In situ conservation of native Andean potatoes, involution and care

By Ingrid Hall, Department of Anthropology, University of Montréal

The domestication and evolution of plants is too often discussed as a specific field within the purview of biology. Here I propose to lay the groundwork for an alternative narrative to this evolutionary perspective, which Hustak and Myers (2013) refer to as “involution.” Cultivated biodiversity, that is, the diversity of cultivated varieties of a specific species, is not the result of a natural process that humans have unconsciously taken advantage of. Rather, the contributions of the humans who domesticated and selected plants have played and still play a primary role (Coomes et al. 2015). The case of Andean potatoes (landraces) shows that this evolutionary perspective neglects a whole body of knowledge. I defend the idea that these tubers have co-evolved with humans, and that the understanding of this co-evolutionary process is essential for thinking about existing biodiversity on the one hand, but also highlights the contemporary evolutionary principles of in situ cultivated biodiversity. This co-evolution makes sense in a logic of subsistence, but I strongly believe that this pragmatic view is not enough. This logic has to be replaced with a broader ethical framework; the concept of care (van Dooren 2017) involves a strong affective charge (Haraway 2019; Hustak et Myers 2013). These reflections come from extended exchanges with Andean peasants, for whom potatoes are an essential food, and whose cultivation represents a fundamental activity on both practical and symbolic levels.

Potatoes were domesticated 7000 years ago in the central Andes (Dillehay, Bonavia, et Kaulicke 2004). Traces of this history are still perceptible today through the 4000 landraces and nearly 200 wild relatives that result from this long process. Moreover, many of these native varieties are still cultivated by the peasants of the Andean communities, especially those located above 4000m of altitude (Haan 2009). These landraces and their wild relatives represent an invaluable genetic treasure. They contain genes for resistance to drought, frost or certain diseases and viruses. Therefore, they allow for the possibility, through selection or biotechnology,  to create new varieties adapted to new environments and/or changing climatic conditions. In other words, they can help to face the effects of climate change.

As a number of scholars have noted, since the 1970s, the global governance of biodiversity has put the emphasis on ex situ conservation (Girard et Frison 2018; Halewood, López Noriega, et Louafi 2013; Pistorius 1997). This approach rests on germplasm banks for primary food crops such as wheat, maize, rice or potatoes. This involves conserving this biodiversity in large laboratories with different methods (Ellis et alli 2019). With this kind of conservation, the biological material is not evolving anymore. On the contrary, in situ or on-farm, this material still evolves according to fluctuating climatic conditions. Since the 1970s, some scholars have emphasized the fact that in situ conservation would be more adapted to the objective stated by international bodies (in particular the FAO) to conserve cultivated biodiversity (Brush 2000, 2004). In situ conversation is also more difficult to organize on a global scale, and as a result it has largely been left behind by UN agencies (Food and agriculture organization (FAO)[1] and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA)[2]).

For small farmers, the conservation of intraspecific biodiversity is not an objective in itself. They are generally more occupied by the production, consumption and sale of their products, and maintaining this intraspecific biodiversity is for them a strategy to reduce the risks linked to climatic and sanitary hazards. Precariousness of small farmers, then, often favors in situ conservation of biodiversity of cultivated plants. The maintenance of a wide variety of cultivars is then the consequence of a set of practices articulated around food production, but it goes far beyond this framework. This diversity of landraces is also embedded with culinary and cultural preferences. But even beyond this, obtaining a good harvest is the result of a process of accompanying the plants, which is exemplified by the use of the Quechua verb uyway, which also means to take care of a human child (see also Allen 2019 and the beautiful video made by the Peruvian NGO ANDES and Black Maria[3]). This terminology is significant for how plants are conceived and how humans view their role in their growth and reproduction processes.

For the small farmers of the communities of Pisac (Cusco) with whom I conducted observations and interviews, potatoes have a soul (animu) comparable to that of humans (Hall, Forthcoming). Animu is a vital energy essential to the life and the reproduction of plants. Upon closer examination, this energy is both physical and spiritual, and is closely associated with the affective states of the subjects, whether human or not. Thus, potatoes should not be sad, they must live a “good life” (sumaq kawsay), otherwise their reproduction would be compromised. To avoid this, potatoes must be treated well. This means that they have to be socialized at different levels. They must be grown with their peers in mixed groups (ch'aqro) (this is still generalized for family production, but it is evolving for the commercial production). Intra-species socialization is then considered essential: potatoes need company, and have certain affinities (or not) with each other.

Moreover, tubers also socialize with the humans who grow them and take care of them; they have personal and emotional relations with humans. All activities must be done respectfully (con respeto) and kindly (con cariño), and some are essential to delight them (alegrar). For example, when the potatoes are flourishing, music must be played for them. During harvest, women must be barefoot, cleaning potatoes carefully. In addition, different rituals are performed at different stages of the cycle; these rituals involve not only plants and humans but also other non-human beings. The Earth in particular, often called Pachamama in the Andes, is solicited, as well as the apu, its male partners who are indispensable to plant reproduction. The apu and the Pachamama are also the guardians of ethical principles that govern human life. Violence, laziness or disrespect are often punished: humans can get sick, or they can have poor harvests. Humans then have a responsibility to provide the best possible conditions for the reproduction of their plants, to ensure them a "good life" (sumaq kawsay) and assure a good harvest. Their responsibility is to provide a rich, respectful and fulfilling social life that includes humans and also non-humans. Agricultural activities, thus, are entangled with ethical and affective principles that influence them. In this sense, we can speak of coevolution (Haraway 2019).

Understanding the social, ethical, and affective dimensions of agricultural practices, in my view, allows us to better understand the historical process of creating cultivated biodiversity, and the ongoing processes of its adaptation. It is also essential to highlight the active participation of small farmers and their ancestors in the creation of the biodiversity of cultivated plants. This kind of perspective shows the key role of peasants in the creation and maintenance of the biodiversity of their crops, and therefore would help to the recognition of their rights. In reality, though, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas adopted in 2018 (https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1650694) remains very difficult to implement, especially regarding intellectual property rights (Girard et Frison 2021). Taking the small farmers’ ethics of care seriously could help to shift from the scientific/naturalistic view of biodiversity, promoting a grounded ontology for these resources, especially for food crops.

Footnotes
[1] https://www.fao.org/about/en/.

[2] https://www.fao.org/plant-treaty/overview/texts-treaty/en/.

[3] file:///C:/Users/halli/Zotero/storage/EZR5EJM7/200658165.html.

References

Allen, Catherine J. 2019. « Righting Imbalance: Striving for Well-Being in the Andes ». Science, Religion and Culture 6, no 1 (2019): 6‑14.

Brush, Stephen B. 2000. Genes in the Field: On-Farm Conservation of Crop Diversity. IDRC.

Brush, Stephen B. 2004. Farmers’ Bounty: Locating Crop Diversity in the Contemporary World. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Coomes, Oliver T., Shawn J. McGuire, Eric Garine, Sophie Caillon, Doyle McKey, Elise Demeulenaere, Devra Jarvis, Guntra Aistara, Adeline Barnaud, Pascal Clouvel, Laure Emperaire, SélimLouafi, Pierre Martin, François Massol, Marco Pautasso, ChloéViolon, et Jean Wencélius. 2015. « Farmer Seed Networks Make a Limited Contribution to Agriculture? Four Common Misconceptions ». Food Policy 56:41‑50. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.07.008.

Dillehay, Tom D., DucioBonavia, et Peter Kaulicke. 2004. « The FisrtSettlers ». P. 16‑34 dans Andean archaeology, Blackwell studies in global archaeology, édité par H. Silverman. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

van Dooren, Thom. 2017. « Making Worlds with Crows ». RCC Perspectives: Transformations in Environment and Society 1:59‑66.

Girard, Fabien, et Christine Frison, éd. 2018. The Commons, Plant Breeding and Agricultural Research: Challenges for Food Security and Agrobiodiversity. Abington, NewYork: Routledge.

Girard, Fabien, et Christine Frison. 2021. « From Farmers’ Rights to the Rights of Peasants: Seeds and the Biocultural Turn ». Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies. doi: 10.1007/s41130-021-00163-x.

Hall, Ingrid. Forthcoming, " L’énigmatique sourire de la pomme de terre", in C. Byl, A. Cappe, F. Laugrand, N. Loodts & L. Simon éd., Substances, représentations, relations et communications.

Haan, Stef de. 2009. Potato Diversity at Height. International Potato Center.

Halewood, Michael, Isabel López Noriega, et SélimLouafi, éd. 2013. Crop genetic resources as a global commons : challenges in international law and governance. Abingdon, NewYork: Earthscan Routledge.

Haraway, Donna Jeanne. 2019. Manifeste des espèces compagnes: chiens, humains et autres partenaires. Paris: Climat.

Hustak, Carla, et Natasha Myers. 2013. « Involutionary Momentum: Affective Ecologies and the Sciences of Plant/Insect Encounters ». differences 23:74‑118. doi: 10.1215/10407391-1892907.

Pistorius, Robin. 1997. Scientists, Plants and Politics: A History of the Plant Genetic Resources Movement. Rome: Bioversity International.