region is highly influenced by the indigenous and Afrodescendant
cultures.
The indigenous population of LAC accounts for about
10% of the total (IDB, 2004; Hall and Patrinos, 2005).
The ethnic and cultural diversity of indigenous groups in
Latin America is estimated at more than 400 ethnic groups
(Deruyttere, 1997) or 800 cultural groups (Toledo, 2007),
the largest percentages being in Bolivia (70%), Guatemala
(47%), Ecuador (38%) and Mexico (12%). One important
aspect of the relationship between agriculture and the cultures
is the relationship between biodiversity and cultural
diversity. In LAC, cultural diversity is highly correlated with
agrobiodiversity in general. The region has two centers of
origin of genetic diversity—in the territories that are today
Mexico and Guatemala and Peru and Bolivia (Possey,
1999). The lands/territories of the indigenous peoples intersect/
overlap to a large extent with the areas recognized
as biologically megadiverse. The indigenous peoples live in
80% of the region’s protected areas (Colchester and Gray,
1998). In Central America the percentage increases to 85%
(Oviedo, 1999). Toledo (2003) notes that nearly 60% of
the areas in central and southern Mexico recommended for
protection are inhabited by indigenous peoples.
Biodiversity constitutes an irreplaceable common patrimony
of humankind, the result of prolonged and ceaseless
evolutionary processes, which is fundamental for socioeconomic
development and for the very survival of humankind.
The ethnic groups, Afrodescendant communities and peasant
communities in LAC hold a large part of the cultural
patrimony represented in the systems of knowledge, innovations
and millenary practices of integral and sustainable
management in their territories associated with biodiversity
(Barrera-Bassols and Toledo, 2005). Just as biodiversity is
threatened, the cultural integrity of ethnic groups is seriously
threatened. Cultural erosion, the loss of land and the
loss of control over their territories by these communities
occur with ever greater frequency and intensity, which no
doubt has a detrimental impact on the cultural patterns and
appropriation of their traditional habitat.
The Green Revolution transformed the traditional agricultural
culture. For thousands of years farmers, mainly
women, have taken it upon themselves to select and save
seeds to create, literally, thousands of “local varieties” of
food crops adapted to the conditions and preferences of
each place. When the Green Revolution swept across the
countries of the south, the diversity that these farmers had
been caring for began to weaken. Local varieties can only
survive in interaction with people and disappear if not preserved
and planted.
The cultures of the indigenous peoples and Euro-American
societies and of the westernized/modernized societies
are immersed in two profoundly different ways of knowing
(epistemologies), of being (ontologies) and of relating to
the world (cosmovision/world view). After more than three
decades of political struggles—local, regional, national and
international—the indigenous peoples have become actors
known on their own terms, without mediation, or mediators,
in the political arena. Their rights, albeit very slowly
and still more on paper than in practice, are recognized
by the United Nations (Farmers’ Rights, Convention on
| |
Box 1-4. Emergence of infectious diseases and
agriculture
One of the main threats to agricultural development internationally
is the emergence of diseases associated with the
changes in the environment necessary for agriculture (Wilson,
2002). In Latin America and the Caribbean, the association of
agricultural activities with certain diseases has been relatively
little studied in comparison with other regions such as Africa
and Southeast Asia (Norris, 2004). The following are four examples
that illustrate the importance of this association:
1. Coffee and cutaneous leishmaniasis: Picking coffee increases
the risk of infection by Leishmania parasites since
it coincides with the maximum period of activity for the
insect vectors of the disease (Scorza et al., 1985).
2. Irrigation and malaria: Densities of malaria vectors are
much greater in irrigation canals than in bodies of water
whose origin is not attributable to human activities (Zoppi
de Roa et al., 2002). The density of vectors that transmit
a disease tends to be linearly correlated with the risk of
acquiring the disease, which is why agricultural activity
increases the risk in two ways: by increasing the number
of mosquitoes, and spatially, by the proximity of irrigation
canals to centers of human settlement (Norris, 2004).
3. Deforestation and malaria: Agricultural development can
lead to increases in temperature that facilitate the development
of parasites that cause malaria in the vectors,
especially when natural forests are cut down to promote
agriculture (Lindblade et al., 2000). The rates of mosquito
bites can be up to 278 times greater in highly deforested
areas as compared to natural forest areas (Vittor et al.,
2006).
4. Rural houses and Chagas’ disease: One of the fundamental
aspects in the epidemiology of Chagas’ disease
is its association with rural dwellings in precarious conditions
(Rabinovich et al., 1979). In general, the more
precarious the conditions of the housing units (thatched
roof, clay walls) the greater the vector density and hence
the greater the likelihood of acquiring the disease (Rabinovich,
1995).
The four examples presented above show the need to incorporate
knowledge of infectious diseases into agricultural
activities. Knowledge may have an immediate impact on agricultural
practices by diminishing activities that increase the
risk of acquiring disease. For example, the incidence of cutaneous
leishmaniasis can be reduced by changing the hours
during which coffee is picked. |
|