**3.2 Indigenous peoples: Knowledge as identity**

Over thousands of years, Indigenous Peoples (IPs) have developed a close and unique connection with the lands and environments in which they live. They have established distinct systems of knowledge and taxonomies, innovations, and ecological practices relating to the management and exploitation of biological diversity on these lands and environments. Oldfield and Alcorn (1991: 4 cited from Warren 1992) clarified:

*"Much of the world's biological diversity is in the custody of farmers who follow age-old farming and land use practices. These ecologically complex agricultural systems associated with centers of crop genetic diversity include not only traditional cultivars or 'landraces' that constitute an essential part of our world crop genetic heritage, but also wild plant and animal species that serve humanity as biological resources."* 

For these reasons and more, IPs' clarion call for radical changes is transformed into a social movement which equaled the tenacity and steadfastness of ecofeminism in upholding their rightful position in relation to biodiversity issues and concerns. Traditional people insisted on the recognition of their unique yet equally valid knowledge claims regarding their culturonatural resources and the practices surrounding the utilization and management of such resources (Erasga in press; Tauli-Corpuz 2000; *see also* Warren 1992; Davis 2001).

I think the concept of "*indigenous ecology movements*" (IEMs) typified the implications of this sociological development. According to Myer (1998) indigenous ecology movement is not a

*future lives and livelihoods."* 

*(Rea, as cited in Bunning and Hill 1996).* 

between women and biodiversity (Zweifel 2000).

**3.2 Indigenous peoples: Knowledge as identity** 

*serve humanity as biological resources."* 

*"… a particularly interesting discussion arises concerning the conservation of biodiversity. It is generally agreed that the knowledge, skills and practices needed for the conservation and development of plant genetic resources is critical for the preservation of biodiversity, which is linked with sustainability (FAO 1996; Bunning and Hill 1996). Such knowledge, skills and practices tend to differ along gender lines. Some authors sustain that women's knowledge is at the core of sustainability: "As the bearers of knowledge and the practitioners of the science of survival women contribute to and have a major stake in protecting the biological basis of all our* 

*"While men have generally engaged in cash crop cultivation (usually mono crops) throughout the Third World, women are more likely to be in charge of subsistence crops, which they cultivate in home gardens, a farming system that contains high levels of biodiversity. In Thailand, home gardens managed by women were found to contain 29% of non-domesticated species (Moreno-Black et al., cited in Bunning and Hill 1996). In the Andean region, women were found to plant diverse potato seeds according to their traditional knowledge, in order to combine the desirable attributes of frost resistance, nutritional value, taste, quick cooking time and resistance to blight, while their husbands followed the mostly male extensionists advice to plant only one species* 

Extending these lines of argument, ecofeminism declared that since women are *custodian* of a wealth of cultural information about diverse species of plants and animals, any attempts to undermine biodiversity are tantamount to downplaying the epistemological investments of women in the conservation and management of biological diversity (Erasga 2011; *see* Shiva 1993). Concomitantly, any attempts to appropriate, say through biotechnology, or alter that state of affair (i.e. monoculture regime), are considered subversion of that special bond

Over thousands of years, Indigenous Peoples (IPs) have developed a close and unique connection with the lands and environments in which they live. They have established distinct systems of knowledge and taxonomies, innovations, and ecological practices relating to the management and exploitation of biological diversity on these lands and

*"Much of the world's biological diversity is in the custody of farmers who follow age-old farming and land use practices. These ecologically complex agricultural systems associated with centers of crop genetic diversity include not only traditional cultivars or 'landraces' that constitute an essential part of our world crop genetic heritage, but also wild plant and animal species that* 

For these reasons and more, IPs' clarion call for radical changes is transformed into a social movement which equaled the tenacity and steadfastness of ecofeminism in upholding their rightful position in relation to biodiversity issues and concerns. Traditional people insisted on the recognition of their unique yet equally valid knowledge claims regarding their culturonatural resources and the practices surrounding the utilization and management of such

I think the concept of "*indigenous ecology movements*" (IEMs) typified the implications of this sociological development. According to Myer (1998) indigenous ecology movement is not a

environments. Oldfield and Alcorn (1991: 4 cited from Warren 1992) clarified:

resources (Erasga in press; Tauli-Corpuz 2000; *see also* Warren 1992; Davis 2001).

single, well-defined entity, but rather a broad rubric used to group a variety of voices, notably Northern environmentalism or Southern indigenous groups. But more than just a movement with alternative set of political and economic action plans vis-à-vis resource management and utilization, IEMs offer different ways of understanding biodiversity especially through their epistemologies of nature as rooted in traditional ecological interactions guided by ways of knowing based on intimate co-existence with nature.7 Warren (1992:3) stressed:

*"There are many aspects to indigenous peoples' claim and interests in the natural environment and biological diversity. Indigenous peoples seek recognition and protection of their distinct rights in knowledge of, and practices relating to the management, use and conservation of biological diversity. They also seek introduction of measures to prevent exploitation of their knowledge, and compensation of financial benefits from the use of their knowledge, innovations and practices."* 

Clearly, the biodiversity discourse of Indigenous Peoples serves a variety of interests. These multiple interests challenged, first and foremost, the positivist discourse of science that puts premium on objective, and most often, economic features and benefits of biological diversity. IEMs' position transcends this purely utilitarian and opportunistic stance in favor of the spiritual and uniquely cosmovisional nature of human / nature relationship- a relationship that contextually reconfigures the pluriform hybrids of people and their environments. IPs conception of the integrity of the cultural and natural served as a powerful paradigm in creating ecologically sustainable ways of life (Erasga in press).

#### **3.3 Third world: Resource is security**

Quite similar in their agenda regarding the political economy of biodiversity, the memberstates of the Association of Southeast Asian Nation (ASEAN)8 have finally launched a new wave of national and regional security discourse that assigns a strategic dimension to nature and the resources it contained.9 This security discourse is inspired by the Association's "joint endeavors" on sustainable development broadly articulated in its collective "security and development" agenda. In her analysis of this agenda Hernandez noted (1995: 38):

*"To be sustainable, development in its economic dimension, must be sensitive to its excessive demands on both natural and human resources as well as its negative impact on the physical environment.* 

<sup>7</sup> Two excellent works can be mentioned: One is Escobar's (1999) documentation of the struggle of the *Proceso Comunidades Negras* or PCN (Process of Black Communities)-- a network of more than 140 local black and indigenous communities in the Colombian Pacific region. His analytical frame is called cultural politics. The framework suggests that cultural practices are the measure of defense of both nature and culture epitomized by their very notion of biodiversity as "*territory plus culture*." Another is Martha Johnson's (1992) edited book entitled *Lore: Capturing Traditional Environmental Knowledge -*  where she documented the convergence and divergence of western science and *traditional environmental knowledge* (TEK) in different cultural contexts including Canada. The documentation aims to provide evidence that TEK is not necessarily inferior to science. Rather, it may present an analytical and taxonomic approach operating at a different level of abstraction.

<sup>8</sup> Compose of the Philippines, Viet Nam, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam, Singapore, Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar.

<sup>9</sup> Development is broadly defined but includes the ecological, social, economic and political dimension.

Biopolitics: Biodiversity as Discourse of Claims 11

i. if discourse is political in nature, it follows that environmental discourse is a political

ii. the *power-inspired construction* and *power-driven usage* of biodiversity concepts alert us to

iii. biodiversity discourse should no longer be seen in the light of its original usage (i.e. nature conservation). Rather, it must be seen as a sociological construct that defines the

The first conclusion is a necessary implication of the nature of discourse in general. Discourse according to Foucault is the production of knowledge, and ultimately the production of Truth itself. Overlaying this nature of discourse within the frame environmental negotiations could mean this insight: "that when environmental scientists are producing information about and from their researches, they are in a way, producing discourse which is as much political as the knowledge produced by policy makers in the government." This makes scientists as equality political as the policy makers in their

The second conclusion is a necessary implication of the first one. From the discussion above, we see those conservation biologists and their cohorts were acting political when they started mobilizing people to do something about a problem that endangers the survival of people- to stop the immanent lost of species forever. Their activism is a show of how valid

The third conclusion reinforces the malleability of environmental discourse. On the one hand, when policy makers started concocting policies about the environment, they are claiming something as important as the claims made by environmental scientists. On the other hand, when environmental scientists blamed the environmentally destructive lifestyles and cultures of people, they are factoring in the social to the seemingly purely technical problem. Examples are many: pollution, solid waste, acid rain, and

To fully capture the essence of these conclusions allow me to quote a sociologist when he attempted to justify the role of social scientists (notably sociologists) in making sense of our

"What are topics like solid waste, pollution, acid rain, global warming and biodiversity doing in sociology text? The answer is simple: None of these problems is a product of the 'natural world' operating on its own. On the contrary... each results from the specific actions of human beings and are, therefore social issues.... sociologists can make three vital contributions to ecological debates. First, sociologists can explore what 'the environment' means to people of varying social background… Second, sociologist, can monitor the public pulse on many environmental issues, reporting peoples' fear, hopes and fears… why certain categories of people support one side or another on controversial issues. Third, and perhaps the most important, sociologist can demonstrate how human social patterns put mounting stress on the natural

From the discussions above, three complementary conclusions can be derived:

the emerging political nature of environmental discourse in general; and,

conversation / negotiation about nature;

emerging status of nature as social entity.

particular point of view, agenda and passion to pursue them.

their information is vis-à-vis the danger they are alerting the world about.

**4. Conclusions** 

deforestation.

environmental challenges. He writes:

environment" (Macionis 1999: 584).

Within this discursive platform, environmental resources have been assigned with a definitive status that directly impacts on the Associations' burgeoning conception of security. The discursive shift in the status of biophysical environment as "*resources*" unavoidably ushered a new mode of thinking in terms of national vis-à-vis regional cooperation. In this context, biodiversity i.e. biogenetic resources of plants, animals and microbes found in the environment, are no longer seen as neutral elements of a physical border separating nations and their peoples. Environment as container and refuge of biodiversity is no longer perceived as a lifeless frontier demarcating nations and their cultures. Rather, environment and every genetic resource it contains are now considered integral and strategic component of the ASEAN's national and regional security. This new political discourse is based on the emerging definition of political and economic security that sees environmental protection and sustainable development as key organizing principles. Peria's (1998: 5) analysis of the ASEAN's changing notion of the potential of environmental resources rightly concludes that:

*"Given the growing scarcity of the world's resources and the insatiable demand for it, security should be redefined to include the matter of safeguarding the integrity of a nation-state's natural resources."* 

Notwithstanding, this new perspective is anchored on the insights that given the enormous economic, scientific and strategic potentialities of biogenetic resources,10 (which are most often found in underdeveloped and developing regions of the world with equally diverse cultural communities), national security is unthinkable without incorporating biological and genetic resources as key factors (cf. Dupont 1994).

Perhaps this new notion of "genetic resource as security" is engendered by a notorious character of environmental problems – transbouderiness.11 The region as a whole has experienced a series of environmental catastrophes such as deforestation, pollution, migration and climate change.12 Moreover, regional conflicts may become the palimpsest of these environmental problems. Thus, solving environmental problems besetting the ASEAN-member nations is tantamount to addressing ongoing and potential regional conflicts that go with them.

Overall, the voices of the ecofeminists, IEMs and the ASEAN represent the grassroots discourses of biodiversity both as a feature of nature and as a social construct. Being the latter, they serve as powerful interpretations of how humans relate to nature and vice versa. These interpretations are embodied in their cosmovisions and epistemologies of nature and increasingly inspiring their discourses of development couched on their vulnerable positions within the power-relation contexts.

<sup>10</sup> These potentialities are enormous in terms of its medical, cosmetics, and warfare applications on top of the economic benefits that go with them. The state of the global bioprospecting initiatives being commissioned by gargantuan pharmaceuticals of North America and Europe epitomized such usefulness of biogenetic materials from diverse species of microbes, plants, and animals (Erasga 2003).

<sup>11</sup> In the case of pollution, transboundary pollution is pollution that originates in one country but, by crossing the border through pathways of water or air, is able to cause damage to the environment in another country (OECD 1997).

<sup>12</sup> The 1997 haze from Indonesia's biggest forest fire is an example. The haze covered vast areas in Malaysia, Singapore and elsewhere in the region.
