290 Reia Anquet and Fabien Girard
Our corpus clearly confirms how this conciliation further relies on patterns
already in use during colonial time to mediate relationship between coloniser
and colonised, namely textualisation and codification (Pels & Salemink, 2000,
p. 28). This pattern resurfaced with CBNRM, as to decentralise resource management which was felt to be an unacceptable loss in power by States that they
could not bring themselves to accept without imposing “some degree of statutory
uniformity for purposes of legal recognition” (Brosius et al., 1998, p. 166). In
both cases, the ultimate goal is the same: fixing “regularities of social practices”
and turning them “into the essence of local social order” (Pels & Salemink,
2000, p. 28).
The most sophisticated form of “statutory uniformization” is the imposition
of new institutions or governance systems that replace customary authorities
or community-based institutions. There are many well-researched accounts
of this process in the context of CBNRM (Almeida, 2017, p. 9). Some BCPs
included in our case study fit the same pattern, but what is worth highlighting
is the way how strong references to tradition are used to conceal the magnitude of the institutional change or hold it out as small adjustments in the traditional governance structure. In Bonou (Benin), the BCP describes in detail
the community’s “internal decision-making system”, which is a “college”
made up of the king of Bonou, the “Gbévonon” (the chief of the community,
also the guarantor of the divinity of the sacred forest “Gbévo”), the heads of
families, and the guarantor of other deities. A consultative body, attached to
the college, and made up of 16 young community’s members, is tasked with
monitoring and controlling the management of resources, especially those of
the sacred forests (p. 17). Surprisingly enough, Section 8.3 of the BCP then
goes on to describe the “management body” of the community, also called
the “local committee”, whose composition mostly departs from that of the
“college” described above. It comprises the king of Bonou, three representatives of the community (also acting as the manager of the sacred forest),
two landowners, and one representative of the village of Sotinkanmè.
45 The
“local committee” is headed by a “bureau” made up of the king, a secretary,
a treasurer, and two officers, respectively, tasked with planning and biodiversity management and cultural and religious activities. This “bureau” acts
as the “community competent authority” on ABS (p. 28). Another striking
feature emerges upon closer inspection: the “local committee” is modelled
upon the committee referred to in Articles 41–44 of the Inter-ministerial
Decree of 16 November 2012. It lays down the conditions for the sustainable management of the sacred forest in the Republic of Benin.
46 This text
sets out the procedure for the transfer of sacred forest management to village
communities, which implies a request for legal recognition of the sacred forest being submitted to the local authority by a village community, together
with a local by-law passed by the commune establishing the “Sacred Forests
Management Committee”. Upon completing the complicated proceedings set
up by the Inter-ministerial Order, the sacred forest is normally included in
Our corpus clearly confirms how this conciliation further relies on patterns
already in use during colonial time to mediate relationship between coloniser
and colonised, namely textualisation and codification (Pels & Salemink, 2000,
p. 28). This pattern resurfaced with CBNRM, as to decentralise resource management which was felt to be an unacceptable loss in power by States that they
could not bring themselves to accept without imposing “some degree of statutory
uniformity for purposes of legal recognition” (Brosius et al., 1998, p. 166). In
both cases, the ultimate goal is the same: fixing “regularities of social practices”
and turning them “into the essence of local social order” (Pels & Salemink,
2000, p. 28).
The most sophisticated form of “statutory uniformization” is the imposition
of new institutions or governance systems that replace customary authorities
or community-based institutions. There are many well-researched accounts
of this process in the context of CBNRM (Almeida, 2017, p. 9). Some BCPs
included in our case study fit the same pattern, but what is worth highlighting
is the way how strong references to tradition are used to conceal the magnitude of the institutional change or hold it out as small adjustments in the traditional governance structure. In Bonou (Benin), the BCP describes in detail
the community’s “internal decision-making system”, which is a “college”
made up of the king of Bonou, the “Gbévonon” (the chief of the community,
also the guarantor of the divinity of the sacred forest “Gbévo”), the heads of
families, and the guarantor of other deities. A consultative body, attached to
the college, and made up of 16 young community’s members, is tasked with
monitoring and controlling the management of resources, especially those of
the sacred forests (p. 17). Surprisingly enough, Section 8.3 of the BCP then
goes on to describe the “management body” of the community, also called
the “local committee”, whose composition mostly departs from that of the
“college” described above. It comprises the king of Bonou, three representatives of the community (also acting as the manager of the sacred forest),
two landowners, and one representative of the village of Sotinkanmè.
45 The
“local committee” is headed by a “bureau” made up of the king, a secretary,
a treasurer, and two officers, respectively, tasked with planning and biodiversity management and cultural and religious activities. This “bureau” acts
as the “community competent authority” on ABS (p. 28). Another striking
feature emerges upon closer inspection: the “local committee” is modelled
upon the committee referred to in Articles 41–44 of the Inter-ministerial
Decree of 16 November 2012. It lays down the conditions for the sustainable management of the sacred forest in the Republic of Benin.
46 This text
sets out the procedure for the transfer of sacred forest management to village
communities, which implies a request for legal recognition of the sacred forest being submitted to the local authority by a village community, together
with a local by-law passed by the commune establishing the “Sacred Forests
Management Committee”. Upon completing the complicated proceedings set
up by the Inter-ministerial Order, the sacred forest is normally included in