92 Ingrid Hall
toward this rapprochement (Albert, 1993; Ramos, 1994; Conklin & Graham,
1995). While showing the diversity of the agents involved (state agencies,
NGOs,
4 environmentalists, local communities), they have focused more specifically on actors from the communities with which they work, above all on
indigenous leaders, allowing them to make a powerful case for an alternative
ontology to naturalism (Blaser, 2009; de la Cadena, 2010, 2015). However,
the elaboration of this ontological discourse sometimes results from improbable alliances – for instance, with a priest, as in the Peruvian case described
by Li (2013). In the example I will develop here, although the indigenous
vision of conservation is upheld mainly by a Peruvian NGO, the discourse of
ANDES results from the “intercultural politicization of cosmological categories” (Albert, 1993, p. 369), leading to the translation of local concepts inasmuch as they are compatible with the global ecological imaginary (Conklin &
Graham, 1995, p. 697).
This work should be understood in the context of debates on “double
conservation” (Dumoulin, 2007), described by ANDES as “biocultural”
conservation (ANDES et al., 2012), which are now widely debated in the
international governance of biodiversity conservation
5 (see Chapter 1). This
vision, as spearheaded by the Potato Park, seems to bode well for furthering
mechanisms of access and benefit-sharing linked to the use of biodiversity for
the benefit of indigenous and local populations (Thomas & Filoche, 2015). An
analysis of ANDES vision may thus clarify the relevance of the tools currently
being designed within this paradigm. Within the framework set out by the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), we will see that representatives of
local and indigenous communities tend to address the biocultural dimension
in ontological terms. This observation will allow me to investigate conditions concerning the exercise of such diplomacy in the present context. I take,
therefore, an approach that is critical of biocultural visions, following Foyer
(2015) and Kohler (2011).
The data upon which this text is based were gathered over several periods of
fieldwork carried out in Peru between 2011 and 2018. I conducted interviews
on the development of this vision with the head of ANDES, the staff of ANDES
and people living in the Park; I consulted various texts produced by ANDES –
published or otherwise – as well as internal documents; and I took part in various
events where ANDES staff presented their vision. On four occasions, I attended
meetings of the working group on recognizing the role of local and indigenous
populations for the in situ conservation of biodiversity (article 8( j) of the CBD).
Together with Alejandro Argumedo, the head of ANDES, I have written on the
concept of Sumaq kawsay (Argumedo & Hall, forthcoming).
This chapter is organized as follows: after providing an overview of the Potato
Park, I will detail its biocultural vision of conservation. I will then analyze the
various objectives pursued at local, national, and international levels, in order to
situate the framing of this vision within the various streams of logic that give it
meaning.
toward this rapprochement (Albert, 1993; Ramos, 1994; Conklin & Graham,
1995). While showing the diversity of the agents involved (state agencies,
NGOs,
4 environmentalists, local communities), they have focused more specifically on actors from the communities with which they work, above all on
indigenous leaders, allowing them to make a powerful case for an alternative
ontology to naturalism (Blaser, 2009; de la Cadena, 2010, 2015). However,
the elaboration of this ontological discourse sometimes results from improbable alliances – for instance, with a priest, as in the Peruvian case described
by Li (2013). In the example I will develop here, although the indigenous
vision of conservation is upheld mainly by a Peruvian NGO, the discourse of
ANDES results from the “intercultural politicization of cosmological categories” (Albert, 1993, p. 369), leading to the translation of local concepts inasmuch as they are compatible with the global ecological imaginary (Conklin &
Graham, 1995, p. 697).
This work should be understood in the context of debates on “double
conservation” (Dumoulin, 2007), described by ANDES as “biocultural”
conservation (ANDES et al., 2012), which are now widely debated in the
international governance of biodiversity conservation
5 (see Chapter 1). This
vision, as spearheaded by the Potato Park, seems to bode well for furthering
mechanisms of access and benefit-sharing linked to the use of biodiversity for
the benefit of indigenous and local populations (Thomas & Filoche, 2015). An
analysis of ANDES vision may thus clarify the relevance of the tools currently
being designed within this paradigm. Within the framework set out by the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), we will see that representatives of
local and indigenous communities tend to address the biocultural dimension
in ontological terms. This observation will allow me to investigate conditions concerning the exercise of such diplomacy in the present context. I take,
therefore, an approach that is critical of biocultural visions, following Foyer
(2015) and Kohler (2011).
The data upon which this text is based were gathered over several periods of
fieldwork carried out in Peru between 2011 and 2018. I conducted interviews
on the development of this vision with the head of ANDES, the staff of ANDES
and people living in the Park; I consulted various texts produced by ANDES –
published or otherwise – as well as internal documents; and I took part in various
events where ANDES staff presented their vision. On four occasions, I attended
meetings of the working group on recognizing the role of local and indigenous
populations for the in situ conservation of biodiversity (article 8( j) of the CBD).
Together with Alejandro Argumedo, the head of ANDES, I have written on the
concept of Sumaq kawsay (Argumedo & Hall, forthcoming).
This chapter is organized as follows: after providing an overview of the Potato
Park, I will detail its biocultural vision of conservation. I will then analyze the
various objectives pursued at local, national, and international levels, in order to
situate the framing of this vision within the various streams of logic that give it
meaning.