Indigenous Enviromental Knowledge and its Transformations

Critical Anthropological Perspectives

Alan Bicker, Roy Ellen, Peter Parkes, Alan Bicker, Roy Ellen, Peter Parkes

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2003
• Topic: Social Sciences
• eBook ISBN:
  9781135295134
• Subtopic: Anthropology
• Index: Social Sciences

The first concerted critical examination of the uses and abuses of indigenous knowledge. The contributors focus on a series of interrelated issues in their interrogation of indigenous knowledge and its specific applications within the localised contexts of particular Asian societies and regional cultures. In particular they explore the problems of translation and mistranslation in the local-global transference of traditional practices and representations of resources.

Chapter 1
ETHNOBIOLOGY AND ETHNOECOLOGY IN THE CONTEXT OF NATIONAL LAWS AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS AFFECTING INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL KNOWLEDGE, TRADITIONAL RESOURCES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

Darrell Addison Posey

Over the past twenty years, indigenous peoples—together with their languages, cultures, and knowledge systems—have become the focus of increasing international attention. In part this is the result of growing interest in the use of traditional knowledge held by local communities on the utilization of flora and fauna, and in the genetic resources, such as agricultural landraces and medicinal plants, held by indigenous peoples, with a potential for the biotechnology development of new products by the pharmaceutical, agrochemical, seed, cosmetics and nutraceutical industries.¹ Frequently cited figures indicating the enormous market potential of bioprospecting²—such as US$ 43 billion per year for sales of natural-product based pharmaceuticals (Principe 1989), US$ 50 billion per year for seeds derived from traditional crop varieties (RAFI 1994: 19), and similar figures for other natural compounds—have increasingly led countries rich in biological and cultural diversity to treat their flora, fauna and traditional knowledge as valuable national resources that must be protected from unauthorized exploitation, being ‘developed’ instead to benefit the country and its citizens.

INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES’ KNOWLEDGE IN CONSERVATION AND SCIENCE

Science has increasingly recognized the importance of Indigenous Knowledge (IK, as used in this volume) in advancing hypotheses and enriching scientific knowledge in such disciplines as botany, ecology, zoology, entomology, forestry and agriculture (Posey 1986). Local and indigenous knowledge has also become central to conservation and development projects, along with a philosophical shift from implementing top-down management to community-based participation (Kalland, this volume). IK has been shown to be extraordinarily successful in the sustainable utilization of natural resources. Indeed, the concept of sustainability is embodied in indigenous and traditional livelihood systems (Posey and Dutfield 1996). Historical evidence exists of the sustained productivity of indigenous systems, applied in some cases for thousands of years on the same land.³ Indigenous peoples and traditional communities often possess a ‘conservation ethic’⁴ developed from living in particular ecosystems (Bierhorst 1994; Callicott 1989). This ethic cannot be regarded as universal, but indigenous systems do tend to emphasize the following specific values and features (Posey and Dutfield 1996):

• cooperation;
• family bonding and cross-generational communication, including links with ancestors;
• concern for the well-being of future generations;
• local scale, self-sufficiency, and reliance on locally available natural resources;
• rights to lands, territories and resources which tend to be collective and inalienable rather than individual and alienable;⁵
• restraint in resource exploitation and respect for nature, especially for sacred sites.

The ‘traditional knowledge, innovations and practices’ of ‘indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles’ are often referred to by scientists as Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK).⁶ TEK is far more than a simple compilation of facts: it is the basis for local-level decision-making in areas of contemporary life, including natural resource management, nutrition, food preparation, health, education, and community and social organization. TEK is holistic, inherently dynamic, and constantly evolving through experimentation and innovation, fresh insight, and external stimuli. Scientists are becoming increasingly aware of the sophistication of TEK among many indigenous and local communities. For example, the Shuar people of the Amazonian lowlands of Ecuador use eight hundred species of plants for medicine, food, animal fodder, fuel, construction, fishing and hunting supplies. Traditional healers may rely on thousands of medicinal plants, and shifting cultivators throughout the tropics frequently sow more than a hundred varieties of crops in their forest farms (ibid.).

A failure to understand the human-modified nature of ‘wild’ landscapes, including those which are sparsely populated at the present time, has blinded outsiders to the management practices of indigenous peoples and local communities (Gomez-Pompa and Kaus 1992). Many so-called ‘pristine’ landscapes are in fact cultural landscapes, either created by humans or modified by human activity, such as natural forest management, cultivation and the use of fire (Balée 1996; Denevan 1992). Indigenous peoples, and a growing number of scientists, believe that it is no longer acceptable simply to assume that just because landscapes and species appear to outsiders (no matter how competent or famous they may be as scientific specialists) to be ‘natural’, they are therefore ‘wild’. According to a resolution sponsored by Aboriginal peoples at the 1995 Ecopolitics IX Conference in Darwin, Australia NLC 1996: 166):

The term ‘wilderness’ as it is popularly used, and related concepts as ‘wild resources’, ‘wild foods’, etc., [are unacceptable]. These terms have connotations of terra nullius [empty or unowned land and resources] and, as such, all concerned people and organizations should look for alternative terminology which does not exclude indigenous history and meaning.

For indigenous peoples, forests are far more than just a source of timber. Most traditional peoples who inhabit forests, or areas close to forests, rely extensively upon hunted, collected or gathered foods and resources, a significant portion of which are, or have been, manipulated by humans to meet their needs. These non-domesticated resources (NDRs)—sometimes also known as ‘semi-domesticates’ or ‘human modified species’ (Posey 1994a, 1997)—form the basis for a vast treasury of useful species that science has systematically undervalued and overlooked, yet they provide food and medicinal security for local communities around the world.⁷ For example, their children often supplement vitamin requirements by gathering fruits and seeds in the forests. In many countries, there are ancient forest groves which are sacred places dedicated for rituals. These may also have great conservation importance for the communities for their use as burial sites or as sources of valued medicinal plants (Posey and Dutfield 1997). Indigenous peoples also plant forest gardens and manage the regeneration of bush fallows in ways which take advantage of natural processes and mimic the biodiversity of natural forests.⁸

Much of the world’s crop diversity is in the custody of farmers who still follow age-old farming and land-use practices that conserve biodiversity and provide other local benefits. Among such benefits are the promotion of indigenous diet diversity, income generation, production stability, minimization of risk, reduced insect and disease incidence, efficient use of labour, intensification of production with limited resources, and maximization of returns under low levels of technology. These ecologically-complex agricultural systems, often associated with centres of crop genetic diversity, utilize traditional cultivars or ‘landraces’ that constitute an essential part of our world crop genetic heritage, as well as non-domesticated plant and animal species that serve humanity as biological resources. There are numerous categories of traditional knowledge among indigenous peoples which clearly have great potential for application in a wide range of sustainability strategies. Indigenous peoples conserve biological diversity, and in some cases provide other environmental benefits, for example, soil and water conservation, soil fertility enhancement, and management of game and fisheries (Posey and Dutfield 1997).

Globally, there is a growing recognition of the ‘inextricable link’⁹ between biological and cultural diversity that has stimulated a process of re-evaluation of the importance of indigenous peoples in the international community. The United Nations has become the primary forum for this process through discussions on indigenous rights by ECOSOC’s Working Group on Indigenous Populations, which has developed the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DDRIP, see Appendix 1). The DDRIP is the result of over a decade of negotiations by indigenous peoples in the Working Group. It is now considered the principle UN document guiding debates on indigenous issues and places considerable emphasis on the importance of indigenous and local knowledge systems, which are seen as central to the integrity and well-being of indigenous societies.

The importance of traditional and local knowledge also figures prominently in the Earth Charter, Agenda 21, the Convention to Combat Desertification, and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (see Posey 1996). The CBD was opened for signature during the United Nations Conference on Conservation and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It has now been ratified by over 177 countries, making it the most broadly supported legally binding international agreement in global history. The majority of indigenous peoples regard it as little more than a sovereignty grab by nation states, who want to take over all biological and ecological resources existing on their lands and territories.

The objectives of the Biodiversity Convention, as stated in Article 1 are:

the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, including by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over those resources and to technologies, and by appropriate funding.

‘Rights’ here refers to the sovereign rights of states. Similarly the beneficiaries of equitable sharing are apparently the contracting parties, i.e. the nation states that ratify the CBD, not individuals, indigenous groups or communities. It is important to note that ‘relevant technologies’ can be interpreted to mean either ‘indigenous and traditional technologies’, with reference to the language of Article 18.4, ‘Technical and Scientific Cooperation’, or those based upon traditional ‘knowledge, innovations and practices’, with reference to language used in Article 8.j. The latter article states that each Contracting Party shall:

Subject to its national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and practices.

While indigenous peoples might be flattered by the recognition of their relevance to in situ conservation, they are hardly convinced that the governments that have so often tried to annihilate them, take away their lands and destroy their habitats are now suddenly going to defend their rights. They are also not convinced that—given their suffering and decimation in the past—any ‘equitable sharing’ will ever trickle down to them and their communities, even though they are the sources of both the knowledge and genetic resources that governments are seeking. Thus many indigenous leaders are both frustrated and angry that the very countries which are unwilling to guarantee even their most basic rights (to their lands, their territories, and to the expression and practice of their own languages and customs) are now zealously claiming sovereignty over the plants, animals and resources indigenous peoples have managed, protected and defended, and, indeed, even over the very knowledge that defines and sustains the souls of their peoples and the identities of their cultural systems.

This irony is no better expressed than in the CBD itself, in which intellectual property rights (IPRs) are provided as the only principal mechanism for ‘equitable sharing’ and protection. But IPRs are problematic for developing countries in general, and indigenous, traditional and local communities in particular, for the following reasons:

1. IPRs undermine the free exchange of commonly held resources, while stripping communities of their control over IK, cultural and genetic materials.¹⁰
2. They are intended to benefit society through the granting of exclusive rights to ‘natural’ and ‘juridical’ persons or ‘creative individuals’, not collective entities such as indigenous peoples (cf. the Bellagio Declaration, reproduced in Appendix 3 [after Boyle 1996]).
3. They cannot protect information that does not result from a specific historic act of ‘discovery’. Indigenous knowledge is transgenerational and communally shared. Knowledge may come from ancestor spirits, vision quests, or orally transmission by lineage groups. It is considered to be in the ‘public domain’ and, therefore, unprotectable.
4. They cannot accommodate complex non-western systems of ownership, tenure and access. IPR law assigns authorship of a song to a writer or publishing company that can record or publish it as it sees fit. Indigenous singers, however, may attribute songs to the creator spirit, and elders may reserve the right to prohibit its performance, or to limit it to certain occasions and to restricted audiences.
5. They serve to stimulate commercialization and distribution, whereas indigenous concerns may be primarily to prohibit commercialization and to restrict use and distribution. As a statement from COICA (The Coordinating Group of the Indigenous Peoples of the Amazon Basin), made in 1994, put it:
   For members of indigenous peoples, knowledge and determination of the use of resources are collective and inter-generational. No indigenous population, whether of individuals or communities, nor the government, can sell or transfer ownership of resources which are the property of the people and which each generation has an obligation to safeguard for the next.
6. They recognize only market economic values, failing to consider spiritual, aesthetic or cultural—or even local economic—values. Information or objects may have their greatest value to indigenous peoples because of their ties with cultural identity and symbolic unity.
7. They are subject to manipulation by economic interests that wield political power. Sui generis protection has been obtained for semi-conductor chips and ‘literary works’ generated by computers (Cornish 1993), whereas indigenous peoples have insufficient power to protect even their most sacred plants, places, or artefacts.
8. They are expensive, complicated and time-consuming to obtain, and even more difficult to defend.
9. IPRs are intended to benefit society through the granting of exclusive rights to ‘natural’ and ‘juridical’ persons or ‘creative individuals’, not collective entities such as indigenous peoples.
10. Contemporary intellectual property law is constructed around the notion of the author as an individual, solitary and original creator, and it is for this figure that its protections are reserved. Those who do not fit this model—custodians of ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• LIST OF MAPS, PLATES AND TABLES
• NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
• PREFACE
• INTRODUCTION
• Chapter 1: ETHNOBIOLOGY AND ETHNOECOLOGY IN THE CONTEXT OF NATIONAL LAWS AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS AFFECTING INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL KNOWLEDGE, TRADITIONAL RESOURCES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
• Chapter 2: ‘WE WANDER IN OUR ANCESTORS’ YARD’: SEA CUCUMBER GATHERING IN ARU, EASTERN INDONESIA
• Chapter 3: THE CONSTRUCTION AND DESTRUCTION OF ‘INDIGENOUS’ KNOWLEDGE IN INDIA’S JOINT FOREST MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME
• Chapter 4: CLAIMS TO KNOWLEDGE, CLAIMS TO CONTROL ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT IN THE GREAT HIMALAYAN NATIONAL PARK, INDIA
• Chapter 5: LOCATING INDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL KNOWLEDGE IN INDONESIA
• Chapter 6: ‘INDIGENOUS’ REGIONALISM IN JAPAN
• Chapter 7: THE USE OF FIRE IN NORTHEASTERN LUZON (PHILIPPINES): CONFLICTING VIEWS OF LOCAL PEOPLE, SCIENTISTS, AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
• Chapter 8: THE LIFE-CYCLE OF INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE, AND THE CASE OF NATURAL RUBBER PRODUCTION
• Chapter 9: ENCLAVED KNOWLEDGE: INDIGENT AND INDIGNANT REPRESENTATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AMONG THE KALASHA OF PAKISTAN
• Chapter 10: ENDANGERED FOREST, ENDANGERED PEOPLE ENVIRONMENTALIST REPRESENTATIONS OF INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE
• Chapter 11: INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE: PROSPECTS AND LIMITATIONS