Biodiversity conservation and indigenous knowledge

2.4 Biodiversity conservation and indigenous knowledge

As indigenous communities inhabit many of the remaining significant areas of high natural value, they depend directly or indirectly upon the wealth of these ecosystems for their livelihoods. It has been widely acknowledged that the economies of indige-nous peoples are closely adapted to the natural resources of their particular environ-ments, of which they reveal a high degree of knowledge based on observation and long practice. In this way they have developed and maintained a cumulative body of knowledge representations based on extended histories of interaction with specific natural environments. This acknowledgement points to one of the most frequently discussed elements of the CBD with regard to indigenous peoples, namely the direc-tion it takes on the central role of knowledge in the formadirec-tion of local-global reladirec-tion- relation-ships. The preamble claims to recognise the close dependence of many indigenous and local communities on biological resources and gives expression to the desirability of sharing equitable benefits arising from the use of traditional knowledge relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. In several provisions explicit ref-erence is made to the importance of such knowledge. Official commitments embod-ied in article 8(j) mark the starting point the present study is departing from. The sec-tion requires the contracting parties to take measures ›as far as possible‹ and ›subject to their national legislations‹ to

respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communi-ties embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological di-versity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and practices (Gündling 2000: 8).²³

With reference to in situ conservation, article 10(c) likewise calls upon the signing countries to »protect and encourage customary use of biological resources in accor-dance with traditional cultural practices that are compatible with conservation or sus-tainable use requirements«. Article 17(2) addresses the exchange of information. This includes the »exchange of results of technical, scientific and socio-economic research, as well as information on training and surveying programmes, specialized knowledge, indigenous and traditional knowledge [...]. It shall also, where feasible, include repa-triation of information.« Article 18(4) states that parties shall »in accordance with na-tional legislations and policies, encourage and develop methods for cooperation for

23 Gündling (2000: 9) assumes that the term indigenous ›communities‹ as opposed to indigenous

›peoples‹ was chosen intentionally in order to avoid the debate over the concepts of ›people‹ and

›peoples‹, which has been under way for years in the international arena and UN institutions. Behind the concept of ›peoples‹ lies the notion of self-determination, following the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as noted by Oviedo (2002: 4). Just as the term ›indigenous‹ lacks a coherent understanding, the term ›local‹ with its multiple meanings not only relates to questions of scale. In the CBD, there is neither a definition nor orientation as to what a ›community‹ is and how the phrase ›embodying traditional lifestyles‹ is to be understood.

The cultural context of biodiversity conservation 30

the development and use of technologies, including indigenous traditional technolo-gies« (Gündling 2002: 39ff.).²⁴ Although the CBD does not further specify the con-cept of knowledge, its notion becomes clear in other official documents such as the report Traditional Lifestyles and Biodiversity Use issued by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre of UNEP, which makes reference to »traditional biodiversity-related knowl-edge« (UNEP-WCMC 2003).²⁵

As previously indicated, the significance of knowledge, innovations and practices of in-digenous and local communities becomes most evident in the field of food and agriculture where it plays a fundamental role in sustaining local resource use practices, whether they be small-scale farming, hunting, fishing or gathering of wild produce. Almost 90 percent of the food requirements in the ›South‹ are met through local production and two-thirds are based on community farming systems (Christie & Mooney 2000: 321).

It has been recognised that local crop populations are more diverse in such traditional farming systems than in agricultural areas dominated by agro-industrial technologies.

The variety of cultivated plants has been framed in terms of agro-biodiversity as »that part of biodiversity which, within the context of agricultural production, delivers food, contributes to people's livelihoods and conserves habitats« (GTZ 2000: 3).

The slash and burn agriculture as practiced widely in tropical agro-ecosystems in parts of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Pacific offers one example of a sustain-able farming system based upon traditional knowledge and practice that enhances bio-logical diversity (Nakashima & Roué 2002: 318f.). In these countries, small-holders have developed highly sophisticated knowledge on the selection and improvement of crops and in most cases have developed agricultural practices with few external inputs.

Thus, agro-biodiversity has been fostered following traditional land use systems that created a genetic diversity including local cultivars and breeds of crops and animals best suited to specific local environmental conditions. Such knowledge in not re-stricted to subsistence activities, but includes detailed observations of population ecology and species interactions that arise from long-term association with a particular flora and fauna. And like biological diversity, such intellectual diversity enhances the evolution of cultures and their ability to adapt to a changing world (Kimmerer 2002).

In this way peasant communities have maintained modes of production and plant in-ventories that contain crop and domestic animal diversity adapted to a wide range of environmental conditions and complex agro-ecosystems. Thus, peasant landscapes

»are often de facto botanical gardens of incredible complexity – stores of biological diversity and natural compounds, providing sources of new hybrids« (Brush 1996: 1).²⁶

24 For an analysis of provisions of the CBD as related to indigenous peoples, see Posey (1996a).

25 Terminological and conceptual approaches will be discussed thoroughly in chapter 3.4.

26 In Mesoamerica, for instance, since communities began to emerge about 6,000 years ago, maize was domesticated through selective breeding from a wild grain (Carrasco1990: xxi). Over the course of centuries, the largest number of maize varieties worldwide has been created by farmers inhabiting rural areas of present day Guatemala. Today around 600 local varieties are threatened by genetically modified varieties promoted by multinational seed companies. Government policies keep the price of locally produced maize varieties low while hybrid seeds are imported. Their use severely increases farmers' dependence on agroindustry (Gómez & Pacay Caal 2003: 204).

The global context 31

Fig. 2.2 Local maize variety cropped in Guatemala

Traditionally, farmers maintained their crop varieties by keeping household seed stocks and by obtaining seed through generational and intra- and inter-community exchanges. Some of these customary networks have been disrupted or no longer exist (Grenier 1998: 5). In discussing major threats to agro-biodiversity, Guha and Martinez-Alier (1997) point to market extensions and the fact that decisions relat-ing to rural production systems are taken to greater extent on the basis of priorities indicated by prices. According to the authors, the introduction of new varieties is con-sidered an undeniable technical progress. Consequently, modern agriculture leads to biological impoverishment by replacing diversity with uniformity and security with vulnerability. Crop heterogeneity is a possible solution to the vulnerability of mono-cultural systems in agriculture. Although precise figures are often used, it is difficult to construct indicators of genetic erosion because the names of varieties used in tradi-tional agriculture are often not recorded and the extent of farmers' reutilisation of seeds is unknown. Thus, agricultural diversity that has not yet been properly investi-gated and recorded will lose its potential for co-evolution as traditional agroecology vanishes (1997: 109).

Apart from its significance in the field of agricultural and agroforestry systems, the value of knowledge is well demonstrated in the pharmaceutical sector. The vast major-ity of the world's population is dependent upon health-care and traditional medicines derived from medicinal plants.²⁷ Worldwide, a total of at least 35,000 plant species are used for medicinal purposes and, according to estimates by the WHO, about 70 per-cent of the common modern pharmaceuticals are derived from traditional herbal

me-27 Mittermeier and Konstant (2001) specify that traditional medicine in developing countries, prac-ticed by at least three billion people, relies entirely on the diversity and availability of wild species. In Africa, for example, 70 to 80 percent of the population relies on traditional medicines and the role of medicinal plants in the healthcare system is enormous, as stressed by Nakashima (1998).

The cultural context of biodiversity conservation 32

dicines originally generated by local and indigenous communities (GTZ 2001: 1). Just as biodiversity itself is in danger of disappearing, almost all local knowledge of me-dicinal plants as well as the plants themselves could disappear within just one genera-tion (Christie & Mooney 2000: 321). In many cases throughout the world, the erosion of traditional knowledge systems has led to an impoverishment of local medicine and a dependence upon chemical pharmaceuticals (Laird 2000: 349).

Regarding its potential economic application, such knowledge is increasingly being seen by state societies as having major practical significance.²⁸ However, its transfer raises issues of justice and ethics. Principles of patent law and intellectual property rights (IPR), along with international agreements such as the CBD, oblige some form of compensation to such sources of knowledge (Kempton 2001: 53).²⁹ Discussing the crucial aspect of legal measures to protect indigenous knowledge, Shiva (1994) criti-cally asserts that the crisis of biodiversity is not just a crisis of the loss of species that serve as ›natural capital‹, but also a crisis that threatens the livelihoods of millions of people in the ›Third World‹ countries. Even though references are made to ›global di-versity‹ and ›global genetic resources‹, biodiversity is not a ›global commons‹ in the ecological sense that the atmosphere is, but exists in specific countries and is used by specific communities. She concludes that neither ecological nor livelihood sustainabil-ity can be ensured without a just resolution of the issue of who controls the resources.

The globalisation of patent and intellectual property regimes is seen as an expansion of the economic paradigm that itself contributed to the global ecological crisis. Like-wise, Posey has critically examined the »commodification of nature«, which he views as »one of the biggest threats to global security in the twenty-first century« (2003:

121). This implies that global trade and political initiatives are reducing the diversity of nature to mere products of biotechnology and commercial exploitation. Although in-ternational efforts to recognise indigenous and local communities are positive devel-opments to be welcomed, they face strong forces of the globalisation of trade.

28 Myer (1998) points to the economic value of biodiversity and the benefits of bioprospecting by the pharmaceutical industry, which is estimated to have earned almost five billion US$ from plant germplasm taken from the ›South‹.

29 Apart from being negotiated within the frame of the CBD, the debate on IPR involves further in-ternational legislations, including the FAO and WTO. On a global scale, the agreement on Trade Re-lated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) gained particular importance. However, Grenier (1998) claims that the existing IPR agreements fail to recognise the rights of indigenous and local communities to their own knowledges and innovations. Nor does the CBD define protection at the level of the community or provide mechanisms to control outsiders' access to indigenous biore-sources. For further discussions on aspects connecting IK and IPR, consider Shiva (1994), Brush &

Stabinsky (1996), Frieden (2000), Posey (2000a), Hahn (2001) and Zerda-Sarmiento & Forero Pineda (2002). With a broader scope on international law and policy regarding the rights of indigenous peo-ples, Mauro & Hardison (2000) discuss the ›soft law‹ context of declarations, agreements, ethical guidelines and policy frameworks that reinforce indigenous entitlements.

The global context 33

Despite recognition of the crucial role of peasant and indigenous groups who have used and conserved genetic resources since time immemorial, Guha and Martinez-Alier (1997: 115f.) remind us that the CBD does not explicitly ensure their ownership and rights to these resources. The authors raise the question of whether genetic re-sources, wild rere-sources, or traditional and genetically engineered varieties should be commercialised or whether they should remain a ›world heritage‹. Such questions re-main unresolved and a number of aspects of the CBD have generated considerable controversy and are subject of continuing intergovernmental negotiations.³⁰ With re-gard to its translation into practice, Gündling (2002: 11) remarks that the CBD will only be as effective as its implementation will be at the national and international level.

Even if it explicitly mentions the application of national legislations, it has become a significant forum for discussions on indigenous issues and an important benchmark in view of which national regulations and legislations have been designed. In this way, the processes between the global and the local are mediated by national and regional processes. The CBD maintains formal liaison with other international agreements and treaties that touch on biodiversity issues, including provisions on local and indigenous communities and intellectual property rights. The follow up conferences are seen as im-portant events in that they promote ongoing discussions on key issues and negotia-tions on policy direcnegotia-tions for future developments.

In addition to the growing international attention and public concern over the proceeding global environmental change, particularly since the arising debates accom-panying the emergence of the CBD, a similar apprehension emerged within academic debates. In general, the scientific challenge has been to develop interdisciplinary ex-pertise drawing from both natural and social sciences, to approach the »powerful glo-bal environmentalist doctrine of biodiversity« (Marcus 1995: 105). Departing from the latter, scholars like Hajer and Fischer have argued that the ›global turn‹ of Rio is not to be interpreted as »the ›climax‹ of environmental discourse per se« (1999: 2). Although it appears a key moment in the determination of environmental problems, many terms remain unclear and need to be reframed in an effort to find new ways of dealing with the politics of environmental change. Essentially, the authors express their conviction that the discourse is characterised by the fact that it has been detached from the cul-tural dimension of environmental politics. They recommend reconsidering the culcul-tural assumptions underlying operational practices. Among others, this is one topic to be discussed in the following chapter conceptualising claims and features of the discur-sive production within different strands of academic research in the social sciences.

30 In the course of the negotiations within the executive body of the CBD, an Ad Hoc Working Group was founded to specify the implementation of Article 8(j) and related provisions. Reference to this particular issue also appears in other policies of global scope; an overview is provided by Long Mar-tello and Jasanoff (2004: 10f.).