32
65 Swiderska with Milligan, Kohli, Shrumm, Jonas, Hiemstra and Oliva
Part III: Community protocols for
genetic resources and ABS reviews the
Quechua farmers’ inter-community benefit-sharing protocol based on customary
laws (Argumendo); the Bushbuckbridge
healers’ protocol for securing access to
medicinal plants and seeking commercial
benefits (Sibuye et al.); and livestock keepers’ protocols for securing grazing rights,
recognition of their conservation role and
commercial benefits (Köhler-Rollefson et
al.).
Part IV: Community protocols and FPIC:
mining, protected areas and forest partnerships explores the development and
use of community protocols to defend
sacred groves and territorial rights against
mining in Ghana and Colombia (Guri et
al.; López and Heiler) and the development of a protocol to assert customary
rights in a protected area in Borneo (John
et al.). It also reviews the use of FPIC and
community protocols to strengthen
community ownership of a project to
monitor illegal logging in Cameroon
(Lewis and Nkuintchua); and to improve
a partnership with an ethical company for
trade in non-timber forest products in Peru
(Oliva et al.).
Lessons for supporting FPIC
Looking across the articles in this issue, a
number of practical lessons can be drawn
on how to support FPIC (see also Tips for
Trainers).
Importance of community-designed
processes
As Pimbert and Lewis and Nkuintchua
show, a community-designed FPIC process
can not only build trust and ownership of a
project but can also be empowering for
marginalised communities. Dalit women
in India organised open-ended discussions
lasting almost three months, enabling the
emergence of FPIC on their own terms and
in their own time. Baka and Bantu
communities in Cameroon were consulted
in extended discussions, tailored to each
community and local context. In both
cases, the communities were allowed to
define the terms of engagement in the project and the modalities of implementation
and went on to take control of the project,
which was very empowering. And in both
cases this was facilitated by the use of
accessible technologies – understanding
the role of icon-based handheld GPS was
central to making FPIC more concrete for
Baka and Bantu; while using video to
document research enabled dalit women
to take control of the research process.
Participatory design of government
structures and procedures
Top-down structures and procedures
established by national law for FPIC in
Canada, and for benefit-sharing in
Australia, have made participation difficult
for communities and weakened traditional
structures (Buxton; Ritter). As Buxton
suggests, implementing the ‘spirit of FPIC’
rooted in self-determination implies participation in decision-making. This requires
power-equalising which can only be
achieved when indigenous practices, structures and norms are incorporated in the
design of FPIC structures and processes.
Even where there is equal representation
of indigenous communities and other
experts, acceptance of the validity of traditional knowledge and influence over
decisions, there may be western bureaucratic norms, heavily reliant on written
rules, complex documentation (in English)
and hierarchical structures (e.g. in
Canada). This conflicts with the informal
processes, oral communication (low literacy) and egalitarian structures that are
common in aboriginal communities. This
means that ‘participation is conditional on
people being able to act like western
bureaucrats, and that is a real problem’
(Buxton). The key is for institutions to
incorporate flexibility that allows them to
evolve to reflect indigenous perspectives
based on learning and the development of
shared values.