SUBJECT: Local knowledge - a clash of cultures?
AUTHOR: Martin Sharman
DATE: 7th April

KEYWORDS: Biodiversity knowledge, indigenous and local people, scientific sensitivity.

SUMMARY: We are likely to be interested in utilitarian aspects of local knowledge, and these aspects are likely to be the very ones that the owners of the knowledge would like to protect.

When we speak of local biodiversity knowledge, it is probably mostly the utilitarian (thanks Andreas) aspects that interest us - and within the utilitarian set, mainly that knowledge that relates to food or medicine. It is unlikely to be for normative reasons - after all, we, the rational scientists, are not likely to belong to "their" culture, and our interest in some exotic value system is likely to be at best academic. Caspian Richards has put his finger on an essential issue when he says that "if one argues that biodiversity is economically important, people will be more likely to think about it as an economic resource". This is typically the view of the industrial world - you and me. Caspian continues "argue that the variety of life is sacred and people will be more likely to think about it in terms of intrinsic value", and this, I think, is very often the view of societies that live closer to nature.

For this reason, I don't think that it is simple to benefit from local knowledge. The burden of cultural perspective is significant. In the previous session Erling Berge pointed out that our approach to conservation depends greatly on whether we view humans as part of, or outside nature. European cultures have a long history of "struggle against nature". By contrast, the exploitation ethic of industrialised peoples is anathema to the many indigenous peoples who view themselves as an integral part of nature.

I slipped the word "indigenous" into the previous sentence. I understand by "local" two different groups. Indigenous peoples are populations that are genetically, phenotypically, linguistically and culturally distinct from peoples who moved into the area or surrounding areas at some later date. Some populations who also maintain traditional lifestyles are genetically, phenotypically, and often linguistically similar to surrounding populations, and share common ancestors with them. These are local communities, but not indigenous peoples. The reason that I make the distinction is that the responsibilities of the scientist and the policy maker towards the two groups are, I think, different.
The knowledge of indigenous peoples is a vital part of their ethnic culture, and gives them an identity that distinguishes them from their neighbours. By contrast, that fraction of the knowledge of a local community that is truly local is unlikely to be a significant part of their total cultural identity.
Thus the marginal value of local knowledge is likely to be quite different in the two cases. The preamble to the CBD (unfortunately in my view) elides the two when it speaks of "the close and traditional dependence of many indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles on biological resources ... and the sustainable use of its components."
Perhaps because I grew up in Africa, I'd like to focus particularly on indigenous knowledge.

In the case of indigenous peoples, it seems to me important that researchers recognise that the traditional knowledge of biodiversity that they are studying is an intellectual property, even if it is not legally protected as such. As always, researchers should understand and respect their ethical responsibilities towards their subjects, but in this case they should also be aware that the information they gain has cultural value, and protect the knowledge if asked to do so. Many indigenous peoples are suspicious of the motives of scientists, since they have seen (or heard of) cases where patents have emerged from what they view as stolen local knowledge. Researchers should ensure that their research fully involves the indigenous people not just as subjects but also to help them to understand better and perpetuate their own traditional knowledge.

All this is about how researchers should go about their work. But what should be the aim of the work? The first step must be an inventory and description of local knowledge of biodiversity and sustainable use of its components. This is unlikely to be simple, because an observer may not understand local knowledge just by watching people. They will need to comprehend the culture so as to identify correctly those (often women) who hold the knowledge, discuss their concepts with them and translate their responses into scientifically useful terms. Subsequently the scientist must set about validating the local knowledge; again, this is not likely to be easy.

To end this contribution with a statement of research needs, I would suggest the following:
- Understand the status and trends of local knowledge in Europe (is it threatened?);
- Understand the extent to which European indigenous peoples or local communities restrict access to local knowledge or treat it as a common good.

With best wishes,

A contribution by:
Martin Sharman
European Commission
LX46 2/74
B-1049 Brussels, Belgium
Research DG DI-4 Biodiversity and Ecosystems
Geographic address: Rue Luxembourg 46