thinning
of emerged seedlings, transplanting, rogueing of off-types” ( Jarvis et al., 2016, p. 264).
This is something that is progressively accounted for in policies and strategies on the
in situ management of biodiversity. In fact, as recently argued, along a continuum
ranging from “intentionality by default” to “conscious intentionality” (Almekinders
et al., 2019, p. 122), small-scale farmers “do not typically choose agrobiodiversity
for its own sake but rather because it fits with underlying farming rationales or trait
preferences” (ibid.). Intentionality is more visible at the natural landscape level where
subsistence farmers, driven by their needs, operate as “multiuse strategists” and seem
to “play the game of subsistence through the manipulation of ecological components
and processes (including forest succession, life cycles, and movement of materials)”
(Toledo, 2001, p. 460).
15 CBD, COP, Characteristics Specific to Biological Diversity and Suggestions to
Funding Institutions on How to Make their Activities more Supportive of the
Convention. A Preliminary Consideration. Note by the Executive Secretary, UNEP/
CBD/COP/3/7 (22 September 1996), para. 7.
16 CBD, COP, Sharing of Experiences on Incentive Measures for Conservation and
Sustainable Use. Note by the Executive Secretary, UNEP/CBD/COP/3/24 (20
September 1996), para. 68.
17 SBSTTA, Sustainable Use of the Components of Biological Diversity. Note by the
Executive Secretary UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/5/13 (12 November 1999), para. 5.
18 UNEP/CBD/COP/3/24, paras 13, 68-69.
19 As far as we grasp the meaning, “underuse” is understood here in a radically different
sense. The assumption is that, from the perspective of the “global crop commons”
(total crop genetic diversity available), small-scale farmers, as “diversity managers”,