IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v163y2024ics1389934124000807.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transcultural bioeconomy governance in a plurinational state: Sumak Kawsay and bio-based production in two Kichwa territories of Ecuador

Author

Listed:
  • Cuestas-Caza, Javier
  • Toledo, Lucía
  • Rodríguez, Fabricio

Abstract

This article studies the notion of Sumak Kawsay as an Indigenous way of life and political project informing the normative fundament of the plurinational state of Ecuador. How does Sumak Kawsay shape the relationship between bio-based practices in Kichwa territories of Ecuador and the country's emerging bioeconomy policy? To address this question we study the production of two culturally meaningful products with an agroforestry base in two Kichwa territories. We find that Andean and Amazonian communities draw diversely on the principles of Sumak Kawsay to enhance bio-based systems of production combining ancestral knowledges and semi-industrial technologies. The latter are grounded in harmony-oriented values including economic goals, political visibility, and community-led practices. In the case of Chicha de Jora, bio-based production is linked with food sovereignty and women's political agency. In the case of Guayusa, the export of tea relates to Indigenous peoples' right to assert greater economic visibility in the Ecuadorian Amazon. This shows that neither modern/Western technologies and bioeconomy concepts, nor profits and markets per se, collide automatically with ancestral knowledges and bio-based practices in Indigenous territories. In the plurinational state of Ecuador, therefore, it is imperative that the country's bioeconomy policy is guided by these principles and experiences. This implies the move from a (top-down) state-driven towards a (bottom-up) transcultural approach to bioeconomy governance within the Earth's biophysical limits.

Suggested Citation

  • Cuestas-Caza, Javier & Toledo, Lucía & Rodríguez, Fabricio, 2024. "Transcultural bioeconomy governance in a plurinational state: Sumak Kawsay and bio-based production in two Kichwa territories of Ecuador," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:163:y:2024:i:c:s1389934124000807
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103227
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934124000807
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103227?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vivien, F.-D. & Nieddu, M. & Befort, N. & Debref, R. & Giampietro, M., 2019. "The Hijacking of the Bioeconomy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 189-197.
    2. Mascarello, Júlia & Lehmann, Rosa & Giurca, Alexandru, 2024. "Bioeconomy science collaboration between Brazil and Germany – On equal footing?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    3. de Queiroz-Stein, Guilherme & Martinelli, Fernanda S. & Dietz, Thomas & Siegel, Karen M., 2024. "Disputing the bioeconomy-biodiversity nexus in Brazil: Coalitions, discourses and policies," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    4. Thomas Dietz & Jan Börner & Jan Janosch Förster & Joachim Von Braun, 2018. "Governance of the Bioeconomy: A Global Comparative Study of National Bioeconomy Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    5. Gebara, Maria Fernanda & Ramcilovic-Suominen, Sabaheta & Schmidlehner, Michael Franz, 2023. "Indigenous Knowledge in the Amazon's Bioeconomy: Unveiling Bioepistemicide through the case of Kambo Medicine," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    6. Arun Agrawal, 1995. "Dismantling the Divide Between Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 26(3), pages 413-439, July.
    7. Andrea Jimenez & Deborah Delgado & Roger Merino & Alejandro Argumedo, 2022. "A Decolonial Approach to Innovation? Building Paths Towards Buen Vivir," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(9), pages 1633-1650, September.
    8. Krystyna Swiderska & Alejandro Argumedo & Chemuku Wekesa & Leila Ndalilo & Yiching Song & Ajay Rastogi & Philippa Ryan, 2022. "Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems and Biocultural Heritage: Addressing Indigenous Priorities Using Decolonial and Interdisciplinary Research Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-23, September.
    9. Viteri-Salazar, Oswaldo & Toledo, Lucía, 2020. "The expansion of the agricultural frontier in the northern Amazon region of Ecuador, 2000–2011: Process, causes, and impact," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    10. Zuberi, Mehwish & Spies, Michael & Nielsen, Jonas Ø., 2024. "Is there a future for smallholder farmers in bioeconomy? The case of ‘improved’ seeds in South Punjab, Pakistan," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Benoit Mougenot & Jean-Pierre Doussoulin, 2022. "Conceptual evolution of the bioeconomy: a bibliometric analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 1031-1047, January.
    2. Bastos Lima, Mairon G., 2022. "Just transition towards a bioeconomy: Four dimensions in Brazil, India and Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    3. Christina-Ioanna Papadopoulou & Efstratios Loizou & Fotios Chatzitheodoridis, 2022. "Priorities in Bioeconomy Strategies: A Systematic Literature Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-15, October.
    4. D'Adamo, Idiano & Falcone, Pasquale Marcello & Imbert, Enrica & Morone, Piergiuseppe, 2020. "A Socio-economic Indicator for EoL Strategies for Bio-based Products," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    5. Lühmann, Malte & Vogelpohl, Thomas, 2023. "The bioeconomy in Germany: A failing political project?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    6. D'Amato, D. & Korhonen-Kurki, K. & Lyytikainen, V. & Matthies, B.D. & Horcea-Milcu, A-I., 2022. "Circular bioeconomy: Actors and dynamics of knowledge co-production in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    7. Malkamäki, Arttu & Korhonen, Jaana E. & Berghäll, Sami & Berg Rustas, Carolina & Bernö, Hanna & Carreira, Ariane & D'Amato, Dalia & Dobrovolsky, Alexander & Giertliová, Blanka & Holmgren, Sara & Mark-, 2022. "Public perceptions of using forests to fuel the European bioeconomy: Findings from eight university cities," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    8. P. J. Stephenson & Anca Damerell, 2022. "Bioeconomy and Circular Economy Approaches Need to Enhance the Focus on Biodiversity to Achieve Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-20, August.
    9. Bogner, Kristina & Dahlke, Johannes, 2022. "Born to transform? German bioeconomy policy and research projects for transformations towards sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    10. Piers Blaikie, 2000. "Development, Post-, Anti-, and Populist: A Critical Review," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 32(6), pages 1033-1050, June.
    11. Arts, Bas & de Koning, Jessica, 2017. "Community Forest Management: An Assessment and Explanation of its Performance Through QCA," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 315-325.
    12. Priya Gupta, 2021. "Conservation is Development in the Forests of Nagarahole Tiger Reserve, India," Journal of South Asian Development, , vol. 16(1), pages 54-74, April.
    13. Christos Makriyannis, 2023. "How the Biophysical Paradigm Impedes the Scientific Advancement of Ecological Economics: A Transdisciplinary Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-24, November.
    14. Britz, Wolfgang & Li, Jingwen & Shang, Linmei, 2021. "Combining large-scale sensitivity analysis in Computable General Equilibrium models with Machine Learning: An Example Application to policy supporting the bio-economy," Conference papers 333285, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    15. Ju Han Yeon & Seung-hwan Jang, 2023. "The Relation between Bio-Industry Performance and Innovation Capacity—Focusing on the Korean Bio-Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-17, April.
    16. Christian Kuhlicke, 2010. "The dynamics of vulnerability: some preliminary thoughts about the occurrence of ‘radical surprises’ and a case study on the 2002 flood (Germany)," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 55(3), pages 671-688, December.
    17. Jarvis, Diane & Stoeckl, Natalie & Larson, Silva & Grainger, Daniel & Addison, Jane & Larson, Anna, 2021. "The Learning Generated Through Indigenous Natural Resources Management Programs Increases Quality of Life for Indigenous People – Improving Numerous Contributors to Wellbeing," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    18. Pranav Nakhate & Yvonne van der Meer, 2021. "A Systematic Review on Seaweed Functionality: A Sustainable Bio-Based Material," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-26, May.
    19. Marko Lovec & Luka Juvančič, 2021. "The Role of Industrial Revival in Untapping the Bioeconomy’s Potential in Central and Eastern Europe," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-20, December.
    20. Befort, N., 2020. "Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: The contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:163:y:2024:i:c:s1389934124000807. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.