As I mentioned above, a standard classification system of TEK provides a tool for TEK holders, scientists and practitioners to identify problems and solutions, and enables them to communicate across projects (Salafsky et al., 2008). For example, if one community addresses the main threat to TEK as “indigenous language loss”, the
neighbouring community recognises their TEK threat as the “loss of elders”, and another community in the same area consider that “young people are moving away” is the main threat to their TEK, it sounds like they are talking about different issues. However these causes may all relate to a direct threat of TEK – loss of transmission pathways. This example illustrates how a standard classification system can be used as a diagnostic tool
76
for identifying TEK threats efficiently. TEK holders, TEKconservation practitioners and scientists can use the typology to identify and describe what is happening in their site.
They can also scan through the threat classification and see if they recognise any threats that have been ignored in their own analysis of the situation. Once the threats are
identified, in association with the use of conservation action typology, conservation actors can identify and prioritise actions to deal with the threats.
At larger scales, a standard classification provides a common language for community members, practitioners and scientists to communicate and exchange their experience.
This is extremely important since we are now living in a globalised world (Berkes, 2007).
Sharing and exchanging lessons and experience can effectively save researchers time and effort by avoiding unnecessary repeated experiments. By using a common language, information transmission and sharing across regions and across organisations becomes possible (Zent, 2001). A unified system also offers the possibility and likelihood of building common databases of TEK threats and TEK conservation. By searching through a common database of TEK conservation projects, TEK holders and practitioners may find other projects that face similar threats, and find actions that have been effective in such situations. To date, TEK databases exist in several countries, but most of these databases are at national or regional scales. There is no unified international database that draws overall pictures of TEK and TEK conservation globally. Similarly, as
addressed by Salafsky et al. (2008:2) in the field of biodiversity conservation, “[a standard lexicon] would enable conservationists around the world to share and exchange experiences through common databases of conservation practice, thus
facilitating cross-project learning and the development of principles about what actions are effective under different conditions to encounter different threats”.
Maybe even more importantly, a unified classification system provides a powerful tool for identifying the global pattern of TEK threats to inform conservation actions. This pattern will be useful for guiding national and international decision making and funding allocation. International conventions and agreements have played an increasingly important role in managing key human commons, including natural
77
resources and cultural heritage in recent decades (Maffi, 2005). For example, the Convention of Biological Diversity has played a significant role in guiding conservation policies at a national level around the globe, as well as leading international cooperation on issues of biodiversity conservation. The IUCN-CMP (World Conservation Union – Conservation Measure Partnership) Classification of Threats to Biodiversity provides an salient example of how unified classifications are useful and essential to the success of conservation efforts through a global network (Salafsky et al, 2008, 2009). As Salafsky et al. (2008) point out, the biodiversity conservation classification system improves
information sharing and learning among conservation practitioners within and across organisations. It ultimately contributes to the creation of a systematic science of biodiversity conservation. There are strong links and similarities between the conservation of biological and cultural diversity. As summarised by Maffi (2001:3),
“Over the past decades, scholars and advocates from a variety of fields have been increasingly pointing to the detrimental effects of current global socioeconomic and environmental processes on the very objects of their concern: biological species, the world’s ecosystems, human cultures, linguistic groups and their traditional knowledge…
these various manifestations of life on Earth are facing comparable threats of radical diversity loss”. The development of the TEK typologies has been deeply inspired by the IUCN-CMP’s Classifications of Threats and Actions to Biodiversity created by Salafsky and his colleagues over the last decade (Salafsky et al., 2002, 2003, 2008, 2009). Also inspired by the IUCN-CMP model, I suggest the following key concepts to illustrate the general components of any field situation in TEK research and conservation.
TEK Conservation Target is what a conservation action is trying to conserve. In this research, the conservation target is the entity of TEK, which includes knowledge of landscape and seascape, plants and animals; resource use and management practice;
social institutions and worldviews and beliefs.
TEK Degradation is the decline and/or degraded condition of any or all aspects of TEK (e.g. traditional knowledge decline; deterioration in traditional resource management and livelihood practices).
78
Direct Threats are the human activities that directly cause the destruction, decline and/or degradation of TEK conservation targets (e.g. the loss of pathways of TEK transmission; religious conversion).
Underlying Threats are the causal factors of direct threats, which usually include cultural, economic, political and institutional factors (e.g. government policy and legislation; influence of outside markets).
Conservation Actions are the actions undertaken by TEK holders and/or practitioners to conserve and revitalise TEK, and to empower TEK holders (e.g. community cultural camps; customary schools; TEK documentation). TEK conservation actions are a direct response to TEK degradation, where actions may be either reactive or proactive.
By applying these concepts to the analysis of real-world situations, a model was developed, as shown below:
Figure 3.1 A model of a TEK conservation project (inspired by Salafsky et al., 2008)
In real-world cases, any single TEK threat does not act alone. Rather, TEK degradation is usually the result of multiple threats occurring simultaneously, and as a result of
Conservation Actions
Underlying
Threats Direct
Threats
Conservation
Target TEK Degradation
79
historical and cumulative processes. Usually one direct threat is caused by several underlying threats, and these underlying threats may have other underlying causes. The ultimate goal of this study is to encourage effective TEK conservation by providing a standard lexicon for problem identification and a toolbox for conservation actions. As Figure 3.1 shows, conservation actions can be employed to underlying threats, direct threats, or directly to the conservation target. This creates great flexibility for
conservation actors when scoping targets and designing actions. More details of action design will be discussed in the next chapter.