280 Reia Anquet and Fabien Girard
Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA). In the case of
Analavory (pp. 7–9)
22 and Tori-Bossito (pp. 11–12), specific procedural rules are
laid down to include landraces in the MLS, should the communities voluntarily decide to make materials that they hold available to the international community. To our knowledge, this linkage between a BCP and the ITPGRFA is
unprecedented and warrants two observations. The first is that the communities
of Analavory and Tori-Bossito are being located in low diversity areas
23 ; the
prospect of attracting bioprospectors is low.
24 The BCPs could not, therefore,
entirely be articulated around the ABS framework, and much effort was invested
in deploying an incentive framework for communities to engage in transnational
germplasm transfers, test new cultivars through participatory plant breeding, and
adopt new varieties (Halewood et al., 2021).
This brings us to our second observation: attempts at turning IPLCs into
small entrepreneurs are always risky undertakings, especially where there are
serious doubts about the kind of resources and knowledge that can attract
the interest of researchers and bioprospectors. In this context, BCPs create
expectations that they cannot deliver. Dashed hopes bring disappointment and
frustration, a point already stressed by Pierre du Plessis some years ago, who
stated that the “[t]he cost implications of pre‐emptive ABS protocols are not
worth it” (IIED et al., 2012, p. 4). Admittedly, the process of developing BCPs
is an empowering process in itself. It contributes to raising the community’s
awareness about its values, resources, customs, and institutional organisations,
thereby increasing its aptitude to manage its biocultural heritage and engage
with third parties with greater bargaining power (Parks, 2019; Rutert, 2020).
But these benefits can be wiped out by the state’s posture of defiance vis-à-vis
IPLCs. Significantly in the cases of Analavory and Ampangalastary, preliminary policy documents, field reports, and workshop reports frequently indulge
in the colonial script of local communities as “enemies of nature”. These
documents stress in several sections how poverty and demography increase
the anthropogenic pressure on watersheds. At times, they blame inappropriate
agricultural practices (such as “[b]ush fires and irrational exploitation of the
mountains […]”) for siltation, soil degradation, and water erosion (MAEP
et al., 2017). Against this narrative, BCPs are necessarily less about capacitybuilding, empowerment, self-determination, and life plans, but rather about
controlling how IPLCs interact with “nature” on the grounds they need to
change and be forward-looking.
Of Two Scripts of the Past: IPLCs as “Enemies of Nature”
or “Premoderns”
The previous point brings us to discuss age-old (but constantly repeated) scripts,
among which that of IPLCs as “enemies of nature” is still pervasive in Africa.
25
This often coexists and merges with another script from the past, namely that
IPLCs are “premodern”, i.e. against progress and development or that they live
Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA). In the case of
Analavory (pp. 7–9)
22 and Tori-Bossito (pp. 11–12), specific procedural rules are
laid down to include landraces in the MLS, should the communities voluntarily decide to make materials that they hold available to the international community. To our knowledge, this linkage between a BCP and the ITPGRFA is
unprecedented and warrants two observations. The first is that the communities
of Analavory and Tori-Bossito are being located in low diversity areas
23 ; the
prospect of attracting bioprospectors is low.
24 The BCPs could not, therefore,
entirely be articulated around the ABS framework, and much effort was invested
in deploying an incentive framework for communities to engage in transnational
germplasm transfers, test new cultivars through participatory plant breeding, and
adopt new varieties (Halewood et al., 2021).
This brings us to our second observation: attempts at turning IPLCs into
small entrepreneurs are always risky undertakings, especially where there are
serious doubts about the kind of resources and knowledge that can attract
the interest of researchers and bioprospectors. In this context, BCPs create
expectations that they cannot deliver. Dashed hopes bring disappointment and
frustration, a point already stressed by Pierre du Plessis some years ago, who
stated that the “[t]he cost implications of pre‐emptive ABS protocols are not
worth it” (IIED et al., 2012, p. 4). Admittedly, the process of developing BCPs
is an empowering process in itself. It contributes to raising the community’s
awareness about its values, resources, customs, and institutional organisations,
thereby increasing its aptitude to manage its biocultural heritage and engage
with third parties with greater bargaining power (Parks, 2019; Rutert, 2020).
But these benefits can be wiped out by the state’s posture of defiance vis-à-vis
IPLCs. Significantly in the cases of Analavory and Ampangalastary, preliminary policy documents, field reports, and workshop reports frequently indulge
in the colonial script of local communities as “enemies of nature”. These
documents stress in several sections how poverty and demography increase
the anthropogenic pressure on watersheds. At times, they blame inappropriate
agricultural practices (such as “[b]ush fires and irrational exploitation of the
mountains […]”) for siltation, soil degradation, and water erosion (MAEP
et al., 2017). Against this narrative, BCPs are necessarily less about capacitybuilding, empowerment, self-determination, and life plans, but rather about
controlling how IPLCs interact with “nature” on the grounds they need to
change and be forward-looking.
Of Two Scripts of the Past: IPLCs as “Enemies of Nature”
or “Premoderns”
The previous point brings us to discuss age-old (but constantly repeated) scripts,
among which that of IPLCs as “enemies of nature” is still pervasive in Africa.
25
This often coexists and merges with another script from the past, namely that
IPLCs are “premodern”, i.e. against progress and development or that they live