| United Nations | E/CN.17/IPF/1996/16 |
Economic and Social Council
Distr. GENERAL
13 August 1996
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Panel on Forests
Third session
9-20 September 1996
IMPLEMENTATION OF FOREST-RELATED DECISIONS OF THE UNITED NATIONS
CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AT THE NATIONAL AND
INTERNATIONAL LEVELS, INCLUDING AN EXAMINATION OF SECTORAL AND
CROSS-SECTORAL LINKAGES
Programme element I.3: Traditional forest-related knowledge
Report of the Secretary-General
SUMMARY
As requested by the Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Panel on Forests at its
second session (E/CN.17/1996/24), the present report has been prepared for
substantive discussion of programme element I.3, "Traditional forest-related
knowledge" (TFRK), of the programme of work of the Panel. This report
contains a general overview covering the nature of traditional knowledge, its
relationships with property rights and the distinctions that it is necessary
to recognize as regards integrating traditional knowledge into forest
management. It describes recent progress and status concerning traditional
knowledge with regard to management of forests, biodiversity prospecting and
sharing experiences. In the last section, the report reviews the main
obstacles to further progress in the wide application of TFRK and provides a
set of conclusions and options for action for discussion by the Panel.
Within the overall context of sustainable development and taking into
account how traditional knowledge and practices in their broadest sense could
be applied to sustainable forest management, this report proposes that TFRK is
diverse and composed of many linked features including:
(a) Information about the various physical, biological and social
components of a particular forested landscape;
(b) Rules for using them without damaging them irreparably;
(c) Relationships among their users;
(d) Technologies for using them to meet the subsistence, health, trade
and ritual needs of local people;
(e) A view of the world that incorporates and makes sense of all the
above in the context of a long-term perspective in decision-making.
This report indicates that TFRK has diverse meanings and potential
usefulness to global society, but that most of the knowledge concerned cannot,
and the rest should not, be taken from its holders without their consent. It
must therefore be accessed through negotiation and partnership. Most TFRK has
little value outside the environment where it arose, however, and is likely to
be most valuable only as a means to achieve on-site sustainable forest
management. Accomplishing this requires that the holders of TFRK be involved
in:
(a) Holders' partnerships, in which local people as well as the State
agree holders' regimes for forest land;
(b) Planning partnerships, in which traditional and other forms of
knowledge are used together in making decisions on the use of forests;
(c) Management partnerships, in which the partners collaborate to put
their plans into effect.
Some forms of TFRK have meaning outside their local context and can have
a role in other areas including commercial biodiversity prospecting. They can
be made available on a contract basis between the holders and prospectors.
Other forms of TFRK, including planting and harvesting systems, plan varieties
and technologies, have less or no commercial potential but are nevertheless
the intellectual property of their originators and holders. To protect TFRK,
a comprehensive approach to intellectual property is needed, the aim of which
would be to ensure a fair return rather than to exclude or monopolize. Formal
agreements are needed to establish the right of collective holding of such
knowledge. Further study and consultation are needed to establish the right
of collective holding of such knowledge. Further study and consultation are
also needed to define the wording of such formal agreements.
Since most TFRK cannot usefully be digitized, the role of computer
database technology will be limited mainly to the sharing of anecdotal
information through the Internet, and certain specific tasks linked to
biodiversity prospecting.
It is suggested that the Panel give priority to actions addressed to
finding ways to ensure:
(a) That groups possessing TFRK are recognized so that they can enter
into access agreements concerning TFRK;
(b) That the relevant TFRK is recognized as the common property of the
group entering into the access agreement;
(c) That all access to TFRK is through an access agreement with its
holders, where these can be identified;
(d) That access agreements define the terms for the three main
circumstances in which access to TFRK might be sought, namely (a) where the
aim is to manage a forest by partnership between the people who live there and
the government, (b) where the aim is to invent patentable products for
commercial use and (c) where the aim is to share knowledge freely with others.
The main obstacle to achieving such settlements is likely to be the
difficulties involved in negotiating consensual agreements with a variety of
groups identified as holders of different types of TFRK. The Ad Hoc
Intergovernmental Panel on Forests provides a unique opportunity for
Governments that have taken this path to reassure others that TFRK is indeed
useful in managing forests sustainably as well as in locating potentially
valuable new products, and that a fair and equitable sharing of benefits
arising from such knowledge can only support each country in its efforts to
achieve sustainable development.
CONTENTS
Paragraphs Page
INTRODUCTION ........................................... 1 - 8 5
I. GENERAL OVERVIEW .................................. 9 - 29 6
A. Nature of traditional forest-related knowledge 9 - 16 6
B. Traditional forest-related knowledge and
property rights .............................. 17 - 23 9
C. Key distinctions in forest management ........ 24 - 29 10
II. RECENT PROGRESS AND STATUS ...................... 30 - 55 14
A. Direct management of forests ................ 30 - 38 14
B. Biodiversity prospecting ..................... 39 - 47 16
C. Sharing experiences .......................... 48 - 55 20
III. OBSTACLES TO FURTHER PROGRESS .................... 56 - 63 22
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS FOR ACTION ............. 64 - 74 24
A. Meaning of traditional forest-related knowledge
and property rights ...........................65 - 68 24
B. Establishing partnerships .................... 69 - 70 25
C. Participatory approaches .................... 71 26
D. Management of traditional forest-related knowledge72 27
E. Prospecting biodiversity and sharing of benefits. 73 27
F. Traditional forest-related knowledge and
indigenous people ........................... 74 28
Annex. NETWORK ACCESS POINTS .......................................32
Figures
I. Key distinctions in forest management .........................11
II. Managing inhabited forested landscapes ........................13
III. An approach to the classification of traditional forest-related
knowledge..................................................... 17
IV. Pathways to biodiversity prospecting ..........................19
INTRODUCTION
1. At the second session of the Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Panel on Forests
(see E/CN.17/1996/24, sect. IV.B.2), the Panel emphasized that the
substantive discussion should focus principally on the terms of reference
for this programme element as determined by the Commission on Sustainable
Development, taking into account the relevant paragraphs of the Non-legally
Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the
Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of
Forests (Forest Principles) 1/ and the relevant chapters of Agenda 21, 2/
as well as other relevant intergovernmental processes, in particular the
Convention on Biological Diversity. 3/
2. Relevant chapters of Agenda 21 include chapter 11 ("Combating
deforestation") and chapter 26 ("Recognizing and strengthening the role of
indigenous people and their communities"). Elements 2 (d), 4, 5 (a) and 12
(d) of the Non-legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a
Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable
Development of All Types of Forests (Forest Principles) are also relevant.
3. Recalling the terms of reference given by the Commission on
Sustainable Development for this programme element, 4/ the following
articles of the Convention on Biological Diversity are also relevant. By
these, Parties agree, as far as possible and appropriate, and subject to
national legislation, to:
(a) "Respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and
practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional
lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological
diversity 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" (art. 8 (j));
(b) "Protect and encourage customary use of biological resources in
accordance with traditional cultural practices that are compatible with
conservation or sustainable use requirements" (art. 10 (c));
(c) "Encourage and develop methods of cooperation for the development
and use of technologies, including indigenous and traditional technologies,
in pursuance of the objectives of this Convention" (art. 18.4).
4. At its third meeting in November 1996, the Conference of the Parties
to the Convention on Biological Diversity will consider ways and means to
implement article 8 (j) of the Convention. It will also examine the links
between forests and biological diversity in accordance with its decision
II/9, paragraph 2 (b). 5/ In this context, it should be noted that this
report takes into consideration paragraphs 8, 9, 16 and 17 of the Statement
on biological diversity and forests from the Convention on Biological
Diversity to the Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Panel on Forests of the
Commission on Sustainable Development (E/CN.17/IPF/1996/9 and Corr.1,
annex).
5. The present report was prepared jointly by the secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity and the secretariat of the Ad Hoc
Intergovernmental Panel on Forests, Division for Sustainable Development,
Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development of the
United Nations Secretariat. This report seeks to provide the basis for
substantive discussion, by the Panel at its third session, of programme
element I.3, in accordance with the guidance provided by the Panel at its
second session (E/CN.17/1996/24). The secretariats also received valuable
contributions in the form of submissions from Governments, from
intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations with relevant
expertise, and from individual experts.
6. The approach applied in this report assumes that no ecosystem can be
managed sustainably without ecological knowledge and clear management aims.
The knowledge involved may be drawn from global or local experience, while
the management aims are determined by the society doing the managing, based
on its own sense of priorities. Within the context of sustainable
development, the social actors in each society can be thought of as
partners in a common endeavour. Where people belonging to different
societies influence forest management aims at the same time, the clarity of
those aims can be lost unless partnerships exist among relevant interested
parties. How to create and operate such partnerships at the local,
national and global levels is thus just as critical an issue in sustainable
forest management as how to obtain and use knowledge, whether traditional
or otherwise.
7. Partnerships by definition are based on free negotiation, informed
consent and agreement among equals. The focus in this report on a
partnership-based approach follows the position in favour of participatory
management regimes as adopted by the Forest Principles, by Agenda 21, and
by the Convention on Biological Diversity. The range of possible
partnerships in forest management include those between nations, nations
and corporations, nations and local people, and between other combinations
of interested parties depending on circumstances.
8. Section I of this report provides a general overview, including a
review of the technical, economic and social issues that arise. Sections
II and III provide a review of progress and status, and obstacles to
further progress, respectively. Section IV recalls the issues that the
Panel, at its second session, identified as meriting further development
and offers a set of conclusions and options for action.
I. GENERAL OVERVIEW
A. Nature of traditional forest-related knowledge
9. Traditional knowledge (TK) is the information held in human memory
that is accessible, by recall and the practice of learned skills, in a
useful way in day-to-day life. In this context, the term "traditional
forest-related knowledge" (TFRK) is often used to mean "a blend of
knowledge and experience integrated within a coherent world view and value
system". "Traditional" means "handed down from one generation to another",
and in the case of TFRK, traditional knowledge usually encompasses
knowledge that has been accumulated by societies in the course of long
experience in a particular place, landscape or ecosystem. It can be
contrasted with cosmopolitan knowledge, which is drawn from global
experience and combines "Western" scientific discoveries, economic
preferences and philosophies with those of other widespread cultures.
10. The open-endedness of these words helps to explain the diversity of
the literature on TFRK, which encompasses the spiritual experiences,
philosophies, politics, technologies, subsistence activities and external
relations of all forest-dwelling peoples whose lifestyles are strongly
influenced by their own traditions, and who are often included within the
broad category of indigenous people. However, not all those who possess
TFRK are indigenous in the sense implied here and in the usage of other
forums. Principle 5 (a) of the Forest Principles recognizes this in
distinguishing between indigenous people and their communities, and "other
communities and forest dwellers". Working definitions of traditional
knowledge stress the links among traditionality, cultural distinctiveness
and the local environment to which each culture is adapted.
11. As people use a forest ecosystem, they may learn how to harvest its
resources without destroying it as a whole, even while changing its
structure and species composition through selective planting, weeding,
coppicing, burning and fallowing. For each place and level of technology,
a stable relationship may arise between forest and social actors, but this
stability will not survive the introduction of new hunting techniques (for
example, firearms), tree-felling equipment (for example, chainsaws) or
trading opportunities (for example, roads and markets). Traditional
forest-dwelling people, however, use many species in many different ways,
according to many different social rules. Some aspects of each approach
are likely to be more resilient than others, and these will evolve in
traditional forest-related knowledge, innovations and practices, which if
related to sustainable forest management will tend to have much to teach
other societies.
12. For any given level of technology, resources that are exclusively used
by small numbers of people who cooperate with one another are safer than
those used by many, competing people. Thus, any measure that limits to a
particular group the right to exploit a living resource will tend to
promote its sustainable use. This is because the group with access to the
resource will have more opportunity than others to learn about it and about
how to use it productively. That group will also have an incentive to use
it for its own long-term benefit and hence to use it cautiously and
more-or-less sustainably. Exclusive access, knowledge and a long-term
perspective are the key ingredients that may allow the sustainable use of
resources. This depends, however, on the remaining in force of the social
rules that govern access and on technology's changing at a rate no faster
than that at which those social rules can adapt to it.
13. As a group accumulates TFRK, it will develop a culture that is
increasingly distinct from all others. Many similarities will persist,
however, owing to common cultural and genetic inheritance from other
peoples, and adaptation of other groups to the demands of similar
ecosystems. Each culture thus contains some traditional knowledge that is
uniquely local, and some that is widely shared. The two kinds of knowledge
are deeply intermingled and embedded in the culture as a whole. Most
elements will make little sense if they are removed from a cultural context -
when stored, for example, in a computer database. Many can pass easily
into new cultural contexts, however, if the recipient culture is open to
new ideas and particularly if it has grown up in a similar environment -
one, that is, in which the imported concepts make sense.
14. It is suggested, therefore, that TFRK be made up of the following
linked features:
(a) Information about the components of a particular forest
ecosystem, such as its soils, trees, animals, streams, hunting grounds, old
fallow and sacred sites;
(b) Rules for using them;
(c) Relationships among their different users;
(d) Technologies for using them to meet the subsistence, health,
trade and ritual needs of local people;
(e) A view of the world that makes sense of such information, rules,
relationships and technologies in the context of a long-term perspective in
decision-making.
15. These aspects of TFRK have different kinds of meaning for global
society, and can be used in various ways. New data about forest ecology or
the behaviour and growth rates of forest organisms, for example, might
suggest new ways to design, implement and monitor forest management
systems. Sharing TFRK might help forest managers avoid procedures that
impact unnecessarily on local social systems. Rules on how to grow and
harvest forest organisms or to use forest soils without damaging them might
improve forestry and agroforestry systems. Clues on how to keep harmonious
social relations among competing groups might help relieve stresses in
other societies, including urban societies. Traditional technologies may
be more benign environmentally or socially than newer ones, and might be
used more widely.
16. All this raises three issues for nations that wish to find ways to use
TFRK in forest management:
(a) Little of the knowledge will be meaningful outside its local
context, so only some is likely to be helpful in solving practical problems
elsewhere;
(b) Most TFRK is so deeply embedded culturally that it can be
retrieved only through such traditional means as the trances of shamans,
healing rituals, dances, stories, initiations and other practices that are
not amenable to scientific study;
(c) The aim of promoting cultural transmission of TFRK from
traditional societies to cosmopolitan ones requires that the former be
willing to give and the latter to receive new ideas. This, requiring
mutual respect and understanding, cannot occur while feelings of inequality
between the two kinds of society persist.
B. Traditional forest-related knowledge and property rights
17. An increasingly large part of the global economy is now based on
buying and selling information, so the nature and future of intellectual
property are often considered a central issue. This can obscure the fact
that all economic activity rests ultimately, and for most people directly,
on management of ecosystems, the abuse of which has consequences for
achieving development objectives. Even so, intellectual property is an
important issue that impacts on the use of TFRK in several ways (Gadjil and
Devasia, 1995; Walden, 1995; Convention on Biological Diversity, 1996;
Programme for Traditional Resource Rights, 1996; Kay, 1996).
18. There are two main themes within the cosmopolitan approach to
intellectual property. First, patent laws have been devised to create
temporary monopolies in the supply of certain novel goods and services.
The aim of these is to safeguard the investments that often lead to
technical and product innovation in an industrial context. Patent laws
typically require that to be eligible for protection an invention must be
new, useful and non-obvious, and must be described in detail in the
application. These requirements appear to rule out the patenting of
naturally occurring items that have not been modified by people, but this
exclusion is narrowing in the light of court rulings and international
agreements. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights, including Trade in Counterfeit Goods, as contained within
the agreements of the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations, 6/
for example, allows countries to exclude "plants and animals other than
micro-organisms" from patentability (art. 27 (3b)), but this subparagraph
will be reviewed in 1999.
19. The second theme involves the creation of rights to plant varieties
that have arisen as a result of selection by people. The different (but
complementary in intent) concepts of plant breeders' rights and farmers'
rights are designed to protect a general interest in the use of varieties.
The intent is not to exclude or monopolize, but rather to promote sharing,
use and further development of the varieties concerned while recognizing
the original source of materials.
20. Alternative intellectual property rights regimes suitable for the
needs of local communities that collectively possess TFRK have been
proposed, taking into account the way in which traditional knowledge is
acquired as the common property of a people and hence constitutes an
integral and inalienable feature of its culture. One such proposal (Nijar,
1995) rejects the application of industrial patent law to innovations based
on TFRK, and seeks to resist the turning of traditional knowledge into a
traded commodity because this can erode community solidarity. It asserts
that commercial use of TFRK can occur but only at the absolute discretion
of its holders, and that the State's main role is to safeguard and protect
the rights of those holders. It also describes a community intellectual
rights act to cover all uses of traditional knowledge. This and other
proposals show the extent to which current views on property, innovation
and trade may have to be reconsidered if the views of indigenous and
traditional communities are to be reflected in global agreements. The
balance of opinion is that the application of patent law to TFRK itself is
to be rejected while accepting its usefulness and suggesting improvements
where particular inventions are based on TFRK and developed to
marketability (as, for example, in the case of certain pharmaceutical
products).
21. It has also been suggested that the concept of plant breeders' rights
be revised and extended to apply to traditional knowledge systems, creating
national sui generis (unique) arrangements for recognizing a general
interest of the holders in each knowledge system as a whole. Several
authors stress that such rights must reside in groups rather than
individuals, since traditional knowledge arises through the efforts of
past, present and future members of a particular society. The concept of
farmers' rights as defined in resolution 5/89 of the Conference of the Food
and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), adopted
29 November 1989 at the Twenty-fifth Session of the Conference, 7/ and the
provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity support this view.
Furthermore, it would not be ethical to employ an individual to reveal
traditional knowledge without the consent of the society involved. Since
TFRK cannot otherwise be taken from its holders involuntarily, and the
holders are the group, it must be correct for holding by the group to be
recognized in law and for access to TFRK to occur only by agreement between
the holders as a group and the person or institution seeking to obtain
access.
22. If TFRK and practices are to have a role both in maintaining the way
of life of the people who possess it, and in managing forests sustainably,
then there is a need to translate them both into policy and into practice.
23. Partnerships involve agreement and cooperation between people who are
equals but have complementary needs, so the negotiation of partnership
agreements for managing forests has the implication that local people,
Governments, researchers, interested public and private sector enterprises
and all other interested relevant parties will treat one another
respectfully. This applies equally to biodiversity prospecting and other
research contracts. In any contractual arrangement it is up to the parties
to decide what is fair, but minimum standards can be mandated by law, and
communities and Governments can cooperate to enforce the contracts and to
deter unethical practice.
C. Key distinctions in forest management
24. In its recommendation to establish the Panel, the Commission on
Sustainable Development recognized that a central concern was to avoid
further damage to natural forests by unsustainable human activities. 8/ As
the Panel noted at its second session when discussing programme element
I.2, the underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation are
diverse, interrelated and rooted in ecological, social, economic factors
that extend beyond the forest management sector or the locations of forests
themselves. Enough is known about the causes of forest damage to define a
simple framework that takes into account the nature and potential role of
TFRK as well as contemporary forest science. Thus, in principle a
country's forest estate can be divided into inhabited and uninhabited
areas, though in practice this may be difficult (figure I).
Figure I. Key distinctions in forest management
25. Inhabited forest areas are subject to customary rights, located within
indigenous lands and territories, or are used by forest-dwelling people,
while uninhabited ones are not encumbered by such usage or holders' claims.
However the notion of uninhabited forest areas should be viewed with
extreme caution for two reasons. First, there continue to be cases of
national Governments' becoming aware of the existence of isolated
indigenous forest-dwelling communities in areas considered uninhabited.
Second, the areas effectively utilized by many indigenous and traditional
communities for hunting, collecting or ceremonial purposes are often far
more extensive than Governments and planners recognize.
26. If such uninhabited areas exist, the nation as sole holder of the
resource could, if appropriate, enter directly into planning and management
partnerships with other social actors (national and international) in order
to use the forest in accordance with its national policies and with
internationally agreed guidelines and best practice. The aim of such
partnerships would be:
(a) To allocate forests to different kinds of use (spatial planning
process);
(b) To manage them for protection, production of timber, watershed
benefits, tourism revenues or biodiversity prospecting (management
process);
(c) To ensure that the planned use of one area does not adversely
affect the use of other areas (environmental impact assessment (EIA)
process).
27. As the locations of all habitations and associated claims to use the
forest in a country are recognized, the full extent of human occupancy of
its forest estate will become clear. Where occupation is established, it
is possible for government to take advantage of the fact by establishing
partnerships with local people to manage the forest sustainably (figure
II). This is the main context in which TFRK can be of use to Governments.
28. There are three general options for local people with respect to using
their knowledge to help achieve sustainable forest management, whereby:
(a) TFRK may be involved in the direct management of local forests;
(b) TFRK and local species may be used in the process of biodiversity
prospecting;
(c) Good ideas on forest management derived from TFRK can be shared
with others.
29. None of these options can be accomplished entirely without external
communications, technical assistance, investment or access to markets, so a
partnership approach is appropriate to all three. They have different
technical and capital requirements, however, and have different
consequences for the flow of benefits. The rest of this report describes
the implications of this in all three cases, suggests how appropriate
arrangements can be made, reviews progress, identifies barriers to further
action, and proposes ways in which those barriers might be overcome.
Figure II. Managing inhabited forested landscapes
II. RECENT PROGRESS AND STATUS
A. Direct management of forests
30. Figure II traces the sequence of events concerning how traditional
knowledge and practices in their broadest sense could be applied to the
sustainable forest management of an inhabited landscape. It is envisaged
that this would begin with the agreement of an holders' partnership for the
landscape concerned. This means an arrangement that recognizes the
complementary roles of government and local people in the area concerned,
and that lays down procedures for dialogue and the settlement of claims
among them. This can have policy implications, as it relates to the
distribution of responsibility for forest management.
31. Descriptions of decentralization and conservation processes in
Colombia, Costa Rica, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nepal, Nigeria, the
Philippines, the Russian Federation and Zimbabwe are contained in a recent
World Bank study (Lutz and Caldecott, in press). The study concluded that
local empowerment and the strengthening of local institutions were
preconditions for managing ecosystems according to local needs using TFRK,
but the forms they took varied greatly and could not be prescribed in
detail. The study came to the following four main conclusions, which
should be borne in mind during any process of decentralization since these
conclusions indicate that serious risks can be generated both to people and
to forests:
(a) Precipitate and unplanned decentralization can neutralize
national and global influence, while giving powers to local societies that
may lack adequate skills and the accountability to use those powers
properly;
(b) Second, redistributing power may be seen as a threat by some
groups, prompting them to resist change. Thus, mediating bodies trusted by
all sides will be needed to smooth the transfers of power, and support from
law and policy will be needed to help the newly empowered locality sustain
itself;
(c) Third, there is the risk that a locality that is no longer
sheltered by a national Government may become vulnerable to groups wishing
to exploit it. Where national Governments are no longer able to control
such threats, localities must be helped to communicate and collaborate to
prevent them from being singled out and overwhelmed one by one;
(d) Finally, uncertainties in the process mean that there is always a
risk that the need to protect nature reserves may be forgotten for a time.
In the tropics especially, irreversible damage to the components of
biodiversity can occur swiftly, so resources for protecting habitats and
ecosystems must be supplied throughout the process.
32. Once a settlement of the holders' partnership has been achieved,
planning partnerships can be established. Interested parties collaborate
to understand the landscape using traditional, local and global approaches
to the discovery and use of knowledge. Examples of this process include
the planning of multiple-use landscapes in East Kalimantan, Indonesia, and
in the Canadian Arctic, based on social mapping, participatory rural
appraisal, and global positioning and geographical information systems
(GPS/GIS) (Saunier and Meganck, 1995; Sirait and others, 1994; Brooke,
1993). Such procedures also involve adopting guidelines for managing the
landscape's ecosystems sustainably for various purposes, and adapting them
to local conditions in the light of traditional and other knowledge.
Detailed rules for operating a management partnership should emerge from
this process, helping to guide the landscape's use in practice.
33. There are three main options for using land in a forested landscape:
(a) As converted forest (for example, for farms, tree plantations,
buildings and other infrastructure);
(b) As harvested forest (for example, for logging, hunting, fishing
and gathering);
(c) As protected forest (divided into sacred areas that cannot
ordinarily be used by living people, and nature reserves that can be used
for such purposes as tourism, biodiversity prospecting, education and
research).
34. There may be some overlap between these categories (for example, some
parts of a nature reserve might be available for hunting and gathering, but
not for logging), and detailed zoning may be required depending on planned
use (for example, for stand-specific logging regimes). The emphasis will
also vary among locations depending on the outputs sought, ranging from
biodiversity protection to subsistence use (harvesting wild meat, medicinal
plants, food plants and so forth), ecotourism (harvesting revenue from
visitors interested in nature and local culture), precision logging (for
example, felling rattan canes or special woods) and logging for
general-purpose timber. The details cannot be prescribed, and must emerge
from dialogue among knowledgeable people in the context of planning and
management partnerships.
35. Cases where all steps in this process have been followed, so that
Governments and local people have worked as partners in forest management,
include that of "conservation areas" (that is to say, large multiple-use
landscape units with an emphasis on sustainable use of resources) in Nepal,
Australia, the United States of America, Canada, Indonesia and Costa Rica.
The same principles apply to reforestation (for example, joint forest
management areas in India), wildlife management (for example, CAMPFIRE
districts in Zimbabwe) and timber production (for example, west coast beech
forests in New Zealand). Thus the evidence is strong that once Governments
have recognized the nature and value of TFRK and accepted the need to
manage resources through local partnerships, then such arrangements will be
both feasible and effective (OPCE, 1995; Pye-Smith and Feyerabend, 1994;
Western, Wright and Strum, 1994; Fisher, 1995; FDC, 1996).
36. Many studies show that local people are well aware of the nature of
many of the resources in their environments, and know how to manage them
well. Traditional knowledge, innovations and practices, and authority over
certain resources are often possessed by individuals, by women or men, by
clans, or by groups descended from residents of particular villages (for
example, in parts of Switzerland). Harvesting rates may be regulated by
access controls of a wholly traditional kind (for example, molong among the
Penan of Borneo) or reinvented but based on older forms (for example, sasi
among the peoples of Maluku in Indonesia) or else they may contribute a new
response to changing circumstances (for example, in the Niger delta of
Nigeria, where one community has devised a "three-years-on-nine-years-off"
logging cycle for certain trees). It is most feasible to maintain such
control over land and trees, which are easier to claim and mark than wild
animals.
37. Traditional people do not know everything, however, nor are they able
to regulate every use of every component of a forest. Gaps in knowledge
and control mean that they are unable to manage a forest to the limit of
its productive capabilities in every dimension. Broad margins for error
are built into traditional systems, and depend on social measures to limit
the number of users, and on regulation of the timing and extent of access
to certain areas.
38. These measures are able to achieve sustainable use provided the
underlying conditions remain fairly constant. However, a management system
based on TFRK can unravel quickly if population density increases, if
access controls break down, or if new technologies are introduced that
allow goods to be sold on external markets. Conversely, there are ways for
a stable, TFRK-based system to be maintained while selectively importing
new ideas and investments to increase the range of materials harvested and
the revenues obtained. These ways require that the possessors of the TFRK,
innovations and practices concerned maintain their authority to decide how
the forest is used, and are able to decide for themselves which ideas to
import and which investments to undertake, and when.
B. Biodiversity prospecting
39. The Panel at its second session recognized that traditional forest-
related knowledge, innovations and practices, especially as they related to
sustainable forest management and the use of non-timber forest products,
constituted an important body of experience that was relevant for the
fulfilment of its mandate. The present subsection refers to the subject of
the use of non-timber forest products as part of the overall issue of
biodiversity prospecting.
40. TFRK can be divided into the forms that cannot be understood and used
beyond their local context and those that can be so understood and used.
The latter can then be divided into forms with and without commercial
potential (figure III). The latter category comprises good ideas for
managing forests, which everyone may agree to share freely provided the
source is acknowledged. Some forms of TFRK, however, can help biodiversity
prospectors create new goods and services that might be patented and sold.
Figure III. An approach to the classification of traditional
forest-related knowledge
41. In this context, articles 8 (j) and 15 of the Convention on Biological
Diversity introduce important guidelines. In particular, article 8 (j)
provides that the wider application of the knowledge, innovations and
practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional
lifestyles should entail the approval and involvement of the holders of
such knowledge, innovations and practices, as well as the equitable sharing
of the benefits arising from the utilization thereof. Holders of TFRK are
thus entitled to make the sharing of such knowledge, innovations and
practices contingent upon satisfactory benefit-sharing arrangements. This
notwithstanding, there may be cases where traditional communities, for
well-founded cultural reasons, choose not to reveal their knowledge.
42. The value of ethnobiological knowledge in guiding those wishing to
identify certain kinds of naturally occurring chemicals within wild species
is now well established. In the case of medicines, traditional
preparations are used to treat many ailments, including all kinds of
infection, asthma, diabetes and hypertension, and these preparations often
have real effects on pathogens and symptoms. This is because over millions
of years plants have evolved chemical defences against predation and
disease, which therefore affect animal physiological systems and inhibit
fungal, bacterial and viral growth or reproduction. TFRK can be employed
to guide the practical choice of those species most likely to exhibit the
desired properties from among the thousands of species that may be present
in a forest. Such information can save much time and money when used as an
alternative to the random screening of specimens. These savings can be of
great commercial significance and consequently raise significant access and
equity issues.
43. These issues revolve around prior informed consent, or whether people
wish to use their own TFRK for biodiversity prospecting and, if so, how and
on what terms. Other issues should not arise until this basic decision has
been made after free, full and informed discussion. The reason for this is
that the aims involved will affect the details of how data are to be
collected, managed and used. For example, the procedures when the aim is
to record TFRK for the direct use of local people and the teaching of
children, will be very different from those when the aim is to make money.
Although computer databases might have a role in meeting the first aim,
there are also viable alternatives including apprenticing young people to
experienced shamans and healers and promoting work between them and
schoolteachers. If income is sought, however, then other needs come into
play.
44. Foremost among such needs is the need for a national policy framework
and a supportive national legal regime requiring all biodiversity
prospecting to occur through valid and enforceable contracts between the
holders of TFRK or, in the case of local species in inhabited forests, the
holders/partners (figure IV). For countries that are Parties to the
Convention on Biological Diversity, such policy and legislation should by
definition be consistent with the terms of the Convention. The law should
specify the minimum terms of such contracts, for example the form of
material and data transfer agreements, the kinds of payments and technology
transfers that must be negotiated, the legal nature of the parties,
procedures and jurisdiction for enforcing the contracts and for settling
disputes locally with the participation of the holders/partners, and
arrangements for terminating the contract.
Figure IV. Pathways to biodiversity prospecting
45. International agreements can have an important role in requiring, for
example, that the holders of TFRK connected with a patent application
certify that they are satisfied with the process by which it was obtained.
It would also be helpful if descriptions of inventions submitted in patent
applications were to be required to include an account of the location of
origin and social context of the material used in developing the new
product, including its past use by people.
46. Few countries yet have both a national policy framework and a legal
instrument for biodiversity prospecting as well as local institutions
capable of negotiating and enforcing research and development contracts
with commercial partners. In this context, Costa Rica, which has an
advanced system for biodiversity prospecting, has chosen not to use TFRK as
a source of information until the indigenous people who possess it are
ready to become involved on their own terms. Other countries have a
framework law (for example, Executive Order 247 of May 1995 of the
Philippines), but other aspects of the process are still being debated.
Meanwhile, the Costa Rican biodiversity prospecting approach remains an
important starting-point for any group wishing to devise its own way
forward in this area (Reid and others, 1993; Caldecott and Lovejoy, in
press).
47. Another set of experiences is that of Shaman Pharmaceuticals, a United
States-based biodiversity prospecting firm that specializes in using TFRK
to identify materials for further investigation as potential
pharmaceuticals (WCMC, 1994; King, Carlson and Moran, 1996a, 1996b; Moran,
1996). The company is committed by its access contracts to return a share
of profits to the peoples from whom it obtains TFRK, and all the peoples
with whom it has ever worked will share equally in those profits regardless
of the source of any particular product. The company has established the
Healing Forest Conservancy (HFC) for the purpose of working with informant
peoples to identify acceptable forms of revenue-sharing and to test them
through pilot projects. The kind of return most often requested from HFC
is help in clarifying resource tenure, but technology transfers through
training programmes are also sought after. Each group also has the
opportunity to request payments in cash if they so wish.
C. Sharing experiences
48. Enough cases are now on record to suggest that anyone who does not
take into account relevant TFRK in planning forest management is unlikely
to be doing an effective job. In the Caprivi region of Namibia, for
example, attempts were made to overturn the traditional practices of early
burning in silvipastoral systems and oxen-drawn ploughing in agroforestry
ones. As predicted by local people, these approaches resulted in serious
fire damage and soil erosion and are now being reversed. Similarly, in
Ontario, Canada, logging companies ignored TFRK-based predictions that
summer logging would damage fish stocks and that large-scale clear-cutting
and poisoning of aspen as "weed" trees would adversely affect the supply of
moose, beaver, blueberries and medicinal plants for local people.
Corrections based on TFRK were then introduced at little financial cost to
the companies, but at great social and economic advantage to the
holders/partners collectively.
49. Meanwhile, at Ekuri in Cross River State of Nigeria, the British
Government has been supporting a community forest project that demonstrates
how to build management partnerships based on secure resource tenure and
TFRK on the one hand, and on appropriate levels of advice and encouragement
on the other (Dunn, Otu and Morakinyo, 1996; Morakinyo and Hammond, 1996).
Some of the lessons learned were revealed when the Ekuri people, upon being
asked to advise another village trying to solve its own problems of forest
depletion, said that the people there should:
(a) Be united and prepared to work hard;
(b) Believe in themselves and start self-help projects after full
discussion of their own problems and opportunities;
(c) Ensure prudent and realistic management of all the village's
resources;
(d) Work with government departments and other outside groups to
obtain help with transport and marketing, training and technical advice,
financing, and monitoring and evaluation.
50. The above suggests the existence of a class of TFRK that, while of
negligible commercial significance, is likely to be of widespread benefit
if shared. There is at least a need for TFRK perspectives to be
incorporated in standard forest management training. A pioneer institution
is the Faculty of Forestry of the University of British Columbia in Canada,
which in 1995-1996 opened a pilot course in "First nations' perspectives on
forest lands", and held a workshop to identify how to include aboriginal
perspectives and management partnerships in the other courses taught by the
Faculty. At least three other Canadian universities are following suit
(Simon Fraser, Victoria and Toronto), but clearly there is a long way to go
and most other countries have yet to begin.
51. Another way to share TFRK is to rely on networks of concerned groups
and institutions to collect information in collaboration with indigenous
people, and to make this available through newsletters or on the Internet.
A list of access points to existing networks is given in the annex to this
report, and these could constitute a public-access interactive database,
for example, as a specialized service associated with the clearing-house
mechanism for technical and scientific cooperation of the Convention on
Biological Diversity.
52. If TFRK is to be stored in a computer system and rendered accessible
on the Internet, an agreement with the holders of the knowledge concerned
would be appropriate. This is the third kind of access agreement that
follows from recognition of collective property rights over TFRK. Since
here the aim is to share rather than to sell knowledge, the terms would
presumably be limited to confirming the holders' right to exclude certain
kinds of information from storage and dissemination, and duly acknowledging
sources.
53. Not all forms of TFRK can be managed using modern techniques, however.
Traditional and cosmopolitan knowledge are both ultimately derived from
data, comprising observations about the world. In the case of TFRK, data
often relate to seasonal and other changes in the environment which may,
for example, indicate the availability of a resource or the timeliness of a
ritual. From the Western scientific perspective, data often consist of
numerical, categorical and other types of observation that can be held and
manipulated in databases.
54. The two sources of data demand different approaches to management and
communication. Technologies designed to manage Western scientific data are
largely unsuitable for TFRK. Thus, the knowledge of a forest-dwelling
community cannot be committed to a computer database without losing many of
the understandings implicit in the narrative material. Almost by
definition, TFRK applies to the locality in which it is obtained and may be
meaningless elsewhere. Nevertheless, there is a role for exchange of TFRK
between separate forest-dwellers and managers in similar environments, and
between generations in communities where normal TFRK exchange processes
have broken down. In such cases, the exchange of TFRK should be treated as
a two-way process aiming to blend new knowledge with what is already known.
Interactive forums such as workshops and meetings are essential, since the
facts may not make sense without being adapted to local conditions.
55. Since most TFRK cannot usefully be digitized, the role of computer
database technology is likely to be limited mainly to the sharing of
anecdotal information through the Internet, and certain specific tasks
associated with biodiversity prospecting. In these cases, translation and
data security are respectively the main design issues. Digital mapping
(using GIS and GPS) combined with social mapping will have an important
role in establishing forest holders' planning and management partnerships,
and anecdotal information can be culturally and geographically located in
the same system to assist in forest management tasks. Precise design
specifications would require further study and consultation.
III. OBSTACLES TO FURTHER PROGRESS
56. The chief needs are for the identities of groups that possess TFRK to
be recognized in law, and for the TFRK itself to be legally recognized as
the common property of the group in each case. Once these measures are
accomplished by national Governments, it will be possible to access and use
TFRK by agreement with its holders. These agreements would be of various
kinds, depending on the kind of partnership to be established, with forest
management, biodiversity prospecting and information-sharing partnerships
being the main options.
57. Certain common stumbling-blocks have emerged from the experience of
countries that have sought to make such arrangements. In the process of
deciding, for example, which areas of forest are truly uninhabited and
which are not, there is the problem that the definition of forest
habitation or use may not be one that is shared by both the nation and the
claimants. The latter may consider that habitation is established because
they have used the area for hunting, as a source of emergency food, as a
place for initiating youngsters, as part of an extended fallow system, or
as a resting place for their ancestors. Negotiations to settle such
misunderstandings are inherently delicate and can be delayed by many
factors.
58. The possession of TFRK can mean, for instance, that local people
clearly distinguish places with different soil fertility, value as hunting
grounds, or spiritual significance despite their superficial similarity.
These factors may be completely lost on government negotiators who have
only a general understanding of the location concerned. Other problems may
arise from differences in perceived transaction costs between the two
sides, for example when a government uses expensive senior officials to
negotiate with local people who have a different sense of the value of the
time spent negotiating. The idea of compensation may also be perceived
differently by the two sides, since some cultures may see compensation in
ritual terms as a fine to correct a spiritual imbalance rather than as a
source of money. Evidence of respect paid by a government team to local
people might in some other cases mean more to them than would a financial
settlement alone.
59. Specific proposals have been made for establishing "an Ombudsman's
Office that would not only advise indigenous and local communities on the
protection of their resource rights and on benefit sharing, but represent
them in their complaints relating to infringements of their resource
rights" (WGTRR, 1996). Another option for facilitating settlements would
be to create an arbitration and conciliation mechanism. The creation of
such mechanisms would be helpful to groups seeking the fair and equitable
settlement of conflicts of interest over forest and other resources.
60. Many forest areas have recently been occupied by settlers from urban
or agricultural milieux who have been attracted by economic opportunities
at the forest frontier or driven there by poverty or landlessness. Other
new arrivals in a forest may have been displaced by development projects
elsewhere. In any such case, the newcomers will have little or no TFRK
that is useful in their new location. The sustainable use of a living
resource depends on the number of users being limited by social rules to
those who understand the resource well enough to be able to use it
properly. Such rules are devised and such knowledge is accumulated in a
particular place by a particular people. Suddenly replacing those people
with others who lack appropriate rules and knowledge can result only in
resource destruction, and this is indeed a major cause of undesirable forms
of deforestation worldwide (Collins, Sayer and Whitmore, 1991; Sayer,
Harcourt and Collins, 1992; Harcourt and Sayer, 1996; United Nations
Environment Programme, 1995).
61. This major problem could be avoided if Governments were to adopt
effective policies that discouraged colonization of forest frontiers or
displacement of people from forest areas. Where new settlement has already
occurred, however, and cannot be reversed, Governments could promote the
education of settlers in how to live in their new environment without
damaging it. This would create an important role for environmental
education within communities on the forest frontier, and suggests that
surviving traditional people in the area could have a vital role in showing
newcomers how to live there sustainably. This has been proposed as a major
need in Irian Jaya (Indonesian New Guinea), for example, where aboriginal
peoples are now outnumbered by transmigrant settlers from elsewhere in
Indonesia (WWF, 1995).
62. A constraint on the formulation of TFRK access agreements for
biodiversity prospecting is the need for legal and other forms of technical
advice by Governments that are contemplating a policy framework and legal
instrument, and by peoples who are trying to negotiate an equitable
bioprospecting contract with commercial groups. The National Biodiversity
Institute of Costa Rica (INBio) has a record of providing such advice on
request (for example, to the Philippines and Indonesia) but neither INBio
nor any other institution could be expected to do so on a large scale
without additional resources to meet the demands on its staff and computing
time (Caldecott and Lovejoy, in press). A well-funded international
network of expert institutions and individuals (for example, United Nations
University/United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) Chairs on TFRK) would go far to relieve this important constraint.
63. There are several obstacles to the sharing of information among the
holders of different traditional knowledge systems, and among them and
cosmopolitan forest managers and others. They include difficulties in
translation among the many languages involved, a lack of common standards
for storing, accessing and disseminating relevant information, and a lack
of technology and training of the right kind to provide all TFRK holders
with Internet access.
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS FOR ACTION
64. The Panel at its second session (E/CN.17/1996/24) noted that a series
of issues concerning the provision of technical, technological and
scientific advice on traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of
forest use and conservation merited further development (para. 88),
identified matters that should be addressed (para. 89) and noted the need
for the effective protection of indigenous rights and for the equitable
sharing of benefits (para. 90). All these issues have been addressed above
in sections I, II and III of this report. The Panel may wish to use
section IV for guiding the debate on this item of the agenda and for
identifying the most appropriate conclusions and proposals for action.
A. Meaning of traditional forest-related knowledge
and property rights
65. TFRK can provide a strong basis for sustainable forest management for
two main reasons. The first involves the quality of the information and
interpretative systems possessed by local people after living in a forest
for several-to-many generations and the second draws on the strength of
their commitment to sustainable forest management that results from having
such knowledge. This is relevant for qualitative aspects of forest
assessment as considered in programme element III.1. (a).
66. The main obstacle to TFRK's being legally recognized as the common
property of certain social groups is likely to be the difficulties involved
in negotiating consensual agreements with a variety of groups identified as
holders. International forums such as the Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Panel
on Forests provide a unique opportunity for Governments that have taken
this path to reassure others that TFRK is indeed useful in managing forests
sustainably and in locating valuable new products, and that accessing it on
fair and equitable terms can only benefit each country in its efforts to
achieve sustainable development.
67. Most TFRK will mean little outside the environment where it arises and
is likely to be most valuable as a means to achieve on-site sustainable
forest management. Since TFRK cannot reasonably be taken from people
without their consent, and is the common property of distinct groups of
people, this should be acknowledged by Governments and others who wish to
use such knowledge. Of those forms of TFRK that do have meaning outside
their place and culture of origin and potential usefulness to global
society, some have no potential for commercial application, but are
nevertheless the intellectual property of their holders.
68. It is recognized that there are three main areas in which TFRK access
agreements seem necessary which may be described in the following terms:
(a) If forest-dwelling people are to be involved as other than
labourers in managing the forests where they live (as must be the case if
TFRK is to have a role), this should be based on partnership agreements.
Since the use of any resource needs clarity concerning its holders, plans
for its use, and management of that use, managing an inhabited forest will
require holder, planning and management partnerships;
(b) If forest-dwelling people are to be involved in biodiversity
prospecting (as they must be if TFRK is to be used to identify materials
with commercial potential), this should be based on agreements that
guarantee a fair return from any resulting commercial application;
(c) If forest-dwelling people are to share their ideas and
experiences with others, this should be based on agreements that allow them
to control the release of information and that acknowledge their
contribution.
Proposals for action
* To invite Governments and TFRK-holding groups to consider entering
into formal agreements by which TFRK can be accessed.
* To establish comprehensive approaches to intellectual property that
allocate to the holders of traditional forest-related knowledge,
innovations and practices, rights and protection comparable to those
offered under existing intellectual property regimes.
B. Establishing partnerships
69. The most substantial contribution of TFRK is likely to be in defining
sustainable forest management techniques at a local level.
70. For indigenous people, their communities and other communities and
forest dwellers to participate fully in such partnership agreements and to
offer their TFRK for the benefit of other interested parties, certain
conditions will need to be met. Holders of TFRK will need to feel secure
in their land tenure arrangements; reassured that they have been accorded
status equal to that of the other members of the partnerships; convinced of
a common purpose compatible with their cultural and ecological values.
Furthermore, any special needs regarding participation should be catered
for.
Proposal for action
* To urge developed countries and international organizations to support
capacity-building activities for creating partnership agreements for
sustainable forest management with indigenous people, forest dwellers and
local communities (including, for example, negotiation skills,
understanding of the sustainable forest management agenda and outside
interest in TFRK, legal support) and mechanisms for compensating the real
costs of participation (forgone labour or social investments, as well as
routine expenses).
C. Participatory approaches
71. Indigenous people, forest dwellers and local communities must play a
key role in defining participatory approaches to forest and land
management, including resource management institutions, land-use systems
and conflict resolution. This fact is of paramount importance for the
successful implementation of future activities in Panel programme elements
I.1, I.2, I.4 and I.5. There is a growing body of literature on
participatory methodologies and traditional knowledge, based in large part
on direct project experience obtained by donor agencies, and
non-governmental, indigenous and community organizations.
Proposals for action
* To urge Governments to promote and provide the opportunities for full
participation of indigenous people, forest dwellers and local communities
in forest and land management, consistent with principles 2 (d) and 5 (a)
of the Forest Principles.
* To urge countries and international organizations to support the
preparation of technical guidelines on TFRK application to assist national
and local Governments on how such knowledge and experience can be brought
together. These guidelines should focus on participatory partnerships to
bring TFRK into the development, implementation and planning of local-level
sustainable forest management, including areas such as legal and
administrative frameworks, identification of interested parties,
capacity-building for participants, structure and procedures of
participatory bodies, conflict resolution mechanisms, compensatory
mechanisms for community or non-professional participants, and options for
storage and retrieval of TFRK.
* To urge countries to organize series of national, regional and
international expert consultations for promoting establishment of TFRK
partnerships and application of participatory planning methodologies.
Experts would be identified from international agencies and donors,
Governments, indigenous and local community organizations, researchers,
non-governmental organizations, and others with direct experience of
participatory projects involving TFRK.
D. Management of traditional forest-related knowledge
72. As has been noted throughout this report, there are difficulties
surrounding the acquisition, storage, retrieval and dissemination of TFRK
outside its place of origin. These difficulties reside in the nature of
TFRK, overwhelmingly site- and culture-specific, and in the fact that most
TFRK is not amenable to being digitized, stored in databases or accessed
through clearing-house mechanisms. It is not clear to what extent TFRK
originating in one ecological and cultural context can be made available
for sustainable forest management purposes in another, nor what the real
level of benefits might be. It seems reasonable to suppose that, if such
exchanges are to take place, they will be more meaningful if they occur
through face-to-face contact and verbal transmission rather than codified
communication channels. The Panel may wish to explore further the
feasibility and modalities of such exchanges.
Proposals for action
* To urge donors and international organizations to support the
establishment of regional and national institutional systems dedicated to
undertaking systematic studies on TFRK and to promote its wide
understanding and use.
* To urge countries, national institutions and academic centres to
incorporate TFRK in standard forest management training as a way to
sensitize forest managers on how to access TFRK, on the benefits of using
it and on the dangers of ignoring it.
* To encourage donors and international organizations to assist
financially and support existing networks promoting sharing of TFRK among
concerned groups and institutions in collaboration with involved indigenous
people.
* To promote digital mapping (using GIS and GPS) combined with social
mapping for establishing forest holding; assist planning and management
partnerships; and assist in the location of cultural and geographical
information required to support sustainable forest management schemes.
E. Prospecting biodiversity and sharing of benefits
73. Those aspects of TFRK that may assist in the identification of new
products with commercial value fall within the purview of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, since TFRK is a subset of the "knowledge, innovations
and practices" referred to in article 8 (j) of the Convention and the
genetic resources of forest ecosystems are a subset of the genetic
resources referred to in article 15. The Panel will note that the
Conference of the Parties to the Convention will consider at its third
meeting, inter alia:
(a) Possible options for developing national legislative,
administrative or policy measures, as appropriate to implement article 15
(Access to Genetic Resources);
(b) Impact of intellectual property rights systems on the
conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and the equitable
sharing of benefits derived from its use in order to gain a better
understanding of the implications of article 16 (Access to and Transfer of
Technology), paragraph 5;
(c) Knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local
communities: implementation of article 8 (j).
Proposal for action
* The Panel may wish to consider ways and means to incorporate the
results of the consideration of these issues by the Conference of the
Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity into its conclusions, and
proposals for action to the Commission on Sustainable Development.
F. Traditional forest-related knowledge and
indigenous people
74. The terms of reference for this programme element identify "forest
dwellers, indigenous people and other local communities". Principle 5 (a)
of the Forest Principles states: "National forest policies should
recognize and duly support the identity, culture and the rights of
indigenous people, their communities and other communities and forest
dwellers." The recognition of the identity, culture and rights of
indigenous people and their communities has been accorded specific
priorities and processes within the United Nations system.
Proposals for action
* Recalling the need to take account of other relevant intergovernmental
processes, the Panel may also wish to note the ongoing consideration of
relevant matters within the Commission on Human Rights, in particular its
consideration of:
(a) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the protection of the
heritage of indigenous people (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1995/26);
(b) Technical review of the United Nations Draft Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/2/Add.1);
(c) Report of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations on its
thirteenth session: consideration of a permanent forum for indigenous
people (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1995/24, sect. VII).
* The Panel will recall that chapter 26 of Agenda 21 contains a
programme for recognizing and strengthening the role of indigenous people
and their communities. Much of the material in that chapter is of direct
relevance to this programme element and the Panel may wish to refer to its
recommendations.
Notes
1/ Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992, vol. I, Resolutions Adopted by
the Conference (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.93.I.8 and
corrigendum), resolution 1, annex III.
2/ Ibid., annex II.
3/ See United Nations Environment Programme, Convention on
Biological Diversity (Environmental Law and Institution Programme Activity
Centre), June 1992.
4/ See Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, 1995,
Supplement No. 12 (E/1995/32), chap. I, sect. D, annex I, sect. III.
5/ See A Call to Action: Decisions and Ministerial Statement from
the Second Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity, Jakarta, Indonesia, 6-17 November 1995 (UNEP, January
1996), decision II/9.
6/ See Legal Instruments Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round
of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, done at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994
(GATT secretariat publication, Sales No. GATT/1994-7).
7/ See Report of the Conference of FAO, Twenty-fifth Session, Rome,
11-29 November 1989 (C 89/REP) (Rome, FAO, 1989), para. 108.
8/ See Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, 1995,
Supplement No. 12 (E/1995/32), chap. I, sect. D, para. 200.
Reference
Brooke, L.F. (1993) The Participation of Indigenous Peoples and the
Application of their Environmental and Ecological Knowledge in the Arctic
Environmental Protection Strategy. Inuit Circumpolar Conference (Ottawa,
Canada).
Caldecott, J.O. & Lovejoy, A. (in press) Country study on Costa Rica. In:
Decentralization and Biodiversity Conservation (eds. E. Lutz and J.O.
Caldecott).
The World Bank (Washington, DC, USA).
Child, B. (in press) Country study on Zimbabwe. In: Decentralization and
Biodiversity Conservation (eds. E. Lutz and J.O. Caldecott). The World Bank
(Washington, DC, USA).
Collins, N.M., Sayer, J.A. & Whitmore, T.C. (editors, 1991) The Conservation
Atlas of Tropical Forests - Asia and the Pacific. Macmillan (London, UK).
Davis, Shelton H. and Ebbe, Katrinka (eds) (1995) Traditional Knowledge and
Sustainable Development World Bank, Environmentally Sustainable Development
Proceedings No.4 (Washington DC, USA)
Davis, Shelton H. and Soeftestad, Lars T. (1995) Participation and Indigenous
Peoples. World Bank, Environment Department Papers, Participation Series
(Washington DC, USA).
Dunn, R., Otu, D. & Morakinyo, A.B. (1996) A community forest inventory for
productive forest management in Cross River State, Nigeria. In: Recent
Approaches
to Participatory Forest Resource Management (ed. J. Carter). Overseas
Development
Institute (London, UK).
FDC (1996) Forests, Indigenous Peoples and Biodiversity. Four Directions
Council (Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada), unpublished report (15 January 1996).
Fisher, R.J. (1995) Collaborative Management of Forests for Conservation and
Development. World Conservation Union and World Wide Fund for Nature (Gland,
Switzerland).
Gadgil, M. (1995) Prudence and profligacy: a human ecological perspective.
Pages 99-110 in: The Economics and Ecology of Biodiversity Decline: the Forces
Driving Global Change (edited by T.M. Swanson). Cambridge University Press
(Cambridge, UK).
Gadgil, M. & Devasia, P. (1995) Intellectual property rights and biological
resources: specifying geographical origins and prior knowledge of uses.
Current
Science, 69:637-9.
Harcourt, C.S. & Sayer, J.A. (editors, 1996) The Conservation Atlas of
Tropical Forests - The Americas. Simon & Schuster (New York, USA). ITTO (1990)
ITTO Guidelines for the Sustainabe Management of Natural Forests. ITTO
Technical
Series 5. International Tropical Timber Organization (Yokohama, Japan).
Kay, J. (1996) The myth of intellectual property. Demos Quarterly, 8:18-19.
King, S.R., Carlson, T.J. & Moran, K. (1996a) Biological diversity,
indigenous knowledge, drug discovery, and intellectual property rights. Pages
167-185 in: Valuing Local Knowledge: Indigenous People and Intellectual
Property
Rights (edited by S. Brush & D. Stabinsky). Island Press (Washington, DC,
USA).
King, S.R., Carlson, T.J. & Moran, K. (1996b) Biological diversity,
indigenous knowledge, drug discovery and intellectual property rights:
creating
reciprocity and maintaining relationships. Journal of Ethnopharmacology,
51:45-57.).
Lutz, E. & Caldecott, J.O. (editors, in press) Decentralization and
Biodiversity Conservation. The World Bank (Washington, DC, USA).
Morakinyo, A.B. & Hammond, R.J. (1996) Opportunities for Environmental
Education and Community Natural Resource Management in Cross River State and
the
Niger Delta. Living Earth (London, UK).
Moran, K. (1996) Returning benefits from ethnobotanical drug discovery to
native
communities. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Biodiversity and Human
Health,
April 3-4 1995. National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation &
Smithsonian Institution (Washington, DC, USA).
Nijar, G.S. (1995) In Defence of Indigenous Knowledge and Biodiversity: a
Conceptual Framework and Essential Elements of a Rights Regime. Third World
Network (Penang, Malaysia).
OPCE (1995) Timberlands West Coast Ltd Draft Beech Management Prescriptions:
Review Panel Report. Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the
Environment
(Wellington, New Zealand).
PTRR (1996) The Role of Knowledge, Innovations and Practices of Indigenous
and
Local Communities Embodying Traditional Lifestyles in the Conservation of the
World's Biological Diversity. Programme for Traditional Resource Rights
(Oxford,
UK).
Pye-Smith, C. & Feyerabend, G.B. (1994) The Wealth of Communities: Stories of
Success in Local Environmental Management. Earthscan (London, UK).
Reid, W.V., Sittenfeld, A., Laird, S.A., Janzen, D.H., Meyer, C.A., ollin,
M.A.,
G mez, R. & Juma, C. (editors, 1993) Biodiversity Prospecting. World
Resources
Institute (Washington, DC, USA).
Saunier, R.E. & Meganck, R.A. (editors, 1995) Conservation of Biodiversity
and
the New Regional Planning. Organization of American States and the World
Conservation Union (Gland, Switzerland).
Sayer, J.A., Harcourt, C.S. & Collins, N.M. (editors, 1992) The Conservation
Atlas of Tropical Forests - Africa. Macmillan (London, UK).
Sirait, M., Prasodjo, S., Podger, N., Flavelle, A. & Fox, J. (1994) Mapping
customary land in East Kalimantan, Indonesia: a tool fo forest management.
Ambio,
23:411-417.
UNEP (1995) Global Biodiversity Assessment. Cambridge University Press
(Cambridge, UK).
Walden, I. (1995) Legal Instruments for Biodiversity Contracts and
Intellectual
Property Rights: an Issue Paper. Centre for Commercial Law Studies &
Environmental Resources Management (London, UK).
WCMC (1994) Biodiversity and the Pharmaceutical Industry. World Conservation
Monitoring Centre & Faculty of Economics & Politics (Cambridge, UK).
Western, D., Wright, M.R. & Strum, S.C. (1994) Natural Connections:
Perspectives
in Community-based Conservation. Island Press (Washington, DC, USA).
WGTRR (1996) Implementing Traditional Resource Rights. Working Group on
Traditional Resource Rights (Oxford, UK), Bulletin 2 (Spring 1996).
WWF (1995) Conservation of Biological Diversity in Irian Jaya. World Wide
Fund
for Nature (Jakarta, Indonesia).
Annex
Network access points.
African Resource Centre for Indigenous Knowledge (ARCIK):
fax: +234 22 416129 or +234 1 614397
Brazilian Resource Centre for Indigenous Knowledge (BRARCIK):
fax: +55 163 22 4275
email: uejab@brfapesp.bitnet
Burkina Faso Resource Centre for Indigenous Knowledge (BURCIK):
fax +226 336517 or 312209
Cameroon Indigenous Knowledge Organization (CIKO):
fax +237 322514 or 430813
Centre for Advanced Research of Indigenous Knowledge Systems (CARIKS):
fax +91 821 61459
Centre for Indigenous Environment and Development (CIED):
email: pdh@u.washington.edu or phardison@igc.apc.org
Centre for Indigenous Knowledge for Agriculture and Rural Development
(CIKARD):
fax: +1 515 294 6058
email: dmwarren@iastate.edu
WWW: http://www.physics.iastate.edu/cikard/cikard.html
Centre for International Research and Advisory Networks (CIRAN):
fax: +31 70 426 0329
email: ciran@nufficcs.nl
Centre for Traditional Knowledge, Canadian Museum of Nature:
fax: +1 613 952 9693
email: jtinglis@magi.com
Fourth World Documentation Project (FWDP):
WWW: http://www.halcyon.com/FWDP/fwdp.html
Ghana Resource Centre for Indigenous Knowledge (GHARCIK):
telex: +233 42 2552 UCC GH
Georgia Resource Centre for Indigenous Knowledge (GERCIK):
email: dato@botany.kheta.ge
Honey Bee Network:
fax: +91 272 427 896
email: anilg@iimahd.ernet.in
Indigenous Knowledge Systems List (INDKNOW):
email: indknow@u.washington.edu
Indigenous Peoples' Biodiversity Network (IPBN):
email: ipbn@web.apc.org
Indonesian Resource Centre for Indigenous Knowledge (INRIK):
fax: +62 22 431938 or 250 1977 or 237416
Interinstitutional Consortium for Indigenous Knowledge (ICIK):
email: lmsll@psvm.psu.edu
Kenya Resource Centre for Indigenous Knowledge (KENRIK):
fax: +254 2 741 424
email: kenrik@tt.gnapc.org or kenrik@tt.sasa.unep.no
Leiden Ethnosystems and Development Programme (LEAD):
fax: +31 71 273 619
email: decherin@rulfsw.LeidenUniv.nl
Maasai Resource Centre for Indigenous Knowledge (MARECIK):
fax: +255 57 8907
Madagascar Resource Centre for Indigenous Knowledge (MARCIK):
fax: +261 2 32123 or 20422
Mexican Research, Teaching and Service Network on Indigenous Knowledge
(RIDSCA):
fax: +52 22 493995 or 851444
Nigerian Centre for Indigenous Knowledge (NIRCIK):
fax: +234 69 50891 or 50563
Philippine Resource Center for Sustainable Development and Indigenous
Knowledge (PHIRCSDIK):
fax: +63 94 50016
Regional Program for the Promotion of Indigenous Knowledge in Asia
(REPPIKA):
fax: +632 522 2494
email: iirr@phil.gn.apc.org
Russian Resource Centre for Indigenous Knowledge (RURCIK):
email: 1+630.157@compuserve.com
South African Centre for Indigenous Knowledge (SARCIK):
fax: +27 21 262466
email: hansn@iaccess.za
South and Meso American Indian Rights Center (SAIIC):
fax: +1 415 834 4264
email: saiic@igc.apc.org
Sri Lanka Resource Centre for Indigenous Knowledge (SLARCIK):
email: rohana@sjp.ac.lk
Uruguayan Resource Centre for Indigenous Knowledge (URURCIK):
fax: +598 2 913780
email: cedesur@lcsnet.chasque.apc.org or pd@agrocs.edu.uy
Venezuelan Resource Secretariat for Indigenous Knowledge (VERSIK):
fax: +58 072 33667
email: cquiroz@ing.ula.ve
Working Group on Traditional Resource Rights (WGTRR):
fax: +44 1865 284665
email: wgtrr.ocees@mansfield.ox.ac.uk
WWW: http://info.ox.ac.uk/~wgtrr/
to subscribe to the Indigenous Knowledge Systems List, send a message
to: <listserv@uwavm.u.washington.edu>
with a single line of text: <subscribe indknow>
This document has been posted online by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). Reproduction and dissemination of the document - in electronic and/or printed format - is encouraged, provided acknowledgement is made of the role of the United Nations in making it available.
Date last posted: 7 December 1999 12:45:30
Comments and suggestions: DESA/DSD