sustainable use of biological diversity.pdf - India Environment Portal

Sustainable use of biological diversity in socio-ecological production landscapes
and seed collection. Organic fertilizer is obtained
from family livestock or from livestock belonging to
other families of the community, or from the forest.
This method of obtaining fertilizer is only incorporated
in potato cultivation, while the cultivation of
oca and papalisa, as well as the grains, planted in the
same space in the next agricultural cycle and the one
following that, benefit from the residual effect of this
initial fertilization.
6. Conclusions
The Potato Park, as an example of revitalising the
ayllu cultural landscape, has generated social, cultural,
environmental, economic and political benefits to
the communities. Communities have strengthened
their intercommunity networks, generating synergies
through creating intercommunity groups. These
include the economic collectives, and the Association
of the Communities of the Potato Park, bringing
together all of the communities for decisionmaking.
Women, as a major interest group have
a leading role in implementing action in the Park,
and their participation in decision-making is being
strengthened currently. Similarly through participation
in economic collectives they also contribute to
family economies. Culture is strengthened through
implementation of the Potato Park because it reinforces
the role of local culture through institutions,
promoting regeneration of community identities.
Other positive impacts include the restitution of genetic
variability of native potato crops, repatriation
and restoration of the cultural landscape; agro-ecotourism
generating income and incentives for conservation
and the promotion of regional ordinances.
This study was conducted as part of the program activities
of the Satoyama Initiative, United Nations
University Institute of Advanced Studies.
References
Argumedo, A (2008) The Potato Park, Peru: Conserving agrobiodiversity
in an Andean Indigenous Biocultural Heritage Area,
in Amend, T., Brown, J., Kothari A., Phillips, A., Stolton, S. eds.
Portected Landscapes and Agrobiodiversity Values. Vol 1 in the
series, Protected Landscapes and Seascapes, IUCN & GTZ. Kaspareg
Verlag, Heidelberg.
Brown, J., Mitchell, N. 2000. Culture and nature in the protection
of Andean landscapes Mountain Research and Development,
20(3) 212-217.
CIP 2008. http://www.cipotato.org/pressroom/press_releases_detail.asp?cod=23
Guillet, D. 1983. Toward a cultural ecology of
mountains: The central Andes and the Himalayas compared Current
Anthropology 24(5) 561-574
Godoy, R. 1991. The evolution of common-field agriculture in the
Andes: A hypothesis, Society for Comparative Study of Society
and History, Vol 33, No. 2 pp. 354-414Nickel, C. 1982. The semiotics
of Andean terracing Art Journal, Fall edition
Holling, C. S. (Ed.). (1978). Adaptive environmental assessment
and management. New York: John Wiley.
Phillips, A, (2002). Management Guidelines for IUCN Category
V Protected Areas Protected Landscapes/Seascapes. World Commission
on Protected Areas. Best Practice Protected Area Guildeline
Serise No. 9, IUCN.
Zimmerer, K. S. (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, 37(27)
90