96 Ingrid Hall
ANDES experimented and promoted different biocultural tools: “biocultural
heritage” (Argumedo, 2013; Argumedo & Stenner, 2008), “biocultural territory” (IIED, 2014), biocultural innovations, and biocultural knowledge. The
Park is considered to have developed the first biocultural protocols (ANDES
et al., 2012).
Sumaq kawsay, an Alternative Vision of Conservation
The Potato Park has a program of valorizing the biocultural heritage of its inhabitants,
which frames their specific vision of their environment in terms of Sumaq kawsay,
translatable as “good living” (or buen vivir in Spanish). These terms began to gain
ground in Andean countries around the beginning of the present century. They
were enshrined in the constitutions of Ecuador in 2008 and Bolivia in 2009. In
these two cases, the inspiration for Sumaq kawsay is asserted to be indigenous, and
the importance of nature is emphasized (see especially C oordinadora Andina de
Organizaciones Indígenas & Huanacuni Mamani (2010)). The Ecuadorean constitution, in particular, attributes right to nature by identifying it with Pachamama
(“Mother Earth
15
”). However, critical investigation of the concept’s development
(Bretón Solo de Zaldívar, 2013) and the various schools of thought that make
claims on it (Hidalgo-Capitán & Cubillo-Guevara, 2017) shows that it arose from
a negotiation among different sectors of society, and that various perspectives on
it co-exist. In particular, these studies show that the indigeneity of the concept’s
origin is relative. Peru has not included “good living” in its constitution, although
it is a well-known concept in the Peruvian NGO community. The lack of state-led
discourse opens more room for other actors to appropriate the concept and adapt it
to their own particular objectives, as in the Potato Park.
What follows is a description and analysis of the concept of conservation,
as articulated within Sumaq kawsay at the Pisac Potato Park. When I arrived in
2012, the institutional discourse of ANDES had already taken shape for the most
part, even though one of the tasks requested of me was to help the NGO in conceptualizing it (Argumedo & Hall, Forthcoming).
On the ANDES website, there is a reference to an “indigenous p hilosopher”
from Peru, namely Javier Lajo, educated in economics and director of the
little-known Instituto del Sumaq Kawsay. This author, both online and in various
published articles (2013), presents Sumaq kawsay as a pre-Hispanic model and
advocates it as a decolonializing approach (Mignolo, 2001),
16 as an extension
of the indigenist current of thought that developed in the Cusco region at the
start of the twentieth century.
17 The definition of Sumaq kawsay put forward by
ANDES draws from this school of thought and takes up the principle of a threeway partition. Yet, it reformulates the local principles.
The first idea upon which Sumaq kawsay rests, as emphasized in the Park, is the
identification of three distinct communities, each called an ayllu. This polysemic
term (Masuda & Sato, 1981) is generally used to reference pre-Hispanic communities (Castro Pozo, 1973), small or large family groups (see Sendón, 2016),
ANDES experimented and promoted different biocultural tools: “biocultural
heritage” (Argumedo, 2013; Argumedo & Stenner, 2008), “biocultural territory” (IIED, 2014), biocultural innovations, and biocultural knowledge. The
Park is considered to have developed the first biocultural protocols (ANDES
et al., 2012).
Sumaq kawsay, an Alternative Vision of Conservation
The Potato Park has a program of valorizing the biocultural heritage of its inhabitants,
which frames their specific vision of their environment in terms of Sumaq kawsay,
translatable as “good living” (or buen vivir in Spanish). These terms began to gain
ground in Andean countries around the beginning of the present century. They
were enshrined in the constitutions of Ecuador in 2008 and Bolivia in 2009. In
these two cases, the inspiration for Sumaq kawsay is asserted to be indigenous, and
the importance of nature is emphasized (see especially C oordinadora Andina de
Organizaciones Indígenas & Huanacuni Mamani (2010)). The Ecuadorean constitution, in particular, attributes right to nature by identifying it with Pachamama
(“Mother Earth
15
”). However, critical investigation of the concept’s development
(Bretón Solo de Zaldívar, 2013) and the various schools of thought that make
claims on it (Hidalgo-Capitán & Cubillo-Guevara, 2017) shows that it arose from
a negotiation among different sectors of society, and that various perspectives on
it co-exist. In particular, these studies show that the indigeneity of the concept’s
origin is relative. Peru has not included “good living” in its constitution, although
it is a well-known concept in the Peruvian NGO community. The lack of state-led
discourse opens more room for other actors to appropriate the concept and adapt it
to their own particular objectives, as in the Potato Park.
What follows is a description and analysis of the concept of conservation,
as articulated within Sumaq kawsay at the Pisac Potato Park. When I arrived in
2012, the institutional discourse of ANDES had already taken shape for the most
part, even though one of the tasks requested of me was to help the NGO in conceptualizing it (Argumedo & Hall, Forthcoming).
On the ANDES website, there is a reference to an “indigenous p hilosopher”
from Peru, namely Javier Lajo, educated in economics and director of the
little-known Instituto del Sumaq Kawsay. This author, both online and in various
published articles (2013), presents Sumaq kawsay as a pre-Hispanic model and
advocates it as a decolonializing approach (Mignolo, 2001),
16 as an extension
of the indigenist current of thought that developed in the Cusco region at the
start of the twentieth century.
17 The definition of Sumaq kawsay put forward by
ANDES draws from this school of thought and takes up the principle of a threeway partition. Yet, it reformulates the local principles.
The first idea upon which Sumaq kawsay rests, as emphasized in the Park, is the
identification of three distinct communities, each called an ayllu. This polysemic
term (Masuda & Sato, 1981) is generally used to reference pre-Hispanic communities (Castro Pozo, 1973), small or large family groups (see Sendón, 2016),