26 Fabien Girard et al.
reality is, which is due to the collective history of trauma, dispossession, pain,
disruption, and a legacy of oppression, rather than of their being illegitimate.
In Chapter 10, Fabien Girard and Manohisoa Rakotondrabe continue with a
Malagasy case. Their research focused on the BCP of the farming communities
of Analavory (Madagascar). Their analysis draws on the concept of “boundary
work” to d escribe how the different actors involved negotiate the boundaries between different social worlds; and why this fell short of producing the
expected result. They illustrate significant misunderstandings about the exact
scope of the protocol and mismatches between vernacular representations of
plants and TK and definitions of plant genetic r esources as enshrined in the
international regime on ABS.
Finally, the third part of the book addresses the subject introduced in the
preceding part and endeavours to open up new avenues. In particular, it considers whether BCPs/CPs, notably through their emphasis on “stewardship of
nature” and “tradition”, can be seen as political tools and representational strategies used by IPLCs in their struggle for greater rights to their land, territories,
and resources, and for greater political space, or whether they are problematic
arrangements that constrain IPLCs within the Western imagination, without
any hope of them taking their fate into their own hands and reconstructing
their identities according to their own visions. In this final part, Reia Anquet
and Fabien Girard thoroughly analyse seven BCPs to deconstruct the optimistic
vision of BCPs as a support tool for IPLC’s role in biodiversity conservation and
maintenance, protecting their ways of life from being affected by the unfettered
extension of market economies. Against the backdrop of political ontology, the
chapter questions whether BPCs, with their emphasis on customary law and
community rule-making, embedded with non-Western ontologies and their
anchorage of the ethics of stewardship, should be read as attempts at challenging
Western worldviews and dominant forms of legal modernity. This chapter argues
that maintaining IPLCs’ identities within the ABS framework would imply a
complete overhaul of Western/European legal constructs and their naturalistic
underpinnings.
Finally, the book ends with a concluding chapter by Fabien Girard, Christine
Frison, and Ingrid Hall, which encapsulates the main lessons from this collective
work following the three parts of the book. To open up reflection on future
avenues, it proposes a typology identifying four possible functions of BCPs/CPs:
as purely technical instruments; as a call for the recognition of local procedures in
ABS; as political claims; and as political-ontological claims. This categorisation
highlights the multifaceted nature of BCPs/CPs, ranging from technical instruments to tools that the authors venture to place under the heading of political
ontology. Above all, the chapter stresses the heuristic virtue of the typology that
enables the identification of impending areas of work to give IPLCs the place to
which they lay claim in conservation and development policies.
reality is, which is due to the collective history of trauma, dispossession, pain,
disruption, and a legacy of oppression, rather than of their being illegitimate.
In Chapter 10, Fabien Girard and Manohisoa Rakotondrabe continue with a
Malagasy case. Their research focused on the BCP of the farming communities
of Analavory (Madagascar). Their analysis draws on the concept of “boundary
work” to d escribe how the different actors involved negotiate the boundaries between different social worlds; and why this fell short of producing the
expected result. They illustrate significant misunderstandings about the exact
scope of the protocol and mismatches between vernacular representations of
plants and TK and definitions of plant genetic r esources as enshrined in the
international regime on ABS.
Finally, the third part of the book addresses the subject introduced in the
preceding part and endeavours to open up new avenues. In particular, it considers whether BCPs/CPs, notably through their emphasis on “stewardship of
nature” and “tradition”, can be seen as political tools and representational strategies used by IPLCs in their struggle for greater rights to their land, territories,
and resources, and for greater political space, or whether they are problematic
arrangements that constrain IPLCs within the Western imagination, without
any hope of them taking their fate into their own hands and reconstructing
their identities according to their own visions. In this final part, Reia Anquet
and Fabien Girard thoroughly analyse seven BCPs to deconstruct the optimistic
vision of BCPs as a support tool for IPLC’s role in biodiversity conservation and
maintenance, protecting their ways of life from being affected by the unfettered
extension of market economies. Against the backdrop of political ontology, the
chapter questions whether BPCs, with their emphasis on customary law and
community rule-making, embedded with non-Western ontologies and their
anchorage of the ethics of stewardship, should be read as attempts at challenging
Western worldviews and dominant forms of legal modernity. This chapter argues
that maintaining IPLCs’ identities within the ABS framework would imply a
complete overhaul of Western/European legal constructs and their naturalistic
underpinnings.
Finally, the book ends with a concluding chapter by Fabien Girard, Christine
Frison, and Ingrid Hall, which encapsulates the main lessons from this collective
work following the three parts of the book. To open up reflection on future
avenues, it proposes a typology identifying four possible functions of BCPs/CPs:
as purely technical instruments; as a call for the recognition of local procedures in
ABS; as political claims; and as political-ontological claims. This categorisation
highlights the multifaceted nature of BCPs/CPs, ranging from technical instruments to tools that the authors venture to place under the heading of political
ontology. Above all, the chapter stresses the heuristic virtue of the typology that
enables the identification of impending areas of work to give IPLCs the place to
which they lay claim in conservation and development policies.