Community Protocols and Biocultural Rights 19
unsurprising, as Natural Justice, as part of the Darwin Initiative project, has
backed the efforts of Bioversity International in facilitating the development of
BCPs in Madagascar.
63
In Benin, new national guidelines for ABS arising from the use of genetic
resources and associated TK were endorsed by Decree No. 2018–405 of 7
September 2018 (on national guidelines for ABS arising from the use of genetic
resources and associated TK in the Republic of Benin). It states that “bio cultural
community protocols” are defined as
tools that establish a set of basic principles for the participation of Local
Communities (LCs) in the ABS process and describes how to access or use
traditional knowledge and genetic resources held by local communities.
These protocols set out procedures that assert customary rights and emphasize the obligation of reciprocity, by involving all the parties concerned.
Article 8 of the national guidelines also provides that “[p]ositive cultural rules
of local communities or Bio cultural Community Protocols shall be respected”.
In these instances, BCPs/CPs clearly stand as legally binding instruments
aiming to set (unambiguous) terms and conditions to governments and the
private, research, and non-profit sectors willing to engage with IPLCs on their
local resources and knowledge.
64
Relying on first-hand ethnographic materials and best practices, findings and
feedback from practitioners and scholars who have gained significant experience
and expertise in the development and implementation of BCPs/CPs the world
over, the book investigates these pioneering pieces of legislation and considers the lessons that can be learnt and implications that can be drawn about the
situation of IPLCs and the future of the ABS framework.
The book also aims to look at BCPs/CPs beyond these few instances in which
they are legally recognised as part of procedures for local PIC. In all these cases,
the status of BCPs/CPs is unclear, as they appear to hover on the edge of ABS
legislation, if not floating above formal legal systems. How then are BCPs/
CPs to be read and understood within these specific contexts? Should they be
approached as non-legal instruments, incentives, or ethical tools in the same way
as CPs, community research protocols, and ethical codes are seen in Canada and
Australasia? If so, what are their functions and aims, their underlying philosophy, and theoretical underpinnings? What is the rationale behind their creation,
implementation, and content? What are the benefits expected by their advocates
and proponents, together with their shortcomings and perceived risks?
BCPs and Biocultural Jurisprudence
Such questions are all the more legitimate, given that, even within the relatively
narrow framework of the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol (with a primary focus
on PIC and benefit-sharing) and without even considering those BCPs that have
unsurprising, as Natural Justice, as part of the Darwin Initiative project, has
backed the efforts of Bioversity International in facilitating the development of
BCPs in Madagascar.
63
In Benin, new national guidelines for ABS arising from the use of genetic
resources and associated TK were endorsed by Decree No. 2018–405 of 7
September 2018 (on national guidelines for ABS arising from the use of genetic
resources and associated TK in the Republic of Benin). It states that “bio cultural
community protocols” are defined as
tools that establish a set of basic principles for the participation of Local
Communities (LCs) in the ABS process and describes how to access or use
traditional knowledge and genetic resources held by local communities.
These protocols set out procedures that assert customary rights and emphasize the obligation of reciprocity, by involving all the parties concerned.
Article 8 of the national guidelines also provides that “[p]ositive cultural rules
of local communities or Bio cultural Community Protocols shall be respected”.
In these instances, BCPs/CPs clearly stand as legally binding instruments
aiming to set (unambiguous) terms and conditions to governments and the
private, research, and non-profit sectors willing to engage with IPLCs on their
local resources and knowledge.
64
Relying on first-hand ethnographic materials and best practices, findings and
feedback from practitioners and scholars who have gained significant experience
and expertise in the development and implementation of BCPs/CPs the world
over, the book investigates these pioneering pieces of legislation and considers the lessons that can be learnt and implications that can be drawn about the
situation of IPLCs and the future of the ABS framework.
The book also aims to look at BCPs/CPs beyond these few instances in which
they are legally recognised as part of procedures for local PIC. In all these cases,
the status of BCPs/CPs is unclear, as they appear to hover on the edge of ABS
legislation, if not floating above formal legal systems. How then are BCPs/
CPs to be read and understood within these specific contexts? Should they be
approached as non-legal instruments, incentives, or ethical tools in the same way
as CPs, community research protocols, and ethical codes are seen in Canada and
Australasia? If so, what are their functions and aims, their underlying philosophy, and theoretical underpinnings? What is the rationale behind their creation,
implementation, and content? What are the benefits expected by their advocates
and proponents, together with their shortcomings and perceived risks?
BCPs and Biocultural Jurisprudence
Such questions are all the more legitimate, given that, even within the relatively
narrow framework of the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol (with a primary focus
on PIC and benefit-sharing) and without even considering those BCPs that have