MARCO CONCEPTUAL

The international community has demonstrated its commitment to recognize the “contribution of traditional knowledge, particularly with regard to environmental protection and the management of natural resources, and fostering synergies between modern science and local knowledge” (UNESCO, 2006:2). At present, many international documents that relate to sustainability or the conservation of biodiversity indicate the importance of indigenous knowledge, traditional knowledge or traditional ecological knowledge and local knowledge.

The World Conservation Strategy (IUCN et al 1980; Our Common Future, WCED 1987;

50

Agenda 21 from the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro in 1992; and the Convention on Biological Diversity which also was a product of the Rio conference) are all illustrations of where local and indigenous knowledge have achieved international recognition. Consequently, IK has been widely recognized as relevant in regard to NRM (Wohling, 2009), especially in areas such as water (Shrestha et al, 2005; Boelens and Gelles, 2005; Bang-Oa, 2006), soils (Liniger and Schwileh, 2002; Joshi et al, 2004; Shrestha et al, 2005), biodiversity and conservation (Oviedo et al, 2000; Berkes, 2001; Farooquee et al, 2004; Steiner and Oviedo, 2004; Hill et al, 2012), forest (Herrmann, 2005; Charnlay, 2007), wildlife (Phuthego and Chanda, 2004; Moller et al, 2004; Gilchrist et al, 2005), and plants and vegetation (Farooquee et al, 2004; Cleophas, 2004; Sumner, 2006; Ladio and Lozadaa, 2009). Shrestha et al (2005) present experiences of soil and water management in Nepal which applies a participatory technology development approach to generate suitable soil and water management involvement that decreases nutrient losses from the land. This approach includes combining farmers’ local knowledge and practices with scientists’ knowledge, and the study recommends the incorporation of farmers’ knowledge and perspectives to develop and use new technology. Giving farmers and their communities a leading role in experimentation and decision-making, ‘‘not only ensures development of appropriate technologies, but also increases farmers’ empowerment and participation’’ (Shrestha et al, 2005:47). Oviedo et al (2000) explain the relationship between the ecoregions identified by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), their biodiversity and inhabitants, pointing out that the conservation of these ecoregions should take into account indigenous peoples and their traditional knowledge. Moreover, he assumes that there is likely to be a strong correlation between areas of high biodiversity and areas of high cultural diversity, and this is explained by the extreme ecological, and therefore subsistence, conditions existing in such

51

environments. ‘‘These interactions and TK systems reflect unique adaptations and successful specialization in the use and management of landscapes’’ (Oviedo et al, 2000:74).

Herrmann (2005) gives an example from field research that investigated ecological knowledge, uses and management of the Araucaria Araucana forest by indigenous Mapuche Pewenche people who inhabit the Andes Mountains in Chile. This was based on the sociocultural, spiritual and ecological relationships they have with the Araucaria forest. He argues that native forest conservation and management objectives need to include, rather than exclude, indigenous people. However, he sees that there is a challenge to bring together indigenous knowledge, values and management practices and western science in order to form collaborative management strategies of the Araucaria Araucana. These should be suitable culturally, socially, and economically for indigenous resource use and can be adapted to ecological changes. Nonetheless, he asserts that this also would be of benefit to western societies in conserving a valuable species and part of biodiversity commitments (Herrmann, 2005). This argument brings to mind the idea of Chun and Tak (2009), when they attribute the success of sustainable forest management in Korea to a traditional knowledge system which is known as ‘songgye’ (Chun and Tak, 2009). This supports the arguments of Oviedo et al (2000), Shrestha et al (2005), and Herrmann (2005) that IK is an important component in managing and conserving forest areas in a sustainable manner. It also means that the participation of local people of forest regions in the decision-making process is vital to ensure the success of management strategies.

In contrast, Charnley et al (2007) question the integration of traditional and local ecological knowledge into forest biodiversity conservation in the Pacific Northwest. They describe the application of this knowledge to forest management and biodiversity conservation as being

52

difficult, and they attribute this difficulty to a number of social, economic and policy constraints that have prevented this knowledge from being applied into forest management and biodiversity conservation. However, they acknowledge that IK could be integrated in forest management and biodiversity conservation, as long as the local forest practitioners agree to share their knowledge with western scientists and forest managers, provided that they are interested, and they will get mutual benefits (Charnley et al, 2007).

In their study of projects in a controlled-hunting area in Botswana, Phuthego and Chanda (2004) examined the integration of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) in community-based natural resource management, and illustrated that the projects acknowledge and demonstrate the utility value of TEK in sustainable natural resource management. They concluded that TEK systems and institutions could serve as access points into sustainable natural resource management. They extended their argument seeing that:

‘‘local communities are principal beneficiaries of traditional resource management regimes based on knowledge systems, whereas the formal, non-indigenous sectors, especially governments and private enterprises favour large economic and commercial institutions as principal beneficiaries. The formal systems are controlled through market outlets and universal Intellectual Property Rights systems’’ (Phuthego and Chanda, 2004:74).

The work of Phuthego and Chanda (2004) points to the potential of the exploration of cultural practices of the local people and of incorporating constructive features into the modern NRM expertise to ensure sustainable utility of the wildlife.

However, Gilchrist et al (2005:1) stated that ‘‘management decisions based primarily on local ecological knowledge (LEK), in the absence of scientific scrutiny, should be treated with

53

caution’’. Despite this, they strongly advocate integrating local ecological knowledge into efforts to manage and conserve wildlife, but they thought it necessary to set rigorous testing of LEK prior to its incorporation into management plans. They reach this conclusion after they reviewed four case studies of marine birds in which they collected LEK for each species, and then compared this information to empirical data derived from independent scientific studies of the same populations. They found variable success after integrating LEK into their own conservation and management efforts for these bird species. They confirmed that LEK was a useful source of information for three of four species (Gilchrist et al, 2005). In this case, it could be argued that the validity of LEK, after it been subject to rigorous testing, will be similar to scientific knowledge. Hence, it is easier to use already valid scientific knowledge rather than go through repeated a experimental process. Otherwise, LEK could be used combine with scientific management to provide joint management or co-management.

This is what Moller et al (2004) recommended when they evaluated ways of combining science and traditional ecological knowledge to monitor populations. They mentioned that in scientific practice, ideal population monitoring methods are accurate and easily measured in a repeatable manner. Yet, scientific research and monitoring can be expensive, often requiring specialized skills or technology and often not practicable in the remote places in which traditional processes are utilized. In places like these, local communities possess neither science ability, nor tradition and trust in science. In addition, traditional users need time to switch to complex monitoring methods, especially if the methods are not related to their customs. In contrast, they thought that the majority of traditional monitoring methods used by native people are fast, low-cost and hence, Moller et al (2004:31), conclude that:

‘Traditional and scientific management systems may prove complementary, and differences between them more theoretical than real. Because science is expensive and many customary harvests take place in developing countries or in poor regions, simple, rapid, and inexpensive yet robust monitoring methods are needed. Scientific

54

methods must be congruent with traditional management and acceptable to local resource users. Complementing the limited scientific monitoring information in such regions with traditional ecological knowledge is potentially workable and cost-effective, and adaptive management may provide a framework for joint use’.

However, there is remaining worldwide debate of the validity of IK in NRM which reveals much about its applicability within NRM (Wohling, 2009). Illustrating an example from northern Australia, Wohling (2009) asserts that it has been widely acknowledged that indigenous association with the landscape has many levels and interrelationships with ecology, identity, kinship, social organization, governance and economy. Even though it is undeniable that local knowledge is an important storehouse of information about the natural history of specific indigenous estates, there is increasing empirical and theoretical evidence that IK is not ‘‘adapted to the scales and kinds of disturbance that contemporary society is exerting on natural system’’(Wohling, 2009:2).

These examples demonstrate that the key issues in the literature are the encouragement and strengthening of indigenous practices regarding NRM methods, and building indigenous people’s capacity in order to empower them to manage their territories in a sustainable manner through effective practices and techniques (Bang-Oa, 2006). Moreover, some researchers argue for the importance of combining and interlacing modern scientific and indigenous knowledge to produce a more realistic and sensitive understanding and effective management of natural environmental resources for SD (Cleophas, 2004; Gilchrist and Mallory, 2005; Gilchrist et al, 2007). Doing so will foster the influence of traditional knowledge in environmental decision-making in order to promote more socially egalitarian and environmentally sustainable relationships between human societies and nature )Nakashima and Roué, 2002; Ellis, 2005; Gilchrist and Mallory, 2007). It will also enhance

55

the role of IK in subsistence economies and the utilization and conservation of natural resources of wild plants crops, and wildlife species (Farooquee et al, 2004; Gilchrist and Mallory, 2007).