322 Fabien Girard et al.
the protocol (e.g. in the Madagascar case, even though the Malagasy government
is seemingly unwilling to recognise BCPs developed by communities that are
not constituted as legal persons).
Except in those few instances where BCPs/CPs can be part of the PIC process
set up by domestic ABS regulations, what is then the value of these protocols?
The most straightforward answer is to consider these protocols as mainly ethical in nature (Grey, 2004), i.e. they communicate ethical norms and depend on
moral adherence (Bannister, 2009, p. 297). Nevertheless, even in this legally
inchoate form, somehow lingering in the anteroom of law, their importance cannot be overstated. They stand as “art of speaking” tools (Bavikatte et al., 2015)
or “tools of conviviality” (Illich, 1973) – i.e. emancipatory or empowering tools
collectively developed by a community and through which the group communicates its values, concerns, and interests. At the end of this analytical overview of
the book’s content, we offer the reader a comprehensive typology of BCPs/CPs
by referring to their functions.
Negotiating BCPs/CPs: Brokers and the Making of Communities
Part 2 of this book also endeavours to address two thorny issues commonly associated with BCPs/CPs.
First, the realisation that the process of developing a protocol counts as much – if
not more – than the content itself (for a critical view, see Rutert, 2020, pp. 255–
257). The question is significant because the process of developing the protocol is
featured as the building block of a more extensive process aimed at community
empowerment. Even further, it is vital as, however important the community’s role
may have been, the process is almost always initiated and supported by external
actors (this seems less true in the Canadian context; see Kelly Bannister’s chapter
in this book). This phenomenon begs the question of how much the development
of BCPs/CPs is shaped, even unintentionally, by international aid donors, international or local NGOs (operating as “brokers”), professional facilitators, and scholars
involved in the preparation, drafting, and implementation process. Also raised is
the question of “communities becoming dependent on non-state actors’ support”
(Parks, 2019, p. 172). As Pía Marchegiani and Louisa Parks’ chapter tends to show,
even though in this case the CP fell short of advancing communities’ rights, the
fact that the development process was firmly in communities’ hands allowed them
to react quickly and use the protocol as a platform to circumvent some dead-ends
and realign their collective action in the face of institutional bottlenecks. At the
same time, we can also sense that the level of external engagement is likely to be
inversely proportional to the degree of disenfranchisement and cultural disruption the community faces, a crucial issue that Leslé Jansen and Rayna Sutherland
address regarding the San and Khoikhoi in South Africa.
Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether the way most of these projects
are funded through and entangled in vast bureaucratic machinery is not a fundamental structural defect constantly threatening to thwart the earnest efforts
the protocol (e.g. in the Madagascar case, even though the Malagasy government
is seemingly unwilling to recognise BCPs developed by communities that are
not constituted as legal persons).
Except in those few instances where BCPs/CPs can be part of the PIC process
set up by domestic ABS regulations, what is then the value of these protocols?
The most straightforward answer is to consider these protocols as mainly ethical in nature (Grey, 2004), i.e. they communicate ethical norms and depend on
moral adherence (Bannister, 2009, p. 297). Nevertheless, even in this legally
inchoate form, somehow lingering in the anteroom of law, their importance cannot be overstated. They stand as “art of speaking” tools (Bavikatte et al., 2015)
or “tools of conviviality” (Illich, 1973) – i.e. emancipatory or empowering tools
collectively developed by a community and through which the group communicates its values, concerns, and interests. At the end of this analytical overview of
the book’s content, we offer the reader a comprehensive typology of BCPs/CPs
by referring to their functions.
Negotiating BCPs/CPs: Brokers and the Making of Communities
Part 2 of this book also endeavours to address two thorny issues commonly associated with BCPs/CPs.
First, the realisation that the process of developing a protocol counts as much – if
not more – than the content itself (for a critical view, see Rutert, 2020, pp. 255–
257). The question is significant because the process of developing the protocol is
featured as the building block of a more extensive process aimed at community
empowerment. Even further, it is vital as, however important the community’s role
may have been, the process is almost always initiated and supported by external
actors (this seems less true in the Canadian context; see Kelly Bannister’s chapter
in this book). This phenomenon begs the question of how much the development
of BCPs/CPs is shaped, even unintentionally, by international aid donors, international or local NGOs (operating as “brokers”), professional facilitators, and scholars
involved in the preparation, drafting, and implementation process. Also raised is
the question of “communities becoming dependent on non-state actors’ support”
(Parks, 2019, p. 172). As Pía Marchegiani and Louisa Parks’ chapter tends to show,
even though in this case the CP fell short of advancing communities’ rights, the
fact that the development process was firmly in communities’ hands allowed them
to react quickly and use the protocol as a platform to circumvent some dead-ends
and realign their collective action in the face of institutional bottlenecks. At the
same time, we can also sense that the level of external engagement is likely to be
inversely proportional to the degree of disenfranchisement and cultural disruption the community faces, a crucial issue that Leslé Jansen and Rayna Sutherland
address regarding the San and Khoikhoi in South Africa.
Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether the way most of these projects
are funded through and entangled in vast bureaucratic machinery is not a fundamental structural defect constantly threatening to thwart the earnest efforts