20
The potential for biocultural community protocols to influence broader political and legal processes may
require the aggregation (though not standardization) of several protocols that address similar issues. For
example, multiple protocols calling for livestock keepers’ rights could serve as the collective voice of a
broader social movement, still based on unique local contexts, identities, and priorities. Community
protocols are much more likely to influence structural change if they are used to catalyze coordinated
social mobilization and challenge the status quo.
See www.community-protocols.org/community-protocols for a collection of protocols from Asia, the
Pacific, Africa, and the Americas
E.
POTENTIAL LIMITATIONS
Biocultural community protocols are not a panacea. They should be considered one of many different
instruments that communities may use to secure their rights, responsibilities, territories, and areas.
Potential limitations of the approach include, among others:
The process of developing and using a protocol could be overly influenced by certain parties both
outside and within the community;
Focusing on customary laws may further entrench existing power asymmetries such as the
exclusion of women and youth in community decision-making processes;
Unrealistic expectations may raised within the community, particularly if the idea is introduced by
an external agency or if the community does not have sufficient agency or institutional capacity;
If the process is rushed or not sufficiently inclusive, it could cause internal conflict and mistrust;
Protocols may become another top-down imposition by governments or consultants;
They may be used by external actors in unintended ways such as coercing communities into
agreements;
Documentation of sensitive information could increase external interest in the location of
potentially lucrative resources or knowledge;
Rich oral histories and traditional knowledge can be diluted by written and digital documentation;
Actively raising issues of rights may cause conflict with external actors, particularly in politically
sensitive or repressive countries; and
It may be difficult to ensure community-based monitoring and evaluation of the process and
outcomes.
Each of these concerns is valid and has the potential to become reality. More detailed guidance is
provided in Part I: Section III to assist community facilitators to prevent and overcome them.
F.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Is it possible to judge the quality and integrity of a biocultural community protocol? A document may be
referred to as a ‘community protocol’, but could lack integrity if it was developed under duress or by an
unrepresentative group of community members. On the other hand, a community may undertake a fully
participatory process yet choose to call the outcome something other than a protocol.
Since there is no definitive answer to this question, it is more useful to consider what constitutes good
process. Box 6 outlines a set of non-exhaustive guiding principles for the development and use of
biocultural community protocols. They could also be used as guidance for other community instruments
that support constructive engagement with external actors. These principles have been developed by the
partners in the African and Asian Regional Initiatives on Biocultural Community Protocols and are open for
comment and input from others.