Agriculture is one of the primary drivers of deforestation and displacement of Indigenous communities worldwide, but do all agricultural practices have such negative effects? Globally, Indigenous communities have begun protecting traditional food sources through biocultural heritage territories.

 

In the 5th episode of Save Our Planet Podcast, Krystyna Swiderska - an expert in traditional knowledge and biocultural heritage of Indigenous peoples and local communities at the International Institute for Environment and Development (iied)- explains this groundbreaking initiative. 

​

 

What is biocultural heritage?

 

Biocultural heritage is the biological and cultural heritage of Indigenous peoples and local communities. It includes biodiversity, domesticated agroecosystems, and ancestral territories, as well as Indigenous knowledge, cultural and spiritual values, and customary laws. All these different components are interlinked and interdependent, which is in line with Indigenous peoples’ holistic worldviews.

 

 

What is the difference between biocultural heritage and conservation?

 

Biocultural heritage recognizes the inextricable links between biodiversity and people, and the critical role of Indigenous peoples in conserving nature. In contrast to Western conservation approaches that often assume that people have to be separated from nature in order to protect it, biocultural heritage puts people at the center of conservation.

 

The term “heritage” reflects the ancestral rights of Indigenous peoples over the biodiversity they have conserved for generations, and the responsibility to continue to conserve biodiversity for future generations. It fosters strong community ownership, a bottom-up approach to conservation, that reflects the Indigenous peoples’ own holistic worldviews. While the term “conservation” has emerged from conservation biology in Western science, “heritage” has emerged from traditional knowledge.

 

In the  first episode of Save the Planet Podcast, we discussed the Batwa Peoples of Uganda, who were evicted from their forests in the name of conservation. So this people-centered approach in biocultural heritage is a very powerful alternative to conservation with its potential negative side-effects.

 

 

What is an example of biocultural heritage in practice?

 

One of the best examples of biocultural heritage initiatives is the Potato Park in the Peruvian Andes, which was established with the support of a Peruvian NGO called Asociacion ANDES (Association for Nature and Sustainable Development).

 

The park involves six Quechua communities, comprising thousands of people, who sustainably manage almost 10 thousand hectares of land. Together, they’ve been able to conserve about 1400 different varieties of native potato, thanks to traditional knowledge and Indigenous cultural values and beliefs. The Indigenous, cultural values of solidarity, reciprocity, and balance with nature, which underpin their efforts to conserve biodiversity, have been fundamental to these successes.

 

For these communities, the goal isn’t economic development, but the well-being of both people and nature. And this well-being requires balance between the human, the sacred and the natural worlds.

 

The Quechua Peoples have worked in partnership with scientists, in order to link traditional knowledge and science, establishing a community seed bank and several micro-enterprises that sustain biocultural heritage.

 

The foundation of the Potato Park was driven by a combination of three threats:

1. The external threat posed by mining.

2. The disappearing native potato diversity in the region.

3. The erosion of local culture.

 

The area where the Potato Park was founded is of incredible importance, in terms of global food security. Traditionally, it offers very rich native potato diversity - it’s a globally important center of origin for potatoes. The exceptional cultural values of local communities made it a more enabling context for a biocultural heritage-centered conservation initiative.

 

 

Based on the success of the potato park, how can this biocultural heritage approach be adapted to other regions of the world?

​

The Potato Park has had multiple impacts:

• It has revitalized biodiversity and culture;

• It has protected land rights against mining for 20 years now;

• It has strengthened livelihoods and enhanced food security;

• It has strengthened resilience to climate change.

 

The key to the success and the self-sustainability of the Potato Park has been decolonizing the action research process. Over time, it has strengthened the capacity of local communities, empowered them, and fostered strong local ownership and strong, local, collective organizations.

 

For this biocultural heritage approach to be successful in other regions of the world, such as Kenya, India or China, this decolonizing action research approach needs to be replicated and adapted in these other contexts, which are not only different culturally and ecologically, but also politically, which makes it quite challenging at times.

​

 

What challenges has the biocultural heritage territory model faced when adapting to different parts of the world?

 

The main challenge in the context of working in Kenya, India, or in China, is that the Indigenous culture, values, and beliefs have weakened as the communities have become more modernized.

 

For example, in the Mijikenda communities in the coastal area in Kenya, the elders protect Kaya Forests, but other members, particularly the youth, are becoming less and less interested in the traditional knowledge and culture, as well as the Kaya Forests conservation. What is more, there have been a lot of Western development projects in the region. Because different actors in the communities have different views on their biocultural heritage, it is more difficult to introduce a biocultural heritage initiative.

 

In China, a loss of traditional culture results in similar obstacles. However, in this context, there is also a challenge of centralized government control, which makes it more difficult to support the emergence of autonomous, local institutions, which are at the heart of biocultural heritage territories.

 

Similarly, in India, apart from a loss of culture, the challenges result from multiethnicity in the area, the restricted access to forest, traditional uses and traditional livelihoods, due to protected areas, and the promotion of modern agriculture. In comparison to Kenya, China, and India, in Peru, the cultural challenges aren’t quite so acute.

 

​