Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor, November 1999

Contents IK Monitor (7-3) | IKDM Homepage | Suggestions to: ikdm@nuffic.nl | © copyright Nuffic-CIRAN and contributors 1999.

Publications

The authors, Bandyopadhyay and MacPherson, are affiliated with Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and City University of Hong Kong, respectively. This micro-study deals with the influence of socio-economic and cultural factors on the health of women in rural India. Based on empirical data collected in late 1993 and early 1994 in four districts of West Bengal, it investigates how these factors affect maternal and child health care practices, health-care behaviour, reproductive health, family planning, perceptions of illness and disease, and utilization of health-care services. The authors’ findings suggest that improvement in the socio-economic status of the individual family and development of the village have a major impact on the health-seeking behaviour of people. These factors have a positive influence on the utilization of health services and family-planning services and the adoption of the small-family norm, irrespective of religious beliefs or caste affiliation. But the findings also reveal that cultural factors play an even greater role, more strongly influencing age at marriage (lowering it), preferred sex of children (sons), and uptake of post-natal health services (reducing it). This confirms the existence of medical pluralism (observed by several researchers in earlier studies done elsewhere) and goes a step further, indicating a distinction between ‘consumer-oriented’ health-care behaviour for ailments perceived as major, and ‘welfare-oriented’ behaviour and utilization of services for ailments perceived as minor.
Unfortunately, the figures against which the research findings are compared are outdated. Maternity mortality rates from 1985 are quoted, and abortion-related mortality rates from 1977. For population and literacy, figures are used from the Indian census of 1981. WHO figures from 1985 are used to point out that only 60 percent of births in the world are assisted by trained attendants. Would it not have been more useful to use more recent data, which are readily available--for instance, figures from the Indian census of 1991, the latest Human Development Report, and the UNFPA reports published every year?
While the importance of quantitative data should not be discounted, the study can be criticized for sometimes remaining at the level of facts and figures. For instance, the authors mention religion as an influencing factor, but do not explain how. One reason mentioned for women of Motipur village preferring to deliver their babies at home rather than in hospital is that they feel intimidated by health-care officials and are wary of them, as they are afraid they will be sterilized immediately after birth without their knowledge or consent. Did the authors not think this was worth investigating? If it were corroborated in other villages as well, could this not be an important reason for the low utilization of post-natal health services, rather than tradition alone? A suggestion for future research: it might be interesting to examine intergenerational differences regarding the research questions, using educational attainment within a household as a variable.
While reiterating the importance of women’s education and general socio-economic development, the authors call upon policy-makers to improve maternal and child health by addressing the comprehensive health-care needs of rural women while keeping in mind the positive and negative influences of traditional values. On the whole, the research provides useful material--particularly regarding the importance of cultural factors in development--which policy-makers should take into consideration when formulating programmes.

(Dr Jyotsna Agnihotri Gupta, research associate and guest lecturer, Leiden University, the Netherlands, and independent consultant in the field of gender, health and development)

Broerse, J.E.W. (1998) Towards a new development strategy: How to include small-scale farmers in the technological innovation process. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Biology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. 263 pp. ISBN 90-5166-673-X.. NLG49.50 plus postage. Eburon Publishers, P.O. Box 2867, 2601 CW Delft, the Netherlands.
E-mail: info@eburon.nl

This thesis records the lessons learned by a multi-disciplinary group of researchers who used a participatory approach to developing biotechnological innovations for small-scale farmers in developing countries. Discussing two conventional approaches, the transfer-of-technology and the multidisciplinary approach, the author rightly concludes that these do not include farmers in the decision-making process. For this reason, the Department of Biology and Society at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, has developed a more participatory approach based on the ‘farmers-first’ approach. This takes into account farmers’ needs, farmers’ own technical knowledge and informal R&D, and the constraints farmers face when trying to increase agricultural output. This ‘interactive, bottom-up approach’ (IBU approach) is meant to enhance the sort of interaction among farmers, biotechnologists, and the representatives of NGOs and government agencies which generates suitable biotechnological innovations.
The basic principles of the IBU approach are discussed in Chapter 4. The ensuing chapters report on the problems experienced during attempts to implement the approach in Zimbabwe. (The cover mentions fieldwork done in Ghana, but this is not included in the book.) The outcomes of the fieldwork will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with participatory methods. Even with the IBU approach, farmers were insufficiently incorporated into the decision-making process. This is perhaps because only 40 farmers were interviewed, the period of fieldwork was only a couple of weeks, neither farmers nor key figures from the region were included in the main research team, and many of the local researchers had not been sufficiently trained in how to use the new approach. The author thus rightly concludes that the IBU approach produced results not much different from the multi-disciplinary approach. Chapter 7 discusses an attempt to improve the IBU approach by incorporating elements of the participatory technology development (PTD) approach, thus giving farmers a more prominent role throughout the innovation process. Although the results of the improved approach were better, various organizations still hesitated to adopt it, as the author relates in Chapters 8 and 9.
Reading the book brought an English proverb to mind: ‘The proof of the pudding is in the eating.’ For me the IBU approach has not yet been proven. We do not know if it indeed can generate biotechnological innovations that farmers will adopt. Unfortunately, the author has to admit that in his case, the IBU approach did not generate any innovation at all. The author can say that this is because many of the necessary conditions were not met, but we cannot conclude from this that the IBU approach would have worked if the conditions had been met.
Furthermore, although it is laudable that the author—a biologist by training—has incorporated into her work theories from the social sciences regarding participation, she has failed to refer to any theories dealing with the generation and diffusion of agricultural technologies. This is unfortunate since her research would have benefited from ideas generated by these theories, e.g. on what makes innovations suitable for farmers.
Nevertheless, the book makes interesting reading, not in the least because of the author’s frankness in discussing the shortcomings of the participatory methods of research and technology development used by the research team.

(Marcel Put, research associate, Amsterdam Research Institute for Global Issues and Development Studies (AGIDS), Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

D’Souza, Gerard E. and Tesfa G. Gebremedhin (eds) (1998) Sustainability in agricultural and rural development. xvii + 245pp. ISBN 1-85521-977-8. GBP42.50. Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Gower House, Croft Road, Aldershot, Hants GU11 3HR England, and Ashgate Publishing Company, Old Post Road, Brookfield, Vermont 05036, USA.

This book explores the issue of agricultural sustainability and rural development in its broadest sense. The 12 chapters deal with such topics as farm size (are small farms more sustainable?); the role of markets versus the government; gender and sustainable development; sustainability and agricultural production technology; sustainability and public policy; and sustainability and information. Where possible, case studies provide instructive examples of how to achieve sustainable agriculture as an integral part of sustainable development. The final chapter seeks to synthesize the various issues from an interdisciplinary point of view and to identify challenges for future cross-disciplinary research.
My preference lies with chapters 1, 2, 5 and 11. The first chapter, by Tesfa G. Gebremedhin and Ralph D. Christy, deals with sustainability and the industrialization of agriculture. It raises important questions and points out that the shift towards large-scale agriculture accelerates environmental degradation and reduces the quality of rural life. Chapter 2, by Gerard E. D’Souza, John Ikerd and Lynndee Kemmet, deals with farm size. The authors predict that farms in the future may need to be smaller rather than larger if they are to remain productive and competitive in the post-industrial, knowledge-based era of economic and social development. Chapter 5, written by Sonya Salomon, Richard L. Farnsworth and Donald G. Bullock, is on family, community and sustainability in agriculture. In this chapter, farmers are divided into two groups: those with ‘power genes’, who adopt conventional farming, and those with ‘soil genes’, who adopt sustainable farming. A ‘power-gene’ farmer likes machines, and buys the latest and most powerful he can. A ‘soil-gene’ farmer has old or used equipment, and does anything to use less power. He also cuts back on chemicals, but does so as much for the sake of efficiency and economy as for environmental reasons. Family consensus, community pressure and the land-tenure system are crucial factors which determine whether or not a farmer wants to adopt sustainable farming practices. It is a social issue rather than a purely technical one. To change from conventional to sustainable agriculture requires a paradigm shift regarding beliefs about nature and the environment. Chapter 11, on sustainability and information, is written by David Silbermann and Leslie Lipper. I like the way it explores the importance of information for purposes of scientific research, precision technology, recovery from market failures, and the management of shared resources. The authors believe that precision technology which uses information to apply inputs more accurately can increase productivity and decrease pollution.
Personally, I was not so happy with three chapters: Chapter 6 about gender because it is too vague, Chapter 8 about economics because it lacks depth, and Chapter 10 about land use because it is too macro-oriented.
Almost all of the 24 contributors are associated with an American university or research institute. One, Winfred E.H. Blum, is at Vienna University (Austria) and another, Mary C. Ahearn, works at the US Department of Agriculture. This perhaps explains the often difficult language used in the book and the often very theoretical treatment of the topics. Still, I would recommend the book to university teachers. It will broaden students’ minds and help them gain insight into the essence and intricancies of sustainability and environmental issues. Another strong point of the book is that it covers new and interesting subjects that perhaps have never before been discussed in this context: for example, precision technology, the management of shared resources, systems of property rights, and the industrialization of agriculture. The discussions of land use and the modelling approach are also very interesting.

(Yang Fang, CIAD, China Agricultural University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China)

Guchteneire, Paul de, Ingeborg Krukkert, Guus von Liebenstein (eds) (1999) Best practices on indigenous knowledge. 183 pp. ISBN 90-5464-031-6. Not for sale. A joint publication of the UNESCO-MOST programme (Management of Social Transformations) and CIRAN (Centre for International Research and Advisory Networks), a department of Nuffic (Netherlands Organization for International Cooperation in Higher Education). Contact: Nuffic-CIRAN, P.O. Box 29777, 2502 LT The Hague, the Netherlands. Fax: +31-70-4260 329. E-mail: ciran@nuffic.nl The full text is also available on the Internet: http://www.unesco.org/most/bpikpub.htm

The ‘best practices’ described in UNESCO’s MOST database (MOST = Management of Social Transformations) are initiatives aimed at combatting problems of poverty and social exclusion. This database now has a new section for best practices pertaining to indigenous knowledge (IK). The first 27 best practices selected for the database are also described in a publication that has just been released. Each practice illustrates how IK, if incorporated into development efforts, can help to create cost-effective, sustainable strategies by which poor people can raise their living standards. The practices also provide guidelines for policy-makers and development practitioners who are trying to find ecologically sound ways of solving development problems under culturally diverse circumstances. Best practices on indigenous knowledge is a co-product of Nuffic-CIRAN and the MOST programme. The publication is non-commercial and only 600 copies were printed. Nuffic-CIRAN has sent copies to the contributors of the best practices, to all IK Resource Centres, and to individuals and organizations in the IK network who are known to be working specifically to further the cause of sustainable development. UNESCO has given the publication to the 188 delegates of the UNESCO General Conference and to certain members of its own international network. There are very few copies left, which is why Nuffic-CIRAN asks anyone who would like one to download the publication from the Internet if possible.

Hagmann, J., E. Chuma, K. Murwira and M. Connolly (1998) Learning together through participatory extension: A guide to an approach developed in Zimbabwe. 59 pp. ISBN none. Free to the public (plus mailing costs). Published by the Department of Agricultural, Technical and Extension Services (AGRITEX), Harare, Zimbabwe. Available from Universum Verlagsanstalt, D-65175 Wiesbaden, Germany.
Fax: + 49-611-903 0556.

Produced by the Zimbabwean AGRITEX Services in conjunction with the German Integrated Rural Development Programme (GTZ/IRDEP), this booklet details one programme’s experiences with participatory extension approaches (or PEA). It presents one way in which participatory approaches, today widely recognised concepts in rural development, can be incorporated into extension activities at a local level.
The content of the booklet is based on 12 steps for implementing the process of PEA. These range from community preparation and community-level action planning to implementation, farmer experimentation, and monitoring and evaluation. The explanations of the approaches are somewhat uneven. Some of the steps are described clearly and in detail using examples from rural Zimbabwe, while others are skimmed over in a few sentences (particularly the more analytical steps, such as ‘prioritising problems and needs’). In addition, the booklet relies heavily on large excerpts of text to express its main points, and it is filled with the jargon of sustainable development. As a result, its usefulness as a manual for people working in the field may be somewhat limited.
One of the clear strengths of this work is its attention to problems encountered during the PEA process. Rather than presenting a ‘perfect’ plan, the description of various stages is accompanied by a realistic assessment of the hurdles involved. Again, real examples illustrate how approaches which appear excellent in theory can fall apart in practice. As failures are usually more educational than successes, the booklet benefits from this honesty.
In summary, Learning together through participatory extension is a useful guide for anyone interested in how participatory approaches to extension and development may be implemented on the ground. Its generally detailed descriptions of the successes and failures of participatory extension will be valuable for extension workers and project staff in Southern Africa as well as farther afield.
(Landon B. Myer, South African Medical Research Council, CERSA-Hlabisa, Mtubatuba, South Africa)

KFPE–Swiss Commission for Research Partnerships with Developing Countries (1998) Guidelines for research in partnerships with developing countries. Translation of the German version by J.M. Jenkins of the Swiss Tropical Institute. Also available in German, French, Spanish, Russian and Portuguese. 56 pp. ISBN none. Free to the public. Order from KFPE Secretariat, Bärenplatz 2, CH-3011 Berne, Switzerland. Tel.: +41-31-311 0601. Fax: +41-31-312 1678. The guidelines can also be found on the KFPE Home Page at http://www.kfpe.unibe.ch/

This concise, well written booklet by the Swiss Commission for Research Partnership with Developing Countries (KFPE) aims to chart a new course for research partnerships between developing and industrialized nations. KFPE hopes to further research in developing countries by encouraging the kind of cooperative research that is typically carried out in research partnerships between industrialized nations. The authors stress that if the dire predictions of environmental degradation and climate change are true, a global effort will be necessary to solve these problems. However, in order to effect the needed changes, not only must scientists engage politicians and the public, they must also help developing countries to become partners in any potential research. KFPE states that only through true partnerships can researchers on either side of this equation make an enduring contribution to increasing the research capacity of both the industrialized and developing partners.
The booklet provides guidelines for bridging the gap between industrialized and developing partners. The authors have organized the work around 11 principles they describe as ‘practical suggestions’ for achieving equality in research partnerships. For each of the 11 principles, the overall aim is outlined, some practical suggestions are offered, and a short checklist of relevant questions to be answered at each juncture is provided. The practical application of these principles can be found in the appendix.
Underlying the booklet is the assumption that scientists in industrialized nations are interested in making a long-term commitment to working with research partners in developing countries. True partners must be willing to share in the responsibility for defining, monitoring, applying and profiting from any research. Given the growing interest in indigenous-knowledge research, perhaps this document will encourage funding agencies to adopt result-oriented agendas and to fund agents who can address the political and social aspects of problems as well as conduct classical research. More importantly, in my opinion, developing countries may be able to employ these guidelines to demand more equitable relationships with researchers.
As the authors say, ‘Poor countries do not deserve poor science.’ Demanding that researchers help to solve local problems while building local research capacity is sure to refocus the scientists of the industrialized world. If developing nations can employ these guidelines to develop a new research agenda based upon equality, they will effect a dramatic reorientation of the current research agenda of the industrialized world. While critics of this approach may see KFPE as naïve, the fact that a prominent development agency is willing to change is a powerful statement on the current relationship between researchers and their subjects. It is also a bold step toward global change that once taken will not be easily undone.
(William H. Thomas, senior researcher, PNG Explore, Linwood NJ., USA)

Leeuwen, L. van (1999) Approaches for successful merging of indigenous forest-related knowledge with formal forest management: How can modern science and traditions join hands for sustainable forest management? Werkdocument IKC-Natuur beheer No. 165. iii + 45 pp. ISBN none. Free to the public. Published by National Reference Centre for Nature Management, Marijkeweg 24, P.O. Box 30, 6700 AA Wageningen, the Netherlands. Tel: +31-317-474 801.
Fax: +31-317-427 561.

Having worked for 15 years in the Indian Forest Service and ethically retrieved, transmitted, integrated and applied indigenous knowledge for the protection, regeneration and management of forests, I find the study by Louise van Leeuwen another benchmark in what I call ‘ethnoforestry’. Only when indigenous knowledge of forest management is integrated with formal science for purposes of field application will the knowledge of local communities and of formal forestry scholars be acknowledged as equal. Ultimately, this is what will decide the success or failure of sustainable forest management. Van Leeuwen’s study is able to convey this message and provides guidelines that may not be complete but are nevertheless vital.
Van Leeuwen has reviewed the literature and conducted interviews with resource persons who had personally spent time in the field. Particularly stimulating are the illustrative cases drawn from developing countries that include Nepal, Kenya, Bolivia, Laos, Colombia, Mali, Madagascar, Ecuador, Ethiopia and the Solomon Islands. The topics of the concise chapters are: concepts and analytical framework; indigenous forest-related knowledge; value of and threats to indigenous forest-related knowledge; aspects requiring special attention during project identification; aspects for attention during project formulation and implementation; the role and position of extension and training; dealing with local authorities; and tools to preserve and enhance indigenous knowledge.
The author’s dominant conclusion is that although the value and potential of indigenous forest-related knowledge is generally acknowledged and its existence in communities is recognized, this knowledge has seldom been incorporated and developed to its full potential and has seldom formed an actual basis for interventions. Van Leeuwen recommends the new approaches: participatory process approach, continuous rural appraisal, participatory technology development, strategy of minimum intervention, and learning by doing. These approaches stem from pioneering studies on the subject. Unfortunately Van Leeuwen does not mention these in the literature survey. Inclusion and review of the pioneering works would have significantly enhanced the study’s usefulness.
The study suggests that similar studies should be initiated in every country that is rich in local knowledge. The foresters, policy-makers, researchers and development workers who undertake such studies would be wise to consult this one, which I believe is going to make excellent material for teaching, training, and preparing for field work. This work is of enduring significance, and one would hope that the publishers of subsequent editions take greater care with the production quality.

(Deep Narayan Pandey, Indian Forest Service, Associate Professor, Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal, India)

Nazarea, Virginia D. (ed.) (1999) Ethnoecology: Situated knowledge, located lives. 299 + xii pp. ISBN 0-8165-1882-3. USD40. University of Arizona Press, 1230 N. Park Avenue, Suite 102, Tucson AZ 85719-4140, USA.

For the last half of the 20th century, the field of ethnoecology has been concerned with the study of human perceptions of the natural world. Practitioners of the discipline have examined human-ecological relations across the globe, and in so doing have laid a foundation for the modern study of indigenous knowledge (IK). As a discipline, however, ethnoecology has been largely isolated within the academic realms of cognitive studies, linguistics and anthropology. This edited volume, the result of a 1998 workshop drawing together a diverse group of leading social and natural scientists working in the field of ethnoecology, presents papers on the current state of the art and describes possible future directions for the discipline.
According to the editor, the central feature of ethnoecology is its concentration on local communities’ perceptions of the environment and their interactions with it. While sharing this common perspective, ethnoecologists are beginning to make a fundamental shift in the focus of the field. Rather than remaining a largely academic discipline studying perceptions of nature, ethnoecology is beginning to make practical contributions to global concerns, mainly in areas relating to sustainable development. Most of the papers in the volume involve conceptual explorations of the different forms which such applications of ethnoecology may take, covering areas such as plant genetic resources, traditional resource rights, nutrition, medicinal plants, and intellectual property rights.
The theoretical discussions which form the basis of this volume make an important contribution to the study of different forms of IK. This contribution does not come in the form of a new methodology, or a novel insight into resource use, but rather through a fresh way of thinking about how scientists approach indigenous environmental knowledge and how researchers can apply the study of IK to issues surrounding sustainable development. Those working with IK have been widely criticized (and also complemented) for the general lack of a theoretical base to guide their research. This volume merits attention for compensating this lack, as well as for the strength of the individual contributions it contains.
The main shortcoming of the volume is that it seems to be aimed primarily at an academic audience. The writing styles of the authors exhibit the two extremes of academic writing, switching at times from rich, elegant prose to tedious and even confusing passages. This makes the book unnecessarily difficult for non-academics to read. This is unfortunate, as the overall thesis of the work as well as the messages of individual contributions have important applications beyond the academy.
This book certainly has advanced the state of conceptualization in the field of indigenous knowledge, and makes an important contribution to the way we think about and conduct research with local communities. As a result, it belongs on the shelf of any academic who is working with cognition of the natural world and human ecology. However, for those working in the more practical area of sustainable development—such as policy-makers, project staff and extension workers—this book suffers from the same lack of direct applicability which the volume’s contributors are attempting to overcome. With luck, some of the ideas outlined here will be further distilled into a more accessible format in the near future.
(Landon B. Myer, South African Medical Research Council, CERSA-Hlabisa, Mtubatuba, South Africa)

Pritchard, Sarah (ed.) (1998) Indigenous peoples, the United Nations and human rights. 243 pp. ISBN 1-86287-259-7. GBP42.50; USD65. For UK, North America, Europe and Africa: ZED Books Ltd., 7 Cynthia Street, London N1 9JF, UK.
Tel.: +44-171-837-40 14.
Fax: +44-171-833-39 60.
For Australasia and the rest of the world: The Federation Press, P.O. Box 45, Annandale, NSW, 2038; 71 John Street, Leichhardt, NSW, 2040, Australia.
Tel.: +61-2-9552 2200.
Fax: +61-2-9552 1681.

This book is not about indigenous knowledge and indigenous peoples. It is about modern knowledge for indigenous peoples—individuals as well as representatives of organizations and groups. It deals with the various forms of human rights legislation at an international level: what there is, and when, how and by whom it can be used. The book is a report from a conference held in Sydney in 1995. This explains its emphasis on the situation of Indigenous Australians in relation to the international regulations. Nevertheless, readers from other parts of the world will find it well worth reading. All seven contributors are lawyers, including Sara Pritchard, the editor, who teaches Human Rights Law and International and Comparative Indigenous Legal Issues at the University of New South Wales.
The book deals mainly with the following UN-based conventions: