l Community protocols and free, prior informed consent – overview and lessons learnt 37
The Bushbuckridge BCP is considered a living document by the Kukula Traditional Health Practitioners
Association and they periodically review the aims and challenges outlined in their original document.
In the case of Peru’s Potato Park
(Argumedo), the biocultural protocol
establishes a framework for equitable benefit-sharing amongst five communities
based on customary laws and was signed
as an inter-community agreement. As it
applies to benefits that are already being
derived, it is one of the few community
protocols for ABS which is actually functioning in practice to guide the distribution
of benefits. The process to develop it took
about 15 months and was designed and led
by the communities themselves. It has
resulted in new inter-community governance structures and improved community
cohesion. The agreement is guiding the
way benefits are shared and used, ensuring
they contribute to biodiversity conservation
and poverty reduction. It has also
enhanced capacity for PIC and negotiation
of equitable ABS agreements.
Challenges to be addressed with CPs
and FPIC
Despite the positive outcomes described
above, it should be noted that community
protocols are not a panacea. While they can
help to mobilise and better equip communities to take action, their external impact
may be limited if they are not recognised
by government legislation and institutions,
as is often the case.
Similarly, the extent to which PIC procedures are recognised in practice depends on
the extent of devolution of decision-making
powers to communities. Thus, in many cases,
community protocols and international law
such as UNDRIPs and the Nagoya Protocol
will provide tools for communities to advocate for their customary rights to be
recognised, but will not achieve their objectives until more fundamental changes in law,
governance and political processes are in
place at national level.
Until then, significant efforts will be
needed not only to support communities to
develop CPs, but also for communities to
use them for advocacy and negotiation and
to raise awareness of their legitimacy.
Community-based monitoring and
evaluation of the approach will be critical in
learning and improving these tools and
gaining external recognition. It should
include monitoring of the process-based
impacts. The growing challenge to assist
communities to determine whether and
how to develop community protocols needs
to be addressed by inter-community
lesson-sharing, good practice guidelines
and rigorously tested methodologies