Although the general role of anthropology within conservation initiatives is well-established, indigenous knowledge is traditionally seen as apolitical and non-economic. This is an inaccurate image, for a critical analysis of the global relations of biodiversity shows that indigenous knowledge, like biodiversity itself, is a valuable resource. To find a balance between the dominant discourses of Western science and more subordinate voices, such as what the author terms the 'indigenous ecology movement', anthropologists must place their studies of human ecology within a broader political and economic context. A more holistic, 'landscape' orientation is mooted as one approach to this contextualisation.

The mainstream contributions of anthropology to the conservation of biodiversity are relatively well-established (Orlove and Brush 1996). They take the form of advocacy or empirical research aimed at various types of conservation initiatives. Advocacy seeks to identify the issues and the needs of local groups and amplify these concerns in national or international fora. Anthropologists working as empirical researchers function in a more extractive manner. Whether focused on an entire ecosystem or a particular species, the entry point for anthropological research into biodiversity is indigenous environmental knowledge. The operative paradigm here holds that in any setting, local cognitive understandings of the environment are intertwined with broader social, economic and political contexts. The combination of the two threads determines local interactions between human beings and their environment.

Towards a critical anthropological view
The anthropological approaches to biodiversity conservation sketched above are not in essence critical. This is remarkable, considering that the critical perspectives that emerged in anthropology during the 1980s have made a considerable contribution to various aspects of the discipline, notably development as a practice (Ferguson 1990) and anthropology's role therein (Escobar 1994; 1988). However, this 'critical gaze' (cf. Foucault 1970) has made only tentative inroads into the anthropology of environmental studies (see, for example, Milton 1993). The present article sets out to explore the possibilities for a more thorough anthropological critique. It is based on the premise that the conservation of biodiversity is both an economic commodity and a political issue. Once we have seen how a more critical anthropological approach to biodiversity conservation works, we can then extrapolate this approach to indigenous environmental knowledge itself.

Biodiversity as a valuable resource
The economic values of biodiversity can be divided into the aesthetic and the technological. The former are considered by some to be non-quanitifiable, on the grounds that the appreciation of nature's beauty is an implicit human quality (see, for example, Wilson 1992). Although it may appear abstract, the aesthetic value of nature becomes quite substantial when we consider, say, the economic impact of tourists from the North visiting the South to view natural splendours. The technological value of biodiversity is even more tangible, as 'bioprospecting' has become big business. Perhaps the greatest beneficiary of bioprospecting is the pharmaceutical industry, which is estimated to have earned almost five billion dollars from plant germplasm taken from the South (Shiva 1993; von Weizsäcker 1996). The agricultural industry also earns massive sums from bioprospecting useful plant germplasm, most of which is also drawn from the South. For instance, commercial farmers in the United States make an estimated 12 million dollars a year from sorghum germplasm (Sorghum bicolor) originally collected in Ethiopia (Kloppenberg 1988). The total American sorghum industry is valued at over one billion dollars annually (Prescott-Allen and Prescott-Allen 1986).

The vast majority of the earth's terrestrial biodiversity lies in the Southern hemisphere. Given this distribution, and the immense profits which stand to be made through its exploitation, the dominant discourses on the subject are deserving of closer scrutiny. Geography and politics prevent Western conservation interests from exercising direct control over the centres of biodiversity in the South. As a result, these scientists resort to indirect control, by means of the discourse on biodiversity. What is seen by some as the re-creation of colonial relationships within a capitalist phenomenon has been christened by Vandana Shiva 'bio-imperialism' (Shiva 1996). At the same time, Western science portrays the loss of biodiversity as a problem which presents itself mainly in the South. It follows then--according to the dominant voices--that any solution to the problem of decreasing biodiversity must come from international institutions, most of which are guided by Northern interests. Here, as in so many dialogues of power, the dominant discourse is creating problems for which it alone can provide solutions.

'Indigenous ecology movement'
But there are also dissenting voices, which challenge the dominant discourse on biodiversity conservation. One of the most vociferous of these is the 'indigenous ecology movement'.

As employed here, the concept of the indigenous ecology movement is not a single, well-defined entity, but rather a broad rubric used to group a variety of voices, notably Northern environmentalists or Southern indigenous groups. Although from varying backgrounds, these groups hold largely the same views on the evils of the North's traditional approach to the environment, and both call for a sound interaction between human beings and ecology (see, for example, Shiva 1989; 1991; 1993; 1996).

The roots of the indigenous ecology movement can be traced back to concern about the welfare of native peoples voiced during the 1970s and 80s. By 1993, when the United Nations proclaimed the International Year of the World's Indigenous People, this movement had clearly entered the mainstream. Its emergence was closely linked to the perceived relationship between traditional groups and the ecosystems in which they live; in the words of one recent commentator on this process: "Stories of the 'wisdom' of indigenous peoples abound; if the stories expose the depth of knowledge of women--all the better. If they are environmentally sensitive and possess an earthly reality, they are assured a long shelf life" (RAFI 1994, 3; see also Mies and Shiva 1993; Plumwood 1993; Merchant 1996).

At the core of this view lies an idea many conservationists refer to as the "ecologically noble savage", echoing Rousseau's original concept (Redford 1990; Alcorn 1993; Redford and Stearman 1993a). Although arguments have been put forward both for (see, for example, Orlove 1991) and against (see, for example, Peres 1994) the notion, the basic idea of the 'ecologically noble savage' is now thriving in most contemporary anthropological and biological circles (Redford and Stearman 1993b).

According to the indigenous ecology movement, the problems underlying bio-imperialism are beyond the control of economic resources. Western science tends to see high technology, specialisation, and homogeneity as key aspects in any conservation scheme. Traditional cultures, by contrast, are characterised by low technology and heterogeneity, while sustainable interactions within ecosystems are based on necessity. Behind these differences are mutually exclusive ways of thinking about nature. Western science, based on empirical research rooted in positivistic and causal views of the world, runs counter to traditional ecological interactions guided by ways of knowing based on an intimate co-existence with nature. In the view of the indigenous ecology movement, the resulting body of indigenous knowledge provides a much better understanding of ecology than the 'removed perspectives' of Western science could ever afford.

In constructing their dissenting dialogue, Shiva and others have reduced the dynamics of agricultural biodiversity to a set of dualistic oppositions: North vs. South, monocultures vs. diversity, Western science vs. traditional indigenous knowledge (Shiva 1993). In short, conflicts in international biodiversity are seen as ultimately rooted in a conflict between spheres of knowledge.

Rethinking anthropology and IK
Anthropology's standard applications within biodiversity conservation are centred around the concepts of IK and its translation into the language of Western science. However, in view of the power dynamics within international relations in biodiversity, it will be clear that the role of anthropology entails much more than simple investigations aimed at assisting conservationists.

Anthropological methods have been used by the dominant paradigms of Western scientific conservation to access IK in a highly extractive manner. Modernist anthropology views IK--one of the hallmarks of indigenous ecology--as an apolitical and non-economic resource which can be extracted from local communities, translated into Western terminology, and assessed by scientific criteria. But far from being non-economic and apolitical, IK is, like biodiversity, a resource which is typically extracted and manipulated; the gains resulting from this manipulation rarely return to the original source.

Two recent examples from Africa, one local and the other global, will illustrate how, with the help of anthropological research methods, IK is extracted, exploited and ultimately devalued:

The work of CARE in the forests of Uganda represents the example at a local level. Ethnobotanical research into indigenous knowledge held by local communities concerning useful plants in and around Bwindi Impenetrable Forest was used as "a practical and cost-effective" method for identifying species at risk of over-exploitation (Cunningham 1996). On the basis of this information, conservationists recommended interventions to promote the sustainable use of these resources around the park; the interventions consisted essentially in restricting access to wild plant resources by local groups. However, little attention was given to the rapidly increasing populations around the park and the high levels of poverty among local households, who rely heavily on the wild plant resources in question. As a result, the anthropological research applied here was used to extract IK in order to inform conservation bodies, while the changing needs of local groups were only a secondary concern.

Another example, on a more international scale, is the case of cowpea germplasm (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.). A rare pest-resistant variety, bred for centuries by West African farmers, was collected alongside thousands of other acquisitions by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in Nigeria. Once identified, the resistant variety was transported to Durham University in the UK; ultimately, the active gene CpTi was isolated and patented by the British biotechnology firm Agricultural Genetics Co (RAFI 1994). Once it is licensed to interested parties, this genetic material will earn millions of pounds for Agricultural Genetics Co. Perhaps some of this money will eventually flow back to the IITA; but there is no mechanism for reimbursing the farmers who bred the useful variety.

These examples help to illustrate the fact that IK is one of the contested spaces. Anthropology may have helped to further tilt the global imbalances in the control of biodiversity. Although one possible reaction to this phenomenon is to withdraw from conservation research altogether, this would clearly not be constructive. In fact, it would probably result in greater environmental and cultural damage over time. Instead, anthropologists--and others who apply anthropological methods--are challenged to position their work within the broader political and economic contexts which inevitably operate around indigenous environmental knowledge, and indeed biodiversity itself.

New directions for anthropology
One potential approach to contextualising anthropological research into IK and biodiversity would seek to span the processes which affect human interaction with the environment at the local level. An integral part of such a shift would be the continuation of an emerging trend towards seeing biodiversity and even IK itself as part of a landscape, in the sense of a natural space manipulated by humans, with interactive political, economic, social and biological aspects (cf. Guyer and Richards 1996). This landscape-oriented perspective presumes a fundamental duality, i.e., that IK and biodiversity are entities which are at once constructed and very real. What form would such research take? It could involve a more holistic view of IK and its interactions with biodiversity, from international policy dialogues to local behaviours. Such a study would necessarily extend anthropological research beyond the immediate actors to include international, national and local policies--and the consequences of their implementation or non-implementation. Due to recent methodological innovations within the discipline of anthropology, most notably the concept of multi-sited research (Marcus 1995), the landscape view of biodiversity is highly accessible.

Most of the anthropological research into IK undertaken within conservation initiatives treats local groups as isolated from the broader processes. For example, local studies of indigenous knowledge and biodiversity in Africa rarely address questions of poverty, or the global economic processes of structural adjustment which help make poverty and environmental degradation so prevalent across the continent (Cline-Cole 1996). In the same way, local studies of IK and human ecology seldom account for the past or potential effects of global policy shifts, such as those discussed at the recent CITES convention in Zimbabwe.

The decline in IK and the loss of biodiversity across Africa are exacerbated by such processes. And yet they are rarely explored in substantial detail, let alone subjected to a critical examination. As a critical and holistic discipline, anthropology is ideally situated to present commentaries of this type, in an attempt to rethink the values of IK and biodiversity in terms which include global as well as local considerations. This may help to ensure that local peoples and the ecosystems in which they live are treated in a fair and equitable manner as we approach the millennium.

Landon Myer
Department of Social Anthropology
University of Cape Town
Private Bag
Rondebosch 7700
South Africa
Tel.: +27-021-650 3678.
Fax: +27-021-650 2307.
E-mail: lmyer@beattie.uct.ac.za

References
- Alcorn, J. (1993) 'Indigenous peoples and conservation', Conservation Biology 7: 424-426.

- Cline-Cole, R. (1996) 'African and Africanist biodiversity research in a neo-liberal context', Africa 66 (1): 145-158.

- Cunningham, A. (1996) People, park and plant use: recommendations for multiple-use zones and development alternatives around Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda. People and Plants Working Paper Number 4. Paris: UNESCO.

- Escobar, A. (1995) Encountering development: the making and unmaking of the Third World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

-- (1988) 'Power and visibility: development and the invention and management of the Third World', Cultural Anthropology 3 (4): 428-443.

- Ferguson, J. (1990) The anti-politics machine: power, politics and 'development' in Lesotho. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

- Foucalt, M. (1970) The order of things: an archaeology of the human sciences. Translated by A. Sheridan-Smith. New York: Random House.

- Guyer, J. and P. Richards (1996) 'The invention of biodiversity: social perspectives on the management of biological variety in Africa', Africa 66 (1): 1-13.

- Kloppenberg, J. (1988) First the seed: the political economy of plant biotechnology. New Haven: Yale University Press.

- Marcus, G. (1995) 'Ethnography in/of the world system: the emergence of a multi-sited ethnography', Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 95-117.

- Merchant, C. (1995) Earthcare: women and the environment. New York: Routledge.

- Mies, M. and V. Shiva (1993) Ecofeminism. London: Zed Books.

- Milton, K. (1993) 'Introduction: environmentalism and anthropology', pp. 1-17 in Environmentalism: the view from anthropology. London: Routledge.

- Orlove, B. (1991) 'Mapping reeds and reading maps: the politics of representation in Lake Titicaca', American Ethnologist 18 (1): 235-273.

- Orlove, B. and S. Brush (1996) 'Anthropology and the conservation of biodiversity', Annual Review of Anthropology 25: 325-352.

- Plumwood, V. (1993) Feminism and the mastery of nature. London: Routledge.

- Prescott-Allen, C. and R. Prescott-Allen (1986) The first resource. New Haven, Yale University Press.

- Redford, K. (1990) 'The ecologically noble savage', Orion Nature Quarterly 9 (3): 25-29.

- Redford, K. and A. Stearman (1993a) 'Forest-dwelling native Amazonians and the conservation of biodiversity: interests in common or collision?', Conservation Biology 7 (2): 248-255.

- Redford, K. and A. Stearman (1993b) 'On common ground? Response to Alcorn', Conservation Biology 7 (2): 427-428.

- Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) (1994) Conserving indigenous knowledge: integrating two systems of innovation. New York: United Nations Development Programme.

- Shiva, V. (1996) 'The greening of the global reach', pp. 149-156 in W. Sachs (ed.) Global ecology: a new arena of political conflict. London: Zed books.

-- (1993) Monocultures of the mind: perspectives on biodiversity and biotechnology. Penang: Third World Network.

-- (1989) Staying alive. London: Zed Books.

-- (1991) The violence of the green revolution: Third World agriculture, ecology and politics. London: Zed books.

- von Weizsäcker, C. (1996) 'Competing notions of biodiversity', pp. 117-131 in W. Sachs (ed.) Global ecology: A new arena of political conflict. London: Zed books.

- Wilson, E. (1992) Biodiversity. Washington: National Academy of Sciences.