Biocultural Diversity-driven innovation for sustainable territorial development

Some representative approaches and the 2005-2013 Rural Territorial Development with Cultural Identity Program (RTD-CI)

implemented by RIMISP in Latin America and the Caribbean

Paper by Annibale Ferrini

August 2012

Rural Territorial Development with Cultural Identity Program RIMISP – Latin American Center for Rural Development

“Every innovation has two parts: the first is the invention of the thing itself; the second is the preparation of expectations so that when the invention arrives it seems both surprising and familiar - something long awaited” Edwin Land ** This paper was possible thanks to the great work of all my colleagues of the Rural Territorial Development with Cultural Identity Program Team: Claudia Ranaboldo, Carolina Porras, Marcelo Uribe, Fabiola Leiva and Rafael Lindemann Taborga.

Biocultural Diversity-driven innovation for sustainable territorial development. Some representative approaches and the 2005-2013 Rural Territorial Development with Cultural Identity Program (RTD-CI) implemented by RIMISP in Latin America and the Caribbean. ABSTRACT In the first part of the paper I will introduce some emblematic approaches on Biocultural Diversity-driven innovation for sustainable rural territorial development to “sketch out” a referring framework of initiatives linked to the issue and in some way to the RIMISP (the Latin American Center for Rural Development) Program “Rural Territorial Development with Cultural Identity (RTD-CI)”, implemented in 8 countries of Latin America from 2005 till now1. The selection of experiences I briefly describe here is limited but representative of the approaches to innovation for territorial development also shared by the RIMISP RTD-CI Program. In the second part of the paper I will present the activities and the outcomes of the Program from the first applied-research project to these days. I will conclude underlining how a Biocultural Diversity-driven innovation can build creative, resilient and sustainable territorial economies. INTRODUCTION In 2010 the International Conference on Biological and Cultural Diversity for Development (ICBCD), a joint initiative by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, UNESCO, the Canadian Commission for UNESCO, and the University of Montreal, supported by the International Economic Forum of the Americas recognized that biological and cultural diversity are intrinsically and inextricably linked and together hold the key to sustainable development and are critical for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. The idea of an “inextricable link” between biological and cultural diversity was perhaps first expressed in those terms in the 1988 Declaration of Belem of the International Society of Ethnobiology2. In the 90s a new field of research and applied work has emerged that has been labeled “biocultural diversity” that actually is a short form for “biological, cultural, and linguistic diversity.”(Maffi, 2005)

1 RTD-CI Program 2005-2011 Narrative Report: http://www.rimisp.org/FCKeditor/UserFiles/File/documentos/docs/pdf/DTR-IC/informe-proyecto-dtr-ic-2005-2011-ingles(1).pdf 2 http://ise.arts.ubc.ca/declareBelem.html

Although the theoretical and methodological bases of the field of biocultural diversity are still being refined, and an explicit, agreed-upon conceptual framework has not been fully worked out yet, it is possible to glean some definitions and key elements based on how the concept has been generally used by its proponents. Biocultural diversity might be defined as follows: Biocultural diversity comprises the diversity of life in all of its manifestations: biological, cultural, and linguistic, which are interrelated (and possibly coevolved) within a complex socio-ecological adaptive system. Over the course of about 10 years, the field of biocultural diversity has emerged as an example of an integrated, transdisciplinary field, spanning the natural and social sciences, as well as linking theory with practice and science with policy, ethics, and human rights. (Maffi, 2005) In this paper the term Biocultural Diversity concerns the natural and cultural tangible and intangible patrimony that characterizes all the assets of a territory or a specific geographical area on which valorization processes for sustainable rural development are based. Not all the approaches briefly presented here explicitly refer to those assets with the term Biocultural Diversity but are mainly based on the same process of conservation and valorization of natural and cultural resources to achieve an innovative, sustainable and socially inclusive rural development. The common denominator of the different existing approaches in this field are the interactions between biological and cultural diversity, which can be joined on the concept of biocultural diversity. But each one has its own nuances, according to the emphasis on the different variables. For example there can be an approach focused on the conservation rather than on valorization. Another variable is the scale on which the approach is being implemented: while some approaches privilege a conceptual input by local-typical products (especially agricultural), others concentrate on the territory and/or the landscape, for example, creating baskets of goods and services. And another variable is the relative importance given to cultural component in relation to the biological/environmental one (Calvo, G. 2010). The approach to biocultural diversity valorization aims to allow rural areas traditionally considered as uncompetitive in regard to general goods, successfully positioning themselves in the market, both locally and globally, with products, goods and services whose origin and typical characteristics entail a recognition and showcase the locally added value. These strategies value diversity in all its expressions, and are based on a sustainable and culturally appropriate development. Some keys to promote successful territorial processes of biocultural diversity valorization are:

• Promoting participatory research and knowledge dialogue to characterize the endogenous resources of the territory. This allows building and communicating an image of the territory and its resources without “artificially recreating” or simplifying products or patrimony expressions to be promoted.

• Creating the conditions for a "cultural affirmation" locally, so that young people take over their own wealth and resources. This implies, among other things, to show that conserving biocultural diversity can be a source of economic opportunities and generate incentives for it.

• Creating conditions for developing local dynamics around a shared vision of the territory. This means, for example, to find a unifying element for communicating about the attributes of the territory through a discourse easily interpreted by the consumer (a characteristic feature of the landscape, the name of the territorial area, a name that evokes the identity of the local populations, etc.).

• Raising awareness among consumers and creating spaces for exchange between producers and consumers (local markets, fairs, etc.). Consumers outside the territory, on the one hand, and youth and women of the territory, on the other, are key in these processes of territorial development.

• Ensuring close links with decision makers. This implies a dialogue from local to national public policies that accompany these processes, rather than stop them.

• Encouraging innovation and creativity as the core of interventions oriented to valuing local natural and cultural patrimonies. This, together with a participatory research, is the best way to prevent the territories valorization based on biological and cultural diversity ends up being something artificial or folkloric. (Calvo, G. 2010)

SOME EMBLEMATIC APPROACHES The Satoyama Initiative: ecosystem services and the biocultural or socio-ecological production landscapes Satoyama is a Japanese term for landscapes that comprise a mosaic of different ecosystem types including secondary forests, agricultural lands, irrigation ponds, and grasslands (yama), along with human settlements (sato). These landscapes have been formed and developed through prolonged interaction between humans and ecosystems, and are most often found in the rural and peri-urban areas of Japan as a way of life. First alluded to in 1661, the initial stand-alone use of the term “satoyama” occurs in 1759, when it is used to refer to “the mountain areas that enclose villages, human habitations, and houses”. Until the 1970s most definitions of satoyama included the notion of human

habitation in proximity to mountain areas whose resources were utilized by humans (as food, fuel, or fertilizer for crops). The Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment (JSSA) is a study presented in 2010 of the interaction between humans and terrestrial-aquatic landscape ecosystems (satoyama) and marine-coastal eco- systems (satoumi) in Japan. It follows and applies the framework of sub-global assessments (SGAs) developed by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA)3. The MA, commissioned by the then United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan in 2000, focuses on changes in ecosystem services and their consequences on human well-being (ecosystem services being defined as the benefits people obtain from ecosystems). The timeframe of the assessment is changes that have occurred in satoyama in the last fifty years since the end of the Second World War. This was chosen because of rapid technological advances during this time, leading to economic, social, and cultural transformations as Japan has moved from a largely rural and agrarian society to a highly industrialized and urban one. Geographically, the assessment was undertaken in five major “clusters” throughout Japan, with the goal of encompassing different geographical, climatic, ecological, social, economic, and political characteristics. Satoyama landscape provides three key ecosystem services that may be conceptualized as: provisioning, regulating, and cultural. a. Provisioning services are those resources supplied by satoyama to human communities, including timber for construction; fuel, in the form of wood and charcoal; and food, both wild game, rice, and edible species such as mushrooms. b. Regulating services in satoyama include functions such as climate control, water quality control, wildlife habitat regulation, and disaster control. Thus, they are traditional mainstays for the sustainable supply of many provisioning services. c. Finally, cultural services provided by satoyama are embedded in the very foundation of Japanese society and provide the basis for traditional satoyama landscape practices, such as how rice is grown and forests maintained. Indeed, it is the myriad of practices with respect to satoyama that to a large extent comprise and define traditional Japanese culture. In assessing changes in biodiversity and ecosystem services in the past half-century and their causes, the JSSA focuses on biodiversity (natural forests and artificial forests), provisioning services (timber, charcoal, organic fertilizers, agricultural production), regulating services (water regulation and purification, soil retention, disaster management), and cultural services (sightseeing, spiritual values, eco-tourism). Also considered are changes in nature conservation policies, promotion of recycling agriculture with organic farming at its core, 3 http://www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx

resource utilization by tourism-related policies, and how generally these factors affect human well-being. Since 2005, Japan began designating “cultural landscape” areas in an attempt to reassert links between one’s geographic environment and the history of the nation. However, this attempt has been stymied in rural areas where there is insufficient population available to maintain these designated areas, which thus revert quickly to a state of abandonment. Which are the JSSA findings? 1. THE CRITICAL FEATURE of satoyama landscape is the mosaic composition of different ecosystem types that are managed by humans to produce a bundle of ecosystem services for human well-being. 2. Satoyama has undergone significant changes over the last fifty years, which have caused a drop in the resiliency of the coupled socio-ecological production systems to provide a sustainable supply of ecosystem services. 3. CONTINUED LOSS OF satoyama landscape has important and potentially negative consequences for human well-being and biodiversity. 4. UNCONNECTED AND PIECEMEAL approaches to address biodiversity change and to protect environmental resources have had only limited success. Integrated approaches including citizen participation have been used increasingly over the past ten years and show potential for reducing biodiversity loss and maintaining sustainable flows of ecosystem services. 5. CRITICAL TO THE SUCCESS of a more integrated and holistic approach to ecosystem management is the creation of a new “commons,” understood both as a system of co-management of ecosystem services and biodiversity within private and public land, and as a single system to produce a bundle of ecosystem services for direct and indirect use by society. The new “commons” could provide the basis for sustainable development in both developing and developed countries. To start measures to conserve these sustainable types of human-influenced natural environments through broader global recognition of their value, the Ministry of the Environment of Japan and the United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies (UNU-IAS) jointly initiated the Satoyama Initiative. This international effort promotes activities consistent with existing fundamental principles including the Ecosystem Approach. The core vision is to realize societies in harmony with nature, that is, built on positive human-nature relationships. At the Tenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the Convention on Biological Diversity in October 2010 was launched the International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative (IPSI), to officially establish an international platform to accelerate its

efforts. Within the framework of the IPSI many case histories on rural development experiences related to biocultural production landscape have been collected and systematized all over the World. One of the most interesting case histories in Latin America is the Potato Park in the Cusco region, in Peru. Since pre-Hispanic times, a co-evolutionary relationship built around management of biocultural resources with the mountain environment in Cusco Valley has produced the “ayllu” mindset. The main objective of “ayllu” is the attainment of well-being or Sumaq Qausay, defined as a positive relationship between humans and their social and natural environments. To this end, great focus is given to achieving equilibrium between one’s natural and social surroundings and to maintaining reciprocity between all “beings”. The Potato Park is a unique model of holistic conservation of the Andean traditional landscape with a focus on conservation of agrobiodiversity. The Potato Park is a center of origin of the potato (CIP, 2008). The region is home to eight known native and cultivated species and 2,300 varieties, out of the 235 species and over 4,000 varieties found in the world. Also found in the region are 23 of over 200 wild species found in the world. The genetic diversity found within just one plot in the area can reach up to 150 varieties (Argumedo, 2008). The park is a locally managed Indigenous Biocultural Territory using the Indigenous Biocultural Heritage Area (IBCHA) model developed by Asociación ANDES. The IBCHA model involves a community-led and rights-based approach to conservation based on indigenous traditions and philosophies of sustainability, and the use of local knowledge systems, skills and strategies related to the holistic and adaptive management of landscapes, ecosystems and biological and cultural assets. The biocultural system approach of the ayllu system begins from an indigenous perspective, based on the Andean holistic worldview that recognizes interconnectedness across all spheres of the cosmos, including the spiritual dimension. The landscape is much more than the product of agriculture; it is the product of holistic management. Resilience is understood through the Andean awareness of complex and chaotic interactions producing order. Supporting adaptation becomes an important aspect of management. The high diversity found in the landscape supports adaptive capacity to build resilience. Andean ecosystems are complex, with multiple interacting parts creating a diverse topography. Non-linear interactions create chaotic behavior through extreme changes in conditions such as extreme weather, providing a sense of disorder within the Andean natural environment. However, order emerges out of the complex interactions and traditional practices.

One of the goals of the Potato Park has been to establish an alternative development model, which is inclusive, and supports cultural identity and conservation of biocultural heritage. The Park has developed Local Biocultural Databases based on the traditional Andean system of Khipus. Khipus were used during prehispanic times to collect and store information, including information related to biological resources. The result of applying the Khipus system to biocultural databases is an adaptive system that allows captures, registration, storage and administration of indigenous knowledge based on Andean traditional science and technology. It is a tool that can be used to conserve, promote and protect local knowledge, thus becoming useful in facing political, social and technological challenges that are all too common in this era of globalization. The Potato Park, as an example of revitalizing the ayllu cultural landscape, has generated social, cultural, environmental, economic and political benefits to the communities. Communities have strengthened their intercommunity networks, generating synergies through creating intercommunity groups. These include the economic collectives, and the Association of the Communities of the Potato Park, bringing together all of the communities for decision-making. Women, as a major interest group have a leading role in implementing action in the Park, and their participation in decision-making is being strengthened currently. Similarly through participation in economic collectives they also contribute to family economies. Culture is strengthened through implementation of the Potato Park because it reinforces the role of local culture through institutions, promoting regeneration of community identities. Other positive impacts include the restitution of genetic variability of native potato crops, repatriation and restoration of the cultural landscape; agro-ecotourism generating income and incentives for conservation and the promotion of regional ordinances. The International Potato Centre (CIP) of Lima has been one of the promoters of the Park with the support of different International Organizations and public-private institutions. The CIP is part of the Biocultural Diversity and Territories Intercontinental Platform being implemented by the RTD-CI Program. OVOP – One Village One Product movement The One Village One Product movement started in the Oita prefecture, Japan, in 1979 as unique model of regional revitalization policy. Since then it has been widely adopted by many local governments in Japan to promote local industries, particularly in the agricultural based products. Its concept has also disseminated to many Asian countries. Although Asian countries have engaged in the vigorous policy accelerating industrialization, the policies have revealed many problems at the same time, such as the income gap between urban and rural, depopulation problem, congestion of big cities, and environment issues, and others. The

OVOP wanted to partly answer these problems, especially to prevent economic deterioration of local communities. It is hypothesized that the movement can be seen as a model approach to the issue of rejuvenation of local industries in the era of globalization. Based on this affirmation, the Japan Agency of Cooperation to Development (JICA) in the last years focused some of its plans of aid interventions on the OVOP approach in Africa, Asia and Latin America, especially in Chile and Peru. At this time the Peru Government is implementing a national OVOP program by the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Tourism, supporting municipalities with high potential with technical assistance and financial aid to foster rural territorial development initiatives based on territorial cultural identity-linked products and services. One of the territories involved in the program, the Colca Valley, has been beneficiary of the RTD-CI Program. The principle of "One Village One Product" seems simple, but signified by the understandable terminology and clear massage even to the non-educated local residence. As "One unit area should have at least One product, and you can do it if you have guts", literally means, "One Community creates One marketable Product" with identical brand by using own resources, and brushes up the Product, upgrades the Value, establishes the own Brand, and merchandises in the Global markets. Through this series of efforts the local people could recover their pride and be confident to live in the local community with self-esteem, and revitalize their social and economic life. However, the implementation and settling movement is not so easy. It has to completely change the people's mindset, which had been enclosed in the small community and never been familiar with business and commercial matter so far. It requires continuous efforts by local leaders and administrations. Only good leadership makes it possible and good administration might lead the movement. In the case of Oita, the combination of these factors was superb, and it brought successful results of development of local industries and people’s welfare. This process gave a big impact to other regions in Japanese as well as Asian local communities, because these areas were suffering the similar condition such as depopulation, backwardness and heavy dependence on the economic center, and so on. However, the uniqueness of OVOP was that the movement was mainly left under the hands of local people, and the local government only gave technical support, encouragement, and marketing promotion, not much of financial subsidies, because too much dependence on government might weaken the dynamism of the movement. Because of it the basic principle of OVOP put strong emphasis on the three points:

(1) Local yet global - Creating globally accepted products that reflect pride in the local culture; (2) Self-reliance and creativity - Realization of OVOP through independent actions utilizing potential of the region; (3) Human resource development - Fostering of people with a challenging and creative spirit. The ‘OVOP’ movement now requires re-evaluation and examination in the light of new theories of economic development and changing policies relating to regional industrial revitalization. To date there has not been sufficient objective assessment of the movement, interaction amongst those involved, nor attempts to define it in the context of industrial policy and regional development. There is a great diversity in social patterns among different rural areas in developing countries. For these reasons, in many cases the movements have ended up as nothing more than government-led projects for the manufacturers of new local specialties. It is doubtful whether the process of manufacturing these specialties has actually encouraged local ingenuity or rejuvenated communities in manner originally intended by the movement’s founders. It must not be forgotten that ‘OVOP’ emerged in Japan when this nation had achieved a certain level of social maturity and industrialization. It is necessary to identify elements of the movement, which may be difficult to transfer to the context of other countries. However, it is also true that the movement has brought positive benefits in many cases, such as (1) driving export growth; (2) successfully nurturing and bringing together local industries; (3) achieving personal income growth and expanding employment opportunities for low-income earners (Igusa, K. 2004)4. The New Rural Paradigm by OECD This is not the case to analyze the New Rural Paradigm proposed by the OECD in 2006 but in the context of this paper is interesting to put on evidence some excerpts of the The New Rural Paradigm: Policies and Governance Report published by the OECD in the same year that in my opinion are closely related to the RTD-CI Program Research & Actions. Developments in the international and domestic policy contexts are changing the rules for rural regions, necessitating new approaches. Three factors in particular are influencing rural policy making across OECD countries: 1) Increased focus on amenities. An important influence on the way rural development policy is conceived across OECD countries comes from the value that society (both rural and 4 Professor, College of Asia Pacific Management, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University

urban) is giving to natural and cultural amenities. Because over 75% of land in OECD countries is in rural areas, policies for rural places play an important role in land management and must integrate a range of environmental and economic development issues…Many rural places are also custodians of some of the most important antiquities, historical sites and other recreational amenities (such as ski and water resorts) important for rural economic development. Moving beyond a narrow focus on the multifunctionality of agriculture, policy makers increasingly emphasize the need to identify and valorize the wide range of resources of rural areas and to account for positive and negative externalities associated with different activities in rural areas. The stewardship of the multiple features of rural places has thus become a key pillar of place-based policies for rural development. 2) Pressures to reform agriculture policy. Besides considerations linked to the limits of agricultural policy and its potential negative spatial effects, pressure to reform the current agriculture-based approach to rural development come in at least two different forms. The first has to do with the obstacles that certain agricultural policies pose to international trade. The World Trade Organization strongly questions the distorting nature of payments associated with farm policy. Recent world trade negotiations have shown that little progress can be made without reforms of farm subsidies in developed countries…In many OECD countries farm subsidies are increasingly questioned because of their impact on public finances thus nourishing debates on alternative uses of public resources targeting rural areas. 3) Decentralization and trends in regional policy. The theory and practice of regional policy have recognized that to address the characteristics of different regions and help them develop, financial redistribution is not enough. This has led in many countries to policies and programs that have an explicit goal to develop rural places and make them more competitive by mobilizing local assets…Regional policy has thus begun a paradigm shift from a top-down, subsidy-based strategy to reduce regional disparities into a much broader family of policies designed to improve regional competitiveness. These new approaches are characterized by several factors. First, there is a strategic development strategy that covers a wide range of direct and indirect factors that affect the performance of local firms. Second, there is a greater focus on endogenous (local) assets and knowledge and less of a focus on exogenous investments and transfers. Finally, there is a collective/negotiated governance approach to such matters, involving national, regional and local government plus other stakeholders, with the central government taking a less dominant role. As a result of the above-mentioned factors, several member countries are increasingly seeking to develop a multi-sectorial, place-based approach that aims to identify and exploit the varied development potential of rural areas. Two principles characterize the “new rural paradigm”: 1) a focus on places instead of sectors and 2) a focus on investments instead of subsidies.

While there is growing interest of policy makers for place-based rural development policies, there is a paucity of research documenting their results and the determinants of successes and failures. This is due on the one hand to the objective difficulties to evaluate, especially in quantitative terms, cross-sectorial policies. One common factor in these new policy strategies is that, even if they do not all yet involve significant funding, they contribute to important culture changes with respect to rural policy. First, the place-based approach at the local level has helped foster public-private partnerships and integrate new stakeholders and resources into the development process. Second, these initiatives are developing a culture of cross-sectorial cooperation within central and local governments and thus more coherent policy initiatives. Third, there is recognition that a place-based approach requires more bottom-up as opposed to top-down initiatives. This produces new ways of coordinating vertically across levels of government and a better use of local knowledge. The following text was written by Fabrizio Barca, Territorial Development Policy Committee (TDPC) Chairman, as a conclusion to the conference on “Designing and Implementing Rural Development Policies” held in Oaxaca, April 2005.

In the case of rural territories, the opportunities to increase the own well being of the citizens are the results of two elements: • the capability of exploiting territories’ own endowments (environmental amenities, cultural

heritage, typical food products, etc.); • the existence of markets for the product of those endowments to be sold profitably. For an

opportunity to become true, there must be a product and a market for this product. Otherwise policy intervention can generate big frustrations

The following clear-cut messages came out quite clearly from the debate: • Rural areas are “territories” among other territories: for rural policy to be more effective,

small fragmented programs should be replaced by a single “financial pot” that rural and non-rural areas can access by implementing a strong horizontal co-ordination effort at different levels (at the central level between different administrations, at the regional level between different councilors and at the local level between public and private actors). This is what is happening in many European countries.

• Decentralization of powers to states and\or regions. Decentralization should be supported through block grants, to be distributed according to a system of conditionality.

• Policies having either rights or opportunities as their objectives need a conditionality system.

• Vertical Integration should take place through contracts. If this has to be rigid in the case of rights, it has to be flexible in the case of opportunities (integration based on negotiation and mutual learning).

• Local Public-Private Partnership should be aimed, in the case of rights, at enforcing them; for opportunities, at exploring them and at creating market.

THE RURAL TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH CULTURAL IDENTITY PROGRAM This program defines cultural diversity as a key asset to be recognized and valued in development processes. It is based on a territorial approach, focusing on the most excluded stakeholders and the construction of broad institutional synergies. Its main goal is to contribute to reducing poverty, inequality and injustice. The recognition and valorization of diversity refer to: • Material and immaterial cultural heritage and its many expressions. • The practices, traditional knowledge and innovations of rural populations in combination

with external contributions. • Opportunities for coordination of cultural and natural assets in rural territories. • The creation of a distinctive brand for rural territories in an effort to position their products

and services in different markets. • The connection between stakeholders, networks, and public and private undertakings,

and between the rural and the urban, paying special attention to the role of intermediate cities.

The Rural Territorial Development with Cultural Identity Program was implemented in four phases since 2005 to nowadays. The First Phase, 2005-2006: the “Rural Land Development through Identity Products and Services Project”. Within the framework of conceptual and operational advances relating to rural territorial development (RTD)5, in 2005 a little-known and studied facet of it was identified in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC): cultural identity (CI) and its valuation in rural areas. Over the course of two years (July 2005 - June 2007), RIMISP - Latin American Center for Rural Development and a wide range of academic institutions, development institutions and social, economic and cultural organizations in the region, with support from the Ford 5 For a review of the state of the art, see, among others, Schejtman and Berdegué (2004).

Foundation, conducted an exploratory study in the subject via the Rural Land Development through Identity Products and Services Project6. This project included, among other activities, the development of a conceptual and methodological foundation, a publication on the state of the art, the execution of nine case studies in eleven countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, with a final stage of summary and analysis, and an articulated set of initiatives related to communication and discussion of the results through various media with different audiences and territorial learning processes. The case studies were executed in the following territories: Mendoza Oasis in Argentina; the the Jesuit Missions of Chiquitos in the Municipality of Concepción in Bolivia; the Caminhos de Pedra and Vale dos Vinhedos in the Santa Catarina State in Brazil; the coffee makers communities of Central America and Mexico: Huehuetenango in Guatemala, Los Santos in Costa Rica, La Fortuna in Honduras and Pluma Hidalgo in Mexico; the Archipelago of Chiloe in Chile; the Afro-descendants territory of San Basilio de Palenque in the Caribbean Colombia; Cotacachi in Ecuador; the Temple of Moche Territory and the North Coast of Peru; the Colca Valley in Southern Peru. A preliminary examination of the state of the art of the subject, taking into account the justification and the broader objectives of the project, led to the formulation of three main hypotheses to be considered in the case studies: 1. Many poor areas in Latin America and the Caribbean are endowed with an abundant, rich and distinctive cultural heritage based on multiple assets (tangible/intangible, movable/immovable). Investment in the enhancement of CI can be an effective strategy for sustainable and inclusive development in such territories. 2. There is an emerging demand, by major customer segments, for products and services carrying the CI associated with rural areas. The attributes valued by these consumers are the patterns of production and consumption, local knowledge and customs, differences associated with those goods and services, and their quality. These consumers are willing to pay a higher price and/or choose CI products and services over other alternatives. 3. The valuation of CI requires the development of innovations in policy, public investment and services, and the strengthening of actors, institutions and networks that allow: (a) the production of CI goods and services; (b) the identification and assessment by consumers of such goods and services, (c) the dissemination of the process and benefits throughout the territory, and (d) the substantive participation of the poor in the Rural Territorial Development with Cultural Identity (RTD-CI) Strategy and the distribution of its benefits. 6 See: www.rimisp.org/territorioeidentidad2

An analytical framework articulated around three axes was defined: types of experiences, features of the RTD-CI strategies as well as incentives for the RTD-CI. Simultaneously, the selection criteria of the territories were developed, determining that the selected cases should be closely related to: rural areas with significant poverty levels, the presence of different RTD-CI strategies, and different internal combinations of these strategies. The analytical framework served as a flexible guide because it was a preliminary exploration based on case studies that were limited in terms of resources and time. It was emphasized the need to use research to build a platform for dialogue and collaboration between different actors who were interested in the RTD-CI and willing to invest in these studies; at times the processes were already underway. Therefore, the analytical and methodological framework would not become a "straitjacket" but rather was adjusted according to local contexts and the focus in each case. Based on research results, it can be assumed that there are conditions in LAC for RTD-CI processes that would generate new opportunities for the poor and marginalized. However, these opportunities must consider a number of risks that may limit or rule them out, which is why RTD-CI should not be assumed to be a new "prescription" that is valid and applicable in any context and under all circumstances7: 1. There are rural areas with high rates of poverty and marginality, characterized by a remarkable tangible and/or intangible cultural heritage. The availability per se of these cultural assets has not yet managed to trigger positive, sustained and massive economic processes of greater well-being and development, particularly for the local poor. However, there are signs of potential in this direction. 2. This cultural heritage is seen not only in a mechanical transmission of tradition but rather is recreated in an innovative process stemming from the meeting of various local and global actors. This requires overcoming a closed perspective into "maintaining tradition," encouraging instead a diverse and non-stereotypical array of elements that differentiate the territory and characterize it as an area "in motion," not static and identical to its prior expressions. 3. The cultural heritage of these rural societies in many cases is recognized in broader contexts - national and international - becoming an emblem of their respective areas, with all of the unknowns still involved in the process of “territorial marketing” in terms of the

7 For more details and access the full final reports visit: http://www.rimisp.org/proyectos/seccion_adicional.php?id_proyecto=188&id_sub=362

sustainability of local processes “on offer” and of the channeling of benefits to a wide range of local people and not just to a few individuals and companies. 4. Growing segments of the urban populations of the countries of the region and elsewhere recognize in this cultural heritage an element that meets the expectations and demands for recreation, culture, health, tradition, sense of belonging, roots, etc. This opens a new opportunity for employment and income generation in rural areas, from the so-called "cultural economy" and from access to diverse markets. 5. In LAC countries cultural heritage is often associated with very poor and disadvantaged segments of the rural population, including women, indigenous peoples, people of African descent and rural dwellers. Valuation, then, is linked to public recognition of their knowledge and skills, contributing to a rise in self-esteem and sense of citizenship. It has also been observed that governance based on community/collectivity is key as important social capital distinctive of many LAC countries. Therefore, the RTD-CI processes should include these different dimensions in addition to the economic one. 6. In the case of women a doublespeak emerges involving risks and conservative positions. On the one hand, there are sectors that still argue that women, "being closer to nature and the maintenance and transmission of cultural values [...]", would be the primary carriers of CI. That is precisely what would be seen in typical local products, handicrafts, and tourist services, among other things, in which women's work is evident, often prominently. However, that "activism" is not accompanied- at least not across the board- by substantive changes in the redistribution of tasks within the family and community, and less by a redistribution of power. 7. From the varied experiences in the Latin American region, in terms of cultural assets, stakeholders and institutional networks, we see that the valuation of an area with CI is not a process exclusive to indigenous peoples. While in several of the cases (Cotacachi, the Colca Valley, and Concepción to some extent) the original native base is key, in others very different elements stand out (Ukrainian and Italian colonization in Argentina and Brazil, miscegenation processes in Central America and Mexico and on the north coast of Peru as well as in Chiquitanía in Bolivia), or the indigenous population is part of a broader set of actors and dynamics (as with the Mapuche in Chiloé), or another ethnicity is prominent (African descendants in Colombia). 8. There has been an emergence of actors and networks dedicated to exploring development strategies based on the valuation of cultural assets in rural areas. The gender and generational elements among the leadership in these processes are clear, with women and youth taking on prominent roles. Moreover, many mayors and municipal councils are

beginning to mobilize and make regulations to protect and value the cultural heritage of their towns. Actors emerge to facilitate development processes with CI, providing information and some of the services needed to make them possible. 9. It has also been put on evidence the appearance of new institutions that help incorporate a CI in a product or service and communicate that quality to potential consumers. This results in, for example, designations of origin and geographical indications, used especially in cases where the items are meant to “travel,” as with coffee in some countries of Central America and Mexico and the wines in Argentina and Chile. 10. It has been identified interesting possibilities related to the relationship between cultural assets and natural resources in the face of the development of new strategies for enhancement of the territory’s value, directly involving the native population and its knowledge, not limited to a preservationist approach. Some of these territories are located in strategic areas of biodiversity at the global level, in or very close to parks and natural reserves. This is the case of the Colca Valley of the Chiquitanía and Cotacachi, among others (Ranaboldo, C. and Schejtman, A. 2009). The Second Phase, 2007-2008: the “Rural Territorial Development with Cultural Identity Project”. The second phase of the project focused on seven territories in five countries (Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, and Peru) and was focused on strengthening studies on the topic. The focus was a process of in-depth research8 oriented towards the identification of a typology of territories with different territorial dynamics in their relation to CI. In particular, three challenges were addressed, always with the collaboration of the Ford Foundation: 1. There are different types of areas in terms of the relationships between cultural heritage, activities based upon it and territorial processes of economic, social and environmental development. Areas such as Otavalo in Ecuador, the Colca Valley in Peru or the corridor between Puno and Cusco, where much of the economic and social life revolves around CI, do not compare to territories such as Chiloé where cultural activity has decreasing importance compared to industrial salmon farming, which is gaining space on the island. Nor is the artistic and intellectual tourism visiting the Music Festival of Chiquitanía in Bolivia equivalent to the mass tourism arranged by big multinational chains going on in the industrial fishing coast of Santa Catarina in southern Brazil. It is necessary therefore to know more about these different dynamics and contribute to the design of differentiated policies and

8 Linked to and with funds from the Rimisp Rural Territorial Dynamics Program (www.rimisp.org/dtr), which was sponsored by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC, Canada).

investments that take into account that linking CI to development in rural areas is not just about finding ways to "marketize" or "sell tradition". The big challenge is how to start conceptualizing and implementing a vision of development that does not impose a single cultural model exclusively associated with economic wealth but rather encourages development based on multiculturalism and biodiversity. 2. There are numerous micro-initiatives of development with CI, often in the same space. However, there are very few cases where such initiatives manage to spread throughout the country, diversify and achieve a dynamic and critical mass to influence the broader processes of development at the local level. In part this is because many of the actors in CI development processes are small community organizations, relatively isolated rural municipalities, NGOs, local schoolteachers, etc., and not enough attention is paid to involving public or private investors to a greater degree. Moreover, conflicts arise, for example, between local communities with CI and some internal and external actors, particularly as regards issues of access to and use of natural resources. It is necessary to design strategies and methods to encourage and facilitate - on a minimum shared foundation - development processes with CI on a regional basis and to make them appropriate to different local conditions and their regional and national environments, avoiding simply copying the experience of Europe or other world regions. 3. Finally, there is still no regional (Latin American) space where the various actors working in this area can talk, systematize their practice, learn from one another and cooperate in solving common problems. The spaces created by the first phase of the project are a step in that direction, but are still far from forming a regional player capable of challenging areas of public policy and opinion formation or of guiding investment flows towards development. There is a demand and willingness to invest in initiatives for dialogue, shared learning, integration and regional collaboration, articulating various actors such as social and cultural organizations, entrepreneurs, regional operators, and development project leaders at international, intellectual and political agencies (Ranaboldo, C. and Schejtman, A. 2009). This was the initial Classification of Territorial Dynamics in their relationship with Cultural Identity dynamics that led the in-depth research characterizing the second phase of the Project9: Type 1. Territories focused on the valuation of cultural identity These are territorial dynamics in which CI-based activities- absolutely central to the territory- are conducted by actors with different motives and negotiation skills, with power relations and asymmetric exchanges between the parties involved: for example, areas in which tourism 9 Developed primarily by Schejtman, A., Ramírez, E., Berdegué J., and Ranaboldo, C.

based on CI is the dynamic activity but the leadership role is taken on by travel agencies detached from small farming and handicraft initiatives, such as in the Colca Valley in Peru. In this type of configuration a win-win arrangement is feasible, since both parties depend on the valuation of territorial CI and of its maintenance and enhancement over time. Type 2. Territories and Contradictory Dynamics of Local Development These are dynamics in which the growth of the local product depends in large measure upon the dynamic core unrelated to CI, in a territory where there is a multiplicity of micro, small and medium-sized activities based on this identity. The links in the non-CI dynamic core tend towards the labor market and other effects of the demand arising from their participation and externalities (positive or negative). In this type of regional dynamics, the agents of each of the areas do not have common motives that allow them to build bridges and thus their relationships can move from indifference to conflict. Examples of these situations are Cotacachi (Ecuador), with the presence of mining companies and Chiloé (Chile), with the salmon companies. Type 3. Territories that "recreate" a cultural identity This is a configuration in which the dynamic activity (the generator of economic growth) is increasingly based on CI, even if it has to be "recreated" in the territory. Therefore, the objectives of reducing poverty, increasing equity and improving environmental sustainability are directly linked to the effects that existing or future incentives have on this dynamic core. There are situations characteristic of areas that produce goods with a designation of origin or other traceability mechanisms in foreign markets (wine, spirits, coffee, etc.), linked to various forms of tourism (for example, in Vale dos Vinhedos in Brazil, the Mendoza oases in Argentina or differentiated coffee producing areas in Central America). Moreover, during this phase, the goal was to influence key stakeholders and decision-making areas responsible for promoting territorial dynamics at the national and sub-national levels. At the same time, the Project activities were led to strengthen and consolidate the network of public and private contributions (Ranaboldo, C. and Schejtman, A. 2009). The Third Phase, 2009-2011: the “Rural territorial Development with Cultural Identity Program”. During this phase the project focused on the broadening of the scale of territorial experiences, their critical mass, and the generation of greater impacts. This was the time the Project amplified its dimensions joining the rank of a Regional Program. Work was conducted in 15 territories of 8 countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru, see Figure 1 below, RTD-CI Territories).

The main objective of the RTD-CI Program during its third phase was to have an impact within different spheres of public action, promoting rural territorial development processes based on CI that make visible and position this paradigm as an alternative for stimulating sustainable and inclusive territorial dynamics.

Source: RTD-CI Program 2005-2011 Narrative Report

In order to reach this objective, four lines of action were executed: • Applied and mobilizing research on territorial dynamics and CI, contributing to the

generation and use of knowledge that promotes local development; • Promoting territorial development strategies focused on the valorization of cultural and

natural assets and the creation of public/private coalitions that lead those processes;

• Contribution to capacity building through the recognition of local knowledge, inter-peer learning, and coordination among academic spaces and territorial experiences (local, regional and intercontinental learning routes, internships, territorial laboratories, teaching);

• Participation in platforms oriented towards impacting public action on multiple levels (government spheres, business sectors, public opinion, social and citizen movements, the intellectual world).

Communications has always been a distinctive part and a transversal line of action of the Program. The communications platform uses publications performed in academic and training contexts, widely distributes virtual multimedia products, and ad-hoc motivational tools at the territorial level to reach a multi-faceted and varied audience. Communication has always been implemented as a Program action to help all the network of actors to make information in different areas visible and share it as a useful toolbox for the involved territories and their RTD-CI processes. The institutional website (www.rimisp.org/territorioeidentidad2), the Biocultural Diversity and Territory weblog, the Intercambios newsletter, the specialized magazine Equitierra and a series of brief info-capsules were the main channels on which the Program communicate with its stakeholders and spread the outcomes at local, national, regional and international levels10. The main results of the Program can be resumed following three key RTD-CI dimensions. Using these dimensions as a referent and deploying a blend of the four lines of action mentioned above (with the support of transversal communication), has allowed the Program to generate an interesting set of results: 1. First dimension: a critical mass of relevant territorial experiences that can communicate with each other. Results: thirteen facilitating initiatives in the RTD-CI Network. These initiatives were implemented in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador and Peru through multiple execution strategies and with a wide range of partners and resources channeled directly by the RTD-CI project and other institutions including sub-national governments, territorial development committees, foundations, NGOs, universities, research centers, cooperation agencies and development projects. The fact that these “other” institutions got involved with human, social, and financial capital is an indicator of the commitment achieved in the appropriation of the RTD-CI approach. Two projects, one advising activity, and three complementary studies have responded or are responding to the logic of situating analytical knowledge and policy recommendations in the spheres of public action. These

10 For more details see the RTD-CI Program 2005-2011 Narrative Report: http://www.rimisp.org/FCKeditor/UserFiles/File/documentos/docs/pdf/DTR-IC/informe-proyecto-dtr-ic-2005-2011-ingles(1).pdf

initiatives contribute to the incorporation of CI and cultural assets as promoters of development for Latin American territories. 2. Second dimension: development/expansion of capacities through networking and among peers (bridge between tradition and innovation): Results: the RTD-CI Program has developed an innovative set of learning and mobilization methods through ongoing dialogue among peers and the generation of high-quality products and services. The most noteworthy of these are: - A validated Critical Methodological Route (CRM) for facilitating Rural Territorial Development with Cultural Identity and Biodiversity strategies” has been implemented. It represents an experimental and referential method of promoting participatory and collaborative strategies for RTD-CI and a series of flexible and guiding steps as well as specific tools; - A structured academic module as a base for an RTD-CI Certificate Program has been designed. The module constitutes a preliminary proposal for a certificate program that foster the recognition of local knowledge and traditional practices on biocultural landscape production and management for sustainable territorial development; - Five Learning Routes have been executed. The RTD-CI project and PROCASUR have implemented 5 Routes with 75 participants and at least 50 hosts. Over 35 initiatives involving products and services with CI have been visited in four countries in LAC (Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, and Peru), three countries (Spain, Italy, and Morocco) and 11 territories in Europe and Northern Africa. The Learning Route is a knowledge and experience exchange methodology firstly introduced by the Procasur institution11 at the end of the 90s that provides ongoing training with a strong emphasis on field visits organized by topic around experiences, cases, and successful innovation practices in rural development in which users and operators become trainers. Today Procasur is the main partner of IFAD in implementing Learning Routes in Latin America, Africa and Asia to foster innovation in rural development. Through a circuit of workshops, interviews, conversations, and field activities, the Route promotes spaces for exchange, analysis, and reflection for individuals or groups based on testimonies and the participation of stakeholders involved in the implementation of successful experiences (communities, leaders of rural associations, technical staff, and local officials) in order to develop a systemic and dynamic vision. Many participants and hosts have become leaders and are now promoting RTD-CI facilitating initiatives in these territories; - Seven Territorial Laboratories (LABTER) have been developed. The LABTER innovation methodology developed by the RTD-CI Program is oriented towards facilitating spaces for 11 www.procasur.org

dialogue and interaction between diverse experiences and stakeholders with a well-defined territorial anchor. Its objective is to develop a relationship between knowledge and practices linked to “know how” and “know to learn” and “know to transmit.” The LABTER contribute to increasing the territory’s visibility (potential and limits) for its inhabitants and not only its visitors. During the most recent versions of the LABTER, an agenda was developed by consensus along with a basic plan of action for expanding RTD-CI processes through the definition of inter-institutional collaborations and the commitment to allocate resources. In this way, the LABTER have been incorporated as one of the key tools of CRM; - Six Interactive Maps of Products and Services with Cultural Identity have been produced and published. The maps are innovation tools for increasing awareness of existing activities in the territories, particularly for stakeholders and entrepreneurs. They also are designed to achieve the recognition and social and economic mobilization of those opportunities. These maps are updated and enriched over time through the stakeholders’ participation in the mapping process; 3. Third dimension: public policies that dialogue between territorial and upper levels and with the private sector. Results: in terms of results, this area refers to the contribution made in order to promote changes in the vision and practice of decision-makers on different levels such as policy design and execution, investments, development programs, local plans, agendas, and platforms. This dimension has two components: (i) incidence spaces, in which some of these changes are visualized; and (ii) dialogue spaces, large-scale areas that have promoted the incidence spaces and others in order to create a more stable and committed platform of RTD-CI partners. - Incidence spaces at territorial level: • Existence of 14 public/private territorial committees with different foci and compositions

that promote local plans and strategies of RTD-CI at different levels of development (1 in Argentina; 4 in Bolivia; 1 in Chile; 2 in Brazil; 1 in Colombia; 1 in Ecuador; 1 in Peru and another three linked to the municipality that are not truly committees).

• An RTD-CI process in the consolidation phase coordinated with one of the seven pilot sites of World Agricultural Heritage– SIPAM Chiloe, Chile.

• BID-FOMIN and FAUTAPO resources committed in the Central Valley of Tarija (Bolivia) in the network of the Grapes, Wines and Singanis Competitiveness collective with the rest of the territorial cultural offer.

• Commitment from two municipal governments from Colca Valley in Peru to create an RTD-CI Unit;

- Incidence spaces at national level: • A Government of Bolivia/ COSUDE (Bioculture) program with coverage on 14 ecosystems. • A Government of Chile program (Regional Identities in SUBDERE) with national coverage

(15 regions). • Creation of an Inter-Institutional Working Group (EPAGRI; MPA; SC Rural; FAPESC;

CREA-SC; SOL) promoting and mobilizing resources for STD-CI in the State of Santa Catarina, in Southern Brazil.

• A proposal to insert the valorization of cultural assets in the management of rural municipalities of Peru;

- Incidence spaces at regional/international level: • Policy lines of Territorial Development in the CAN. • A network and a collaborative plan being built between LAC and the EU (INEA; OECD;

Government of the State of Santa Catarina; other RTD-CI partners in LAC) in four areas: i) research and publications; ii) learning routes; iii) fora and meetings of territorial stakeholders; iv) virtual communication platforms.

• Insertion of the issue of “The Value of Difference” (agricultural products and services with CI) in the Global Intercontinental Learning Network of Small-Scale Producers and Globalized Markets (Asia, Africa, LAC);

- Dialogue spaces: since its inception, the RTD-CI project has promoted spaces for coming together and dialogue among stakeholders and a wide range of institutions. It was not limited to the traditional sector of agricultural entities, but broadened the spectrum to include those from the worlds of art, culture, cuisine, and design. The process began with the construction of trust and then continued with the creation of spaces of incidence. Many of those who attended the first Cuzco Workshop (2006) remain and have been strengthened today as RTD-CI’s main partners. Other international meetings organized in Colombia (2007) and Bolivia (2009) enhanced the network members’ commitment. Since the Rome Conference (2010), a series of specific networking initiatives have emerged between the EU and LAC and were strengthened during the Transcontinental Learning Route (September-October 2011) and the Forum in Santa Catarina, Brazil (November 21-24, 2011) within a framework of South-South-North triangular cooperation to development. In all the cases, territorial stakeholders were called on to reflect on their own experiences and transmit them to the public policy sphere.

The Fourth Phase, 2012-2013: the Intercontinental Platform on Biocultural Diversity and Territories. Today, the RTD-CI Program is promoting an Intercontinental Platform on Biocultural Diversity and Territories in the intent to enhance a scaling-up process of the innovations introduced during these years. The Platform has a “hard nucleus” of partners and donors that contribute in different manners and have broadened the Program’s radius of action. In collaboration with 71 different allies (see Figure 2, Partners and collaborators), it has implemented structural opportunities for coordination and ad hoc agreements, which are thought of as the “strategic nodes” of the network. Both intangible and monetary resources have been mobilized, some of which have been transferred through Rimisp’s institutional channel and some of which have been directly invested in joint initiatives. One of the points of strength of this Platform that clearly put on evidence the real concrete commitment of its members refers to the financial investments raised between late 2005 and May 2011 that totaled USD 2.503.000 (approximately USD 400.000 per year), of which USD 1.153.000 come from the Ford Foundation and USD 1.350.000 was contributed by other partners.

Source: RTD-CI Program 2005-2011 Narrative Report

CONCLUSIONS Development is a complex adaptive process – it is highly local, particular, context-bound, time-specific, path-dependent. (Ramalingam, Ben et al., 2008). To face the complexity of development, the today in-crisis international aid has to change its path, to redefine its goals and logics of intervention. Research and action need to be oriented by a more holistic approach and a transdisciplinary methodology of study and project design and implementation. As the prefix "trans" indicates, transdisciplinarity concerns that which is at once between the disciplines, across the different disciplines, and beyond each individual discipline. Another critical defining characteristic of transdisciplinarity is the inclusion of stakeholders in defining research objectives and strategies in order to better incorporate the diffusion of learning produced by the research. Collaboration between stakeholders is deemed essential - not merely at an academic or disciplinary collaboration level, but through active collaboration with people affected by the research and community-based stakeholders. In such a way, transdisciplinary collaboration becomes uniquely capable of engaging with different ways of knowing the world, generating new knowledge, and helping stakeholders understand and incorporate the results or lessons learned by the research (Nicolescu B., 2008) The transdisciplinary methodology of research and action has been one of the points of strength of the RTD-CI Program together with the strong territorial approach of the initiative. The territorial approach goes beyond the vision of rural as a synonym of agriculture, favoring the perception of a multisectorial and diversified territorial economy. When planning complex actions, we can perceive the possibility of a polyvalent economy, a process of production transformation that listens to and considers local specificities and initiatives. A territory is not merely the physical area, a geographical fragment, but rather a web of relationships with deep historical and political roots and diverse identities that go beyond its natural attributes. Under this mantle, land, water, identity, gender, collective memories, cultural patterns, natural resources, changing landscapes, fauna and flora, coffee and onions, birds in the sky, production systems, farming methods, institutional arrangements, power structures, community networks, parish councils, intangible assets, ancestral sounds, ways of loving, ways of life, collective imagines, customary norms, legends, the past, the present, and dreams of the future are combined, in a marvelous and complex manner. This is the territory; its borders are marked by a culture-based identity. Much of the development experience created in Latin America is unsustainable; because, beneath it all, the developmental perspective turned what had always been ‘multi-sectorial’

into ‘uni-sectoral.’ In general, the rural strategies promote mainly scale economies, as if rural development had, necessarily, to be associated with sectorial modernization. That perspective rejected as “old-fashioned” the local values, accumulated knowledge, ancestral practices, traditions, production methods and cultural ways of life of rural communities, in particular, those composed of agricultural family units. This type of rural development dispensed with the notion of culture. Rural communities were described as lacking; there was no confidence in the local social or cultural forces, characteristic of the territory (Martinez, C 2008). Thinking about new ways of doing territorial development implies abandoning the idea of defining equal solutions for all territories without considering biocultural diversities. We must stop being guided by the idea of per-capita income alone, and must stop looking at rural areas as areas of “lack” - cultural lack, lack of knowledge, lack of human capital - or in territories as an “empty bag” to be filled with technological and bureaucratic solutions developed outside of the territories (Fonte, M. 2012). Rurality has prolonged, multidimensional, changing historic roots, which contain complex paths that translate into specific territorial manifestation of development, that organize themselves, disorganize themselves and reorganize themselves, based mainly on the cultural energy of the many and heterogeneous local societies. The territory is a dynamic concept; the past survives in it and the successive arrangements of the future are created in it. A ‘territorial interpretation’ of sustainable rural development allows us to articulate the old approaches of “combating rural poverty” with the new concepts of production arrangements, integration of small economies into large-scale business enterprises, cooperation networks, shared management and social quality, and thus transcend the closed compensatory perspective. Development strategies emerge out of the specific inner arrangement of each territory (Martinez, C. 2008). This one is another point of strength of the RTD-CI Program that didn’t apply an external planned model of development to all the territories. Sustainable rural development requires that we listen carefully to the proposals made by the social actors who know the potential of their historical territory, who add the collective and shared knowledge, who have intelligent and sensible answers to the ecological, cultural, economic and political issues, who are close to the essence of social life. It is also possible to reorganize arrangements, to open up opportunities for access to knowledge, information and production assets, stimulating innovation processes that lead to higher levels of sustainable and inclusive productivity. To invest in social quality we must create collective learning environments (Martinez, C. 2008).

To foster a sustainable territorial development we cannot avoid considering the close relation and integration between the rural an urban realities and the important role played by the intermediate cities. The RTD-CI intent for the future is to investigate and better understand these deep links and correlated dynamics. We know that urban society is present in rural society and vice versa. Hence, we must observe the connections between rural and urban societies – production, political, cultural and social connections – in order to visualize converging interests and foster the creation of synergies among the policies of both rural and urban social actors, exploring patterns of ‘multi-sectorial’ diversity capable of leading to scale ecologies (Martinez, C. 2008). A central node in this issue is the creation of sustainable market opportunities for the small entrepreneurs. This is a challenge that the RTD-CI has always considered fundamental to enhance a sustainable territorial development, trying to identify and promote strategies and practices mainly oriented to local and regional markets opportunities, also related to auto-consumption, food security and food sovereignty issues. But still more has to come on this perspective. Offering unique products with considerable and specific added value that are clearly identified and offer biotic, human and cultural traceability is a road with economic multipliers and social and ecological respect that reduce unacceptable disparities in the region (which presents the greatest inequality in the world in income distribution in spite of its persistent economic growth). Inequality, which is partly generated by a model that is always more of the same, can be reduced by using new ideas, locations and people, supporting local entrepreneurs who generate products linked to their place of origin, services linked to culture, unique images and sensations with high added value, experiential tourism services, etc. But no matter how numerous and enthusiastic they are, individual entrepreneurs cannot do it alone. They need local and territorial authorities that focus on creating a favorable environment, a set of measures and foci that add value and creativity/innovation to their territory. This is where territorial development programs must play a specific role. This is where added spaces for territorial marketing are generated: based on the sum of the talents and wills of territorial stakeholders that attract and retain investors based on territorial development, that multiply in the spaces of cities and towns where they want to stay and grow, that generate brands, reinforce identities and value culture. “Culture is nothing more than our capacity to create, invent, build, maintain, and redesign atmospheres for a more advanced humanity, for the life we want to live” - Tony Puig (Haudry de Soucy, R. 2012). Culture as an aspect in sustainable development is increasingly emerging both in academic discourses and policies, but still searching for its place even if rural culture is seen – in

particular by the various kind of local and regional developing program – as an instrument for rural economy: in that case culture is often understood in material terms, for example as heritage buildings and traditional landscapes. Understanding “culture” in the context of sustainable development of rural areas is relatively vague (Soini, K. and Kivitalo, M. and Kangas, A. 2012). Throughout the past decade, statistics, indicators and data on the cultural sector, as well as operational activities have underscored that culture can be a powerful driver for development, with community-wide social, economic and environmental impacts12. Of particular relevance is the cultural sector’s contribution to the economy and poverty alleviation. Cultural heritage, cultural and creative industries, sustainable cultural tourism, and cultural infrastructure can serve as strategic tools for revenue generation, particularly in developing countries given their often-rich cultural heritage and substantial labor force. Cultural and creative industries represent one of the most rapidly expanding sectors in the global economy with a growth rate of 17.6 % in the Middle East, 13.9 % in Africa, 11.9 % in South America, 9.7 % in Asia, 6.9 % in Oceania, and 4.3 % in North and Central America. Promoting this sector requires limited capital investment, involves low entry barriers and can have a direct impact on vulnerable populations, including women. In Ecuador, recent studies show that the formal and private cultural activities contributed 4.76% to the 2010 GDP and in the same year, 2.64% of the total employed population worked in cultural occupations. Culture-led development also includes a range of non-monetized benefits, such as greater social inclusiveness and rootedness, resilience, innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship for individuals and communities, and the use of local resources, skills, and knowledge. Cultural factors also influence lifestyles, individual behavior, consumption patterns, values related to environmental stewardship, and our interaction with the natural environment. Local and indigenous knowledge systems and environmental management practices provide valuable insight and tools for tackling ecological challenges, preventing biodiversity loss, reducing land degradation, and mitigating the effects of climate change. The integration of culture into sustainable development strategies and policies advances a human-centered and inclusive approach to development, in addition to serving as a powerful socio-economic resource. Culture is transversal and crosscutting concern and, as such, affects all the dimensions of development. However, consideration for the role of culture in sustainable development requires that due attention be paid to processes as well as outcomes (UNESCO, 2012).

12 By January 2012, culture was included in 70% of the United Nations Development Assistance Frameworks.

In order to improving social wellbeing we have to be able to measure it. Differentiating subjective wellbeing by place opens up a number of fascinating theoretical and empirical opportunities for human geography - a discipline whose primary claim to relevance is its focus on the relationship between people, environment and place. The issue of indicators to drive public policies and also private investments is always a critical issue and the Biocultural Diversity-driven innovation for development doesn’t escape the tendency. The approaches briefly described in this paper are in the process of elaborating accountable and sustainable wellbeing indicators able to orient public-private long-term investments in Biocultural Diversity-driven sustainable territorial development. So is doing the RTD-CI Program, based on its first outcomes and on its first intents to scale-up the lessons learned and to empower its public and private incidence and dialogue on a local, national and regional level. The Biocultural Diversity-driven innovation process designed and implemented all over these years by the RTD-CI Program is a social innovation-based process. Innovation is considered as a social and cultural instrument to be shared among the territorial actors to foster the change driving a territorial development able to generate a socially inclusive and sustainable wellbeing. A sustainable development process driven by social innovation links together resilience, vulnerability, adaptation and an agency-based approach. Showing the phases and the outcomes of the RTD-CI Program in a similar report format on this paper was meant to leave the reader independently taking on account if and in which way the program really achieved to begin a social innovation-based process. Here I am giving some reading and analyzing clues to better contextualize and evaluate the first outcomes and scaling-up intents, without which we cannot talk of social innovation-based process of development. Social innovation is an initiative, product or process, which profoundly changes the basic routines, resource and authority flows or beliefs of any social system in a direction of greater resilience. Successful social innovations have durability, impact and scale. From a social innovation (SI) perspective, vulnerability is a measure of those cultures, social groups and ideas that are disenfranchised from resources and are threatened with extinction. They represent a key source of diversity, which could be lost and is an important resource for social innovation. (Re)engaging vulnerable populations increases the diversity of the whole. From an SI perspective resilience is, like sustainability, linked to the capacity to balance a healthy environment with a vibrant economy with social justice. It suggests, however, a focus on continuous change and a cross-scale dynamic rather than a stable state at any scale. In this dynamic the sources of novelty can be: (i) process: new forms of management; whole complex adaptive system approaches: new forms of knowledge production; (ii) technical: new forms of energy, food production, species conservation, policy and economic

instruments; (iii) Knowledge based: Resilience, vulnerability and innovation are all context specific. Our capacity to ask questions, frame issues and approach these in novel ways in itself can be transformative. Social innovators express a deep resonance with the adaptive cycle (a theory of the relationship of transformation to resilience). In the adaptive cycle occurring in a transformation due to development processes driven by innovations the change can lead to 4 different regimes: (i) reorganization or exploration; (ii) exploitation; (iii) conservation; (iv) creative destruction. This is not the occasion to get deeper in it but what is important to underline is that the time of change is known as “critical transition” and represents a difficult passage when many innovations get trapped. Key points at this stage are the capacities of the leaders and innovators and the scaling-up and cross-scale strategies that have to foster the innovation-driven change at institutional, organizational, network or group and individual level (Westley, F. 2010). The RTD-CI focused its actions with a great emphasis on these two key points, betting on the identification and empowering of young territorial leaders and innovators (many times women) and building up a multilevel platform to later forward a scaling-up strategy (Westley, F. 2010). Keys to self-transformation of systems are (Parsons, T. 1951): Goal orientation - specific intent in the form of deliberate and emergent strategies Adaptation - capacity to continuously respond to change - learning Integration - connections between people, organizations (networks, social capital etc.) Latency - the capacity for identity, social memory and pattern persistence Finally, all these development dynamics require an agency-based approach, which allows for exploration of the strategies and skills key to cross-scale transformation. The RTD-CI has still many challenges to face but we believe it is on the right path, working for an agency-based appropriation process to build resilient, creative, sustainable territorial economies.

Bibliography

Argumedo, A (2008) The Potato Park, Peru: Conserving agrobiodiversity in an Andean Indigenous Biocultural Heritage Area, in Amend, T., Brown, J., Kothari A., Phillips, A., Stolton, S. eds. Protected Landscapes and Agrobiodiversity Values. Vol 1 in the series, Protected Landscapes and Seascapes, IUCN & GTZ. Kaspareg Verlag, Heidelberg. Barca, Fabrizio (2005), “Conclusions to Designing and Implementing Rural Development Policies”, Mexican Ministry of Social Development and OECD International Conference: “Designing and Implementing Rural Development Policy”, 7-8 April, Oaxaca, Mexico. Calvo, G. and Torey, S. (2010) Diversidad biocultural: un tesoro a medio explorar. Equitierra. Revista Rural Latinoamericana n.7. RIMISP, Santiago de Chile, Chile. Igusa, K. (2004) Globalization in Asia and Local Revitalization Efforts: A View from One Village One Product (OVOP) Movement in Oita. Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University. Oita, Japan. Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment (2010). Satoyama-Satoumi Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Socio-ecological Production Landscapes of Japan – Summary for Decision Makers. United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan. Maffi, L. (2005) Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological Diversity. The Annual Review of Anthropology 2005. 29:599–617 Martinez, C. (2008) Social Quality and Sustainable Development of Rural Territories Why must sociability be capitalized? Rural Development Technical Handbook No. 34. Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA). Nicolescu, B. (2008). Transdisciplinarity - Theory and Practice (Ed.), Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ, USA. Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. New York: The Free Press, 1951. Ramalingam, Ben et al. (2008) Exploring the science of complexity: Ideas and implications for development and humanitarian efforts. ODI Working Paper 285, London, UK. Resilience Alliance (2010). Assessing resilience in social-ecological systems: Workbook for practitioners. Version 2.0. Online: http://www.resalliance.org/3871.php

Ranaboldo, C. and Schejtman, A. Editors (2009), The Value of Cultural Heritage, Latin American Rural Areas, Experiences and Projections. Introduction. IEP and RIMISP, Lima and Santiago, Peru and Chile. Soini, K. and Kivitalo, M. and Kangas, A. University of Jyväskylä, Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, Cultural Policy and Social Policy. Exploring culture in sustainable rural development. Paper presented in the International Conference on Cultural Policy Research (ICCPR) 2012 ‘Culture, politics and cultural policies’ 9‐12 July 2012 – Barcelona. UNESCO, 2012. Culture: a driver and an enabler of sustainable development. UN System task team on the post-2015 UN Development Agenda. Thematic Think Piece.. Westley, F. (2010). Social Innovation Generation, University of Waterloo, Canada