IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i18p10255-d635168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Protecting Traditional Knowledge through Biocultural Community Protocols in Madagascar: Do Not Forget the “B” in BCP

Author

Listed:
  • Manohisoa Rakotondrabe

    (CRJ, Faculty of Law, University of Grenoble Alpes, 38400 Grenoble, France)

  • Fabien Girard

    (CRJ, Faculty of Law, University of Grenoble Alpes, 38400 Grenoble, France)

Abstract

As in many other countries in the south, the traditional knowledge (TK) of local communities in Madagascar is facing extinction. Biocultural community protocols (BCP), introduced in Madagascar following the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol (2010) and defined by the Mo’otz Kuxtal Voluntary Guidelines as “a wide range of expressions, articulations, rules and practices produced by communities to indicate how they wish to engage in negotiations with stakeholders”, holds out hopes for TK protection. By analysing two pilot BCPs in Madagascar, one established around the Motrobe ( Cinnamosma fragrans ) with a view to strengthening the existing value chain (BCP in Mariarano and Betsako) and the second initially established around plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (BCP of the farmers in Analavory), this study aims to assess the place and value ascribed to TK in the overall BCP development process and to analyse whether or not the process has helped to strengthen and revitalise TK at the community level. The ethnographic studies show commonalities in both BCP, in particular their main focus on access and benefit-sharing mechanisms, this against the backdrop of an economic model which stresses the importance of financial and institutional incentives; and conversely, a relative disregard for what relates to the biocultural dimension of TK. Local taboos ( fady ) as well as traditional dina (social conventions), which have long allowed for the regulation of access to common resources/TK, are scarcely mentioned. Based on these findings, we conclude that in order to revitalise TK, the process of developing BCPs should recognise and give special importance to TK, considering it as a biocultural whole, bound together with the territory, local customs, and biological resources; or else, TK is likely to remain a commodity to be valued economically, or a component like any other.

Suggested Citation

  • Manohisoa Rakotondrabe & Fabien Girard, 2021. "Protecting Traditional Knowledge through Biocultural Community Protocols in Madagascar: Do Not Forget the “B” in BCP," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-36, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:18:p:10255-:d:635168
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/18/10255/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/18/10255/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. T. Graddy, 2013. "Regarding biocultural heritage: in situ political ecology of agricultural biodiversity in the Peruvian Andes," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 30(4), pages 587-604, December.
    2. Frédéric Sandron, 2008. "Le Fihavanana À Madagascar : Lien Social Et Économique Des Communautés Rurales," Revue Tiers-Monde, Armand Colin, vol. 0(3), pages 507-522.
    3. Jean-Étienne Bidou & Isabelle Droy & Emmanuel Fauroux, 2008. "Communes et régions à Madagascar. De nouveaux acteurs dans la gestion locale de l'environnement," Mondes en développement, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(1), pages 29-46.
    4. Jens Koehrsen, 2017. "Boundary Bridging Arrangements: A Boundary Work Approach to Local Energy Transitions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-23, March.
    5. Eyzaguirre, Pablo B. & Dennis, Evan M., 2007. "The Impacts of Collective Action and Property Rights on Plant Genetic Resources," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1489-1498, September.
    6. Michael Halewood & Ana Bedmar Villanueva & Jazzy Rasolojaona & Michelle Andriamahazo & Naritiana Rakotoniaina & Bienvenu Bossou & Toussaint Mikpon & Raymond Vodouhe & Lena Fey & Andreas Drews & P. Lav, 2021. "Enhancing farmers’ agency in the global crop commons through use of biocultural community protocols," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(2), pages 579-594, June.
    7. Agrawal, Arun & Gibson, Clark C., 1999. "Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 629-649, April.
    8. Crawford, Sue E. S. & Ostrom, Elinor, 1995. "A Grammar of Institutions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(3), pages 582-600, September.
    9. Löfmarck, Erik & Lidskog, Rolf, 2017. "Bumping against the boundary: IPBES and the knowledge divide," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 22-28.
    10. Theresa Osborne & Nadia Belhaj Hassine Belghith, 2016. "Shifting Fortunes and Enduring Poverty in Madagascar," World Bank Publications - Reports 26303, The World Bank Group.
    11. Kawika B. Winter & Kamanamaikalani Beamer & Mehana Blaich Vaughan & Alan M. Friedlander & Mike H. Kido & A. Nāmaka Whitehead & Malia K.H. Akutagawa & Natalie Kurashima & Matthew Paul Lucas & Ben Nyber, 2018. "The Moku System: Managing Biocultural Resources for Abundance within Social-Ecological Regions in Hawaiʻi," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yeboah-Assiamah, Emmanuel & Muller, Kobus & Domfeh, Kwame Ameyaw, 2017. "Institutional assessment in natural resource governance: A conceptual overview," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-12.
    2. Andersson, Krister P. & Smith, Steven M. & Alston, Lee J. & Duchelle, Amy E. & Mwangi, Esther & Larson, Anne M. & de Sassi, Claudio & Sills, Erin O. & Sunderlin, William D. & Wong, Grace Y., 2018. "Wealth and the distribution of benefits from tropical forests: Implications for REDD+," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 510-522.
    3. Frimpong Boamah, Emmanuel, 2018. "Constitutional economics of Ghana’s decentralization," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 256-267.
    4. Krott, Max & Bader, Axel & Schusser, Carsten & Devkota, Rosan & Maryudi, Ahmad & Giessen, Lukas & Aurenhammer, Helene, 2014. "Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 34-42.
    5. Purnamita Dasgupta, 2007. "Common Property Resources as Development Drivers: A Study of Fruit Cooperative in Himachal Pradesh: India," Working Papers id:917, eSocialSciences.
    6. Skutsch, Margaret & Turnhout, Esther, 2020. "REDD+: If communities are the solution, what is the problem?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    7. Schusser, Carsten, 2013. "Who determines biodiversity? An analysis of actors' power and interests in community forestry in Namibia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 42-51.
    8. Röttgers, Dirk, 2016. "Conditional cooperation, context and why strong rules work — A Namibian common-pool resource experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 21-31.
    9. E. J. Bird, "undated". "Exploring the stigma of food stamps," Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Papers 1097-96, University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty.
    10. David P Carter & Christopher M Weible & Saba N Siddiki & Xavier Basurto, 2016. "Integrating core concepts from the institutional analysis and development framework for the systematic analysis of policy designs: An illustration from the US National Organic Program regulation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(1), pages 159-185, January.
    11. Bui, Huong T. & Saito, Hiroaki, 2022. "Resource convergence for post disaster recovery," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    12. Kumar, Sushil & Kant, Shashi, 2005. "Bureaucracy and new management paradigms: modeling foresters' perceptions regarding community-based forest management in India," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 651-669, May.
    13. Brannstrom, Christian, 2001. "Conservation-with-Development Models in Brazil's Agro-Pastoral Landscapes," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(8), pages 1345-1359, August.
    14. Saba Siddiki & Xavier Basurto & Christopher M. Weible, 2012. "Using the institutional grammar tool to understand regulatory compliance: The case of Colorado aquaculture," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(2), pages 167-188, June.
    15. Adam Martin & Matias Petersen, 2019. "Poverty Alleviation as an Economic Problem," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 43(1), pages 205-221.
    16. Elham Hoominfar & Claudia Radel, 2020. "Contested Dam Development in Iran: A Case Study of the Exercise of State Power over Local People," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.
    17. Gadamus, Lily & Raymond-Yakoubian, Julie & Ashenfelter, Roy & Ahmasuk, Austin & Metcalf, Vera & Noongwook, George, 2015. "Building an indigenous evidence-base for tribally-led habitat conservation policies," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 116-124.
    18. Burger Ronelle & Owens Trudy & Prakash Aseem, 2018. "Global Non-Profit Chains and the Challenges of Development Aid Contracting," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 9(4), pages 1-12, December.
    19. Sommerville, Matthew & Jones, Julia P.G. & Rahajaharison, Michael & Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2010. "The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based Payment for Environmental Services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1262-1271, April.
    20. Zhan, Shaohua, 2015. "From Privatization to Deindustrialization: Implications of Chinese Rural Industry and the Ownership Debate Revisited," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 108-122.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:18:p:10255-:d:635168. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.