Agriculture and Human Values 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10164-z
SYMPOSIUM/SPECIAL ISSUE
Enhancing farmers’ agency in the global crop commons through use 
of biocultural community protocols
Michael Halewood1,15  · Ana Bedmar Villanueva1 · Jazzy Rasolojaona2 · Michelle Andriamahazo3 · 
Naritiana Rakotoniaina4 · Bienvenu Bossou5 · Toussaint Mikpon6 · Raymond Vodouhe1 · Lena Fey7 · Andreas Drews7 · 
P. Lava Kumar8 · Bernadette Rasoanirina9 · Thérèse Rasoazafindrabe9 · Marcellin Aigbe10 · Blaise Agbahounzo11 · 
Gloria Otieno12 · Kathryn Garforth13 · Tobias Kiene14 · Kent Nnadozie14
Accepted: 6 October 2020 
© The Author(s) 2021
Abstract
Crop genetic resources constitute a ‘new’ global commons, characterized by multiple layers of activities of farmers, gene- 
banks, public and private research and development organizations, and regulatory agencies operating from local to global 
levels. This paper presents sui generis biocultural community protocols that were developed by four communities in Benin and 
Madagascar to improve their ability to contribute to, and benefit from, the crop commons. The communities were motivated 
in part by the fact that their national governments’ had recently ratified the Plant Treaty and the Nagoya Protocol, which make 
commitments to promoting the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities and farmers, without being prescriptive as 
to how Contracting Parties should implement those commitments. The communities identified the protocols as useful means 
to advance their interests and/or rights under both the Plant Treaty and the Nagoya Protocol  to be recognized as managers 
of local socio-ecological systems, to access genetic resources from outside the communities, and to control others’ access 
to resources managed by the community.
Keywords Biocultural community protocols · Access and benefit-sharing · Farmers’ communities · Global crop commons · 
Crop genetic diversity
Introduction farmers, genebanks, public and private research and devel-
opment organizations, and norm setting organizations oper-
Crop genetic resources constitute a ‘new’ global commons, ating from local to global levels (Dedeurwaerdere 2012).
with a highly complex, internationally distributed, modular Recent literature has analyzed the extent to which 
architecture, characterized by multiple layers of activities of international policies and laws support or undermine the 
*  Michael Halewood 8 International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan, 
 m.halewood@cgiar.org Nigeria
9
1 Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, Rome, Italy  FaMa Cooperative, Antananarivo, Madagascar
10
2 Natural Justice, Cape Town, South Africa  NGO Jeunesse Sans Frontières, Cotonou, Benin
11
3 Ministry of Agriculture (MinAgri), Antananarivo,  Tori-Bossito, Benin
Madagascar 12 Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, Kampala, 
4 Service d’Appui à la Gestion de l’Environnement (SAGE), Uganda
Antananarivo, Madagascar 13 Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada
5 ONG Cercle de Sauvegarde des Ressources Naturelles 14 International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food 
(CeSaReN), Cotonou, Benin and Agriculture, Rome, Italy
6 Institut National des Recherches Agricoles du Benin 15 Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, Via dei Tre 
(INRAB), Cotonou, Benin Denari, 472/a, 00054 Maccarese, Fiumicino, Italy
7 ABS Capacity Development Initiative, Bonn, Germany
Vol.:(012 3456789)
 M. Halewood et al.
production and sustainable use of the genetic diversity et al. 2011, 2016; de Boef et al. 2013; Pimbert 2011; Brush 
comprising the global crop commons (Frison and Coolsaet 2000). On the other hand, however, the level of sustained, 
2019; Halewood et al. 2012; Kamau and Winter 2013; Wirz systematic support for small-scale farmers’ on-farm crop 
et al. 2017; Onwuekwe 2004). The roles of genebanks and diversity management, and for strengthening their collabo-
formal sector plant breeders in conserving and generating rative links with other key actors to be able to play an active 
new crop genetic resources are recognized and relatively role in conserving, using, and improving crop diversity in 
well incentivized/rewarded under the evolving international the globally distributed commons remains quite low.
legal framework,1 and investments in both, while subject to Indeed, one could argue that small-scale farmers, local 
unpredictable fluctuations, remain relatively constant and communities and indigenous peoples are actually losing 
are likely to increase.2 The situation is different with respect agency qua crop diversity managers, partly as an unintended 
to in situ and on farm ‘conservation through use’ of these result of impressive technological, organizational and insti-
resources by farmers, local communities and indigenous tutional developments in the last 50 years that have altered 
peoples (Hodgkin et al. 2013). On one hand, there has been the scope, function and management of the crop com-
progress in terms of formal recognition in international law mons. One of these developments is modern plant breed-
of small-scale farmers’ contributions to the development ing, which has generated extraordinary benefits for farmers, 
and conservation of agricultural biological diversity.3 Fur- for local and national economic development and for food 
thermore, there have been a number of projects to support security. Another such development has been the creation 
small-scale farmers as managers/improvers of crop genetic of a globally linked system of crop genetic resources col-
diversity4 and a growing body of related literature (Jarvis lections under the auspices of the International Treaty on 
Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (Plant 
1 For examples, the UPOV Conventions and WTO-TRIPS promote Treaty). Both these extremely positive developments have, 
plant breeders’ rights and patents for plants; the Plant Treaty’s Multi- inadvertently, tended to draw attention away from the con-
lateral System of Access and Benefit-sharing supports availability of tributions that small-scale farmers can continue to play in 
crop genetic resources for use in plant breeding, and sharing benefits conserving, generating, and adding value to crop genetic 
derived from commercialization of new varieties; the FAO-CGIAR 
In trust Agreements and the Plant Treaty confirm the legal status of diversity. This relative diminution of small-scale farmers’ 
crop and forage collections hosted by international organizations and roles as diversity managing agents within the crop com-
guarantee their availability for use for conservation, breeding, and mons results in lost opportunities for them  to access and 
research for food and agriculture; the Global Crop Diversity Trust, experiment with crop genetic resources  and to partner with 
as an essential element of the Funding Strategy of the Plant Treaty, 
provides financial and technical support for international and national other actors (e.g. national and international genebanks, plant 
genebanks; and the  2nd Global Plan of Action for Plant Genetic breeders) to generate new crop diversity and to add value to 
Resources for Food and Agriculture identifies ex situ conservation, on that which already exists in the global crop commons for the 
farm conservation and plant breeding as global priorities. benefit of all potential users. Climate change is increasing 
2 Of course, both plant breeding and ex situ conservation would ben- the urgency to address, indirect, this situation, as the genera-
efit from considerably more investment. Indeed, the 2 nd Global Plan 
of Action decries the reduction of support for plant breeders by many tion, availability and use of crop genetic diversity is essential 
national governments. That said, over the last 40  years, there have for adapting agricultural production systems to the growing 
been considerable investments in both ex situ conservation and plant list of biotic and abiotic challenges associated with climate 
breeding (particularly from the private sector with respect to the lat- change (Lin 2011; Mijatović et al. 2013; Altieri et al. 2015).
ter), with promises of new investments, for example, the announcement 
of 790 million dollars for climate change adaptation, of which a sub- This paper addresses the question: What institutional 
stantial proportion will support plant breeding (https ://www.wri.org/ innovations can enhance farmers’ agency in the evolving 
news/2019/09/relea se-un-summi t-new-commi tment s-over-790-milli global crop commons—not by a return to ‘the way things 
on-suppor t-clima te-adapt ation -over-300) and the ongoing efforts of the were’ before the development of modern plant breeding and 
Global Crop Diversity Trust to develop a 250 million dollar trust fund 
to provide in perpetuity support for ex situ crop genetic resources col- internationally linked genebanks—but by enabling farmers 
lections. to take advantage of these developments and to continue to 
3 See footnote 11 below and attendant discussion. add value to the crop commons through use of their spe-
4 For examples of projects supporting activities in multiple countries cialized knowledge and experience? In response, the paper 
see Sowing Diversity = Harvesting Security (SD = HS), coordinated presents a portfolio of measures that were designed to pro-
by Oxfam Novib (https: //www.sdhsp rogra m.org/); Farmers’ Pride, mote farmers’ agency in this way in Benin and Madagascar. 
coordinated by University of Birmingham and a coalition of part-
ners (https ://www.farme rspri de.eu/); Diversifood (https: //www.diver Some of these measures will already be familiar to people 
sifoo d.eu/projec t/); Community Biodiversity Development and Con- working in the area of on farm ‘conservation through use’ 
servation – Biodiversity Use and Conservation Programme (CBDC-
BUCAP), managed by SEARICE (https ://www.searic e.org.ph/cbdc-
bucap) ; Strengthening the scientific basis of in  situ conservation of Footnote 4 (continued)
agricultural biodiversity on-farm, coordinated by the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) (https: //idl-bnc-idrc.dspac 
edirec t.org/bitstr eam/handle /10625/ 22150 /112967 .pdf?seque nce=1).
1 3
Enhancing farmers’ agency in the global crop commons through use of biocultural community…
of crop diversity, and are described in relevant literature, so participatory crop research, and international and national 
we will mention them only in passing. Our primary focus level efforts to regulate access to their genetic resources and 
in this paper will be on one particular (original) innovation: benefit sharing, taking into consideration the extraordinary 
sui generis biocultural community protocols which were scientific and organizational developments that have shaped 
developed to, among other things, promote farming com- the crop commons over the last decades.
munities’ access to crop genetic resources from elsewhere The biocultural community protocols were finalized as the 
for experimentation, improvement and management as part project came to a close. Indeed, two of them were adopted 
of their local production systems. by municipal authorities after the project ended. Their use in 
Biocultural community protocols have been the subject of practice, therefore, is beyond the scope of this paper.
attention for over 20 years (Shrumm and Jonas 2012; Del- The project was not originally framed using commons-
gado 2016; LPP 2018). Two common characteristics of most related institutional analysis. However, over time, project 
biocultural community protocols are that they (i) affirm the partners (many of whom are included as co-authors of this 
status of the communities concerned as the rightful manag- article) found that framework of analysis—particularly with 
ers of local natural resources, including genetic resources, respect to ‘new’ commons—to be useful to understand the 
and (ii) set out rules controlling extra-community actors’ relationships between the globally dispersed constellation of 
access to genetic materials and traditional knowledge held actors who are engaged in conserving and using crop genetic 
by community members (Shrumm and Jonas 2012; Delgado resources, and to analyze their relative capacities to access, 
2016; LPP 2018). What sets apart the biocultural commu- use, and improve those same resources. It also helped to 
nity protocols discussed in this paper is that they also pro- understand ‘social dilemmas’ associated with the conservation 
mote the rights of communities to facilitated access to crop and sustainable use of crop genetic resources that need to be 
genetic resources for food and agriculture distributed around addressed when thinking through institutional interventions 
the world, and establish practical methods to gain free (or related to the enhanced management of the crop commons.
at minimal administrative costs) access to those resources, 
and to test and integrate them into their production systems.
The paper presents results of a 3-year research and devel- Key concepts
opment project—‘Mutually Supportive Implementation of 
the Nagoya Protocol and the Plant Treaty in Benin and Mad- Traditionally, institutional analysis concerning commons 
agascar’—supported by the Darwin Initiative and executed focused on resolution of social dilemmas threatening the 
by Bioversity International in partnership with the GIZ- sustainable management of common-pool resources. Com-
implemented ABS Capacity Development Initiative. The mon-pool resources are defined as being highly rivalrous 
objective of the project was to develop national level polices (i.e., where one person’s use of a resource detracts from its 
and laws to implement the Nagoya Protocol on Access to availability for use by others) and non-excludable (i.e., it is 
Genetic Resources (Nagoya Protocol) and the Plant Treaty in difficult or impossible to prevent access to and use of the 
mutually supportive ways, thereby overcoming long standing resource). Classic examples of common-pool resources are 
divisions (witnessed all around the world—not just in these forests, watersheds, pastures, and wild fisheries. These are 
two countries) between environment and agricultural sec- resources that are ‘ready-made’ by nature and potentially 
tors. One of the most challenging aspects of the project was threatened by overexploitation by unconstrained users in 
to explore means by which both international agreements pursuit of selfish gains (Hardin 1968). Most of the earlier, 
could be implemented at community levels that would be traditional commons literature was based on case studies of 
truly meaningful/helpful to the local communities address- limited numbers of actors involved in collective manage-
ing immediate needs. Therefore, the biocultural community ment of natural resources distributed over relatively small 
protocols discussed here were developed to consolidate geographic areas (Ostrom 1990).
and codify best practices and lessons learned through the By contrast, the ‘new’ commons literature extends to con-
community-level work, and to strengthen and streamline sider human-made cultural products that are non-rivalrous, 
the communities’ collective capacity to engage with extra- as well as non-excludable, and that are globally distributed 
community agencies in the future. The protocols’ potential and used by a potentially limitless number of people, for 
in this regard was substantially increased by having them examples, information and software (Madison et al. 2009; 
recognized in the national laws implementing the Nagoya Hess and Ostrom 2003). Cultural commons must encom-
Protocol and the Plant Treaty of the two countries, which pass not only sustainable conservation and use of cultural 
were developed over the course of the implementation of products, but also their production (Madison et al. 2009). 
the project. As such, the protocols represent a point of inter- A social dilemma associated with cultural commons is that 
section between efforts to promote community based biodi- cultural products and cultural production are threatened by 
versity management, participation of farmers in scaled-up 
1 3
 M. Halewood et al.
underuse, not unmanaged overuse, as it is the case with natu- availability of those resources may depend on a number of 
ral resources. factors, including material supply, and institutions that affect 
Crop genetic resources fall somewhere between natu- agents’ ability to access and use them (Kabeer 1999). The 
ral resources and purely cultural products (de Wit 2019; exercise of agency with respect to resources leads to out-
Halewood et al. 2013; Dedeurwaerdere 2012). What dis- comes or achievements (Donald et al. 2017; Kabeer 1999). 
tinguishes crops from wild plants is the historical system- Agency also refers to the ability of person or group to play 
atic application of human selection pressures (in addition to an active role in transforming the larger social-ecological 
environmental selection pressures) that contributed to the systems in which they are embedded. Westley et al (2013) 
domestication, and evolution of intra-specific, genetically states that ‘successful change agents in complex systems 
distinct populations of those crops. By definition, domesti- work to change beliefs […] by convening all stakeholders 
cated crops would not exist if they were subject to natural around a common vision, change the flow of political author-
selection alone. One of the most persuasive descriptions ity and resources […] by playing key roles in networks and 
of this phenomenon is found in the opening pages of Ori- mobilizing social capital, and challenge technical and legal 
gin of Species, wherein Darwin sets the stage for readers’ framework […] by encouraging integration of local knowl-
appreciation of natural selection, likening it to the selection edge, experimentation and new scientific frameworks’. In 
pressures that farmers and, more recently, plant and animal this paper, we seek to move from a structuralist conception 
breeders, have exerted over relatively short periods of time of farmers’ agency being necessarily limited as a result of 
to create the extraordinary diversity of domesticated crops recent technological developments and global-scale organi-
and animals, relative to the millions, billions of years of zational shifts in mode of production (Buttel et al. 1990; 
natural selection on earth (Darwin 1859). It is underuse of McMichael 1994) to scenarios wherein small-scale farmers 
crop genetic resources that threatens their conservation are empowered to take advantage of recent developments, 
(Padulosi et al. 2002), not overexploitation as in the case to proactively engage with newly emerged actors and sys-
of natural resources. In the absence of continued use by tems, and to make choices concerning how to exploit, and 
humans, including being subject to farmers’ and/or plant contribute to, the global crop commons.
breeders’ selection pressures (in addition to natural selection 
pressures), ancient crop wild relatives would not have been 
domesticated, and their extraordinary intraspecific genetic Methods
diversity would not have been realized. If human selection 
pressures were removed now, existing crop populations Project activities under ‘Mutually Supportive Implementa-
would evolve along very different trajectories: most would tion of the Nagoya Protocol and the Plant Treaty in Benin 
become extinct, either by failing to survive, or by ‘reverting’ and Madagascar’ (hereinafter ‘Mutually Supportive project’) 
to wilder forms. were coordinated by national multi-stakeholder implemen-
In many parts of the world, at local levels, crop diversity is tation committees co-convened by the Plant Treaty and the 
managed as part of a ‘biocultural system’, which Argumedo Nagoya Protocol National Focal Points in each country.5
(2011) describes as an ‘indivisible system containing the In the earliest stages of the project, these national multi-
knowledge, innovations, and practices of indigenous and stakeholder implementation committees tentatively identi-
local communities, as they are collectively maintained. It fied two communities in each country to partner in commu-
incorporates the traditional territory itself, including natural nity level piloting activities: one community in each country 
resources and the diversity of genes, variety of crops, spe- was selected partly on the basis that it was located in an 
cies, and ecosystems, and the cultural and spiritual values area characterized by a genetically diverse natural resource 
and laws developed within the socio-ecological context of base, and the other community  was located in an area with 
the communities’. Such locally managed systems around the a markedly less genetically diverse natural resource base. In 
globe constitute a ‘pluriverse of seed commons’ (de Wit Benin, the two communities were Tori-Bossito and Bonou. 
2019); some have strong links with extra-community actors 
in the globally distributed commons and others have weak 
links, or no links at all.
5
For the purposes of this paper, our understanding/defini-  High level guidance and project monitoring for ‘Mutually Sup-
tion of ‘agency’ draws on literature concerning transforma- portive Implementation of the Nagoya Protocol and the Plant Treaty in Benin and Madagascar’ was provided by an oversight commit-
tion of social-ecological systems and women’s empower- tee including the National Focal Points for the Plant Treaty and the 
ment. Agency refers to the ability of individuals or social Nagoya Protocol for both countries, representatives of Secretariats of 
groups to make decisions about issues that are important the Plant Treaty and of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Bio-
to them. Agency depends in part upon the availability of versity International and the ABS Capacity Development Initiative. Mid way through the project, Natural Justice also joined the oversight 
resources concerning which choices can be made. The committee.
1 3
Enhancing farmers’ agency in the global crop commons through use of biocultural community…
In Madagascar, the two communities comprised   a group of publication entitled Biocultural Community Protocols: A 
farmers in the rural municipality of Analavory, Itasy Region, Toolkit for Community Facilitators, published by Natural 
and a group of   villages managing the forest of Iaroka Justice (Shrumm and Jonas 2012). Each community fol-
Antavolobe,located in  Alaotra Mangoro Region. lowed slightly different processes, but they included many 
Members of the national multi-stakeholder implemen- the following common elements, starting with large com-
tation committees visited the communities, explained the munity meetings wherein the concept of biocultural com-
project rationale and modus operandi, and the resources that munity protocols was introduced. Participants discussed the 
would be made available to support local engagement. On potential benefits and limitations of the protocols, and the 
the basis of these interactions, community representatives commitments needed from the community to develop and 
confirmed willingness to participate. As a first step, they use them. Separate meetings for men and women partici-
identified local organizations to join the national multi- pants were held to capture the needs and opinions of each 
stakeholder implementation committee to help in overall group on the process. The subsequent steps to follow for 
management of the project and to act as a liasons  between developing the protocols were determined by these larger 
the implementation committees and the communities. The community meetings. In Bonou, for example, a commu-
community organizations selected varied considerably; they nity assembly of approximately 200 people participating in 
included the municipal governments, a customary leader, a an initial meeting created six thematic working groups to 
women’s agricultural production group, and a local commu- consider: (i) the identity of the community, (ii) the natu-
nity youth organization.6 Most of the community-level work ral resource base, (iii) sociocultural resources, (iv) political 
in both countries was facilitated by a civil society organiza- and institutional factors, (v) legal issues, and (vi) economic 
tion, Natural Justice, working closely with the leading com- issues. Those inputs were fed into a smaller committee that 
munity organizations. developed the text of the biocultural community protocol. At 
Over the course of its first year, the project supported the end of the process, the same larger community assembly 
a number of facilitated, open community meetings to dis- considered and approved the protocol. The other three com-
cuss (i) possible ways in which the communities could take munities also created small committees to take the devel-
advantage of their national government’s commitment to opment of the protocols forward. As part of the process, 
implement the Nagoya Protocol and the Plant Treaty and they organized additional, smaller community consultation 
(ii) activities the project could support to help communities meetings to gather information, perspectives and share pro-
advance those interests. The Plant Treaty and Nagoya Proto- gress. They organized ‘role play’ exercises to analyze how 
col National Focal Points attended those meetings; and they to build on local institutions for decision-making. Part way 
underscored that the community level work could inform through these processes, when the communities decided that 
the national level policies that were being developed at the the protocols should also address the means by which they 
same time. could exercise their rights to access crop genetic resources 
The project provided financial and technical support for from other places, interactions with representatives of 
the communities and other national partners to follow up, national agricultural research organizations  were arranged 
over the course of the successive 2 years, on the portfolio of to learn about norms governing the introduction of genetic 
activities that the communities agreed to be most relevant. resources into the country from foreign sources. Inter-gen-
On occasion, scientists and policy experts from outside the erational discussions between elders and young people in 
country, from FAO, Natural Justice, ABS Capacity Develop- the communities were included as part of the consultation 
ment Initiative, and the Alliance of Bioversity International processes. Municipal authorities were consulted in the latter 
and CIAT participated in these activities to provide training stages of the development of the protocols. The protocols 
to use relevant tools and methods as described below. were ultimately adopted through large community meetings 
Community engagement in developing the biocultural and subsequently adopted by relevant municipal authorities. 
community protocols followed methods set out in the Considered across the four communities, on average, each 
biocultural community protocol processes involved 4 meet-
ings with a total of 950 participants, 28% of whom were 
women.
6 In Benin, the lead organizations are local biodiversity management At the same time, the national multi-stakeholder imple-
committees: the ‘Comité de gestion des forêts sacrées de Bonou’ (13 
members), and a newly established committee (8 members) in Tori- mentation committees supported a process to develop draft 
Bossito, which is supported by Jeunesse Sans Frontières (NGO active national laws (in the form of Executive Orders) implement-
in agricultural production and medicinal plants). The lead organiza- ing both the Nagoya Protocol and the Plant Treaty; these 
tions in the communities of Madagascar are ‘VOI Firaisan-Kina’, a drafts were eventually adopted by the end of the project by 
local community-based organization dealing with forest management, 
in Antavolobe, and ‘Santatra’, a local farmer seed group, in Anala- the Council of Ministers in both countries. In this paper, we 
vory. focus only on those activities and aspects of the adopted 
1 3
 M. Halewood et al.
laws that are directly relevant to the recognition/promotion partners decided to focus first on documenting the inter- and 
of community rights. intra-specific diversity of plants that farmers were managing 
on farm. They did so using a combination of tools includ-
ing transect walks, whereby they identified and documented 
Findings crops distributed along mapped walks across farmers’ and 
public lands in the community, and participatory ‘four cell’ 
Community interests in implementation analyses, whereby groups of farmers identified the richness 
of the international agreements and evenness of the distribution of crop varieties across their 
communities (Sthapit et al. 2012; Vernooy et al. 2019). They 
The initial level of awareness among community partici- also adopted processes for recording the crop diversity pre-
pants concerning the Nagoya Protocol and the Plant Treaty sent in their communities, employing written crop diversity 
was extremely low. No participants appeared to be familiar registries, which are maintained by organizations as agreed 
with the Plant Treaty’s Multilateral System of Access and during the community consultations.7
Benefit-sharing (Multilateral System) or with the interna- To promote the recognition of their interest/right to 
tionally linked system of crop genetic resources collections regulate access to biological resources and traditional 
from which materials can be accessed for free through the knowledge, each community documented the distribution 
Multilateral System. No community members or commu- of decision-making powers concerning the management 
nity organizations had ever accessed crop genetic resources of genetic resources across the community (including cus-
through the Multilateral System under the standard material tomary and formal government-sanctioned authorities) and 
transfer agreement (SMTA), used for all transfers of mate- worked-through consultation processes to forge common 
rials under the Multilateral System. Their main sources of agreement between community members on processes that 
seed were/are neighbors, government extension agents and should be followed when someone from outside the com-
small agro-dealers. No one in the communities had entered munity expresses an interest in accessing genetic materials 
into legal agreements to provide access to genetic resources from within the community, taking into consideration that 
collected from their lands,  although some organizations different people will need to be consulted with respect to dif-
from outside the communities had expressed interest in ferent resources in different locations. It was in this context, 
recent years in accessing forest genetic resources and related initially, that the communities decided to develop biocultural 
traditional knowledge. community protocols as local level policy instruments to be 
After the initial round of awareness-raising workshops, endorsed by local authorities to assert their collective right 
community members agreed that they should seek to take to regulate access to resources in its territory, and to estab-
advantage of the opportunities created by their respective lish the relevant authorities and processes to follow depend-
national government’s ratification of both the Nagoya Proto- ing on the resources in question.
col and the Plant Treaty to promote their collective commu- To identify outstanding needs for crop genetic resources 
nity interests in: (a) being recognized as managers/stewards from elsewhere, in addition to registering plants managed 
of local biological diversity, (b) controlling outsiders’ access by farmers and the four square analyses of richness and 
to local biological resources and associated local traditional 
knowledge, and (c) accessing crop genetic resources from 
other places in the world to experiment with and introduce 7 In Tori-Bossito, project partners adopted two registries: one for 
them into their local agricultural production systems. crop genetic resources and another for species of local plants from 
sacred forests and private plantations, botanical gardens. The Vice-
President and the Secretary of the Biodiversity Registry Management 
Community‑prioritized activities to build capacity Committee are responsible for the management of the registry, which 
(and profile) as biodiversity managers in the context is kept at the Town Hall. In Bonou, the President and the Secretary 
of national implementation of the Biodiversity Management Committee are responsible for the 
management of the registry, which is kept at the royal palace. In both 
localities, the entire local community has free access to the regis-
The project partners identified a range of activities to build tries, but access by people from outside of the community is left to 
the communities’ collective capacity to pursue these inter- the discretion of the managers. In Analavory, Madagascar, the biodi-
ests, building on local institutions and knowledge. First, they versity registry includes crop genetic resources (primarily rice, maize 
embarked on exercises to identify the diversity of biological and beans) and associated traditional knowledge existing within the boundaries of the rural Municipality, as well as resources conserved 
resources managed across the community. This was recog- in institutions such as FOFIFA, FIFAMANOR, and other NGOs. 
nized as fundamental to increasing their capacity as diversity The president of the FAMA Cooperative, together with the Biodiver-
managers, their ability to control others’ access, and to iden- sity Management Committee, keeps the registry and is also respon-
tify crop genetic resources they do not have and could possi- sible for its data management. The Antavolobe biodiversity registry includes crop genetic resources. A separate person from the commu-
bly access from elsewhere. Given limited resources, project nity takes responsibility for updating the registry for each crop.
1 3
Enhancing farmers’ agency in the global crop commons through use of biocultural community…
evenness, community members worked through partici- community leaders agreed that an organization from outside 
patory exercises to identify the impacts of recent climate the community (i.e., a university and a national agricultural 
changes on key food security crops, and to identify traits research organization) should take receipt of the materials 
that would be necessary for a new variety (or new species) to first after release from quarantine, and to multiply the seeds 
grow better under existing conditions. These exercises were received, before passing them on to the farmers.
facilitated by experts in conducting community vulnerability Once sufficient seed was multiplied for experimenta-
analyses and supported by experts in agronomy, plant breed- tion, it was distributed among the community members for 
ing and in crop genetic resources conservation drawn from testing, following a number of different methods that were 
both national and international agricultural research organi- mutually agreed between community members and pro-
zations. Thereafter, community members (and other project ject partners. Seed was distributed for growing/testing on 
partners recommended by the national multi-stakeholder both communal lands and on farmers’ individual holdings. 
implementation committees) were provided training on how Criteria for managing the plants were agreed, as were the 
to use existing publicly available crop genetic resources data- methods for recording observations of their performance, 
bases (i.e. national genebank data bases and Genesys8), and and for pooling and comparing those observations within 
publicly available data on existing and predicted climates in the community.
local areas (Worldclim9) to identify germplasm conserved The Mutually Supportive project lasted for 3  years; 
in collections around the world that is potentially adapted to so the project ended after just one season of community 
present and future climates in the communities concerned, experimentation with the crop genetic resources that farm-
and that is freely available under the Plant Treaty’s Multi- ers received. Since then, farmers in some of the communi-
lateral System (Otieno et al. 2018; Gloria 2018; Bedmar ties have engaged in participatory plant variety selection to 
Villanueva et al. 2017; Halewood et al. 2017). Exchange enhance the more promising materials that they received, 
visits were organized between the two communities within multiplied, and tested. In Madagascar, they have engaged 
each country to share information about crop varieties that in partnerships with plant breeders from the national agri-
performed well under changing climates. cultural research organization to conduct participatory plant 
Based on all of the above information, research teams breeding. In both Benin and Madagascar, the communities 
(including community members, and scientists from agri- secured additional resources to develop community seed 
cultural research organizations) agreed upon combinations banks, to help them conserve and make available adequate 
of materials that they would seek to obtain from various supplies of the seed of genetic resources/varieties they had 
sources, including from other communities participating in received and enhanced, and of local varieties.
the project, from national agricultural research organiza-
tions, and from genebanks around the world. They sought Biocultural community protocols to promote/codify 
materials that were once used by the communities but had community access to crop genetic resources (in 
been lost, materials that performed well in other communi- addition to regulating access to resources managed 
ties under climatic circumstances similar to their own, and by the community)
materials that were identified through the climate adaptation 
modeling work described above, or that were recommended In retrospect, the combined activities, tools and methods 
by genebank managers or plant breeders taking the com- described above, and the partnerships struck between the 
munities’ preferences into consideration once the requests communities and NGOs, genebanks, universities, and 
were made. national agricultural research organizations seem straightfor-
Community representatives were assisted by project part- ward and relatively obvious. They did not at the time. Each 
ners (NGOs, agricultural research organizations, national step along the way, each challenge, and each strategy for 
genebanks, extension agencies) to formally make requests overcoming those challenges—including reaching out to and 
for the identified materials to genebanks in other countries. enlisting assistance of organizations from outside the com-
In some cases, the community was joined in making the munities—required protracted interaction between all the 
requests by the local municipal government or the national partners involved in the project, from local to international 
agricultural research organization to increase the likelihood levels. It also required considerable dedication of resources 
of the request being favorably considered by the provider to foster common understanding among community mem-
and to expedite the necessary test of the materials pursu- bers of the decisions to be made, by whom, and upon what 
ant to national phytosanitary regulations. In some cases, criteria,  based on local institutions (or adaptations of those 
institutions). Based on these experiences, it was decided that 
it would be useful to expand the scope of the biocultural 
8 Genesys url: https ://www.genes ys-pgr.org/. community protocols to codify/promote the communities’ 
9 Worldclim url: https: //world clim.org/. collective interests in accessing crop genetic resources from 
1 3
 M. Halewood et al.
elsewhere. In particular, the protocols address the communi- Discussion
ties’ collective interests to:
Regarding mutually supportive implementation 
• define themselves as communities,  including their  rela- of the Plant Treaty and the Nagoya Protocol
tionship with the local natural resources base, and the prin-
ciples that inform how they manage their resources; The objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity 
• periodically assess the state of crop genetic diversity man- (CBD) and of the Plant Treaty are identical: conservation 
aged by the community, including through the maintenance and sustainable use of genetic resources and equitable shar-
of community biodiversity registries. (The protocols also  ing of benefits derived from their use. However, the access 
identify the organization responsible for maintaining the and benefit-sharing systems created/promoted by the CBD 
registry in each  community); and its Nagoya Protocol on one hand, and the Plant Treaty 
• periodically engage in exercises to identify crop genetic on the other, are very different. The CBD and its Nagoya 
resources that the community needs to obtain from sources Protocol generally promote bilateral access and benefit-shar-
outside the community. (The level of detail varies across ing regulation and deal making with providers and recipi-
the protocols in terms of describing possible tools and ents agreeing between themselves on de novo access and 
methods to be used,  and utility of engaging extra-commu- benefit-sharing terms and conditions, subject to approval by 
nity organizations in those exercises); a competent national authority. The Plant Treaty, in contrast, 
• proactively engage with organizations from outside the creates a Multilateral System, whereby all Contracting Par-
communities (e.g., NGOs, national agricultural research ties agree to virtually pool specified crop genetic resources 
organizations, national genebanks) to provide partnership/ and exchange them using a SMTA with fixed benefit-sharing 
technical assistance to identify and request crop genetic terms (Manzella 2013). National access and benefit-sharing 
resources that are available from genebanks, breeders systems implementing the CBD/Nagoya Protocol and the 
and other sources from within the country and around the Plant Treaty are necessarily closely intertwined. Without 
world; coordinated, mutually supportive implementation measures 
• establish their own relationships with national phy- at the national level, stakeholders are confused by which 
tosanitary authorities, and/or proactively engage with rules apply, and public authorities charged with the adminis-
other organizations that can act as ‘go betweens’ with tration of these systems often lack confidence to make deci-
those authorities to assist in getting materials requested sions given uncertainties about the relationships between the 
from other countries tested and released for use in a two access and benefit-sharing systems. It is partly for these 
timely fashion; reasons that the Conference of the Parties of the CBD and 
• develop strategies for multiplying  seeds or other repro- its Nagoya Protocol and the Governing Body of the Plant 
ductive materials coming from outside, evaluating their Treaty have both repeatedly called on Contracting Parties 
performance, and sharing related  information; and stakeholders to work on developing models for imple-
• develop strategies for storing adequate supplies of seed of mentation of both agreements in mutually supportive ways.
locally useful varieties that are not available through other The Nagoya Protocol (Article 12.1) states that ‘in accord-
means; ance with domestic law’ Contracting Parties shall ‘take into 
• develop strategies for enhancing varieties through selection consideration indigenous and local communities’ customary 
or participatory plant breeding; laws, community protocols and procedures, as applicable’, 
• provide guidance for how to respond to requests from when setting up procedures to regulate access to traditional 
farmers and organizations from outside the communi- knowledge associated with genetic resources. Furthermore, 
ties that are interested in accessing,  using and possibly Article 12.3 calls for Parties to support the development of 
commercializing crop varieties/diversity managed by community protocols, and Article 12.4 protects customary 
the community (This penultimate bullet point is actu- use and exchange of genetic resources and associated tra-
ally taken up in other parts of the protocol, dealing with ditional knowledge within and among indigenous peoples 
communities’ collective interest in controlling access to and local communities. The Plant Treaty does not mention 
genetic resources by people and organizations from out- community protocols per se, but it does commit Contracting 
side the community), and Parties, subject to their national laws, to promote farmers’ 
• assert and call for the recognition of their rights and inter- rights to ‘equitably participate in sharing benefits arising 
ests as set out in the bullet points above, as required by from the utilization of plant genetic resources for food and 
the Plant Treaty and the Nagoya Protocol. agriculture’ and to ‘protect traditional knowledge relevant 
to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture’ (Article 
9). Both instruments recognize the contributions of farmers/
1 3
Enhancing farmers’ agency in the global crop commons through use of biocultural community…
indigenous peoples and local communities to in situ/on farm for farmers, as it was the means by which they were able 
management and promote their engagement in participatory to develop crops that were suited to their local conditions 
research and development related to conservation and use of (Almekinders et al. 1994; Elias et al. 2000; Mercer and 
genetic resources. Perales 2010), adapting and conserving them through use 
The biocultural community protocols developed in the (Bellon and Brush 1994; Brush 1995; Bezançon et al. 2009). 
Mutually Supportive project are meant in part to take advan- In the absence of continued production and conservation-
tage of countries’ commitments under these agreements and through-use, farmers’ crop varieties, and the genetic diver-
other related international instruments10. That said, they are sity they represent, would disappear. European colonialism 
considerably broader in scope than what is anticipated in and imperialism accelerated the spread of crops around the 
the Nagoya Protocol, setting standards for access to genetic world (Mann 2011; Diamond 1999), increasing international 
resources managed by the communities, including crop interdependence on crop genetic resources.
genetic resources (in addition to traditional knowledge Since the rediscovery of Mendelian genetics, the mode 
associated with those resources) and best practices for com- of production of new crop varieties has changed dramati-
munities to practically implement their right to access crop cally. Public and private research and development organiza-
genetic resources under the Plant Treaty’s Multilateral Sys- tions have largely taken over the business of plant breeding. 
tem. While there have been a number of projects and stud- National and regional governments regulate seed quality and 
ies analyzing options for implementing the Nagoya Protocol trade. New crop varieties and quality seed have contributed 
and the Plant Treaty at the level of national policies and law enormous benefits to farmers and national economies world-
(Joint Capacity Building Programme 2017, 2018; Halewood wide. It is beyond the scope of this paper to provide an over-
et al. 2013), as far as the authors are aware, there are no stud- view of those benefits, or even of the extensive literature that 
ies explicitly analyzing mechanisms—like these biocultural documents the contributions of plant breeding (Asfaw et al. 
community protocols—for mutually supportive implemen- 2012; Kassie et al. 2010; Varshney et al. 2019).
tation of the two international instruments at local levels. Over the course of the last 50 years, a radically new con-
stellation of organizations and institutional arrangements 
Regarding shifting modes of production has evolved to support the long-term conservation of crop 
and conservation of crop genetic diversity genetic diversity. For example, the International Board on 
Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (IBPGR), 
The portfolio of measures adopted by the communities, hosted by the UN FAO, was created in 1974 to coordinate 
including the biocultural community protocols, are best the collection of farmers’ varieties that were being replaced 
understood when considered in the context of the extraordi- (or were at risk of being replaced) by the widespread adop-
nary shifts in the modes of production, conservation and use tion of ‘green revolution’ crop varieties. Between 1975 
of crop genetic diversity over the course of the last 50 years. and 1995, IBPGR coordinated collection of over 200,000 
Since the dawn of agriculture, small-scale farmers were samples from over 136 countries and organized their con-
the main producers of domesticated crops and crop genetic servation in genebanks around the world (Thormann et al. 
diversity, exchanging crop genetic resources through ‘infor- 2019). There has been a boom in establishment of national 
mal’ networks, and subjecting those resources to combined and regional genebanks world-wide. The Second Report on 
human and environmental selection pressures in different the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food 
locations around the world (Vigouroux et al. 2011). Access and Agriculture (FAO 2010) states that by 2010, there were 
to and use of crop genetic diversity was critically important approximately 7.4 million accessions in 1750 genebanks. 
The Svalbard Global Seed Vault sits at the apex of this sys-
tem, providing an ultimate safety back up of approximately 
1 million crop accessions deposited by organizations from 
10 The Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 8(j), encourages around the world, with a capacity to host another 3 mil-
protection of traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local 
communities linked to in  situ conservation. The 2nd Global Plan of lion accessions. Much of the world’s historical crop genetic 
Action on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (cross diversity is now concentrated and stored in those collec-
referenced in Article 5 of the Plant Treaty) identifies on farm man- tions (Scarascia-Mugnozza et al. 2002; Fowler and Hodg-
agement and crop improvement as priority activities. The UN Dec- kin 2004). At an international level, the UN FAO’s Global 
laration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, referenced in the 
Nagoya Protocol’s preamble, establishes the principle of free, prior System of Conservation and Use of Plant Genetic Resources 
and informed consent whenever indigenous peoples’ land, resources, for Food and Agriculture was designed to promote coordi-
knowledge or cultural artefacts are accessed and/or used; The UN nation among the organizations around the world hosting 
Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in these crop and forage collections (Scarascia-Mugnozza et al. 
Rural Areas (Article 19) reaffirms rural people’s rights to seeds and 
related traditional knowledge, calling for States to protect these rights 2002; Hodgkin et al. 2013). In 2004, under the auspices of 
and support peasant seed systems. the UN FAO, the international community adopted the Plant 
1 3
 M. Halewood et al.
Treaty, which creates the Multilateral System, which estab- global commons through use of their specialized skills and 
lishes rules for exchanging crop and forage genetic resources resources, and strengthening their network ties with other 
for use in food and agriculture research, including plant actors in the commons.
breeding. As of July 2020, 146 countries have ratified the One point of entry in this regard is strengthening farmers’ 
Plant Treaty, and CGIAR Centers (and other international access to, and use of, crop diversity in ex situ collections. 
institutions hosting ex situ collections) have signed agree- There is currently a broader range of genetically diverse 
ments pledging to make their collections available under the planting materials that is potentially available to farmers in 
terms of the Plant Treaty. ex situ collections around the world than farmers ever could 
Most farmers in developed countries source most of their have dreamed of accessing in the past via informal exchange 
seed from seed companies, returning each year to buy seed networks. Furthermore, those materials are generally in good 
of hybrid or genetically modified varieties. Since they no health, and they are available, or at least should be available, 
longer save, sow, and select seeds from year to year, they to farmers for free (or minimal administrative costs) under 
are no longer directly engaged in the development and con- the Plant Treaty’s Multilateral System. However, experience 
servation of crop diversity through use. This is also a trend has shown that farmers (including both large-scale indus-
in some developing countries, in areas  where markets for trial farmers and small-scale farmers) are not accessing crop 
commercial hybrid varieties are opening up. diversity from those collections. For example, only 1–4% of 
On the other hand, in many parts of the world, small- the materials transferred each year from CGIAR genebanks 
scale farmers continue to actively harvest, select, save, plant and breeding programs via the Multilateral System shar-
their own seeds (or other planting materials) of a range of ing has been accessed directly by farmers around the world 
crops, subjecting them to farmer selection pressures to influ- (Westengen et al. 2018; CGIAR 2019).11
ence the evolution. Those same farmers provide and obtain As highlighted in the findings section above, farmers’ 
seeds through ‘informal’ seed systems, contributing to their ability to take advantage of, and contribute to, the global 
dissemination and exposure to selection pressures in other system will depend, at least in part, on striking up mutually 
agro-ecosystems. It is estimated that farmers in develop- advantageous partnerships with ‘formal sector’ organiza-
ing countries continue to access up to 80% of their seed tions that can assist farmers to ‘interface’ with the global 
through ‘informal’ seed systems (Cooper 1993; Sperling system, and work together to generate value for both farmers 
and McGuire 2010; McGuire and Sperling 2016; World and the global system as a whole (in the form of improved 
Benchmarking Alliance 2019) and continue to manage a and conserved genetic resources and knowledge). Like the 
wide diversity of materials (both inter- and intra-specific farmers in Benin and Madagascar, most small-scale farmers 
diversity) as part of their production and risk management most likely are not aware of the Plant Treaty’s Multilateral 
strategies (Altieri 2008). Despite their importance in many System and their legal right to access crop genetic resources 
parts of the world, where they continue to play an important from around the world through that system for free. Simi-
role for food security, farmers’ ‘informal’ seed exchange larly, most small-scale farmers around the world are not in 
networks are also being negatively affected by a number of a position, on their own, to be able to identify which par-
factors, including farmers’ migrating to cities, agrobiodiver- ticular materials out of the approximately 2,300,000 mil-
sity loss, urban encroachment on agricultural lands (Hazell lion accessions as of June 2020 in the Multilateral System12 
2005, 2007) and restrictive seed laws (Louwaars 2007). are potentially useful to them, for example, following the 
Small-scale farmers in developing countries complain that methods piloted by the multi-stakeholder teams in Benin and 
they do not have access to quality seed (Bishaw et al. 2013); Madagascar combining farmer needs assessments with pass-
and that they would welcome access to more crop diversity port and climate data to identify materials that are adapted to 
with which they could experiment and introduce into their changing local climate conditions (Otieno et al. 2018). Com-
production systems (Vernooy et al. 2019; Bishaw et al. 2010; plicating matters still further, some providers of materials 
Jones et al. 2001).
Increasing farmers access to and use of crop 11 By contrast, those collections are accessed and used primarily by 
diversity national agricultural research organizations, universities, genebanks 
and seed companies (Galluzzi et al. 2016; López Noriega et al. 2019). 
Of course, CGIAR materials distributed to national agricultural 
One means of enhancing small-scale farmers’ agency in the research organizations are often used to develop and release new vari-
evolving global crop commons—without simply trying to eties, which then are made available to farmers. Farmers in areas that 
reconstruct things ‘the way they were before’—is to ensure have access to an adequate supply of seed of such varieties may feel 
that they are able to benefit from the new technological and their needs for diverse materials are satisfied. Statistics on direct dis-tribution to farmers from CGIAR collections need to be considered in 
organizational innovations that characterize the crop com- this larger context.
mons, and to raise the profile of what they contribute to the 12 https: //mls.plantt reaty .org/itt/index. php?r=stats/ pubSt ats.
1 3
Enhancing farmers’ agency in the global crop commons through use of biocultural community…
under the Multilateral System do not consider direct requests share information about the performance, in their local set-
from farmers in their own countries, or requests that origi- tings, of  materials they access from genebanks or plant 
nate from outside their countries if they do not come through breeders. Of course, this kind of access and information 
public agencies, or larger private organizations (Joint Capac- sharing needs to be subject to terms that are approved by 
ity Building Programme 2018), despite the fact that natural the farmers. The biocultural community protocols address 
and legal persons are supposed to enjoy facilitated access the possibility that communities may decide to make crop 
through the Multilateral System. Similarly, national phy- genetic resources available using the Plant Treaty’s SMTA 
tosanitary control systems in some countries may also delay or subject to other terms and conditions deemed fit pursuant 
or decline to process materials being imported by small to the decision making processes and authority set out in 
farmers (and/or other unknown importers) when required the protocols. They do not specifically address the possibil-
to allocate scarce resources, choosing instead to test mate- ity of the communities sharing information with providers 
rials first that are being imported by national agricultural about the performance of materials they have received; this, 
research organizations, companies, and large NGOs, par- we believe, was an oversight, given farmers’ participatory 
ticularly those bound for commercial use. The result can be evaluation of both crop genetic resources (including both 
that materials actually die before they are tested and released the products of formal breeding programs and genebank 
from quarantine for use by the farmers concerned. Partner- materials) is an established form of farmer-formal sector 
ing with, or operating through the legal personality of, larger partnership as described above. Genebank managers and 
organizations is one strategy that farming communities can breeders value such information highly; it is key to adding 
employ to address these challenges. value to collections (helping others know the potential utility 
In most cases, however, accessing materials will only rep- of conserved materials) and for breeders to know if/how to 
resent the beginning of research and development activities adjust their breeding research and development. Breeders 
where, again, communities can benefit from partnerships and genebank managers frequently complain that they do 
with ‘outside agencies’ and epistemological communities to not get such information back once they distribute materi-
combine the farmers’ own know-how and expertise (and in als (FAO 2010; CGIAR 2019). By systematically providing 
some cases, genetic materials) with those of formal sector performance data back to providers, the communities would 
research and development organizations. Participatory (Cec- be helping to close a virtual loop in material and information 
carelli 2015; Ceccarelli and Grando 2007) and evolution- flows, and add value to the crop commons overall. This is 
ary (Döring et al. 2011) plant breeding are classic examples not a new concept; under the SMTA, recipients undertake to 
of such hybridized activities designed to mix and benefit share non-confidential research data linked to the received 
from farmers’ and formal sector plant breeders’ knowledge, materials through the Plant Treaty’s Global Information Sys-
perspectives and values. Newly developed approaches to tem (GLIS). The fact is, however, that most recipients are not 
engage farmers as citizen scientists in large-scale variety getting back to providers or the GLIS with such information, 
evaluation projects represent another means by which farm- with the result that opportunities to enhance the value of the 
ers and public and private research and development organi- Multilateral System are lost. In the future, we would rec-
zations can work together to add value to a broad diversity ommend that such protocols also promote community level 
of crop genetic resources, including those in national and strategizing and decision-making about sharing performance 
international genebanks (van Etten et al. 2019; Beza et al. data back to the providers from whom they access the mate-
2017). Community-based agrobiodiversity management rials concerned and to the GLIS (or alternatively, making a 
projects also provide a context in which farmers are often collective decision to keep such information confidential). 
interested in receiving materials from genebanks (including This decision should come from the community themselves 
restored materials) to be introduced into, and managed as after clearly understanding such process, following the prin-
part of, local production systems, subject to conservation ciples enshrined in the development of these tools.
through use (and intergenerational selection) by farmers, 
thereby straddling the ex situ and in situ divide. Westen- Regarding the biocultural community protocols 
gen et al. (2018) provide a useful overview of these and and farmers’ collective action interests
other situations—including emergency seed relief (which 
is not mentioned here)—in which farmers access materials There is no one fixed model for biocultural community 
directly from genebanks. The biocultural community pro- protocols. They are developed differently depending upon 
tocols adopted in Benin and Madagascar highlight the need their objectives, the agroecosystems and socio-political 
for community consultations, and engagement with extra- cultures of the communities and the country concerned 
community organizations, to develop such partnerships. (SCBD 2019). For the most part, they have focused on 
By way of corollary, farmers can provide access to farmer- enhancing communities’ management of natural resources 
improved materials to users outside their communities, and (Bavikatte and Jonas 2009; Jukic and Collings 2013) and 
1 3
 M. Halewood et al.
biological diversity in particular (Lassen et  al. 2018). conserved in ways that are useful to the community as a 
One common objective of biocultural community proto- whole.
cols is to affirm the status and rights of the communi-
ties concerned to manage resources within their territo-
ries of life. A closely related objective of many of the Conclusion
biocultural community protocols developed to date is to 
strengthen the ability of communities to control outsid- By addressing farming communities’ collective interests 
ers’ access to genetic resources and associated traditional in gaining access to crop genetic resources, and managing 
knowledge managed by community members (Shrumm and improving them, the biocultural community protocols 
and Jonas 2012; Jonas et al. 2010; Delgado 2016). These described in this article respond to the social dilemma asso-
protocols were inspired largely by the CBD, 1993, and ciated with the crop commons: that underuse, not overuse, 
more recently, by its Nagoya Protocol. Subject to some threatens the sustainable management of crop genetic diver-
notable exceptions (Argumedo 2011; LPP 2018) these sity. Even if they are not a panacea, biocultural community 
protocols have tended to focus on natural resources, wild protocols help communities to proactively respond to the 
endemic flora and fauna and traditional knowledge associ- fact that can and should continue to play active roles in  the 
ated to these resources, and less on agricultural biological generation and conservation of crop diversity (and addition 
diversity. of value to those resources through research). The process 
The biocultural community protocols described in this of developing such protocols, if carried out in an inclusive 
article include the two core elements described above. In and participatory manner, can raise the awareness of farming 
addition, they promote small-scale farmers’ access to crop communities of their collective interests and rights under the 
genetic resources, taking advantage of both countries’ rati- Nagoya Protocol and the Plant Treaty. Biocultural commu-
fication of the Plant Treaty. nity  protocols can provide roadmaps for how communities 
The biocultural community protocols promote farmers’ can pursue those interests and rights in practical ways; they 
collective actions in this respect for a number of interre- can help strengthen farming communities’ institutions for 
lated reasons. As highlighted above, small-scale farmers’ collective crop diversity management and their capacities 
contributions to domestication, crop diversity generation to take advantage of the technological and  organizational 
and conservation were largely collective, and intergenera- developments that have changed the shape and functioning 
tional in nature. Small-scale farmers in most of the world of the global crop commons over recent decades. They set 
continue to exchange seeds with neighbors within their the scene for communities to be able to engage in proac-
community (Samberg et al. 2013; Coomes et al. 2015). tive, equitable partnerships with genebanks, plant breeders, 
Not all farmers within a community will use (and con- extension agencies and other organizations to enhance the 
serve through use) all varieties every year; instead, the benefits that they can derive from, and contribute to, the crop 
overall portfolio of crops and varieties at the community commons. As such, biocultural community protocols are a 
level is larger than that which each farmer keeps individ- way of reconnecting the different layers of governance of 
ually. Nonetheless, from year to year, what each farmer the internationally distributed crop commons, from local to 
chooses to grow, as will the combination of seeds that the global levels, while specifically strengthening the position 
farmer will access from her neighbors, the local market, within that system of farming communities as biodiversity 
and other sources will change. So, when considering what managers.
diversity exists, and is available to farmers—prior to con- Of course, the biocultural community protocols on their 
sidering accessing diversity from the ‘global system’—it own will not create new partnerships if the other actors in 
makes sense to measure the distribution and richness of the crop commons—among them breeders, genebank man-
crop diversity at the collective, community level (Jarvis agers, regulatory authorities—choose not to engage. That 
et al. 2011) and what would be available commercially or said, the protocols send a clear message to those actors that 
though extension services. By extension, it is logical that the communities are organized and ready to engage in crea-
interests in accessing crop genetic resources from sources tive partnerships, and they highlight the means by which 
outside the community are collective interests shared by the communities can add value to joint enterprises. Clearly 
all farmers in the community. The fact that crop genetic articulated biocultural community protocols should also help 
resources accessed from genebanks around the world come dispel research and development partners’ concerns about 
in very small quantities underscores the need for coordi- transaction costs related to uncertainty about how to initiate 
nated action by farmers within the community (often in contact with the communities concerned and negotiate part-
coordination with other extra community organizations) in nership agreements. The potential impact of the protocols in 
the management of those resources once they are received, this context was significantly increased by being recognized 
to ensure that they are multiplied, experimented with, and in national decrees implementing the Nagoya Protocol and 
1 3
Enhancing farmers’ agency in the global crop commons through use of biocultural community…
the Plant Treaty in Benin and Madagascar, as this recog- Asfaw, Solomon, Menale Kassie, Franklin Simtowe, and Leslie Lipper. 
nition creates additional incentives for research and devel- 2012. Poverty reduction effects of agricultural technology adop-
opment and regulatory agencies to respond positively and tion: A micro-evidence from rural Tanzania. Journal of Develop-ment Studies 48 (9): 1288–1305.
proactively engage with communities in ways described in Bavikatte, Kabir, and Harry Jonas. 2009. Bio-cultural community pro-
the protocols. tocols: a community approach to ensuring the integrity of envi-
The biocultural community protocols presented in this ronmental law and policy. Square Brackets – Issue 2, November 
paper were developed in part to help the communities take 2009, CBD, Bonn, Germany.Bedmar Villanueva, Ana, Isabel López Noriega, Michael Halewood, 
advantage of their national governments’ ratification of the Gloria Otieno, and Ronnie Vernooy. 2017. Using access and 
Plant Treaty and the Nagoya Protocol, to reconfigure rela- benefit sharing policies to support climate change adaptation. 
tionships and the flow of resources and knowledge within the Abingdon: Routledge.
crop commons. Other recently adopted international instru- Bellon, Mauricio R., and Stephen B. Brush. 1994. Keepers of maize in Chiapas, Mexico. Economic Botany 48 (2): 196–209.
ments (e.g., the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Beza, Eskender, Jonathan Steinke, Jacob Van Etten, Pytrik Reidsma, 
Peoples, and the Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Carlo Fadda, Sarika Mittra, Prem Mathur, and Lammert Kooistra. 
Other People Working in Rural Areas) and others that are 2017. What are the prospects for citizen science in agriculture? 
likely to be adopted in the next year (e.g. Post 2020 Global Evidence from three continents on motivation and mobile tele-phone use of resource-poor farmers. PLoS ONE 12 (5): e0175700.
Biodiversity Framework and the UN FAO Global Plan of Bezançon, Gilles, Jean-Louis Pham, Monique Deu, Yves Vigour-
Action for Agrobiodiversity) will provide more opportuni- oux, Fabrice Sagnard, Cédric Mariac, Issoufou Kapran, Aïssata 
ties to promote the agency of farmers, indigenous people Mamadou, Bruno Gérard, and Jupiter Ndjeunga. 2009. Changes 
and local communities as managers of biological resources in the diversity and geographic distribution of cultivated millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor 
and socioecological systems. We very much hope that (L.) Moench) varieties in Niger between 1976 and 2003. Genetic 
donor organizations will support communities to develop Resources and Crop Evolution 56 (2): 223–236.
biocultural community protocols, and encourage research, Bishaw, Zewdie, P.C. Struik, and A.J.G. Van Gastel. 2010. Wheat seed 
development and regulatory agencies to partner with com- system in Ethiopia: Farmers’ varietal perception, seed sources, and seed management. Journal of New Seeds 11 (4): 281–327.
munities in conformance with those protocols. Bishaw, Zewdie, P.C. Struik, and A.J.G. Van Gastel. 2013. Farmer’s 
seed sources and seed quality: 2. Seed health. International Jour-
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- nal of Plant. Production 7 (4): 637–657.
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- Brush, Stephen B. 1995. In situ conservation of landraces in centers of 
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long crop diversity. Crop science 35 (2): 346–354.
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, Brush, Stephen B. 2000. Genes in the field: on-farm conservation of 
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes crop diversity. Ottawa: IDRC.
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are Buttel, Frederick H., Olaf F. Larson, and Gilbert W. Gillespie Jr. 1990. 
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated The sociology of agriculture. Santa Barbara: Greenwood Press 
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in Inc.
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not Ceccarelli, Salvatore. 2015. Efficiency of plant breeding. Crop Science 
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will 55 (1): 87–97.
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a Ceccarelli, Salvatore, and Stefania Grando. 2007. Decentralized-par-
copy of this licence, visit http://creati vecom mons. org/licens es/by/4.0/. ticipatory plant breeding: An example of demand driven research. 
Euphytica 155 (3): 349–360.
CGIAR. 2019. Report by the eleven CGIAR Centers that signed agree-
ments under article 15 of the treaty. report on cooperation with 
other international bodies and organizations. "Eighth session of 
References the governing body of the international treaty on plant genetic 
resources for food and agriculture". Rome, November 2019. https 
Almekinders, Connie J.M., Niels P. Louwaars, and G.H. De Bruijn. ://www.fao.org/3/na897 en/na897e n.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2020.
1994. Local seed systems and their importance for an improved Coomes, Oliver T., Shawn J. McGuire, Eric Garine, Sophie Caillon, 
seed supply in developing countries. Euphytica 78 (3): 207–216. Doyle McKey, Elise Demeulenaere, Devra Jarvis, Guntra Aistara, 
Altieri, Miguel A. 2008. Small farms as a planetary ecological asset: Adeline Barnaud, and Pascal Clouvel. 2015. Farmer seed net-
Five key reasons why we should support the revitalisation of works make a limited contribution to agriculture? Four common 
small farms in the global south. Penang, Malaysia: Third World misconceptions. Food Policy 56: 41–50.
Network. Cooper, David. 1993. Plant genetic diversity and small farmers: Issues 
Altieri, Miguel A., Clara I. Nicholls, Alejandro Henao, and Marcos and options for IFAD. Rome: International Fund for Agricultural 
A. Lana. 2015. Agroecology and the design of climate change- Development.
resilient farming systems. Agronomy for Sustainable Development Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the origin of species by means of natural 
35 (3): 869–890. selection. London: Murray.
Argumedo, Alejandro. 2011. Community biocultural protocols: Build- de Boef, Walter, Abishkar Subedi Simon, Nivaldo Peroni, Marja Thi-
ing mechanisms for access and benefit sharing among the com- jssen, and Elizabeth O’Keeffe. 2013. Community Biodiversity 
munities of the Potato Park based on Quechua customary norms Management: Promoting resilience and the conservation of plant 
(summary report). International Institute for Environment and genetic resources. Abingdon: Routledge.
Development. http://pubs. iied. org G, 3168.
1 3
 M. Halewood et al.
Dedeurwaerdere, Tom. 2012. Design principles of successful genetic- traditional crop varieties within the agricultural production sys-
resource commons for food and agriculture. International Journal tem. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 30 (1–2): 125–176.
of Ecological Economics and Statistics 26 (3): 16–30. Jarvis, Devra I., Toby Hodgkin, Anthony H. Brown, John D. Tuxill, 
Delgado Aguilar, Natalia. 2016. Community protocols as tools for Isabel López Noriega, Melinda Smale, and Bhuwon Sthapit. 
resisting exclusion in global environmental governance. Revista 2016. Crop genetic diversity in the field and on the farm: Prin-
de Administração de Empresas 56 (4): 395–410. ciples and applications in research practices. London: Yale 
Diamond, Jared. 1999. Guns, germs and steel: The fates of human University Press.
societies. New York: WW Norton & Company. Joint Capacity Building Programme. 2017. Mutually supportive 
Donald, Aletheia, Gayatri Koolwal, Jeannie Annan, Kathryn Falb, and implementation of the Nagoya Protocol and the Plant Treaty: 
Markus Goldstein. 2017. Measuring women’s agency. Washing- Scenarios for consideration by national focal points and other 
ton, D.C.: The World Bank. interested stakeholders. Bioversity International. Rome, 
Döring, Thomas F., Samuel Knapp, Geza Kovacs, Kevin Murphy, and Italy. https ://ccafs .cgiar .org/publi catio ns/mutua lly-suppo rtive 
Martin S. Wolfe. 2011. Evolutionary plant breeding in cereals— -implem entat ion-nagoya -protoc ol-and-plant- treaty -scenar ios#.
into a new era. Sustainability 3 (10): 1944–1971. XwdhYS jHzIV . Accessed July 10, 2020.
Elias, Marianne, Laura Rival, and Doyle McKey. 2000. Perception Joint Capacity Building Programme. 2018. Decision-making tool 
and management of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) diversity for national implementation of the Plant Treaty’s multilateral 
among Makushi Amerindians of Guyana (South America). Jour- system of access and benefit-sharing. Bioversity International, 
nal of Ethnobiology 20 (2): 239–265. Rome, Italy. https: //www.biover sityi ntern ation al.org/filead min/
FAO. 2010. The second report on the state of the world’s plant genetic user_upload /Decis ion_Halewo od_2018.pdf. Accessed July 10, 
resources for food and agriculture. Rome. https: //www.fao.org/3/ 2020.
i1500e /i1500e .pdf. Accessed 10 July 2020. Jonas, Harry, Kabir Bavikatte, and Holly Shrumm. 2010. Community 
Fowler, Cary, and Toby Hodgkin. 2004. Plant genetic resources for protocols and access and benefit sharing. Asian Biotechnology 
food and agriculture: Assessing global availability. Annual Review and Development Review 12 (3): 49–76.
of Environment and Resources 29: 143–179. Jones, Richard B., Patrick A. Audi, and Robert Tripp. 2001. The 
Frison, Christine, and Brendan Coolsaet. 2019. Genetic resources for role of informal seed systems in disseminating modern varie-
food and agriculture as commons. London: Routledge. ties. The example of pigeonpea from a semi-arid area of Kenya. 
Galluzzi, Gea, Michael Halewood, Isabel López Noriega, and Ronnie Experimental Agriculture 37 (4): 539–548.
Vernooy. 2016. Twenty-five years of international exchanges of Jukic, Emma, and Neva Collings. 2013. Community protocols for 
plant genetic resources facilitated by the CGIAR genebanks: A environmental sustainability: A guide for policymakers. UNEP, 
case study on global interdependence. Biodiversity and Conserva- Nairobi, Kenya. http://wedoc s.unep.org/handl e/20.500.11822 
tion 25 (8): 1421–1446. /8360. Accessed 10 July 2020.
Halewood, Michael, Isabel López Noriega, and Sélim Louafi. 2012. Kabeer, Naila. 1999. Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections 
Crop genetic resources as a global commons: Challenges in inter- on the measurement of women’s empowerment. Development 
national law and governance. Abingdon: Routledge. and Change 30 (3): 435–464.
Halewood, Michael, Elsa Andrieux, Léontine Crisson, Jean Rwiha- Kamau, Evanson Chege, and Gerd Winter. 2013. Common pools 
niza Gapusi, John Wasswa Mulumba, Edmond Kouablan Koffi, of genetic resources: Equity and innovation in international 
Tashi Yangzome Dorji, Madan Raj Bhatta, and Didier Balma. biodiversity law. Abingdon: Routledge.
2013. Implementing mutually supportive access and benefit shar- Kassie, Menale, Bekele Shiferaw, and Geoffrey Muricho. 2010. 
ing mechanisms under the plant treaty, convention on biological Adoption and impact of improved groundnut varieties on rural 
diversity, and nagoya protocol. Law, Environment and Develop- poverty: Evidence from rural Uganda. Discussion Paper Series, 
ment Journal 9: 68. EfD-DP 10-11. Environment for Development.
Halewood, Michael, Gloria Otieno, Charles Nkhoma, Patrick Kasasa, Lassen, Barbara, Lesle Jansen, Jazzy Rasolojaona, Cicilia Githaiga, 
John Wasswa Mulumba, Jean Rwihaniza Gapusi, and Bram de Lena Fey and Bienvenu Bossou. 2018. Community protocols 
Jonge. 2017. Access and benefit-sharing policies for climate- in Africa: Lessons learned from ABS implementation. Natural 
resilient seed systems. ISSD Synthesis Paper. Nairobi (Kenya): Justice and the ABS Capacity Development Initiative. https ://
ISSD Africa. 16 p. natur aljus tice.org/wp-conte nt/uploa ds/2018/11/2018_Commu 
Hardin, Garrett. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: nity-Protoc ols-in-Africa _Lesson s-Learne d_Natura l-Justic e.pdf. 
1243–1248. Accessed 10 July 2020.
Hazell, Peter BR. 2005. Is there a future for small farms? Agricultural Lin, Brenda B. 2011. Resilience in agriculture through crop diver-
Economics 32: 93–101. sification: Adaptive management for environmental change. 
Hazell, Peter BR. 2007. Transformations in agriculture and their BioScience 61 (3): 183–193.
implications for rural development. eJADE: electronic Journal League for Pasturalist Peoples and Endogenous Livestock Develop-
of Agricultural and Development Economics 4: 47–65. https :// ment (LPP). 2018. Community protocols for pastoralists and 
doi.org/10.22004/ ag.econ.112592 . livestock keepers: Claiming rights under the Convention on Bio-
Hess, Charlotte, and Elinor Ostrom. 2003. Ideas, artifacts, and facili- logical Diversity. League for Pastoral Peoples and Endogenous 
ties: Information as a common-pool resource. Law and Contem- Livestock Development, Ober-Ramstadt, Germany). https ://
porary Problems 66 (1/2): 111–145. www.pastor alpeo ples. org/wp-conten t/upload s/2018/08/Commu 
Hodgkin, Toby, Nicole Demers, and Emile Frison. 2013. The evolving nity-protoc ols-web.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2020.
global system of conservation and use of plant genetic resources López Noriega, Isabel, Michael Halewood, Michael Abberton, 
for food and agriculture: What is it and where does the Treaty fit Ahmed Amri, Ijantiku Ignatius Angarawai, Noelle Anglin, 
in? In Crop genetic resources as a global commons: Challenges in Michael Blümmel, Bas Bouman, Hugo Campos, and Denise 
international law and governance, 344–367. London: Earthscan. Costich. 2019. CGIAR operations under the plant treaty Frame-
Jarvis, Devra I., Toby Hodgkin, Bhuwon Sthapit, Carlo Fadda, and work. Crop Science 59 (3): 819–832.
Isabel López Noriega. 2011. An heuristic framework for iden- Louwaars, Niels P. 2007. Seeds of confusion: the impact of poli-
tifying multiple ways of supporting the conservation and use of cies on seed systems. PhD dissertation, Centre for Genetic 
Resources, University of Wageningen, The Netherlands.
1 3
Enhancing farmers’ agency in the global crop commons through use of biocultural community…
Madison, Michael J., Brett M. Frischmann, and Katherine J. Strand- Shrumm, Holly, and Harry Jonas. 2012. Biocultural community pro-
burg. 2009. Constructing commons in the cultural environment. tocols: A toolkit for community facilitators. Cape Town: Natural 
Cornell Law Review 95: 657. Justice.
Mann, Charles C. 2011. 1493: Uncovering the new world Columbus Sperling, Louise, and Shawn McGuire. 2010. Understanding and 
created. New York: Vintage. strengthening informal seed markets. Experimental Agriculture 
Manzella, Daniele. 2013. The design and mechanics of the multilateral 46 (2): 119–136.
system of access and benefit sharing. In Crop genetic resources as Sthapit, Bhuwon, Pratap Shrestha, and Madhusudan Upadhyay. 
a global commons, 150. Abingdon: Routledge. 2012. Participatory four-cell analysis (FCA) for understanding 
McGuire, Shawn, and Louise Sperling. 2016. Seed systems smallholder local crop diversity. In On-farm management of agricultural 
farmers use. Food Security 8 (1): 179–195. biodiversity in Nepal. Good Practices, 13–16. NARC/LI-BIRD/
McMichael, Philip. 1994. The global restructuring of agro-food sys- Bioversity International, Nepal.
tems. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Thormann, Imke, Johannes MM. Engels, and Michael Halewood. 
Mercer, Kristin L., and Hugo R. Perales. 2010. Evolutionary response 2019. Are the old International Board for Plant Genetic Resources 
of landraces to climate change in centers of crop diversity. Evolu- (IBPGR) base collections available through the Plant Treaty’s 
tionary Applications 3 (5–6): 480–493. multilateral system of access and benefit sharing? A review. 
Mijatović, Dunja, Frederik Van Oudenhoven, Pablo Eyzaguirre, and Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 66 (2): 291–310.
Toby Hodgkin. 2013. The role of agricultural biodiversity in van Etten, Jacob, Kauê de Sousa, Amílcar Aguilar, Mirna Barrios, 
strengthening resilience to climate change: Towards an analytical Allan Coto, Matteo Dell’Acqua, Carlo Fadda, Yosef Gebreha-
framework. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability waryat, Jeske van de Gevel, and Arnab Gupta. 2019. Crop vari-
11 (2): 95–107. ety management for climate adaptation supported by citizen sci-
Montenegro de Wit, Maywa. 2019. Beating the bounds: How does ence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (10): 
‘open source’ become a seed commons? The Journal of Peasant 4194–4199.
Studies 46 (1): 44–79. Varshney, Rajeev K., Chris Ojiewo, and Emmanuel Monyo. 2019. A 
Onwuekwe, Chika B. 2004. The commons concept and intellectual decade of Tropical Legumes projects: Development and adoption 
property rights regime: Whither plant genetic resources and tra- of improved varieties, creation of market-demand to benefit small-
ditional knowledge. Pierce Law Review 2: 65. holder farmers and empowerment of national programmes in sub-
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of insti- Saharan Africa and South Asia. Plant Breeding 138 (4): 379–388.
tutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Vernooy, Ronnie, Guy Bessette, and Gloria Otieno. 2019. Resilient 
Press. seed systems: Handbook. Rome: Bioversity International.
Otieno, Gloria. 2018. Accessing genetic diversity for food security and Vigouroux, Yves, Adeline Barnaud, Nora Scarcelli, and Anne-Celine. 
climate change adaptation in select communities in Africa. Food Thuillet. 2011. Biodiversity, evolution and adaptation of cultivated 
Security and Climate Change 19: 499–522. crops. Comptes Rendus Biologies 334 (5–6): 450–457.
Otieno, Gloria, Sognigbe N’Danikou, Bienvenu Bossou, Toussaint Westengen, Ola Tveitereid, Kristine Skarbø, Teshome Hunduma 
Mikpon, Raymond Vodouhe, John WM Recha, and Michael Mulesa, and Trygve Berg. 2018. Access to genes: Linkages 
Halewood. 2018. Enhancing the capacity of local communities between genebanks and farmers’ seed systems. Food Security 10 
to access crop genetic diversity for climate change adaptation. (1): 9–25.
Padulosi, Stefano, Toby Hodgkin, John T. Williams, and N. Haq. 2002. Westley, Frances R., Ola Tjornbo, Lisen Schultz, Per Olsson, Carl 
Underutilized crops: Trends, challenges and opportunities in the Folke, Beatrice Crona, and Örjan. Bodin. 2013. A theory of trans-
21st century, managing plant genetic diversity. Wallingford: CAB formative agency in linked social-ecological systems. Ecology and 
International. Society. https ://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05072 -180327 .
Pimbert, Michel P. 2011. Participatory research and on-farm manage- Wirz, Johannes, Peter Kunz, and Ueli Hurter. 2017. Seed as a Com-
ment of agricultural biodiversity in Europe. London: IIED. mons: Breeding as a Source for Real Economy, Law and Cul-
Samberg, Leah H., Carol Shennan, and Erika Zavaleta. 2013. Farmer ture: Assessment and Future Perspectives for Non-profit Sseed 
seed exchange and crop diversity in a changing agricultural land- and Breeding Initiatives. Dornach: Goetheanum.
scape in the southern highlands of Ethiopia. Human Ecology 41 World Benchmarking Alliance. 2019. Access to Seeds Index 2019. 
(3): 477–485. Bridging the gap between the world’s leading seed companies and 
Scarascia-Mugnozza, Giacomo T., Pietro Perrino, Johannes Engel, the smallholder farmer. Synthesis report. https: //www.acces stose 
Ramanatha V. Rao, Anthony HD. Brown, and MT. Jackson. eds.org/app/upload s/2019/06/Access -to-Seeds- 2019-Index- Synth 
2002. The history of ex situ conservation and use of plant genetic esis-Repor t.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2020.
resources. In Managing plant genetic diversity, 1–22. Wallingford: 
CABI. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to 
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD). 2019. jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Mo’otz Kuxtal Voluntary Guidelines for the development of 
mechanisms, legislation or other appropriate initiatives to ensure 
the “prior and informed consent”, “free, prior and informed 
consent” or “approval and involvement”, depending on national Michael Halewood Team leader, Genetic Resources and Seed Systems 
circumstances, of indigenous peoples and local communities for Policies, at the Alliance of Bioversity International and the Interna-
accessing their knowledge, innovations and practices, for fair tional Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT).
and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of their 
knowledge, innovations and practices relevant for the conserva- Ana Bedmar Villanueva Consultant, Genetic Resources and Seed Sys-
tion and sustainable use of biological diversity, and for reporting tems Policies, at the Alliance of Bioversity International and the Inter-
and preventing unlawful appropriation of traditional knowledge. national Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT).
Montreal, 9 p. (CBD Guidelines Series). https: //www.cbd.int/doc/
public ation s/8j-cbd-mootz- kuxtal -en.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2020. Jazzy Rasolojaona Programme Manager, at the Francophone Africa 
Hub of Natural Justice (Lawyers for the environment and communi-
ties), Madagascar.
1 3
 M. Halewood et al.
Michelle Andriamahazo Technical officer, at the Environment, Climate Bernadette Rasoanirina Chair of the Board of the FaMA Cooperative, 
and Emergency Response Service of the Ministry of Agriculture, Live- Analavory, Madagascar.
stock and Fisheries, Antananarivo, Madagascar.
Thérèse Rasoazafindrabe Threasurer of the Board of the FaMA Coop-
Naritiana Rakotoniaina Executive Director of the Environmental erative, Analavory, Madagascar.
Management Support Service (SAGE), and teacher/researcher at the 
Ambositra Institute of Technologies and at the Higher School of Agro- Marcellin Aigbe President of the NGO Jeunesse Sans Frontières and 
nomic Sciences of the University of Antananarivo, Madagascar. Representative of indigenous populations, Benin.
Bienvenu Bossou Executive Director of the NGO CeSaReN, Bonou, Blaise Agbahounzo Farmer, President of the farmers of Tori-Bossito, 
Benin. Benin.
Toussaint Mikpon Head of Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication Gloria Otieno Genetic Resources and Food Security Policy Specialist, 
and Documentation Service, at the Agricultural Research Center of at the Alliance of Bioversity International and the International Center 
the National Institute of Agricultural Research of Benin, Ministry of for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT).
Agriculture, Benin.
Kathryn Garforth Legal Officer, Biosafety Unit, at the Secretariat of 
Raymond Vodouhe Honorary Research Fellow, at the Alliance of Bio- the Convention on Biological Diversity.
versity International and the International Center for Tropical Agri-
culture (CIAT). Tobias Kiene Technical Officer, at the Secretariat of the International 
Treaty of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
Lena Fey Project officer. Coordinator of activities in Benin and Côte 
d’Ivoire, at the ABS Capacity Development Initiative. Kent Nnadozie Secretary of the International Treaty of Plant Genetic 
Resources for Food and Agriculture.
Andreas Drews Programme Manager, at the ABS Capacity Develop-
ment Initiative.
P. Lava Kumar Head of Germplasm Health Unit/Virologist, at the Inter-
national Institute of Tropical Agriculture.
1 3