In recent years, academics and
development practitioners have shown growing interest in the
relevance of indigenous knowledge to sustainable development.
The International Symposium on Indigenous Knowledge and
Sustainable Development provided a forum where people working
in the field of indigenous knowledge and development could
meet and exchange views, information and ideas. The symposium
also offered a unique opportunity for members of the
international IK network to meet.
Introduction
Over centuries, indigenous people and farmers have
developed their own, locality-specific knowledge and practices
of agriculture, natural resource management, human and animal
health, education, and many other subjects. This complex of
knowledge, beliefs and practices is generally known as
indigenous knowledge (IK). Dissatisfied with the outcome of
previous development efforts, a growing number of scientists
and development professionals are recognizing that IK provides
a valuable resource for sustainable development.
Interest in IK was until recently confined to a few individuals and institutions. In the last few years, however, recognition of its importance has become more widespread--as is evident in the number of recent conferences devoted partly or totally to IK and the initiation of a global IK network. It became clear that a forum was needed where scientists and development agents involved in IK research and development could exchange information and ideas, draw up an action plan for the use of IK in sustainable development, and formalize the IK network.
This forum was provided through the International Symposium on Indigenous Knowledge and Sustainable Development, held at the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) in Silang, Philippines, on 20-26 September 1992. Some 50 scientists and development professionals participated in this symposium organized by IIRR's Regional Program for the Promotion of Indigenous Knowledge in Asia (REPPIKA) and sponsored by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). A total of 36 papers were presented.
This was the first opportunity for members of the Global Indigenous Knowledge Network to meet and discuss issues of common concern. The symposium developed recommendations for recording IK, preparing training manuals, and communicating and using IK, and for research and policy relating to IK. It also formulated an action plan for the network.
The recommendations and action plan are presented in this special issue of the Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor. A highlight of the symposium was the signing of a collaborative agreement between five of the IK centres: the Philippine Resource Center for Sustainable Development and Indigenous Knowledge (PhiRCSDIK), REPPIKA, and the three global network centres (CIKARD, CIRAN and LEAD).
The symposium brought together a broad spectrum of people interested in documenting and preserving indigenous knowledge. The participants represented 17 countries and numerous disciplines. IK is unusual in that it brings together specialists in fields as diverse as fisheries and forestry, anthropology and medicine.
Objectives
The general objectives of the symposium were:
To enable IK researchers, promoters and practitioners from the
national and regional IK resource centres, other research
institutions and development organizations:
Agreeing on a common understanding of indigenous knowledge
took a little longer. Participants decided that it was easier
to define what does not fall under this
category and agreed on the following working definition
formulated by Michael Warren:
'The term 'indigenous knowledge' (IK) is used synonymously
with 'traditional' and 'local knowledge' to differentiate the
knowledge developed by a given community from the
international knowledge system, sometimes also called
'Western' system, generated through universities, government
research centres and private industry. IK refers to the
knowledge of indigenous peoples as well as any other defined
community.'
Indigenous knowledge systems relate to the ways members of a given community define and classify phenomena in the physical/natural, social, and ideational environments. Examples are local classifications of soils, knowledge of which local crop varieties grow in difficult environments, and traditional ways of treating human and animal diseases.
IK systems provide the basis for local-level decision-making; this frequently occurs through formal and informal community associations and organizations. Communities identify problems and seek solutions to them in such local forums, capitalizing on indigenous creativity and leading to experimentation and innovations. Successful new technologies are added to the indigenous knowledge system. Indigenous forms of communication are vital to the preservation, development and spread of indigenous knowledge.
IK is thus dynamic--not static, as the word 'traditional' commonly implies.
Approaches to Indigenous Knowledge
Six underlying views of IK were reflected in the symposium.
These views are not all mutually exclusive; they overlap to
some degree. Some individuals lean towards one view without
necessarily rejecting the validity of the others. The six
views might be conveniently labelled as those of the
scientist, the development agent, the facilitator, the
conservationist, the political advocate and the capitalist.
Brief stereotypes of each follow.
The Scientist Parallel to and intertwined with the rapidly advancing body of international, scientific knowledge are bodies of local knowledge derived from the empirical trial-and-error of people struggling to survive over centuries. Little of this wisdom has been recorded or validated by the scientific method. Most is localized, is transmitted orally, and is typically not codified.
The scientist recognizes this and wishes to understand and incorporate all knowledge in the scientific corpus. Part of this desire is to understand the basis for local knowledge systems--as, for instance, in anthropological research. Part is the wish to validate and use the information--for instance, in identifying plants that may contain hitherto unknown active ingredients for drugs.
The Development Agent A second source of the interest in IK comes from the development community. In fact, this view provided the direct antecedents for this symposium.
Farmers are acutely attuned to their natural and social environment--such as soils, climates, and markets. Agricultural recommendations derived from international knowledge and experiment stations seldom fully fit local needs and often prescribe practices that are costly to maintain. The international system has little appreciated this local environment. And farmers steeped in a different system of knowledge and beliefs find recommendations couched in scientific language difficult to understand.
Many in the development community have come to accept the likelihood of frequent failures in their work if it does not incorporate indigenous needs, concepts and resources. So the development community needs to understand local systems, especially local communication processes. The goal is to identify, verify, and adapt IK and to promote it in areas where conditions are similar.
The Facilitator A third underlying stream is the view of IK as a resource that local people can use to further their own development. Such a view sees the role of agricultural extension personnel as facilitating and stimulating farmers' experiments and encouraging the interchange of information among them. This contrasts with the nearly universal (and often unsuccessful) current role of extension agents, which is to try to persuade farmers to adopt technologies developed elsewhere. The role of the agricultural researcher is also transformed into one that responds to and supports the farmers' research agenda, rather than being independent of it. Analogous roles can be seen for development professionals in fields other than agriculture, such as forestry, architecture, and industry.
The Conservationist A fourth current comes from the emphasis on environment and conservation that is now widespread in the world. The disappearance of forests and of species, and the disruption of nature's self-regulating ability, parallel the disappearance and disruption of traditional societies. This stream focuses somewhat more heavily on minor, traditional groups such as Amazonian Indians. But there is also a concern for the disappearing knowledge base of all societies under the onslaughts of industrialization, urbanization, and Western culture.
This stream supports the pursuit of knowledge per se, but it also makes normative judgements. It evinces an interest in preserving knowledge, in situ, for its own sake. The isolation of the indigenous system so it will remain unsullied is of value. Thus, there is potential conflict between intervention to determine knowledge, and isolation to prevent the introduction of change. Rather than the 'neutral' scientific interest in knowledge, the conservationist will add an element of advocacy for retention.
The Political Advocate A fifth source of interest in IK derives from North-South conflict and tensions. The South's often expressed frustration with, and feelings of, exploitation by the North are translated into a perception of local people being suppressed by the wealthy, developed nations. Political advocates espouse the protection of rights, the end of exploitation, and exploiters' obligation to pay for past transgressions. The advocate denies the scientist's ideal of sharing wisdom for mutual betterment, instead seeing relationships as having potential for exploitation. Sanctions must protect the weaker against the intrusions of the stronger--for instance by introducing patent rights for indigenous knowledge in order to prevent uncompensated expropriation by outsiders.
The Capitalist This is an important view that was not represented among symposium participants, but the influence of which was widely felt. The capitalist sees IK as a resource to be tapped by outsiders in pursuit of profit. Examples of this are the 'chemical prospecting' of tropical plants by Western drug companies and germplasm collecting by crop breeding firms. Both may draw on the knowledge of local people to identify promising sites, species, and uses. The capitalist makes a large investment in developing, say, a new drug or crop variety from such germplasm. This, it is argued, dwarfs the original local contribution and justifies the high prices that the new products command. Aspiring to the scientist's quest for knowledge and free access to information, Western universities and herbariums are often unwitting partners of the capitalist. The political advocate's position is essentially a reaction against the activities of the capitalists and their scientist partners.
Key to the capitalist's success is his potential for developing a commodity that can be bought and sold. Some types of knowledge are more readily commodified than others; hybrid seed and drugs are two examples. Other forms of IK, such as planting techniques and soil classifications, are less easy to convert into cash, and so are of less interest to the capitalist.
All of these streams of thought are reflected in the symposium papers, and the discussions were enriched by the various views expressed. However, the development and facilitator positions tended to prevail. The keynote speaker, the Honourable James Bourque, urged participants to focus consciously on the practical application of IK in development activities to the advantage of local people. He saw a danger that the retrieval of IK would benefit only the scientific community and the Western world, to the detriment of indigenous peoples.
Some participants raised the question whether the symposium should take a political position. A majority felt that the IK network should not become political. It would reach its goal-- the application of IK in development--better if it focused on the retrieval, storage and application of IK rather than on becoming a political movement.
Acknowledgements
Many people contributed to the success of the symposium. It
would not have been possible without the efforts of the heads
of the growing network of global, regional and national
centres for indigenous knowledge. In particular, Dr. D.
Michael Warren, Director of Iowa State University's Center for
Indigenous Knowledge for Agriculture and Rural Development,
provided the initial impetus for the symposium. Ruben Martinez
of IIRR coordinated the planning. Together with IIRR's
International Training and Outreach staff, he made sure that
the symposium activities ran smoothly. Participants
contributed to a fertile exchange of ideas through their wide
range of papers and the lively discussions that followed.
The symposium was sponsored by the International Development Research Centre of Canada and by IIRR. The enthusiastic support of Shahid Akhtar, Director of Information and Communication Systems of IDRC, and Maria Ng Lee Hoon, Programme Officer with IDRC's Singapore office, ensured the success of the symposium and contributed greatly to the practicality of its deliberations.
The proceedings were prepared by the coordinator of the Regional Program for the Promotion of Indigenous Knowledge in Asia, Dr. Evelyn Mathias-Mundy. This was possible only with input from many others. Contributors included Dr. Frank Denton, Ruben Martinez, Dr. Paul Mundy, and the session rapporteurs and facilitators, including Mary Lousie Bolunia and Dr. Perpetuo Librando. Most of the abstracts were prepared by a team headed by Dr. Josephine Sison. Dr. Jit Bhuktan and Dr. Perpetuo Librando provided valuable comments. Dr. Paul Mundy edited the manuscript.
The proceedings were edited by Gisèle Morin-Labatut (IDRC). Additional copy-editing was provided by Akke Tick (CIRAN) and Marilyn Warman (Nuffic).
References
World Commission on Environment and Development
(1987) Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.