The Sovereign Stewards of Biodiversity 291
the communal forest estate by way of an Inter-ministerial Order of two ministers. To our knowledge, proceedings have never reached this last stage, but
this account calls for some comments. First, a seemingly stable and diverse
customary body, with a fairly broad social base, has been replaced by a small
committee giving the king of Bonou broad powers over genetic resources – a
typical “power over” situation (see Bannister, 2004, p. 3). Second, from the
State’s point of view, relationships with the community are significantly simplified, given that the governance structure is now clearly defined and regulated by a legal text. It also provides a template to be duplicated throughout
the region. This example confirms that statutory uniformity is rarely sought
through institutions created from scratch, but rather through the instrumental
use of existing governance structures that can claim a “local pedigree” or be
described as a “traditional community”.
A more radical strategy consists of promoting institutions with all the trappings
of “tradition”, but which are traditional in name only. One of the two Malagasy
BCPs was developed in the fokontany Ampangalatsary where, following Law No.
96-025 regarding the local management of renewable natural resources
47 (the
so-called “GELOSE law”), management rights of the Iaroka Antavolobe forest
were transferred by contract to a local natural resource management group, the
VOI Firaisankina (in Malagasy Vondron’Olona Ifotony (VOI), or “Basic Community”).
48 VOI are a perfect blend of instruments from modern law and traditionally inspired structures. For example, the “Basic Community” is endowed with
legal personality,
49 and both the establishment and the operation of the body are
stringently regulated by the GELOSE law of 1996 (see Pollini & Lassoie, 2011).
This community is presented as an offshoot of an age-old traditional institution,
the fokon’olona, which is a community whose members share a common kinship
and a common territory.
50 This community is governed by a form of a “social
contract” – dina – laying down rules for the main dimensions of economic and
social lives. These customary rules are implemented by a traditional chief backed
by an assembly of elders. The VOI tries to imitate the traditional fokon’olona
and thus to maintain the illusion that there is a continuity between “restricted
group of individuals willing to adopt management rules designed by the state
and its partners” and communities ( fokon’olona) that de facto manage the resources
according to rules and institutions that have a long history (Pollini & Lassoie,
2011, p. 823).
A Final Note on the Ethic of Stewardship: Legal Subjectivation
for Emancipation
The previous sections of this chapter have shown that BCPs can be taken as
receptables revealing an array of scripts – all built on the modern naturalist
matrix – that circulate within the international regime on biodiversity conservation and ABS. Furthermore, they show how these scripts, as “storied performativity”, both recount and enact the relations between “agents/subjects” (humans
the communal forest estate by way of an Inter-ministerial Order of two ministers. To our knowledge, proceedings have never reached this last stage, but
this account calls for some comments. First, a seemingly stable and diverse
customary body, with a fairly broad social base, has been replaced by a small
committee giving the king of Bonou broad powers over genetic resources – a
typical “power over” situation (see Bannister, 2004, p. 3). Second, from the
State’s point of view, relationships with the community are significantly simplified, given that the governance structure is now clearly defined and regulated by a legal text. It also provides a template to be duplicated throughout
the region. This example confirms that statutory uniformity is rarely sought
through institutions created from scratch, but rather through the instrumental
use of existing governance structures that can claim a “local pedigree” or be
described as a “traditional community”.
A more radical strategy consists of promoting institutions with all the trappings
of “tradition”, but which are traditional in name only. One of the two Malagasy
BCPs was developed in the fokontany Ampangalatsary where, following Law No.
96-025 regarding the local management of renewable natural resources
47 (the
so-called “GELOSE law”), management rights of the Iaroka Antavolobe forest
were transferred by contract to a local natural resource management group, the
VOI Firaisankina (in Malagasy Vondron’Olona Ifotony (VOI), or “Basic Community”).
48 VOI are a perfect blend of instruments from modern law and traditionally inspired structures. For example, the “Basic Community” is endowed with
legal personality,
49 and both the establishment and the operation of the body are
stringently regulated by the GELOSE law of 1996 (see Pollini & Lassoie, 2011).
This community is presented as an offshoot of an age-old traditional institution,
the fokon’olona, which is a community whose members share a common kinship
and a common territory.
50 This community is governed by a form of a “social
contract” – dina – laying down rules for the main dimensions of economic and
social lives. These customary rules are implemented by a traditional chief backed
by an assembly of elders. The VOI tries to imitate the traditional fokon’olona
and thus to maintain the illusion that there is a continuity between “restricted
group of individuals willing to adopt management rules designed by the state
and its partners” and communities ( fokon’olona) that de facto manage the resources
according to rules and institutions that have a long history (Pollini & Lassoie,
2011, p. 823).
A Final Note on the Ethic of Stewardship: Legal Subjectivation
for Emancipation
The previous sections of this chapter have shown that BCPs can be taken as
receptables revealing an array of scripts – all built on the modern naturalist
matrix – that circulate within the international regime on biodiversity conservation and ABS. Furthermore, they show how these scripts, as “storied performativity”, both recount and enact the relations between “agents/subjects” (humans