BIODIVERSITY IN AGROECOSYSTEMS - CHAPTER 12 pps

Historical Perspective on AgrobiodiversityStrategies for In Situ Agrobiodiversity Conservation by Indigenous Social, Economic, and Political Dimensions of In Situ Conservation The Social

Historical Perspective on Agrobiodiversity

Strategies for In Situ Agrobiodiversity Conservation by Indigenous

Social, Economic, and Political Dimensions of In Situ Conservation

The Social Context of Community-Based Biodiversity Management

Global Change and Plant Genetic Resources

Pathways Toward the Future

References

INTRODUCTION

The development goal of increased food and fiber production to match the needs

of growing populations and their rising expectations may often conflict with the in situ conservation goal of preserving plant genetic diversity (Williams, 1986; Alcorn,

1991) As broadly adapted high-yielding varieties — coupled with input packages

of irrigation, fertilizers, and pesticides — find their way into traditionally diverse,marginal agroecosystems, the number and diversity of local landraces as well asassociated local knowledge may erode This process is global, although its dynamicand intensity may vary from place to place and across time (Ford-Lloyd and Jackson,1986; Oldfield and Alcorn, 1991; Brush, 1992; Dove, 1996).

One of the premises of sustainable agriculture is that this trade-off betweenincreasing productivity and loss of biodiversity is not inevitable (National ResearchCouncil, 1992; Thrupp, 1997) Precisely how the two goals are simultaneouslyachieved, however, is not an insignificant research problem or an easily answeredpolicy issue (see Williams, 1986) Present demographic and economic global trendsrequire more food per unit area and unit time, but the necessary yield increases willnot be forthcoming unless sufficient biodiversity is continuously available to plantand animal breeders Our primary thesis is that one useful but neglected strategy to

achieve sustainable food production lies in supporting traditional in situ biodiversity

management We argue that many local populations have historically managedbiodiversity, that the associated knowledge is valuable and irreplaceable, and thatboth management practices and knowledge should be enhanced through policy andtechnology initiatives

Specifically, we address our thesis by exploring three major themes related toindigenous management of germplasm and the potentialities for the localized cre-

ation, maintenance, and enhancement of biodiversity First, we place biodiversity

management by traditional agroecosystems in global historical context, especially

as it relates to the major food crops Second, based on our own research experiences

we outline some principles of in situ biodiversity maintenance within traditional, marginalized agroecosystems and contrast these to the scientific, ex situ approaches

of formal, external input-dependent and market-linked approaches Third, we

exam-ine the social, economic, and political dimensions of marginal communities

man-aging in situ agrobiodiversity Finally, we conclude with some observations on future

research and action needs

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON AGROBIODIVERSITY

Landrace-based genetic materials available for plant breeding or biotechnologyprograms have already been purposely manipulated by traditional cultivators overcenturies and even millennia (Ucko and Dimbleby, 1969; Struever, 1971; Altieriand Merrick, 1987) Although archaeological debates continue over precisely whereand how nomadic hunters and gatherers finally began the conscious planting ofseeds, roots, or tubers and thereby ushered in the “Agricultural Revolution,” theoutcome of early farmers’ efforts cannot be denied (Hobhouse, 1985; McCorristonand Hole, 1991) The historic tendency for preindustrial agricultural communitieshas been to foster and increase landrace diversity, rather than decrease it (Harlan,1995) As long as 8 to 12 thousand years ago, “primitive” farmers had alreadysuccessfully experimented with invading wild “weedy” species in their settlementclearances and domesticated the first crops (Harlan, 1975) Not only did prehistoriccultivators give humanity the major food crops and animals which nourish us today,

they simultaneously created their own specialized knowledge systems about thefood, fiber, and medicinal values of thousands of plant and animal species (Schery,1972; Fowler and Mooney, 1990) While modern science has been appreciative ofand concerned about the supply of the genetic raw material provided by farmercurators, much less interest has been shown in the local knowledge or management

strategies which underpinned in situ landrace development in the first place

moun-to disease and pests was often lacking and collapse under the onslaught of disease

or pests was devastatingly frequent (Rhoades, 1991) The most famous documentedcase is that of the widespread potato crop failure in mid-19th-century Europe due

to late blight (Phytophtera infestans), a fungus likely introduced from the Americas.

Most of Europe had come to depend on a few varieties; in Ireland there was totaldependence on a single variety Combined with political exploitation by the Britishgovernment, the unfortunate timing of the crop failure led to the deaths of millions

of Irish (Woodham-Smith, 1962) A few years later, the grape crop on mainland

Europe succumbed to a minute, aphidlike insect (Phylloxera vitifoliae) accidentally introduced from wild American grape stock (Vitis labrusca) (Olmo, 1977) These

two incidents spurred a tremendous interest on the part of European scientists tounderstand not only the nature of disease (plant pathology was born of these efforts),but also the relationship among the centers of genetic origin, natural range ofvariation, and disease resistance Although neither Mendelian genetics nor the theory

of disease was understood by the 1870s, European farmers appreciated that

“renewed” seed stock from the regions where the crops originated brought bloomback to their crops In the case of postfamine potatoes, a single small Andean tuberdirect from South America fetched its weight in gold, thereby creating a potato seedcraze as intense as the tulip craze in Holland in earlier times (McKay, 1961).Likewise, European and American plant scientists came to appreciate the linkbetween the well-being of their farmers’ crops and the genetic diversity in thehomelands of the crops themselves

Although the importance of genetic material from the centers of diversity anddomestication remains highly appreciated by geneticists and crop scientists, there isless awareness of the curator role of extant farmers or pastoral communities andtheir knowledge which makes it possible for this valuable diversity to be maintained

in situ and passed on to the global human family Historically, most governments

have seen marginal tribal and peasant communities as practicing a backward, itive agriculture ripe for “modernization” through information and technology (Rog-ers, 1969) As industrial developments in Europe, North America, Japan, and thecities of the Third World attracted wage labor from the countryside, planners andagricultural scientists sought ways to provide cheap and abundant food for thegrowing urban areas This cheap food policy, which has intensified in the post–WorldWar II era, meant that the potentially productive agroecological zones (flat, fertile,and hydrologically favorable) were to become targets of planned agricultural change

prim-to make them more productive through genetic uniformity and mechanization of theagroecosystem for the purpose of achieving higher yields One outgrowth of thissimplification of the agricultural landscape was the renowned “Green Revolution,”which combined scientific plant breeding with input packages for favorable envi-ronments (Plucknett et al., 1987) The dramatic increases in world food supplywitnessed in the 1960s and 1970s are directly traceable to these crop improvementprograms which focused on increasing the productivity of plants though breedingfor high response to inputs such as fertilizer (Mellor and Paulino, 1986)

The role ascribed by scientists to local cultivators and their communities duringthe Green Revolution was that of recipients of “technological” packages of improvedseeds, fertilizers, and other inputs, as well as infrastructure development “Trans-forming traditional agriculture,” as Nobel Peace Prize–winner Theodore Schultz(1964) called the effort, was promoted as the motor for global growth and the mostefficient exit from agricultural stagnation and famine Farmers were seen as indi-vidual rational decision makers who only needed to be provided the necessary inputsand knowledge by governments and scientists to get the job accomplished Hence,breeders made selections and crosses from advanced breeding lines derived fromlandraces These lines were tested on experiment stations or controlled farm condi-tions, and, after a dozen or more years, these materials were released to farmersthrough certified seed programs, extension efforts, and other mechanisms (Duvick,1983) Rather than breed for local conditions, breeders aimed for broad adaptability

of high-yielding fertilizer-responsive varieties in irrigated, fertile zones Feedbackfrom farmers in on-farm trials rarely provided information on the suitability ofselection for specific locations The seeds were delivered to farmers largely throughthe patron–client extension model which focused on the individual farm enterprise,not the community or social groupings of farmers (Duvick, 1986).

The “success” of the Green Revolution was double-edged Signficant increases

in food production were achieved in a short time, leading to the alleviation of foodshortages and famine in critical areas (Mellor and Paulino, 1986; Plucknett et al.,1987) However, with this success (along with other forces such as urbanization,out-migration, grazing) and as farmers responded to markets, growth, and develop-ment programs by adopting a few high yielding varieties, many landraces wereabandoned Concern over genetic erosion by national and international agencies has

led to the creation of a global network of ex situ gene banks and living collections

where landraces and wild materials are kept in short- and long-term seed storage

(Plucknett et al., 1987) Fewer resources, however, have been given to support in situ conservation by native communities, and even less attention has been aimed at

preserving the knowledge of local peoples regarding plants, a critical legacy just asvulnerable to erosion (Nazarea, 1998a)

This historical ecological–evolutionary trajectory of traditional in situ

manage-ment of landraces underscores the following points:

1 The often controversial proposal to maintain the dynamic evolutionary management

of landraces within traditional landscapes is based on the historical reality of marginal farmers as folk curators;

2 Despite the tendency of modern agricultural science to separate the genetic

“resources” from the local knowledge base, both are essential components of in

situ maintenance of diversity and, by extension, a well-supplied ex situ system; and

3 Despite the loss of diversity in the “favored” environments, rich gene pools still exist in many farming communities which survive along the margins of the world economic order These marginal rural populations are often seen — even by conservationists — as a threat to biodiversity in protected areas and surrounding buffer zones Our approach is to see them as part of the solution.

STRATEGIES FOR IN SITU AGROBIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION

BY INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES

Over the years, we have spent a great deal of time working with subsistencefarmers in Asia, Latin America, and the American South (Nazarea-Sandoval andRhoades, 1994) We have studied these “native curators” intensively as anthropolo-gists, worked with farmers as members of interdisciplinary teams at InternationalRice Research Institute (IRRI) and International Potato Center (CIP), and — morerecently — as anthropologists attempting to document and revive landrace use inthe southern U.S through support of traditional means of use and exchange ofheirloom varieties Whether Andean farmers, Filipino rice cultivators and sweetpotato growers, or Appalachian gardeners, they share common characteristics Uni-versally, regions of rich biodiversity exist along the margins of their economic and

political worlds Landrace cultivators are typically found in more remote mountains,islands, rain forests, or desert agroecosystems which are momentarily insulated fromthe dominant forces of the outside world economy (Dasmann, 1991) Communities

— and households within communities — with a propensity to maintain diversesystems tend to be disenfranchised from the dominant order surrounding them Eventhe individuals who tend to be key native curators are marginal within their own

households Thus, marginality at various scale levels is a key common designator

of landrace in situ curation.

Agroecologists, along with ethnoecologists who focus on the cognitive pinnings of human–biological system interactions, have pioneered studies whichshow that farmers pursue various strategies in using biodiversity as a way to meettheir basic physical, social, and spiritual needs (Hecht, 1987; Oldfield and Alcorn,1991; Nazarea-Sandoval, 1995) This body of research points to fundamental dif-ferences between informal and formal models of genetic resource/biodiversity man-agement (Altieri, 1987; Altieri and Merrick, 1988) First, traditional producers/com-munities use a different set of selection and evaluation criteria for germplasmmanagement than modern breeding or commercial seed programs Second, theirmethods of experimentation and testing are fundamentally different, although thereare some points of common interest Third, the strategies which preserve biodiversityare often embedded in community action which channels and encourages individualhouseholds to act in such a way as to foster biodiversity

under-Multidimensional Criteria for Selection and Maintenance of Landraces

Scientists find the tremendous diversity of landraces in marginal agroecosystemsuseful and valuable in developing new and better varieties To the practicing sub-sistence farmer, however, it is strange — probably inconceivable — that one would

be so foolish as to risk this diversity with the narrow selection of just a few varietiesand species In maintaining a wide range of varieties and species, traditional farmersuse multidimensional decision-making criteria which holistically involve ecology,the complete food system from seed handling to consumption, and cultural aspectssuch as culinary qualities, ritual, and cosmology This complex decision-makingprocess may often be poorly understood by the formal scientific sector which tends

to be largely market oriented

Farmers opt for an adaptive strategy of using biodiversity in such a way that itspreads production risk and labor scheduling across the landscape In the CuscoValley of Peru, for example, we found farmers who plant up to 50 different varieties

as well as several species of potatoes at different time intervals in 20 to 30 scatteredfields characterized by different altitude, soil types, and orientations to the sun Thisprinciple of diversity to spread risk is simply an Andean version of “don’t put allyour eggs in one basket.” This dispersion pattern reduces the risk that one diseaseoutbreak or an unpredicted frost will devastate an entire crop Simultaneously, byusing different varieties a continuous flow of production through time and space can

be realized so that different markets, household needs, or labor supplies can beaccommodated Interspecific and intraspecific variation is also used for agronomiccontrol of weeds and pests, microclimatic variation through shading, as well as a

buffer against climatic and pest damage Andean potato farmers’ strategies are based

on a long-term, detailed knowledge of specific plant–environment interaction Anyvariety is tested against several seasons of variable frosts and rainfall as well asperformance in different soils

In the Philippines, market forces are as salient as ecological factors in farmers’decision-making frameworks, and the cognizance of instability and unpredictability

of both leads to constant experimentation, information and germplasm exchange,and hedging A sweet potato farmer in Bukidnon resists the pull toward monoculturebecause of his perception that environmental flux and economic trends are beyondhis control According to him,

I ask for different planting materials from our neighbors but I don’t mix them up I plant at least five different varieties of sweet potatoes at any one time to experiment from which ones I get the most benefit At different seasons, we should plant different varieties because we never know which ones would be most productive (Nazarea, 1998b).

Some rice farmers, integrated as they are to the market system and credit ture, still plant their favored varieties in the middle of clumps or at the borders ofagriculture extension and credit-backed varieties, thus managing to have their credit,and eat, too

infrastruc-In localized agroecosystems, household production units are also direct sumption units; thus, they have a vested interest in carefully linking production andconsumption in a way not found in commercial systems where different activitiesare typically carried out by separate groups In subsistence systems, the householdunit manages all stages of the food system, including seed selection, production,storage, processing, and marketing Even when there is a need for interhouseholdexchange of genetic material, the linkages are generally along kin-based and com-munity networks There are no “formal” seed certification systems and the peoplewho select cultivars are the same ones who grow, process, store, eat, andexchange/sell them When the consumption unit and the production unit arecoterminus, a more-refined and more-detailed set of criteria is used compared withwhen these two functions are separated

con-In the Andes, an interdisciplinary research team from the CIP discovered some

39 criteria that farmers consider in their evaluation of varieties (Prain et al., 1992).This led to the conclusion that farmers do not seek an ideal variety Instead, farmersseek to manage an ideal range of varieties that address their food system requirementsrelated to cash and subsistence needs (Prain et al., 1992) These requirements werehighly local and specific to household needs In one of the research sites, for example,farmers would grow “improved” varieties for subsistence while in another villagefarmers cultivated folk varieties for the marketplace (Bidegaray, 1988) These unex-pected uses were tied to certain local realities which only the farmers fully appre-ciated In one case, there was a shortage of land and wage opportunities so theyused their land to produce high-yielding varieties for food, while in the other case,

a nearby market provided higher prices for the valued native varieties (Brush, 1992;Prain et al., 1992)

Another aspect of diversity maintenance involves postproduction activities age, seed selection, processing, and cooking) Women, who are often in charge ofthese nonfield activities, handle materials in such as way as to increase aspects ofdiversity further Shapes and colors proliferate in landrace material since these areused as perceptual signals for sorting and identification Most published research onpotato selection makes reference to the significance of differences in color, shape,texture, and taste Selection for “storability” or “culinary quality” occurs in the hands

(stor-of women who are acknowledged by the men to have superior knowledge (stor-of thecrop Andean farmers are connoisseurs of potatoes which they evaluate with a widerange of cooking descriptors as well as taste labels such as “flouriness,” “stickiness,”

“wateriness,” and so on Native potatoes are universally recognized as superior toimproved varieties in terms of culinary quality

Among Philippine sweet potato farmers, characteristics such as cooking quality,aesthetic appeal, storability, and propensity of mixing well with other cultivars arevalued as much as yield or disease resistance by households surviving in the marginal

zones Morphological, gastronomic, life habit attributes, familiarity gradients, and

functional criteria were used in distinguishing and prioritizing among varieties, andwere far from being mutually exclusive Interestingly, local criteria for evaluation

of sweet potato varieties tend to be fuzzy or to trail off into gray areas as to whichproperties or traits are positive or preferred and which ones are negative or notpreferred For example, people would say they prefer sweet varieties but bland onesare good to eat with fish and are a good substitute for rice during lean times, or thatnewer varieties are desirable because they produce bigger roots but older varietiesproduce tastier though smaller roots The result of this “fuzziness” is that it isimpossible to construct a hierarchy of sweetpotato varieties from the most desirable

to the least, and, as a consequence, people retain different varieties in their farmsand home gardens

Another dimension of genetic resource diversity in traditional societies oftenoverlooked by scientists and planners from more “utilitarian” urban-dominated soci-eties is the interconnectedness between plants and cosmology, that part of culturewhich deals with perception, ritual, religion, and worldview Given the intimacy ofdaily contact between cultivators and their biological environment, especially plantsand animals, a cultural interplay is not uncommon during which the domesticatesare assigned significant symbolic roles in the lives of the people themselves (Zim-merer, 1991) Therefore, plants are more than just food Plants are also ascribedgender, spiritual qualities, mystical powers, and important religious roles in the lives

of the people (Down to Earth, 1994) People of many cultures believe they originated

from certain sacred plants (e.g., Mayan creation story and maize) In the case ofsouthwestern Native American groups, the diversity of maize types (and colors)reflects group relationship, ethnic origins, cardinal directions, and a reverence fordiversity (Ford, 1984; Sekaquaptewa and Black, 1986)

Evidence from many cultures around the world points to a playfulness andappreciation of landrace diversity as expressed not only through color and shape,but also reflected in complex folk taxonomies and cultural identity related to lan-draces In the Andes, certain potato varieties are valued more for their symbolic role

in gift exchange and honoring guests at ritualized meals than for any agronomic and

economic values Brush (1977) reports that the most highly prized varieties are oftenthe most delicate and least productive (see also Carter and Mamani, 1982) Onestudy from Bolivia pointed to the importance of potato diversity to the culturalidentity of the Aymara (Johnsson, 1986) In some parts of the Andes, the mostprestigious meal one can serve is made up of native cultivars, especially of potato.Although such beliefs are frequently disregarded by scientists as superfluous, theethnographic record shows that such beliefs play a major shaping role in creatingvariability among cultures (Zimmerer, 1991).

Try as we might, as scientists, to coax the fan of strategies into a logical, universalframework, none seems to provide greater exploratory power than the “framework”

of expediency — of hedging, making do, and muddling through By this, we meanthe development and maintenance of plant genetic diversity in local agroecosystemsbased on day-to-day pragmatic concerns and the natural inertia that preserves diver-sity due to the existence of a multiplicity of local demands and preferences butcannot be fully satisfied by any one “ideal” or “best” variety The decision-makingprocess, in other words, is characterized by conflicting demands, complementation,and compromise, resulting in behavioral outcomes that augur well for the mainte-nance of a wide variety of cultivars

Comparison of Scientific/Formal Approaches to Biodiversity

Maintenance

Contrasting the approaches of traditional farmers and scientists in methods ofvarietal selection can clarify the reasons plant-breeding programs often fail to reachfarmers with new genetic materials (Berg et al., 1991) Since traditional farmers dealwith holistic systems and multiple selection criteria they do not normally think interms of formal dichotomies like “improved” vs “local” varieties Farmers selectvarieties that perform well in certain areas (e.g., agronomic, yield, marketability,culinary) important to the context of their localized food system Although farmers

do not use the agronomists’ multiple replications side by side, the folk selectionprocess is far from haphazard Like breeders, traditional farmers have a systematicway of seeking and integrating materials into their living, working informal genebanks Farmers are fanatic seekers of new varieties, and they will eagerly seekmaterials wherever they can be found (e.g., formal seed programs, neighbors, mar-kets) Once a new variety is obtained, it is generally planted on a small scale in akitchen garden or in a single row along the margins of a regular field If the varietyproves itself, farmers amplify their production as the amount of seed allows Thevariety is observed and evaluated for multiple qualities relevant to the local foodsystem (see Table 1) All the while, they continue to maintain their own “germplasm”bank which is constantly being replenished and experimentally culled (Rhoades,1989a)

Many farmers are avid experimenters by nature (Richards, 1985; Rhoades andBebbington, 1995) The “atmosphere of experimentation” which characterized theneolithic farmer since the earlier stages of cultivation is one of the foundations uponwhich agriculture advances (Braidwood, 1967), and farmers are as creativelyinvolved in this ongoing process as are scientists A key difference, however, between

formal and informal cultivar selection is that breeders tend to narrow the geneticalternatives in search of yield and disease or climatic resistance while marginal,subsistence farmers tend to broaden their choices by seeking more diverse varieties

to fit their overall needs (Soleri and Smith, 1998; Nazarea-Sandoval and Rhoades,1994) Indigenous cultivators do not design, perceive, or manage plots or zones inisolation of surrounding areas To the contrary, they manage for diversity alongcontinuous boundaries by pursuing opportunities creatively to mix genetic resourcesand inputs to meet their household and community needs Farmers use diverse criteria

in selection and adoption decision making which does not necessarily end up withthe intentional elimination of “less desirable” options What is desirable or notdesirable to local farmers may be a matter of taste, a matter of timing, and sometimes

a matter of mood In other words, they use fuzzy multiple criteria; if not, the diversecultivars would likely have disappeared long ago (Nazarea, 1996)

One of the reasons that small farmers in marginal environments have benefitedlittle from the yield and disease resistance achieved by formal breeding programs

is precisely because of the real-world interaction between genotype and environment(G × E) Breeding programs typically assume agricultural scientists know better thanfarmers the characteristics of a successful cultivar (Witcombe et al., 1996) Breedersselect under favorable growing conditions, and, if adoption does not occur, the cause

is frequently assumed to be ineffective extension or insufficient seed production(Ceccarelli, 1995) Breeding for broad adaptation to agroecological zones requireslarge-scale centralized seed production and distribution which in turn further pro-motes genotypes that might be inferior to the landraces they are replacing understressful conditions This formal approach contrasts with that of marginal farmerswho have traditionally relied on a strategy based on both intraspecific diversity (cropmixes and landraces on the same farm) and where seed is produced either on thefarm or obtained from neighbors through community-based informal seed networks

In bridging the gap between breeding programs and farmers in marginal areas,breeders have begun to think innovatively about marginal farmers, experimentaldesigns, field plot techniques, and landraces (Maurya et al., 1988; Galt, 1989;Ceccarelli, 1995) As a result, participatory breeding programs have begun to emerge

in which farmers are encouraged through support and partnership with scientists toexchange knowledge and test, under farmer experimental conditions and designs,cultivars early in the breeding-selection process (Prain et al., 1992; Joshi and Wit-combe, 1996) These participatory programs have already generated varieties that

Table 1 Breeders’ and Farmers’ Cultivar Selection Methods

1 Genetically uniform cultivars (pure lines, clones,

hybrids)

Genetically diverse cultivars

2 Test under ideal conditions Real-world conditions

3 Yield and disease/climate tolerance Multiple criteria; fuzziness

4 Widely adapted; agroecological target zones

(flat, irrigated, fertile, homogenous, inputs)

Niche-specific (rain-fed, poor soils, inaccessible, local inputs)

5 Formal structures; highly centralized; top-down Informal; kin/community based; gendered

6 Negative attitude toward G × E Positive attitude toward G × E

match farmers’ needs and increase production simultaneously (Maurya et al., 1988;Sperling et al., 1993; de Boef et al., 1993; Sperling and Scheidegger, 1995; Witcombe

et al., 1996)

SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND POLITICAL DIMENSIONS OF

IN SITU CONSERVATION The Social Context of Community-Based Biodiversity Management

While unusual innovativeness in biodiversity preservation finds manifestation inexperimental, individualistic farmers, ultimately the social context of local commu-

nities shapes in situ biodiversity maintenance In communities that have not yet been

fully incorporated into commercial markets and still manage high levels of landracebiodiversity, future protection of such genetic resources requires values compatiblewith locally defined social and economic goals Whether biodiversity is decreased

or enhanced in the future may depend on the degree of self-determination of localcommunities to attain these locally defined goals In many traditional, closed cor-porate communities (i.e., membership determined by birth), intergenerational equity

or “bequeath value” is as important as it is in developed countries where heads offarm enterprises expect their families to continue to operate the business well intothe future Many indigenous communities with a firm sense of place are aware ofthe value and role of land and diverse crop inventories to their cultural survival, andcommunally strive to guard these resources Andean communities, for instance,carefully regulate, through annual village assemblies, the rotation of land parcels,the use of communal pastures, and the complex of species and varieties planted Inother cases, such as in the South American Amazon, Amerindian groups purposelyincrease biological diversity in many locations through shifting cultivation whichinvolves systematically transplanting crops throughout the forest (Castilleja et al.,1995) The landscape in this setting is in fact a cultural creation by the populationswho have over the centuries altered the natural landscape through clearing, burning,planting, and other mechanisms of diversifying resource clusters for their use Asimilar effect is obtained around the Awa Ethnic Forest Reserve in Ecuador wherethe Awa Indians have planted “forest belts” of gardens and fields as a territorialsignal to logging companies and other outsiders (Castilleja et al., 1995)

Indigenous peoples value their community resources and typically practice lective decision making at a much higher intensity than found in open, Westernsocieties To maintain and exploit communal resources requires group values, ded-ication, and willingness to follow village leadership faithfully (Rastogi and Pant,1996) In most cases, regulation is enforced and punishment meted out by thecommunity itself Leadership often rotates among households so that all will have

col-a degree of responsibility through time Tribes of Aruncol-achcol-al Prcol-adesh in Indicol-a, forexample, have a self-governing system wherein the tribal council is responsible forsocietal decision making (Rastogi and Pant, 1996) Their councils (variously known

as buliangs of the Apatanis, the kegangs of the Adis, the nyels of the Nishings) are