1The first Council for Consultation with the Amerindian and Bushinenge Populations of French Guiana (CCPAB) was established in June 2008 during the presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy, by means of an amendment submitted by senator Georges Othily to the Overseas Territories Bill. This amendment stipulated the creation of an administrative commission of a consultative nature, attached to the Prefecture, to be consulted on “any bill or proposal debated by the regional or departmental council with consequences for the environment, living environment or cultural activities of Amerindian and Bushinenge populations.” This body seemed doomed to failure since, as George Pau-Langevin, Minister for Overseas Territories, readily admitted, it had neither the financial resources nor the status required to “deliver better representation for the indigenous populations of Guiana and promote their specific interests.”

2The communities in question greeted this lack of adequate resources as the latest in a long line of humiliations. They felt that their voices had already been suppressed over previous decades, particularly with the establishment of municipal authorities which acted as checks on their own powers, the arrival of money and its consequences for relationships within villages, and the disruption to cultural traditions caused by Christianisation.

3The negotiations which led to the recent Law on Biodiversity (2016) helped to move things along. The member of parliament for French Guiana, Chantal Berthelot, sought to make the CCPAB a public legal entity responsible for organising consultation of communautés d’habitants holding traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources, and negotiating and signing benefit-sharing agreements with users. To this end, she proposed an amendment to the Bill on Genuine Equality in the Overseas Territories (EROM) in February 2017, stipulating the creation of a Grand Customary Council of Amerindian and Bushinenge Populations (GCCPAB).

4The Grand Customary Council finally took shape on 10 and 11 February 2018, a historic occasion on which all of Guiana’s Amerindian customary chiefs and Bushinenge captains gathered together. From East to West, North to South, all of the chiefs and leaders of Amerindian and Bushinenge associations attended the launch of the Council. They were charged with electing a governing committee for a period of three years, by means of a secret ballot, as well as determining the Council’s regulations. After two days, 16 representatives were put forward by their communities (12 customary chiefs and 4 associative representatives, with an equal split of Amerindian and Bushinenge members). The Minister for Overseas Territories then designated two additional representatives with the agreement of the represented communities. The much-criticised yet hotly-anticipated Grand Customary Council was finally a reality.

5Many militants (primarily Amerindians) expressed their frustration at France’s incorrigibly unilateral understanding of customary representation. They denounced Article D. 7124-46 of the Decree implementing the EROM Law as being typical of this stubborn paternalism: “The cost of running the Grand Customary Council is covered by the State. The Grand Customary Council’s secretariat is attached to the office of the central government’s representative in Guiana.” They also bemoaned the longstanding failure to demonstrate sufficient consideration for local populations, embodied in the purely consultative role of the Grand Council in relation to the representative of central government in the French Guiana Territorial Authority. Nonetheless, the French State had finally recognised, to some extent, the legitimacy of the customary chiefs by establishing a Grand Council complete with the requisite funding, which represented an improvement on the previous state of affairs. The Grand Council is also qualified to intervene, at its own initiative, on all matters directly or indirectly affecting the indigenous population (environmental, societal and cultural issues etc.). Nevertheless, and crucially, the Grand Council remains to this day a purely consultative administrative body. The GCCPAB cannot assume the role of a public legal entity.

6However, the most pressing priority was to make indigenous voices heard, since projects with consequences for their lives were still being launched without proper consultation of those most affected. It soon became clear that, without the presence of the Grand Customary Council, this deleterious state of affairs would only continue. Furthermore, following the accusations of biopiracy levelled at IRD in the high-profile “Couachi Affair” (see Box 1), there is much work to be done on the gathering of consent before access is granted to traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources. Under the terms of the Law on Biodiversity, the Grand Customary Council can intervene in order to manage this consent-gathering process. As per Article 78 of the EROM Law, the Guiana Territorial Authority may, at the request of the Grand Customary Council, “create a public institution for cultural and environmental cooperation” tasked with implementing Article L. 412-10 of the Environment Code. In other words, the Grand Council may organise the consultation of communautés d’habitants holding traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources (see Chap. 8). However, since the Council is not a public legal entity, it cannot negotiate or sign benefit-sharing agreements.

7The situation remains complex and uncertain, with differences of opinion within both the Territorial Authority and the Grand Council hampering the creation of a public legal entity. The concrete reality of these relations appears to be a major obstacle to collaboration. It is worth noting that socio-cultural differences between Amerindian and Bushinenge communities require different decision-making and consultation processes.

8With regard to access and benefit-sharing mechanisms (ABS), the Guiana Amazonian Park is provisionally acting as the legal entity overseeing implementation of procedures for access to genetic resources, particularly the consultation of communities with regard to requests for access to traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources. Consultation of these communities requires a number of complex procedures to be implemented locally, in order to obtain a response from both the territorial authority and the Grand Customary Council. 

9Finding a mode of consultation consistent with the lifestyles of the communities in question is therefore a priority, and the implementation of community-specific protocols is crucial (see Chap. 14). However, the French government, through the intermediary of the Guiana Amazonian Park authorities, has proposed a consultation model that is incompatible with local customs: a question is put to the chief, who is expected to answer on behalf of the whole community. This of course implies that a customary chief represents the whole community, which is generally not the case among Amerindian groups, where a man’s word is his own and he does not speak for the community at large. A considerable amount of information and educational work is required with communities benefiting from ABS, so that they can create their own protocols for establishing prior, informed consent among themselves. Such protocols would be of use not only for ABS purposes, but also for the many other matters on which communities are consulted. At the time of writing, the absence of clear protocols means that the same individuals within a given territory are consulted repeatedly, while others remain invisible, for various reasons (language barriers, lack of interest, etc.). This raises questions as to who can truly be considered qualified to represent the knowledge of a community.

10As such, a methodology tailored to each community must be developed in collaboration with the members of the Grand Customary Council. It should come as little surprise that the first discussions in this area have highlighted the limitations of the legislative framework, specifically with regard to what constitutes traditional knowledge (see Chaps. 10 and 11).

11By way of an example, Bruno Apouyou, the Boni captain of the Saramaca village in Kourou, and Vice-President of the Grand Customary Council, has offered an explanation of the division of traditional knowledge between the village, the family and the lo or be (clan) in Boni culture. If a request were to be made for access to traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources held by the Bonis, the issue of the origin of this knowledge would arise. Knowledge may be considered maternal or paternal in origin, but not both simultaneously. A boy who learns from his father how to use a certain plant for medicinal purposes is not supposed to share this knowledge with his maternal family. If such transmission were to occur, the knowledge would be considered to have been shared with the maternal family, but not given to them as owners. The maternal family would have no such claim over the knowledge.

12Taking such practices into account requires adjustment to the ABS model. The Vice-President of the Grand Customary Council is unequivocal: “French law must adapt to our laws.” In order to achieve this, he feels that a robust dialogue on the different manners of approaching the traditional knowledge of communautés d’habitants is indispensable.

13The continuation of these discussions with the Grand Customary Council and the mediators from the Amazonian Park must improve our understanding and recognition of the ways in which knowledge is constructed, transmitted and used. By affirming the rights and will of local populations in all their diversity, community-specific protocols will provide clear guidance as to how such knowledge can be used to further our understanding of biodiversity.