TWN Info Service on Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge (Aug26/10)
26 August 2026
Third World Network

Diplomacy with a difference

Penang, 26 Aug (Lean Ka-Min): In its conduct of multilateral relations, one country sought not so much to work within the confines of the international system as to actively reshape the conceptual underpinnings of that system.

Beyond defending its national interests in the global diplomatic arena, the foreign policy of Bolivia aimed also to promote a new international order rooted in the epistemology, ontology and philosophy of Living Well in harmony with Mother Earth. The contours of this policy are outlined in the digital publication Bolivia’s Foreign Policy from the Culture of Life (2006–2025): Influence in the Multilateral Negotiations of the United Nations.

Published in May, the book (available here) is authored by Diego Pacheco Balanza and Erwin Freddy Mamani Machaca. Pacheco Balanza is former head of the Bolivian delegation to the intergovernmental environmental fora UNFCCC, CBD, IPBES and IPCC. Mamani Machaca served as Bolivia’s Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The 2006–25 timeframe covered by the book reflects the period (save for a one-year spell in between) when the Movement Toward Socialism – Instrument for the Sovereignty of the Peoples (MAS-IPSP) party was at the helm of government in Bolivia. It was during this time that the indigenous worldview of Living Well was enshrined in the constitution as one of the supreme objectives of the Plurinational State of Bolivia. Article 8 of the constitution establishes that “[t]he State is founded upon the values of unity, equality, inclusion, dignity, freedom, solidarity, reciprocity, respect, complementarity, harmony, transparency, balance, equality of opportunities, social and gender equity in participation, common welfare, responsibility, social justice, distribution and redistribution of social products and goods, in order to live well”.

In the field of foreign policy, the constitution calls for, as one of the governing principles, “rejection and condemnation of all forms of dictatorship, colonialism, neocolonialism, and imperialism”. This mandate, according to the book, “does not constitute a symbolic declaration, but rather an operational directive guiding the international action of the State. This principle implies recognizing that the current structures of the international system are not neutral, but instead reproduce historical relations of domination, inequality, and exploitation.”

In place of these inequitable international arrangements, Bolivian foreign policy “proposes an alternative grounded in the Culture of Life, the complementarity of rights – including the rights of Mother Earth – and the centrality of life. In this sense, Living Well is positioned as a counter-hegemonic proposal that seeks to transform international relations from a civilizational perspective, as an alternative horizon of life”, say Pacheco Balanza and Mamani Machaca. They maintain that “Bolivia has become the foremost international exponent of the centrality of the Culture of Life in addressing the current civilizational crisis”.

This “structural crisis of the capitalist system and the modern Western civilizational model” is manifested in such pressing threats as climate change, environmental degradation and economic inequality, but the responses generated within the existing multilateral domain fall woefully short of an effective solution. The ubiquitous concept of “sustainable development” illustrates this insufficiency, the book contends.

While it has become the dominant framework for addressing economic, environmental and social concerns, and has led to some progress in these areas, conventional sustainable development suffers from “structural limitations that restrict its capacity to respond to the magnitude of the contemporary crisis”, say Pacheco Balanza and Mamani Machaca. The amorphous nature of the concept allows it to be interpreted “in ways that do not challenge the structural foundations of the dominant economic model”, reducing “sustainability” to a band-aid applied on top of chronically destructive production systems.

Moreover, the prevailing understanding of sustainable development is based on the anthropocentric premise that “human beings constitute the center and measure of all things”. This, the book says, has brought about “a relationship of domination that has transformed Mother Earth into an object of exploitation and merchandise, stripping her of her condition as a living subject”. Additionally, the compartmentalisation of sustainable development into economic, environmental and social dimensions produces fragmented policy measures that “fail to address the interdependencies among the different components and vital functions of Mother Earth”.

Pacheco Balanza and Mamani Machaca contrast the anthropocentric paradigm with the cosmobiocentric approach promoted by Bolivia, which recognises that “human beings are part of a broader system of relationships that includes all living beings and the components of Mother Earth”. Accordingly, “[t]he transition toward Living Well implies overcoming the Western civilizational model based on capitalism, advancing instead toward a culture of life that values complementarity, solidarity, and balance among all living beings”.

In seeking to advance the Living Well agenda within the multilateral sphere, Bolivia has recorded successes, faced challenges and encountered resistance. The book documents the Bolivian experience on this front in several international fora, from the United Nations General Assembly and UN Environmental Assembly to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

In the UNFCCC arena, for example, Bolivia has promoted non-market approaches (NMAs) as an alternative form of climate action in the face of a prevailing dependence on market mechanisms such as carbon markets. Market mechanisms, say Pacheco Balanza and Mamani Machaca, envision Nature as tradeable assets while consigning developing countries to economic marginalisation. In contrast, NMAs are put forward by Bolivia not only as means of reducing carbon emissions but also as instruments linking climate action with objectives of social justice and structural transformation of development models. Instead of commodifying Nature, NMAs comprise “direct cooperation, knowledge exchange, capacity building” and the integration of climate mitigation and adaptation actions, as exemplified by joint mitigation and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests.

Bolivia’s advocacy invokes Article 6.8 of the Paris Agreement on climate change, which recognises the importance of enabling “integrated, holistic and balanced” NMAs, including through “mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology transfer and capacity building”. The NMA agenda, the book notes, has made some headway within the UN climate regime in the form of a work programme and a committee on NMAs, as well as the establishment of a web-based platform to facilitate opportunities to implement NMAs by exchanging information and highlighting areas where support is needed.

Progress has nevertheless been limited, with more effective operationalisation of Article 6.8 impeded by developed countries in favour of market mechanisms backed by powerful economic interests. Pacheco Balanza and Mamani Machaca underline the requirement for greater financial and institutional support for NMAs in order to confront the climate crisis “from a genuinely transformative perspective”.

It is this transformative ethos that informed Bolivia’s broader diplomacy in 2006–25, a period that saw the country consistently articulate the Living Well agenda within the negotiation halls of the UN and other multilateral fora. In addition to promoting non-market approaches in the climate talks, Bolivian foreign policy has opened up space for recognising Mother Earth–centred pathways and the rights of Indigenous Peoples elsewhere in the UN system, the book states.

The book shows that important conceptual shifts have taken place across the UN system. Different UN fora increasingly recognise the need to engage with diverse epistemologies and ontologies, particularly those rooted in Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems and worldviews. Concepts and approaches such as Living Well, the plural values of Nature, Mother Earth–centred actions, and the rights of Mother Earth have gradually entered and shaped discussions across different areas of the UN. As the book highlights, these are no longer peripheral ideas but necessary subjects of multilateral discussion, reflection and knowledge generation in confronting today’s interconnected global challenges.

However, “[t]he advances achieved take place within a context of strong structural resistance”, say Pacheco Balanza and Mamani Machaca. So long as the anthropocentric paradigm holds sway within the international system, cosmobiocentric approaches cannot be fully realised. Further, “institutional limitations within the United Nations” have hindered the implementation of important decisions, “revealing a gap between discourse and practice”. Moreover, the continuity of Bolivia’s groundbreaking foreign policy is itself in doubt following a change of national government in 2025.

Moving forward the Living Well agenda amid these challenges will require, among others, the strengthening of international alliances, especially within the developing world, and Pacheco Balanza and Mamani Machaca are clear-eyed about the enormity of the task ahead. As the book concludes: “[T]he foreign policy of the Culture of Life is projected to the world as one of the most advanced and systematic experiences in the construction of civilizational alternatives from the Global South, whose future projection will depend on the capacity to sustain, deepen, and expand this horizon within an increasingly complex and contested international context.”