Indigenous Knowledge and
Development Monitor, July 2000 Indigenous Knowledge and
Development Monitor, July 2000
Contents IK Monitor (8-2) | IKDM Homepage | Suggestions to: ikdm@nuffic.nl | © copyright Nuffic-CIRAN and contributors 2000.
CONFERENCES
Local livestock breeds for sustainable rural livelihoods
Towards community-based approaches for animal genetic resource conservation
Udaipur and Sadri (Rajasthan, India)
1-4 November 2000
Local livestock breeds and minor species often represent the lifeline of rural
populations. While they may not be able to compete with 'improved breeds' in
terms of productivity, they fulfil a much wider range of functions and provide a
larger range of products. They thrive even under low levels of inputs, thus in
marginal environments, their maintenance is ecologically more sustainable.
Requiring lower levels of health care and management, they entail a lower work
load for women in comparison with improved breeds.
Many of these indigenous livestock genetic resources are threatened: according to the FAO, one third of the world's estimated 5000 livestock and poultry breeds are endangered. Maintenance of livestock genetic diversity is mandated by the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD). This legal instrument specifically calls for the conservation of agrobiodiversity in the that have nurtured and shaped it. It also emphasizes the need for the active involvement of indigenous communities and the role of local knowledge and institutions in conservation. But so far the groundwork for such an approach has not been laid. Indigenous knowledge and institutions that maintain domestic animal diversity are only now beginning to be explored.
Organized by Lokhit Pashu-Palak Sansthan in collaboration with SEVA (Tamil Nadu), AFPRO, and the League for Pastoral Peoples with financial support by Misereor, GTZ, and others, this workshop is intended to be the beginning of a process to implement the CBD in regard to domestic animal diversity. It addresses NGOs working with livestock keepers and in rural development, pastoralist organizations, concerned government departments, development professionals and donor agencies. It will provide a much needed platform for exchanging ideas and information and brainstorming the topic from different angles. The workshop's goals are:
Speakers will include D.V. Rangnekar, Simon Anderson (Wye College) and Antje Feldmann (Society for the Conservation of Endangered Animal Breeds).
For more information please contact: Hanwant Singh Rathore, Lokhit
Pashu-Palak Sansthan, Desuri Road, Sadri 306702, District Pali, Rajasthan,
India.
Tel.: +91-2934-850 86.
Fax: +91-2934-855 63.
E-mail: anup1@jp1.dot.net.in
Documentation and application of indigenous knowledge
Dhaka (Bangladesh)
16-17 January 2000
This was the second national workshop on indigenous knowledge held in
Bangladesh. Like the first, it was organized by the Bangladesh Resource Centre
for Indigenous Knowledge (BARCIK). (See also the report from BARCIK.)
The national workshop followed a series of six regional workshops that took
place over the past year. These too had been organized by BARCIK in cooperation
with UMVERTEILEN Stiftung, Germany. Their aim was to provide an opportunity for
sharing experiences relating to the status of indigenous knowledge in various
sectors of rural development, to help improve the level of local team activities,
and to find ways of adopting shared strategies for the collection, documentation
and dissemination of IK in Bangladesh. The objectives of the national workshop
were:
There were 68 participants in the workshop. They included researchers, academics, development activists, cultural activists and development practitioners.
BARCIK senior member Professor M.I. Zuberi chaired the inaugural session. Speeches were delivered by Mr Peter Dixon from the University of Durham, UK, and by Sukanta Sen on behalf of BARCIK. BARCIK senior fellow and Associate Professor of Chittagong University, Dr Niaz Ahmed Khan, gave the inaugural presentation. After a break, the first working session commenced, at which three papers were presented: (1) 'Some comments on science, indigenous knowledge and the poorest of the poor in Bangladesh' by Professor Paul Sillitoe (presented on his behalf by Peter Dixon); (2) 'Indigenous knowledge and its probable application for the development of the common people in Bangladesh' by Bijan Bihari Sharma; (3) 'Impacts of local knowledge in modern education' by Dr Sujit Sarker of Rajshahi University.
Professor Shahsed Hassan of Dhaka University commented on Paul Sillitoe's paper and stressed the importance of IK in project planning. He also urged that for the sake of sustainability, IK should be blended with modern knowledge. Professor A.Z. Karim of Rajshahi University acknowledged the need for an understanding of IK and for the incorporation of traditional local knowledge and experience into development efforts. Mr Sharma of Khulna University presented his views on the practical implications of documenting IK for meeting both present and future needs of society, emphasizing the need to conserve both IK and biodiversity. Dr Sujit Sarker addressed the failure of the present education system. He identified as a primary cause the failure to integrate IK into the education provided by the institutions.
The second day of the workshop was chaired by Mr Farid Uddin Ahmed (Member-Director, Forestry of BARCIK). Five papers were presented, one on mangrove forest areas in Bangladesh, one on the potential of homestead forestry, two on homegardens (use and research priorities) and one on Chowdhury Ataur Rahman, a local journalist and development worker in the Khagrachhari Hill Tracts. During this session Mr Shajahan, a farmer from Kurigram, described his experiences in working with a 'bio-village concept' to cultivate local varieties of agricultural produce and to promote participatory biodiversity conservation. In the open discussion sessions, participants agreed that indigenous technologies are generally not used or even considered in government-assisted development projects. Although donors and the government say they find people's participation important, in reality the views and wisdom of local people are never taken into account as projects are developed and implemented.
The closing session focused mainly on strategies and methods for sustaining
BARCIK's network and activities. Many interesting ideas relating to IK research
and development were shared, and participants said they would consider including
these in their own development programmes.
(Sukanta Sen, director, BARCIK)
For more information, please contact BARCIK. For the address, see IK Resource
Centres.
Participating in development:
Approaches to indigenous knowledge
London (UK)
2-5 April 2000
Some 200 anthropologists, development professionals, scientists (and hybrids of
all three) gathered at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) for 3½
intense days of papers, discussions and posters. The conference was organized by
the Association of Social Anthropologists (ASA), convened by Paul Sillitoe (Durham),
Johan Pottier (SOAS) and Alan Bicker (Kent), and adeptly administered by
Jennifer Law (SOAS) and a team of postgraduate volunteers. The conference was
based on the assumption that anthropology has 'a wealth of experience and much
to offer the indigenous knowledge movement', and that in turn 'opportunities for
anthropology to engage practically as never before' would lead to 'a revolution
in anthropological method and theory…[with] communities no longer research
subjects but participants.'
Sessions were structured so as to allow plenty of time for discussion. The recurring questions were: What is knowledge? What is 'indigenous' knowledge? and: How do and should indigenous knowledge and science relate to one another? The following comments are worth passing on to Monitor readers.
Regarding 'What is knowledge?' it was suggested that knowledge is not static and contained within categories ('scientific' or 'indigenous'), but may instead be conceived of as in flux over a continuous plane (Sillitoe), as flowing between 'local' and 'global' (Arce, Wageningen, and Fisher, Wales), and as adapting in response to particular situations (Mosse, SOAS). The conference made it clear that there are many different types of knowledge, and as many ways of owning, transmitting and collecting it. For instance, Yemeni builders use types of knowledge which cannot be transformed into language at all, and instead rely upon traditional means of transmission between master and apprentice (Marchand, SOAS). Clammer (Kent) suggested that when speaking of people's world-views, 'knowledge' may be a somewhat limiting term to use, as it emphasizes the cognitive dimension at the expense of 'other aspects of social perception, action and response'.
On 'What is 'indigenous' knowledge?', it was concluded after some debate that it would be most efficient to stick with 'indigenous' while remaining conscious of the ways in which this word is likely to be misinterpreted. Research by Strang (Lampeter) in North Queensland, and by Leach (Cambridge) in Papua New Guinea, suggested that what distinguishes IK is that it tends to be closely linked to, and reaffirmed by, place. Strang reminded the conference that showing indigenous knowledge to be essentially different from other knowledge systems is of special importance when indigenous land claims are at stake.
As to 'How do and should indigenous knowledge and science relate to one another?', Posey (Oxford) pointed out that scientists are used to fitting concepts into a single all-encompassing network and so find it hard to relate to conflicting and fragmentary knowledge systems. Purcell and Onjoro-Kearly (South Florida), focusing on the development of medical practices in Africa, had found that even where it was planned to integrate indigenous and Western scientific knowledge, in practice Western knowledge was still favoured. They suggested the establishment of set procedures to ensure a more equitable dialogue.
The importance of indigenous knowledge was also discussed. It was found that first of all, IK is important to the indigenous people themselves: it provides a strong base from which cultures can healthily adapt to changing circumstances, and it is closely linked with identity. Secondly, IK was seen as vital if development interventions are to be successful. It was encouraging that there seemed to be a growing awareness of the importance of non-technical indigenous knowledge, even though it cannot necessarily be translated into the language of scientific advisors. Thirdly, IK was seen as a rich resource which it is vital to preserve for the benefit of mankind in general.
Some final thoughts I would like to share: It was disappointing that the
overall emphasis seemed to be on how science could most efficiently improve upon
(while plundering) other knowledge systems, rather than on how a creative and
respectful dialogue could be set up. Few papers dealt with 'Western' indigenous
knowledges, or development work in 'the West'. Doubtless this has to do with
where research funding comes from. (Paul Sillitoe)
For more information, contact: Paul Sillitoe, Anthropology Department, 43
Old Elvet, Durham, DH1 3HH, UK.
Amazônia 500 años
Belém (Brazil)
17-20 April 2000
The international symposium 'Amazonia 500 years' was organized by the Goeldi
Museum, Universidade Federal do Pará, and the municipal government of Belém.
The symposium subtitle was 'Lessons from history and reflections for a new era'
(Lições de História e Reflexões para uma Nova Era). Amid the
celebratory speeches and commemorations of Brazil's Quincentennial, the event
reappraised the consequences of the European arrival on Brazilian soil.
Brazilian and international scientists presented papers on indigenous culture
and resource management, land rights, biodiversity, Amazonian prehistory and
history, modernization and globalization, and inter-ethnic contact. The
symposium coincided with Brazilian Indian Week (Semana do Índio),
and 23 indigenous peoples from different ethnic groups (Wai-wai, Guajajara,
Ka'apor, Tembé and Guajá) were honoured during the proceedings.
The event opened with papers describing Amazonian prehistory, its peoples and natural landscapes. Archaeological research conducted by Michael Heckenberger showed that in areas of the Amazon previously thought to be uninhabitable, indigenous cultures had actually thrived and people had competently managed their natural environment over long periods of time. Likewise, Anna Roosevelt dated the presence of indigenous peoples in the Amazon to much earlier than had ever been assumed. She pointed to evidence that these peoples had been adapted to the region for a long time. Local scholars Vera Guapindaia and Edithe Pereira presented work revealing the wealth of information that is available to archaeologists in Amazonia and stressed the importance of professionally exploring and thus protecting prehistoric sites.
The second day of the symposium dealt with Amazonian history. Attention focussed mainly on the processes by which European settlers and colonial powers took control of the land. Local historian Vicente Salles gave an overview of settlement in the region and the consequences of inter-ethnic contact. He claims that this contact gave rise to the peasant class commonly referred to in Brazil as the Amazonian caboclo. These are the people of mixed ancestry who have conserved much of the cultural and ecological knowledge of their indigenous forebears. Gersen Baniwa, an indigenous leader of the upper Rio Negro, related how Baniwa myth and history express his community's view of the European occupation.
The third day addressed modernization and the various development schemes for the Amazon. Brazilian geographer Berta Becker discussed the geo-political processes of occupation in the region and Phillip Fearnside examined the political economics of Brazil's attempt to scale-up soybean production for export, and the environmental consequences this venture is having.
The fourth and final day examined the future prospects of the Amazon region. Darrell Posey presented a paper on the intellectual property rights of Amazonian peoples and the mechanisms which could be used to protect their natural genome. Later, indigenous leader Clemente Tembé described the status of his people's struggle for land rights and security in the eastern Amazon, urging symposium participants to become more engaged with the practical problems facing indigenous peoples in the region. (Louis Forline)
The symposium organizers expect to publish the proceedings later this year.
More information can be obtained from either Louis Forline
Federal University do Para
Anthropology Department
Rua Augusto Corrêa, 01
66075-110 Belém, Brazil
Tel.: +55-217 6027
Fax: +55-211 2024
E-mail: forline@museu-goeldi.br
or Ima Vieira (ima@museu-goeldi.br).
Back to: top of the page | Contents
IK Monitor (8-2) | IKDM Homepage
Suggestions to: ikdm@nuffic.nl
© copyright Nuffic-CIRAN and contributors 2000.