Perhaps the biggest threat to biocultural systems is the globally dominant European, subsequently North
American, approach to growth and development.2 This makes economic considerations, particularly
the accumulation and growth of capital and the role of consumption, priorities. A key point is that, when
applied in practice, it also tends to ignore any burdens that capital growth and consumption may place upon
other considerations, such as social relationships, spirituality, environmental sustainability, biodiversity and
wellbeing. Therefore, the uncontested privileging of economic goals in isolation is parasitic upon attempts
to effectively manage the finite biological and non-biological resources of the planet.3 Cultural diversity, and
the knowledge systems that it maintains, are among these non-biological resources. The realization that the
threats posed by globalisation required innovative, dynamic, effective and culturally appropriate responses
to the problems faced by the Potato Park led to the identification of the following appropriate responses:
• Mechanisms and tools to protect Biocultural Systems, including the recognition and implementation of
rights relating to systems of knowledge; and recognition, strengthening, and use of customary laws and
approval of agreements for the restitution of biocultural systems;
• Local management and control of biocultural heritage; and the strengthening of customary norms and
traditional institutions for common property resource management; and
• Incorporation of measures and mechanisms for the joint protection of traditional knowledge and biocultural
systems in national and regional policy and legislation.
The Potato Park has developed numerous mechanisms and tools to protect Biocultural Systems, mostly
around the cultural, research and commercial activities of the various collectives mentioned earlier. A good
example of how these activities can reinforce the recognition and use of customary laws and support the
restitution of biocultural systems is the agreement between the International Potato Centre (CIP) and the
Potato Park. This not only repatriates native potato varieties to the Park, as a representative of Andean
Quechua communities, but also supports a range of research activities around climate change monitoring and
adaptation and all within a contractual framework that is informed by customary law.
6
Local management and control has been strengthened through the development of the Potato Park as an
institutional structure supporting a range of collaborative activities. It has also been supported through the
development of an inter-community agreement for benefit sharing. This agreement is an internal one among
the communities of the Park and was borne of the realisation that any effective external engagement had to
be based upon internal consensus as to how external relationships should be managed and how any direct
and indirect benefits derived from them will be shared and used. Finally, some success in the incorporation
of a biocultural systems approach into regional policy and legislation has been achieved through effective
engagement with the Cusco regional government, as illustrated by its ordinances against biopiracy and
transgenics.
Taken together, these experiences have led to the development of the concept of Biocultural Protocols that
control the interactions occurring within the Biocultural System of the Park. Crucially, Biocultural Protocols
also mitigate and inform interactions with external bodies and agencies.
2 See for example, Featherstone, et al, 1995; Yearly 1996; and Franklin et al, 2000
3 Economical Economics has been instrumental in providing alternative strategies for redressing this imbalance.
Protecting Community Rights over Traditional Knowledge: Implications of customary laws and practices