Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DOI 10.1007/s10460-013-9428-8
T. G. Graddy (&)
Global Environmental Politics, School of International Service,
American University, 4400 Massachusetts Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20016-8071, USA
e-mail: garrettgraddy@gmail.com; graddy@american.edu
Introduction
This paper begins with the dual premise that, in general,
agricultural biodiversity is critical to cultivating ecological
resilience amid erratic weather patterns of global climate
change, and that it holds important potential in bolstering
food security amid erratic price fluctuations of neoliberal,
or global agribusiness markets (IAASTD 2009). Upon
asserting the historicthough now somewhat latent
value of agricultural biodiversity in conferring ecologic
and economic resilience, I move on to investigate obstacles
to its continuity and regeneration. One surprising obstacle,
I argue, is that dominant agrobiodiversity conservation
methods can and do disregard the social and cultural context of biodiverse agriculture in action. To illustrate, I
explore a grassroots response to diminishing agrobiodiversity that is concurrently launching a compelling critique
of conventional models of germplasm preservation.
More specifically, a key impediment to agrobiodiversity
regeneration remains the subtle epistemological bias against
place-based in situ agricultural expertise, and in particular,
against the cosmological foundations of in situ agrarian
expertise in agrobiodiversity hotspots, such as the Peruvian
Andes. I contend that such an oversight parallels broader
limitations currently confining agricultural policy and
agricultural research initiatives, namely a limited role for
small-scale growers committed to biodiverse cultivation.
To investigate this persistent epistemological bias, a political ecology perspective is applied to the conundrum of
agrobiodiversity conservationthough as I argue below, it
is perhaps more apt to say that an on-site political ecology
perspective is discerned, or identified, as already underway.
Accordingly I contend that the lens of political ecology
works well in clarifying the intricate dynamics at work
and at oddsin agricultural biodiversity conservation.
123
588
This grand and general topic is addressed through a particular case study in the Peruvian Andes. After laying out the
need for in situ (on-site) agrobiodiversity cultivation, I
introduce an in situ agrobiodiversity conservation initiative
underway in the southern Peruvian Andes at the Parque de la
Papa (Potato Park, hereinafter: the Parque) as well as the
concept those involved with the Parque use to describe and
articulate their work: indigenous biocultural heritage
(IBCH). IBCH contends that agrobiodiversity loss, value,
and conservation are not just biophysical, but are social,
cultural, economic, and political. This also comprises the
central argument and premise of a lively body of scholarship
that has come to be known as political ecology: a scholarly
conversation grounded in the premise that environmental
crises have inextricably political, economic, and social
causes and consequencesand that ecological exploitation
invariably involves social exploitation through political and
economic inequity. ICBH extends the point by arguing that
to treat agrobiodiversity as merely biological, and its erosion
as primarily environmental, perpetuates a colonizing paradigm wherein the treasury of agrobiodiversity is further
extricated from its in situ contextsand in this case from the
cosmovision1 that grounds Andean agricultural traditions.
Here, the so-called-cultural aspects of how people
understand nature and natural resources are reacknowledged as political in the very fact that they have
been depoliticized by being classified as merely cultural.
The case in point would be the systematic way alternative
ecological ontologiessuch as those animated by Andean
indigenous cosmovisionare lauded, yet subtly marginalized. Even amid pronouncements of Farmers Rights,
which recognize the enormous contribution of farmers to
the diversity of crops that feed the world (ITPGRFA
2012), farmer invocations of cosmovision remain largely
discounted by scientific paradigms and thus agricultural
policy. This lingering disregard becomes an obstacle to
effective agricultural biodiversity conservation and regenerationand as such necessitates further investigation,
(self)reflection, and dialogue. The Parques articulation and
actualization of the concept of IBCH attempts to justify and
integrate an alternative ecological ontology and epistemology into the discussion of successful agrobiodiversity.
Accordingly, it can be understood as an on-site, or in situ,
political ecology. This case study offers a valuable contribution to policy-makers as well as to both the growing body
of scholarship and civic engagement known as political
ecology and to agri-food studies, with its commitment to
understanding agriculturesand the human values therein.
T. G. Graddy
I have left this key term in Spanish, since the English translations
(cosmovision/cosmology/world vision) fail to encompass the full
meaning of cosmovision. Also, the Peruvian growers of the Parque
with whom I spoke and worked often use the Spanish term even when
speaking in Quechua.
123
589
Footnote 2 continued
using up of its real capitalThe apparent paradox results that the
lands of recent settlement are the worn and worn-out parts of the
world, not the lands of old civilization (Sauer 1963 [1938],
p. 1478).
3
The question of how to integrate cosmological or theological
perspectives with historical-materialist analyses of political economy
merits further investigation, reflection, and dialogue.
123
590
123
T. G. Graddy
591
123
592
123
T. G. Graddy
Biocultural heritage
Disregarded
Here lies an interesting point of tension: the CBD, Treaty,
and CGIAR all recognize the central contribution of smallscale farmers to agricultural biodiversityindeed, how
could they not? This contribution is obvious upon reflection of the situation, but it is also affirmed by a range of
groups, from scholars (Nabhan 1989; Brookfield and Padoch 1994; Zimmerer 1996; Brush 2004), to the Svalbard
Vault promotional video, to the 1995 Consultation on
Indigenous Peoples Knowledge and Intellectual Property
Rights in Suva, Fiji (UNDP 1995; as quoted in Posey 2001:
380):
We assert that in situ conservation by indigenous
peoples is the best method to conserve and protect
biological diversity and indigenous knowledge, and
encourage its implementation by indigenous communities and all relevant bodies. (Clause 2.2)
Yet, what if the discourses deployed in conservation
policies, such as those of GCDT and CGIAR perpetuate the
paradigms that have undermined in situ cultivationparadigms that are thus implicated in the crisis of agricultural
biodiversity erosion itself?
In short: in situ cultivation poses a number of paradoxes
and challenges to conventional agrobiodiversity conservation efforts, which have historically and geographically
overlooked if not countered the needs, visions, and contributions of the local inhabitants of the conserved areas.
As political ecologists have noted (Blaikie 1985), local
communities have often been seen by international conservation agencies as either peripheral to the biodiversity
treasury of their areas or as culprits in its erosion and
obstacles to its conservation. Consequently, conservation
efforts in general have come under increasing critique for
disempowering local and indigenous groups, disenfranchising them from any local autonomy or sovereignty
(Shiva et al. 1991; Chapin 2004; Shiva 2000; Rosset 2003;
MacDonald 2010; Brockington and Duffy 2010). The case
of agricultural biodiversity mitigates this conundrum to
some extent because such diversity necessarily requires
input and cultivation by people. Often, particularly in
World Centers of Origin and Diversitywhere staple crops
were originally domesticated and now continue to grow
alongside wild relativesindigenous or local communities
remain highly knowledgeable stewards of local ecological
resources such as agricultural biodiversity (Nazarea 2005).
Nevertheless, the dominant discourse of landrace seeds
as bundles of genetic resources renders them natural
resources as if they naturally occur in their respective
Centers of World Diversity, and are thus free for the taking,
593
Throughout these years, the Drug War and cocaine production also
(negatively) affected small-scale agriculture, but these complex
subjects are beyond the scope of this paper.
123
594
T. G. Graddy
13
123
595
15
16
17
123
596
123
T. G. Graddy
597
123
598
123
T. G. Graddy
homogenous nor monolithic, the CGIAR network encompasses diverse viewpoints and perspectives, yet remain
guided by central research agendas. A World Bank
assessment of CGIAR concluded that as a whole, the
crop-breeding CGIAR Centers have generated extraordinarily high returns to investment (Gardner 2003, p. v)to
the donors; the evaluation suggested that the global public
goods idea should be more explicitly introduced into the
priority-setting process. CGIAR activity should be focused
on investments that, other things equal, are less likely to be
undertaken by the private sector (Gardner 2003, p. 41).
CIP has worked to mitigate the aforementioned growing
strain that CGIARs growing partnerships with private
sector research firms have causedpartnerships which
demand increased IPR and so complicate CGIARs foundational purpose: IPG. A CIP 2010 Annual Report affirmed
the research priority of supporting in situ community
conservation initiatives re-introducing traditional varieties
(CIP 2010, p. 11). The Report includes a two-page highlight of the Parque and the two-part Convention for the
Repatriation, Restoration, and Identification of Scientific
and Traditional Practices for Food Security and Sustainable
Development between ANDES/Parque and CIP, in 2004
and 2010:
Other achievements of the agreement have included
scientific validation of much of the ancestral wisdom
around potato cultivation, the exchange of scientific
and local knowledge, and the acknowledgement and
strengthening of the traditional potato arariwa, or
guardians, who guarantee the preservation of the
crops biodiversity for the benefit of both present and
future generations. (CIP 2010, p. 47)
Through their partnership with the Parquealongside
other (as of yet nascent) repatriation efforts across the
Andes, in the Ruta Condor projectCIP has worked to
acknowledge the value of in situ and wild crop diversity
conservation. Though their alliance with the Parque is
somewhat hidden in their website, the CIP visitors lobby
in Lima boasts of these partnerships with elaborate visual
displays of Parque growers welcoming repatriated native
potato varieties. The repatriation is advertised in CIP tours
and promotional video with images of Andean landscapes,
smoothly edited footage of indigenous men and women
planting, harvesting, and cooking colorful tubers. Meanwhile, the Treaty lauded their funding of the Parque as a
chief success story of their first 10 years (ITPGRFA 2011).
This follows an important history of social science
research at CIP that expressly aims to learn from and with
local growersnot just about them. In the early 1980s,
CIP-based researchers led renowned participant action
research and rapid rural appraisal studies on agricultural
biodiversity with Peruvian-Andean growers (Rhoades and
599
123
600
23
123
T. G. Graddy
Conclusion
In situ agricultural biodiversity hotspots are pivotal, ecologically speaking, but how are in situ growers included in
the conversation on how to conserve agrobiodiversity?
Usually as: historically important but presently peripheral;
vulnerable victims of larger ecological and economic pressures; and, thus, beneficiaries of ex situ research, expertise,
resources and seedsrarely as experts in their own right.
When asked about the key to agricultural biodiversity
success, as well as about root causes of its loss, most
growers at the Parque invokedirectly or indirectlythe
centrality of cosmovision, within highland Peruvian agriculture. Parque growers have organized and mobilized to
establish an Indigenous Biocultural Heritage territory so as
to facilitate a repatriation of nearly a thousand native
potato varieties from the CIP gene bank in Lima. In
reflecting on this work, they note that the devaluation and
decline of key cosmological principles goes hand in hand
with erosion of agricultural biodiversity itself. This article
attempts to facilitate the process of engaging this agricultural epistemology, born of an ecological ontology quite
divergent with dominant conceptions of myopically ex situ
germplasm conservation and its genetic improvement.
Many growers, activists, and scholars have noted the
intricate correlation between cultural and biological diversity (Maffi 2001; Nazarea 2006; Posey 2001; Shiva et al.
1991), but according to those at the Parque, biodiversity is
still separated from its cultural origins in conservation paradigms and policies. The CBD expressly lauds the importance of traditional ecological knowledge in Article 8(j), and
the Treaty enshrines the self-evidence of Farmers Rights,
but meanwhile the bulk of financial and political support for
agrobiodviersity conservation (through GCDT and CGIAR)
still flows to mega-gene banks, whose access and benefits
many argue disproportionately favor private agri-industry
research corporations from the Global North. CIP has
worked to counter these trends by working with and for
in situ cultivationmost explicitly and successfully through
the recent repatriation project with the Parque.
Yet, the Parque seeks to counter this persistent epistemic
disregard more directly through the concept of IBCH,
which serves as a political cultural ecology of agricultural
biodiversity that attends to materiality through supramateriality. The culturalartistic, social, cosmological
601
References
Acosta, A., and E. Martnez (eds.). 2009. El buen vivir: Una va para
el desarollo. Quito: Abya Yala.
Agrawal, A. 2002. Indigenous knowledge and the politics of
classification. International Social Science Journal 54(173):
287297.
Alvarez, S., E. Dagnino, and A. Escobar (eds.). 1998. Cultures of
politics, politics of culture: Re-visioning Latin American social
movements. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
ANDES (Association for Conservation of Nature and Sustainable
Development). 2012. Communities of the Potato Park sign a new
Repatriation Agreement with the International Potato Centre for
the repatriation of native potatoes and recognition of rights over
associated traditional knowledge. http://www.andes.org.pe/en/
home/24-andesen/news/80-potatopark.html. Accessed 11 November 2011.
Argumedo, A., and B.Y.L. Wong. 2010. The ayllu system of the
Potato Park, Cusco, Peru. The Satoyama Initiative. http://
satoyama-initiative.org/en/case_studies-2/area_americas-2/theayllu-system-of-the-potato-park-cusco-peru/. Accessed 27 June
2012.
Bentley, J.W., R. Tripp, and R.D. de la Flor. 2001. Liberalization of
Perus formal seed sector. Agriculture and Human Values 18(3):
319331.
Berkes, F. 1999. Sacred ecology. New York: Routledge.
Berry, W. 1978. The unsettling of America: Culture and agriculture.
San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
123
602
Blaikie, P. 1985. The political ecology of soil erosion in developing
countries. London: Longman.
Braun, B. 2007. Biopolitics and the molecularization of life. Cultural
Geographies 14(1): 628.
Brockington, D., and R. Duffy. 2010. Capitalism and conservation:
The production and reproduction of biodiversity conservation.
Antipode 42(3): 469484.
Brookfield, H., and C. Padoch. 1994. Appreciating agro diversity: The
dynamism and diversity of indigenous farming practices. Environment 36(5): 611.
Brush, S. 2004. Farmers bounty: Locating crop diversity in the
contemporary world. New Haven: Yale University Press.
CGIAR. 2012a. Who we are: Structure and governance. http://
cgiar.bio-mirror.cn/who/structure/system/audit/whatwedo.html.
Accessed 20 November 2012.
CGIAR. 2012b. Independent Science and Partnership Council commentary on the proposal for CRP1.1 Strategic research theme 5:
Enhancing the in situ management of agrobiodiversity management. 28 February.
CGIAR. 2011. A strategy and results framework for the CGIAR.
CGIAR 40 Years. For the Submission to the CGIAR funders.
http://consortium.cgiar.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/CGIARSRF-Feb_20_2011.pdf. Accessed 20 March 2012.
CGIAR (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research).
2008. Visioning the future of the CGIAR report of working
group 1 (Visioning) to the executive council of the CGIAR. 6
May. http://www.cgiar.org/?s=visioning?statement&s_area=all.
Accessed 27 June 2012.
Chambers, R. 1983. Rural development: Putting the last first. Harlow:
Longman.
Chapin, M. 2004. A challenge to conservationists: Can we protect
natural habitats without abusing the people who live in them?
Worldwatch Institute. World Watch 17(6): 1731.
Chojecki, J. 2006. Access to information on agricultural biotechnology property rights and the availability of technology for
CGIARs IPG research. In CGIAR Science Council (2006)
CGIAR research strategies for IPG in a context of IPR: Report
and recommendation based upon three studies. Rome, Italy:
Science Council Secretariat, pp. 3146.
CIP (International Potato Center). 2012. Sustaining genetic resources.
http://cipotato.org/research/genetic-resources. Accessed 14
November 2012.
CIP. 2010. Putting strategy into action: Implementing the CIP corporate
and strategic plan to enhance pro-poor research impacts. Annual
report 2010. http://cipotato.org/publications/pdf/005719.pdf.
Accessed 27 June 2012.
CIP. 2008. Biotechnology at CIP: CIPs guiding principles for
development and deployment of genetically engineered organisms. Board of Trustees. Lima, Peru: CIP.
CIP. 2004. The CIP vision. Preserving the core, stimulating progress
http://www.cipotato.org/research/docs/CIPVISION04.pdf. Accessed
27 July 2011.
CIP. 1988. The social sciences at CIP: Report of the third social
science planning conference, 710 Sept 1987. Lima: CIP.
Climate Change and Agricultural Research. 2009. Declaration on
Agrobiodiversity Conservation and Food Sovereignty. http://
agrobiodiversityplatform.org/climatechange/2009/10/09/declarationon-agrobiodiversity-conservation-and-food-sovereignty/. Accessed
15 January 2013.
Crabtree, J. 2002. The Impact of neo-liberal economics on Peruvian
peasant agriculture in the 1990s. Journal of Peasant Studies
29(34): 131161.
Cronon, W. 1995. Uncommon ground: Toward reinventing nature.
New York: WW Norton Co.
de la Cadena, M. 2000. Indigenous Mestizos: The politics of race and
culture in Cuzco Peru. Durham: Duke University Press.
123
T. G. Graddy
Denzin, Norman, Yvonna Lincoln, and Linda Tuhiwai Smith (eds.).
2008. Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
De Wit, I.M. 2006. FTA means deeper poverty in Peru. TWN Info
Service on Free Trade Agreements. 28 September. http://
www.twnside.org.sg/title2/FTAs/info.service/fta.info.service033.
htm. Accessed 27 July 2011.
Dwiggins, D. 1999. Ancient symbols/contemporary tools: Forging
counterhegemonic coalitions in Ecuador. Wicazo Sa Review
14(1): 2943.
Emery, A. 2008. Peru declares state of emergency on farm protests.
Bloomberg. 19 February.
Escobar, A. 2010. Latin America at a crossroads: Alternative
modernizations, postliberalism, or postdevelopment? Cultural
Studies 24(1): 165.
Escobar, A. 2001. Culture sits in places: Reflections on globalism and
subaltern strategies of localization. Political Geography 20:
139174.
Fabian, J. 1983. Time and the other: How anthropology makes its
object. New York: Columbia University Press.
Forsyth, T. 2008. Political ecology and the epistemology of social
justice. Geoforum 39: 756764.
Forsyth, T. 2003. Critical political ecology: The politics of environmental science. New York: Routledge.
Fowler, C., and P. Mooney. 1990. Shattering: Food, politics, and the
loss of genetic diversity. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Frankel, J. 2012. Striving for authenticity: A look into the language of
cosmovision in Bolivian identity politics. Tulane Journal of
International Affairs 1(2): 513.
Garca, M.E. 2005. Making indigenous citizens: Identity, education,
and multicultural development in Peru. Palo Alto: Stanford
University Press.
Garca, M.E. 2003. The politics of community: Education, indigenous
rights, and ethnic mobilizations in Peru. Latin American
Perspectives 30(1): 7095.
Gardner, B. 2003. The CGIAR at 31: An independent meta-evaluation
of the consultative group on international agricultural research.
Thematic working paper. Global public goods from the CGIAR:
Impact assessment. Washington DC: World Bank, Operations
Evaluation Department (OED).
GCDT (Global Crop Diversity Trust). 2012a. Who we are. http://
www.croptrust.org/content/who-we-are. Accessed 14 April 2012.
GCDT. 2012b. Funding status as of 10 February 2012. http://
www.croptrust.org/content/donors. Accessed 12 June 2012.
GCDT. 2012c. Availability. http://www.croptrust.org/content/
availability. Accessed 4 June 2012.
GCDT. 2012d. Conserving forever. http://www.croptrust.org/content/
conserving-forever. Accessed 19 May 2012.
GCDT. 2012e. Pre-breeding. http://www.croptrust.org/content/prebreeding. Accessed 1 June 2012.
Gonzales, T.A. 2000. The cultures of the seed in the Peruvian Andes.
In Genes in the field: On-farm conservation of crop diversity, ed.
S. Brush, 193216. Rome: International Plant Genetic Resources
Institute.
Head, L., and J. Atchison. 2009. Cultural ecology: Emerging humanplant geographies. Progress in Human Geography 33(2):
236245.
Hokkanen, M. 2012. Imperial networks, colonial bioprospecting, and
Burroughs Wellcome & Co.: The case of Strophanthus Kombe
from Malawi (18591915). Social History of Medicine 25(2): doi
10.1093/shm/hkr167.
Hornberger, E., and N. Hornberger. 2008. Diccionario trilingue
Quechua de Cusco: Qhiswa, English, Castellano, 3rd ed. Cusco:
Ariway Kamay Killa.
IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge,
Science, and Technology for Development). 2009. Agriculture
603
Parque, de la Papa. 2012. Indigenous biocultural heritage area. http://
www.parquedelapapa.org/eng/03parke_01.html. Accessed 6
June 2012.
Parry, B. 2000. Cultures of knowledge: Investigating intellectual
property rights and relations in the Pacific. Antipode 34(4):
679706.
Parry, B. 2005. Trading the genome: Investigating the commodification of bio-information. New York: Columbia University Press.
Patel, R. 2007. Stuffed and starved: The hidden battle for the world
food system. Brooklyn: Melville House Publishing.
Peet, R., P. Robbins, and M. Watts (eds.). 2011. Global political
ecology. New York: Routledge.
Perfecto, I., J. Vandermeer, and A. Wright. 2009. Natures matrix:
Linking agriculture, conservation, and food sovereignty. Sterling: Earthscan.
PGRFA (Plant Genetic Resources for Food & Agriculture). 1996.
Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable
Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
http://icppgr.ecoport.org/gpaintr.htm. Accessed 8 March 2012.
Polanyi, K. 1944. The great transformation: The political and
economic origins of our time. Boston: Beacon Press.
Portillo, Z. 2009. Peruvian region outlaws biopiracy. Science and
Development Network 21 January. http://www.scidev.net/en/
news/peruvian-region-outlaws-biopiracy.html Accessed 1 January 2013.
Posey, D. 2001. Biological and cultural diversity: The inextricable,
linked by language and politics. In On biocultural diversity:
Linking language, knowledge, and the environment, ed. L. Maffi,
379396. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Posey, D. (ed.). 1999. Cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity.
London: Intermediate Technology.
Quijano, Anbal. 2007. Coloniality and modernity/rationality. Cultural Studies 21(23): 168178.
Radcliffe, S. 2012. Development for a postneoliberal era? Sumaq
Kawsay, living well, and the limits to decolonization in Ecuador.
Geoforum 43: 240249.
Rangifo Vasquez, G. 1998. The ayllu. In The spirit of regeneration:
Andean culture confronting Western notions of development, ed.
PRATEC, pp 89-123. London: Zed Books.
Reuters. 2008. Striking farmers cut across to Perus Machu Picchu. 19
February.
Rhoades, R., and R. Booth. 1982. Farmer-back-to-farmer: A model
for generating acceptable agricultural technology. Agricultural
Administration 11: 127137.
Rist, S. 2000. Linking ethics and the market: Campesino economic
strategies in the Bolivian Andes. Mountain Research and
Development 20(4): 310315.
Robbins, P. 2006. Research is theft: Environmental inquiry in a postcolonial world. In Approaches to human geography, ed. S. Aitken,
and G. Valentine, 311324. Thousand Oaks: Sage Press.
Robbins, P. 2004. Political ecology: A critical introduction. Malden:
Blackwell.
Robbins, P., and K.M. Bishop. 2008. There and back again: Epiphany,
disillusionment, and rediscovery in political ecology. Geoforum
39: 747755.
Rocheleau, D. 2008. Political ecology in the key of policy: From
chains of explanation to webs of relation. Geoforum 39:
716727.
Rosset, P. 2003. Food sovereignty: Global rallying cry of farmer
movements. Backgrounder 9(4). Food First Institute. http://
www.foodfirst.org/node/47. Accessed 24 May 2012.
Salleh, A. (ed.). 2009. Eco-sufficiency and global justice: Women
write political ecology. London: Pluto Press and Spinifex Press.
Sauer, C. 1963 [1938]. Land and life: A collection from the writings of
Carl Ortwin Sauer. J.B. Leighly, ed. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
123
604
Schiebinger, L. 2004. Plants and empire: Colonial bioprospecting in
the Atlantic world. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Shepherd, C. 2010. Mobilizing local culture and asserting culture:
The cultural politics of in situ conservation of agricultural
biodiversity. Current Anthropology 55(5): 629654.
Shiva, V. 2000. Stolen harvest: The hijacking of the global food
supply. Cambridge: South End Press.
Shiva, V., P. Anderson, H. Schucking, A. Gray, L. Lohmann, and D.
Cooper. 1991. Biodiversity: Social and ecological perspectives.
London: Zed Books.
Smale, M. ed. Valuing crop biodiversity: On-farm genetic resources
and economic change. Washington: CABI Publishing.
Smith, L.T. 1999. Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books.
Starn, O. 1994. Rethinking the politics of anthropology. Current
Anthropology 35(1): 1338.
Steward, J. 1955. Theory of cultural change: The methodology of
multilinear evolution. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
Suri, S. 2005. ANDES- Potato Park-CIP Agreement. GRAIN website.
January. http://www.grain.org/bio-ipr/?id=429. Accessed 1 January 2010.
Swiderska, K., Y. Song, J. Li, R. Pant, and A. Argumedo. 2009. FAO
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture: Implementation of Farmers Rights. International
Institute for Environment and Development. IIED: G03074.
http://pubs.iied.org/G03074.html. Accessed 1 November 2012.
Tapia, M.E. 2000. Mountain agrobiodiversity in Peru: Seed fairs, seed
banks, and mountain-to-mountain exchange. Mountain Research
and Development 20(3): 220225.
Toro Perez, C., and M. Madrano. 2007. US hemispheric security,
intellectual property, and biodiversity in the Andes. Latin
American Perspectives 34(1): 120128.
Tuxall, J., and G.P. Nabhan. 2001. People, plants, and protected
areas: A guide to in situ management. People and Plants
Conservation Manual. London: Earthscan.
UNDP (United Nations Development Program). 1995. Statements of
the Regional Meetings of Indigenous Representatives on the
Conservation and Protection of Indigenous Knowledge. New
York: United Nations Development Program.
Valladolid Rivera, J. 1998. Andean peasant agriculture: Nurturing a
diversity of life in the chakra. In Spirit of regeneration: Andean
culture confronting western notions of development, ed. PRATEC, pp 51-88. London: Zed Books.
123
T. G. Graddy
Vargas Llosa, M. 1990. Questions of conquest: What Columbus
wrought and what he did not. Harpers Magazine December
4551.
Walker, P. 2006. Political ecology: Where is the policy? Progress in
Human Geography 30(3): 382395.
Whatmore, S. 2002. Hybrid geographies: Natures cultures spaces.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Yapa, L. 1993. What are improved seeds? An epistemology of the
Green Revolution. Economic Geography 69: 254273.
Zimmerer, K. 2002. Common field agriculture as a cultural landscape
of Latin America: development and history in the geographical
customs of resource use. Journal of Cultural Geography 19(2):
3763.
Zimmerer, K. 2007a. Cultural (and political) ecology in the environmental borderlands: Exploring the expanded connectivities
within geography. Progess in Human Geography 31(2):
227244.
Zimmerer, K. 2007b. Agriculture, livelihoods, and globalization: The
analysis of new trajectories (and avoidance of just-so stories) of
human-environment change and conservation. Agriculture and
Human Values 24(1): 916.
Zimmerer, K. 1996. Changing fortunes: Biodiversity and peasant
livelihood in the Peruvian Andes. Los Angeles and Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Zimmerer, K., and T. Bassett. 2003. Political ecology: An integrative
approach to geography and environment-development studies.
New York: The Guilford Press.
Author Biography
T. Garrett Graddy , PhD, is an assistant professor at American
Universitys School of International Service, where she teaches
international environmental politics and political ecologies of food
and agriculture. She received a BA from Yale, a Masters in
Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School, a PhD in
Geography at University of Kentucky. Her research and teaching
interests include sustainable agriculture, critical development studies,
religion and ecology, bioethics, postcolonial theory, epistemology,
and feminist methodologies.