102 Ingrid Hall
great use of this. The representatives of local and indigenous communities, for
their part, do not vote and only participate marginally in the debates. Bolivia’s
involvement and its aggressive use of Sumaq kawsay is a way to fight against the
naturalist convictions that, due to economic issues and the weight of biological
sciences, dominate this international setting. Local and indigenous communities,
as well as pro-indigenous NGOs, thus have every interest in following the movement led by Bolivia; for these actors, the Bolivian vision in itself has become
an essential reference point. At the same time as it takes part in these debates,
ANDES extends them by proposing a model specifically adapted to issues of in
situ conservation; this model is mainly presented at side events and feeds into
the deliberations that accompany the official debates. The recognition gained
by ANDES in this domain, including in other contexts such as the congress on
parks organized by the IUCN or the meetings of the International Society of
Ethnobiology, helps to publicize the Potato Park. This is an important source
of social capital that in recent years has directly contributed to obtaining funding, all of which has been international (including from Oxfam, the European
Union, and the International Institute for Environment and Development).
Furthermore, in the current context of environmental crisis, non-indigenous
actors in both the global South and North are now calling for the reformulation of our relationship with nature. This translates into a willingness to rework
relationships with nature, as is clear in the title of the United Nations Decade
for Biodiversity: “Living in harmony with nature”. The (partial) convergence of
these demands ensures that claims made by local and indigenous communities
gain momentum.
The vision of Sumaq kawsay promoted by ANDES thus has meaning within an
international context linked to the CBD. In this context, the NGO has worked
out how to position itself and Indigenous people strategically. We must consider
the conservationist orientation of the Potato Park within this logic: a productivist
logic would create confusion. Part of the Park’s success, for its funders, rests on its
action-research program that consists of showing the particularities and advantages of an alternative vision of conservation, and also reflects on the possibility
of upscaling the model in Peru and abroad.
Within Peru, this international recognition is a powerful force; the resulting networks and knowledge of current debates allow ANDES to position itself
effectively in discussions. In Peru, recognition of peasants’ rights over landraces
is still problematic, although some innovative potential solutions have been
found. Peru signed up to the agreements of the International Union for the
Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) in 1993 and 2011, thus deciding to favor intensive agriculture that uses improved seeds to feed a growing
urban population and stimulate the expanding industry of export-oriented agriculture (Lapeña, 2012a, 2012b). The UPOV system, developed in Europe and
North America, has entailed a major loss of agrobiodiversity and is not adapted
to the realities of family agriculture as practiced by Andean peasants. As specialists have noted, membership in the UPOV not only endangers the richness of
great use of this. The representatives of local and indigenous communities, for
their part, do not vote and only participate marginally in the debates. Bolivia’s
involvement and its aggressive use of Sumaq kawsay is a way to fight against the
naturalist convictions that, due to economic issues and the weight of biological
sciences, dominate this international setting. Local and indigenous communities,
as well as pro-indigenous NGOs, thus have every interest in following the movement led by Bolivia; for these actors, the Bolivian vision in itself has become
an essential reference point. At the same time as it takes part in these debates,
ANDES extends them by proposing a model specifically adapted to issues of in
situ conservation; this model is mainly presented at side events and feeds into
the deliberations that accompany the official debates. The recognition gained
by ANDES in this domain, including in other contexts such as the congress on
parks organized by the IUCN or the meetings of the International Society of
Ethnobiology, helps to publicize the Potato Park. This is an important source
of social capital that in recent years has directly contributed to obtaining funding, all of which has been international (including from Oxfam, the European
Union, and the International Institute for Environment and Development).
Furthermore, in the current context of environmental crisis, non-indigenous
actors in both the global South and North are now calling for the reformulation of our relationship with nature. This translates into a willingness to rework
relationships with nature, as is clear in the title of the United Nations Decade
for Biodiversity: “Living in harmony with nature”. The (partial) convergence of
these demands ensures that claims made by local and indigenous communities
gain momentum.
The vision of Sumaq kawsay promoted by ANDES thus has meaning within an
international context linked to the CBD. In this context, the NGO has worked
out how to position itself and Indigenous people strategically. We must consider
the conservationist orientation of the Potato Park within this logic: a productivist
logic would create confusion. Part of the Park’s success, for its funders, rests on its
action-research program that consists of showing the particularities and advantages of an alternative vision of conservation, and also reflects on the possibility
of upscaling the model in Peru and abroad.
Within Peru, this international recognition is a powerful force; the resulting networks and knowledge of current debates allow ANDES to position itself
effectively in discussions. In Peru, recognition of peasants’ rights over landraces
is still problematic, although some innovative potential solutions have been
found. Peru signed up to the agreements of the International Union for the
Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) in 1993 and 2011, thus deciding to favor intensive agriculture that uses improved seeds to feed a growing
urban population and stimulate the expanding industry of export-oriented agriculture (Lapeña, 2012a, 2012b). The UPOV system, developed in Europe and
North America, has entailed a major loss of agrobiodiversity and is not adapted
to the realities of family agriculture as practiced by Andean peasants. As specialists have noted, membership in the UPOV not only endangers the richness of