THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG

The social movement’s notion articulates a rare view relating to biodiversity in form of bio-
democracy. They begin by enumerating the threats to bio-democracy and putting emphasis on
habitat destruction. They argue that habitat destruction is a product of grandiose development
projects, monocultures of minds, and agriculture promoted by the capitalistic and reductionist
science of the North. These bio–democracy advocates shift attention from South to North as
the source of the contemporary biodiversity crisis. 97 At the same time, they suggest a radical
re-definition of production away from the logic of uniformity towards the logic of diversity.
Their proposal for bio-diplomacy and bio-democracy is articulated based on a series of
requirements regarding local control of natural resources. 98 They are in support of practices
relying on the logic of diversity, including recognition of the cultural basis of biological
diversity. In addition, these critics of western capitalism are opposed to bio-technology as a
main tool of maintaining biodiversity, but call for the adoption of intellectual property rights
as the mechanism for the protection of local knowledge and resources. 99 They further
advocate for all forms of collective rights and shared character of knowledge and resources.
These movements explicitly construct a political strategy for the defence of territory, culture
and identity. While having many points in common with the African notion, this perspective
is conceptually distinct, and politically occupies a different role in the biodiversity enterprise.
Aware that biodiversity is a hegemonic construct; the activists acknowledge that, this
discourse opens up a space for defence of their project in the realm of biotic resources. On
many accounts, concerns regarding biodiversity have followed from broader struggles for
territorial control. This view contests the most cherished views and constructs of modernity
such as positivist science, the market, and individual property. 100
Social movementists, however, don’t develop their premises in isolation, but in consonant
with two important factors. One is the dominant vision of biodiversity conservation, while the
other is in defence of local cultures, ecologies and territories. The social movements’ political
strategy which began to emerge in the 1990s, has increasingly taken a leading position at both
the national and international arenas. This notion’s movers have created a political ecology
framework through their interactions with the community, state, NGOs and academic sectors.
Within this framework, the territory is seen to be the most fundamental and most multidimensional
space for the creation of ecological, economic and cultural practices of the
community. 101
The territory is perceived in terms of patterns of settlement, use of spaces, and use of
resources. These systems are geared mostly to local consumption than the market, capital or
wealth accumulation. It is for this reason that traditional practices have been sustained for this
long. Among the practices to highlight are; low intensity exploitation, shifting use of
97 Escobar, A. 1999. Gender, Place and Networks. A political Economy of Cyber culture. In Creating New
Cultures in Cyberspace, edited by W.Harcourt, 31-54. London: Zed Books.
98 Ibid.
99 Restrepo, E and D. Del Valle. 1996. Renacientes del Guandal.Bogota: Universidad Nacional.
100 Escobar, A. 1996. Cultural Politics and Biological Diversity: State, Capital and Social Movements in the
Pacific Coast of Colombia. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
101 Brush, E et al. 1998. Valuing Local Knowledge. Washington: Washington Island Press.
23