Traditional Knowledge of Indigenous and Local Communities: International Debate and Policy Initiatives Author(s): Francesco Mauro and

Preston D. Hardison Source: Ecological Applications, Vol. 10, No. 5 (Oct., 2000), pp. 1263-1269 Published by: Ecological Society of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2641281 . Accessed: 02/12/2013 06:27
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Ecological Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ecological Applications.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Mon, 2 Dec 2013 06:27:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2000 Octobeir

TRADITIONAL

ECOLOGICAL

KNOWLEDGE

1263

Ecological Applicationis, 10(5), 2000, pp. 1263-1269 ? 2000 by the Ecological Society of America

TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE OF INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES: INTERNATIONAL DEBATE AND POLICY INITIATIVES
FRANCESCO MAURO1 AND PRESTON D. HARDISON2,3 National Agency (ENEA), CR Casaccia, 00060 Rome, Italy Environment Department, for Energyand the Environment 355 YellowheadHighwayKamloops, BC, Canada V2H HIH 21ndigenous Biodiversity Information Network,

the rightsof inAbstract. This paper reviews international law and policy regarding thatare defining the role of traditional and indigdigenous peoples and local communities The mostinfluential enous knowledgein themanagement and conservation of biodiversity. forumsoccur withinthe United Nations system, the Working Group on Indigparticularly enous Populationsand the Conventionon Biological Diversity.We discuss the "soft-law" contextof declarations,regional agreements, ethical guidelines, researchprotocols, and whichreinforce The elaborationof theserights policy frameworks, indigenousentitlements. will increasingly impingeupon scientific researchby regulatingaccess to the knowledge thatpolicy and manand resourcesof indigenousand local communities, and by requiring Scientistsshouldrespondby followingthese agementbe made withtheirfullparticipation. developments,institutionalizing this participationat all levels of scientificactivity,and the value of indigenousknowledge. respecting
on Biological Diversity; Key words: biodiversity; conservationand sustainable use; Convention sustainable develindigenousknowledge; indigenouspeoples and communities;local communities; opment;TraditionalEcological Knowledge.
INTRODUCTION

Recent reviews of researchand policy for the conservationof biological diversity identify needs to exconservapand taxonomicknowledge; to incorporate tion biology, ecology, and ecological economics; and to use bioregional planning and ecosystem managementapproaches (Pickettet al. 1997). Otherreviews, have emphasizingsustainableuse and social contexts, advocated decentralization,integrated conservation conand development planning,and community-based servationsensitive to local culturalvalues and institutions(Warren et al., 1995, Hanna et al., 1996, UNEP, 1998a). have an Indigenous peoples and local communities role in the management of biodiversity. The important value of indigenousknowledge (IK) is becomingrecognized by scientists,managers, and policy-makers, and is an evolvingsubjectof nationaland international law (Anaya 1996). Scientistsare oftenskepticalof the value of IK unless it has been recastin scientific terms, and and may lump IK withsuperstition, irrationalism, for pretribalism(Scott 1998). Scientists' arguments and economic servingIK tendto emphasizeintellectual benefitsto non-nativesocieties by providingleads to
1999; Manuscript received5 May 1999; revised1 September Feature, of thisInvited accepted7 September 1999. For reprints see footnote 1, p. 1249. 3 Presentaddress: ICONS Project,8226 41st Avenue, NE, Seattle, Washington 98115 USA

drug discovery and raw materials for biotechnology and agricultural innovation. Indigenous peoples themselves have repeatedly rightsto IK beclaimed that they have fundamental cause it is necessaryto theirculturalsurvival,and this being recognized in internaprincipleis increasingly and tional law. These rights include manynonmaterial material values bundled into "traditional resource are gained outside rights"(Posey 1996). Whenbenefits to have contheyare entitled indigenouscommunities, theuse of their trolover theprocess and to benefit from knowledge and traditions. IK is also becomingrecognized as a formofrational and reliable knowledge developed throughgenerations of intimatecontactby native peoples withtheir lands thathas equal status with scientificknowledge (UNEP 1998c). While indigenouspeoples have sometimes caused extinctionsand degraded environments, theyhave oftenpersistedfor millennia in theirterritories by using detailed adaptive knowledge (Krech 1999). They have in many cases increased local biodiversity in widespread "ecocultural" landscapes, and have developed the majorityof the global diversity in domesticated plants and animals (Blackburn and Anderson 1993, Harlan 1995, Nabhan 1997). Their ways of conceptualizing and acting in the environment are expressions of how to investthe world thatprovide alterwith meaning and self-fulfillment natives to the dominantconsumptivevalues of Western societies (Hunn 1999).

1263

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Mon, 2 Dec 2013 06:27:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1264

INVITED FEATURE
WHO ARE THE INDIGENOUS?

Ecological Applications

were laws, and governance languages,cultures, distinct status to tribes (Prucha sovereign grant considered social Given the complexityof human historyand forbeing 1994). therecan be no singledefinition organization, Most indigenouspeoples outside the United States of colindigenous.Sometimesthereis a clear history have not gained this kind of status,and even in the onization,conquest, genocide, and ethnocide,as happrovisionshave been greatly United States sovereignty and (Aotearoa), Zealand New Americas, the pened in of federalplenarypower the assertion diminished by Australia(Churchill,1997, Maybury-Lewis,1997). In to tribes (Lyons et al. a effort extinguish and long Africa,Asia, and Europe, the historiesofteninvolve to sufficient Frustrated failures secure rights by 1992). fromwithinby otherinconquest or marginalization uni- in theirown homelands,Indian nationspetitionedfor digenoussocieties. Some indigenouspeoples form Both the League of Nations recognition. fied nations, while others consist of loose bands or international the United Nations upon theirestablishment and (UN) isolated communities. delegations requestingto be recindigenous received of indigenous peoples most The currentdefinition states. These werereas nonmember petitions ognized includesparts framework accepted in the international as with state sovereignty (Lepage interfering jected as or all of the followingelements:self-identification 1994). indigenous; descent fromthe occupants of a territory The UN Charter(1948) recognizes the "free-purpriorto an act of conquest; possession of a common and "self-determination" of "non-self-governing suit" language, and cultureregulatedby customary history, a and this led to of decolonization period territories," possession from nationalcultures; laws thatare distinct themselves of divested in which many nation-states from of a common land; exclusion or marginalization the obliand claims forcollectiveand theirexternalcolonies. The UN interpreted politicaldecision-making; and not to extend to the external colonies, only gations sovereign rightsthat are unrecognizedby the domiin internal enclaves (Leto living peoples indigenous natingand governinggroup(s) of the state. Of these, in UN The embedded the Charter rights page 1994). is central(Anaya 1996). self-identification It is estimatedthereare 5000-7000 distinctindig- were based on universal human rights,and it was wereneedthatno special group-related rights enous groupsmakingup -5% oftheworld'spopulation thought to ed peoples. indigenous protect (Maybury-Lewis1997). Languages providea good inThe UN in the late 1950s recognized thatthe unito indigenouspeoples, dex of the current global threat provisionswere notenoughto proas distinct cultures disappear with their languages versalhumanrights ethnic minorities and indigenouspeoples from tect per6000 distinctlan(Nabhan 1997). Of approximately The and UN Intergenocide. assimilation, secution, guages, 300 are spokenby -95% oftheworld'speople; of less than10 000 national Labor Organization (ILO) in 1957 adopted one-halfare spokenby communities individuals(Maffi1998). One recentestimatesuggests ILO Convention 107, which recognized indigenous land tenlaw, social organization, that90% of the world's languages will be extinctor rightsto customary and customary practicmoribundin the next 100 years, making cultureloss ure,collective land ownership, to the ongoingmass ex- es. However,thesewere conceived as individualrather of equal or greater magnitude and were promotedprimarily to thansovereignrights, tinctionof species (Cox 1997, Stork,1999). indigenouspeoples intothelabor pools of the integrate INDIGENOUS RIGHTS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW modern nation-state(Lepage 1994). The convention and has been ratified by Indigenous peoples have petitionedfor the recog- did not receive wide support, 27 countries. only rightssince the crenitionof culturaland sovereignty concernculOtherUN declarationsand conventions of exclusive ation of nation-states and theirimposition The mostinfluential of these authority(Dickason 1989). Although Roman jurists turaland language rights. Conventionon and European common law accepted the naturallaw was the Declaration and International can arise fromcon- the Eliminationof Any Form of Racial Discrimination concept thattitleand sovereignty tinuous use and possession of land "from time im- thatauthorizedthe "Study of the Problemof Discrimmemorial," this principle was denied in colonized ination against Indigenous Populations" (Lepage concludedthat:statesshouldrespect 1994). The report lands (Dickason 1989). The unique statusof indigenouspeoples in theUnit- traditional laws and customs; indigenous peoples own lands and resources, ed States was recognized during the treaty-making shouldhave controlovertheir to communalland ownership and to manyears of 1778-1868. The powers grantedin the U.S. withtheright to make treatieswere recognizedas pow- age land according to theirown traditions;and such Constitution relations(Prucha 1994). Treaties ownershipand rightsshould be protectedby national ers to conductforeign laws. to tribesas "nations," establishedpeace and international oftenreferred of thereport, theUN Following therecommendation betweenthe Indian nationsand the United States,created boundariesfortriballands, and granteda degree Commissionon HumanRightsestablishedtheWorking of autonomywithinthose lands. Prior residencyand Group on IndigenousPopulations(WGIP). The WGIP

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Mon, 2 Dec 2013 06:27:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

October200()

TRADITIONAL

ECOLOGICAL

KNOWLEDGE

1265

reviews the evolution of standards concerning the rightsof indigenouspeoples, provides a forumwhere theycan express grievances,and promotestheprotectionof their The DraftDeclarationon theRights rights. of IndigenousPeoples, begun in 1988, stipulates rights to self-determination, collectiverights, culturaland intellectual property rights,and obligates states to observe treaties(Anaya 1996). Though still in draft, this has been extremely in framing influential indigenous at theinternational rights level, and its provisionshave been incorporated into otherinstruments. The WGIP has also produced a global studyof treatiesbetween states and indigenouspeoples, and is currently investigatingoptions forprotecting theirculturaland intellectual property (Daes 1999). These initiatives are imto recognize because theyare UN instruments portant thatconstruct indigenousrightsand link rightsto culture,language,religion,land, and resources,including biodiversity.
THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

interprets "respect" to mean that "traditionalknowledge should be given the same respect as any other edge (UNEP 1998c). Countriesthat have acceded to international conventions through nationalratification, acceptance, or approval are known as Parties. As of January1999, therewere 175 Partiesto the CBD. The United States has signed,but not ratified, the convention.Indigenouspeoples are observerswithin theCBD, which has made some steps to accommodatethemin negotiationson indigenous issues. The Parties have establisheda workinggroup on Article 8(j), but it is unclear whether thisbody will operateaftera meeting in February2000. Since thethird meetingof the CBD, indigenousrepresentatives have been able to make interventions, and participatein some negotiatingsessions, but thishas been limitedand the finaldecisions rest withthe Parties. Indigenouspeoples have argued this systemdoes not give them "unfiltered access" or "full and effectiveparticipation"in the convention, and indigenousstandingis an intensearea of debate. positionsof partiesand indigenousobserversoftendiverge. The parties have concentratedon access and benefits or the "termsof trade,"because these sharing, issues are closestto theeconomicuse ofIK. Indigenous have argued thatin orderto preserve representatives and maintainIK, partiesmustrespectbroaderrights to lands, languages, religions,and cultures,as has been arguedin theWGIP (Coombe 1998). Manypartieshave acted to deny or circumscribe in the CBD, theserights citingthe principleof state sovereignty recognized in the Convention. Partiesare obliged to promotethe use of IK outside of nativecommunities, butonlywiththeir involvement and approval, or "prior informed consent" (PIC, Article 15[5]). Sharingbenefitson "mutuallyagreeable terms" requires a methodfor obtainingthis approval and mechanismsof indigenous controlover the flow of information (Glowka 1998, Lesser 1998). This radically changes older concepts of IK as the "common heritage of mankind," often acquired through personal agreements between individuals. These informaltransfers of knowledge will increasingly be regulated. Because systems of IK vary so widely-knowledge may be held by a guild, a clan, only by men or women,by a familygroup,each with theirown rules fordivulgingknowledge-national and local implementation of PIC will also vary. In some cases it is possible to use contracts or materialtransfer withtribal agreements (MTAs) negotiated individually authorities (Mugabe et al. 1997). Othernationsare exwith otherpolicies, such as the People's perimenting BiodiversityRegisters(PBRs) developed for working withindigenouscommunities by theWorldWide Fund for Nature of India (Gadgil 1996). Many believe that
The extent of the obligations to ". . . preserve and maintain . . . " have not been well explored, and the form of knowledge
...,"

including scientific knowl-

The Preamble of the Conventionon Biological Diversity(CBD), which came into force in 1993, recognizes the "close and traditionaldependence of insources and the desirability of sharingin the benefits derived fromthe use of traditional knowledge,innovationsand practices." National obligationstowardinoccurin Articles8 (Indigenousand local communities situConservation),10 (SustainableUse ofComponents of Biodiversity), 17 (Exchange of Information), and 18 (Technical and ScientificCooperation) (UNEP 1992). Article 8(j) has been the focus of most of the discussions to date. This Articlestatesthateach party will: Subject to its national legislation,respect,preserve and maintainknowledge,innovationsand practices of indigenousand local communities traembodying ditional lifestyles relevantforthe conservationand sustainableuse of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvementof the holders of such knowledge,innovations and practices and encourage the equitable the utilization of sharingof thebenefits arisingfrom such knowledge,innovationsand practices. The interpretation of this complex articleis incomplete and ongoing.The initialpartrecognizes thatthe article will have to be implemented in national legislation, and encourages countrieswithoutcompatible
legislation to develop it (A. Campeau, personal communication to P. Hardison 23 July 1999). Obligations digenous and local communities . . . on biological re-

are created both to "indigenous communities" and "local communities," butthesedo nothave equivalent bundles of rights in humanrights law (Posey and Dutfield 1996). Decision IV/9of theConference oftheParties(COP)

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Mon, 2 Dec 2013 06:27:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1266

INVITED FEATURE

Applications Ecological
Vol. 10, No. 5

forms of intellectual propthecurrent individual-based ertyrightscannot adequately protectIK, and argue thereis a need fornovel or sui generislegal regimes, which are flexible enough to deal with community rightsand the diversityof customarylaw and tribal organization(Brush and Stabinsky 1996, Lianchamroon and Vellve 1998, King and Eyzaguirre1999). through implementation The CBD works primarily of its principlesand directivesin nationallaw, policy, The meetingsof the Conresearch,and management. ference ofParties(COP) resultin decisionsthat provide instructions and guidance forpartieson implementing the conventionin theirnationalactivities.Article8(j) and relatedarticlesprovidea basis forindigenousparticipationin all activitiesof the conventionthattouch on indigenousissues (UNEP 1998b). This includesparticipationin work plans for the various ecosystems, implementingthe ecosystem approach, controlling outimpactassessmentand monalien species, carrying itoring,and building the Clearing-House Mechanism (CHM). The Clearinghouse Mechanism was established underArticle17 of theCBD to develop methods to effectively communicate theaims of theconvention, and provide a means formonitoring nationalprogress in theimplementation of theconvention, and is playing an increasingrole in aiding the coordinationof scientificand technical input into the thematicareas of theconvention. As of September1999, indigenous peoabsent in the developples have been almost entirely mentof nationalclearinghouse mechanisms, excepting to the CBD. Canada and the Secretariat

has been used extensively in setting international work with these norms (Shelton 1999). Governments and drop or elevate theirstatusas experiinformally, ence suggests. ofprinstatement The Rio Declaration,a nonbinding recognizes ciples produced at the 1992 EarthSummit, a "vital role" forindigenouspeoples, and urges states culture to "recognize and duly supporttheiridentity, in participation and interests and enable theireffective the achievementof sustainable development." Methand supportare detailed ods forachievingrecognition theRio Decin Agenda 21, the actionplan underlying laration. Forum on Forests (IFF), adThe Intergovernmental ministered by the UN Commissionon SustainableDevelopment(CSD), has reviewed traditionalforest-related practicesof indigenouspeoples, and has adopted many of the elementsof the Leticia Declaration and Plan of Action developed by a global group of indigenous experts in Colombia in 1996 (IAITPTF and EAIP 1997). Organization(FAO) The UN Food and Agriculture forover two decades has sponsoredthe "International on Plant Genetic Resources" (EsquinasUndertaking Alcazar 1993, 1996). Over 1.4 billion people stillfarm technologies on small plots and oftenuse traditional for farming and agricultural innovation,sharingvarieties and knowledge.Recognizing thatthe knowledge and innovations are collective, the Undertakingis workingto define a system of "farmers' rights" to intellecwhereindividual-based providecompensation tual propertyregimes fail, and these considerations AND "SOFT-LAW" OTHERGLOBALCONVENTIONS have been expanded to include IK (FAO 1996, 1999). are another sourceof important Regional agreements The CBD maintainsformalliason with otherconProtection ventionsthat touch on biodiversity issues, which all IK provisions. The Arctic Environmental man- Strategy(AEPS), signed in 1991 by eight Arctic nacontaindecisions to harmonizetheiroverlapping dates, including provisions on indigenous and local tions,has developed guidelines and protocolsregulatof Flora and Fauna The International communities. Conventionto Combat ingresearchundertheConservation withcommunities, (CAFF). Whenworking Desertification (UN 1994) requires parties to ". . . pro- Programme and lo- scientistsare requestedto registerthemselves,obtain enhance and validate traditional tect,integrate, of incal knowledge,know-howand practices. . . " and that formalpermissionfor the use and distribution of theirreand allow community oversight "... owners of that knowledge will directlybenefit formation, on an equitable basis and on mutuallyagreed terms" search. Indigenous peoples have also made theirpositions (Article 17[c]), and to ". . . protect, promote and use in particular relevant traditionand local technolo- known in many declarations,such as the "Kari-Oka Declaration" fromthe Earth Summitin 1992 and the gy.. . " (Article 18[a]) (CCD 1994). The UN Human on establishing "Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual RightsCommissionis also deliberating Rightsof IndigenousPeoples" in 1993. They a PermanentForum on Indigenous Peoples' Affairs Property withinthe UN system,as recommended by the World have developed theirown policies forusing IK, such Conferenceon Human Rightsin Vienna in 1993. The as the "Principles forNegotiatingResearch RelationWorld IntellectualProperty Organization(WIPO) has ships in the North" of the Inuit Tapirisatin Canada. are increasingly usingthese Indigenouscommunities establisheda programon Global IntellectualProperty workIssues, which includes exploringthe legal needs and protocolsand declarationsto regulatescientists Though takenveryseriouslyby expectations of holders of traditional knowledge ing in theirterritories. scientistshave ofteneitherbeen igthe communities, (WIPO 1998). as- norantof themor ignoredthem.The Kuna Indians of Soft-law,or declarationsof principlesreflecting pirationsthat are not subject to national ratification, Panama in 1997 closed down a researchstationof the

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Mon, 2 Dec 2013 06:27:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

October200()

TRADITIONAL

ECOLOGICAL

KNOWLEDGE

1267

SmithsonianTropical Research Institutein San Blas (Kuna Yala) thathad been collectinglong-term data on behavior,ecology, and evolutionbecause theyclaimed scientists had repeatedlyviolatedpublishedguidelines forresearchdeveloped by the Kuna, and had failed to show the Kuna respectin theirnegotiations (A. Lopez. Kuna lawyer, personal communication to P. Hardison, May 1998 at CoP4, Bratislava,Slovakia).
CONCLUSIONS

Indigenous peoples have an evolving status in international law and policy,and manyof therights contained in draftdeclarationsare not secured. Many indigenouspeoples claim international and nationallegal instruments are invalid because theydo nothave to be granted rights they have always possessed (Venne in defining 1998). Regardless, they are participating theirrightsin international law and visibly impacting national laws and policies. There will be an ongoing tensionas theypressuregovernments to recognizefundamentalrightsof self-determination and sovereignty, while nation-states seek to limittheserights according to nationalinterest. Scientists will be affectedby the incorporation of indigenous and local community rightsinto policies and laws that regulate access to knowledge and resources and benefitssharing on mutually agreeable terms.Recent examples are statutesdeveloped by the Republic of the Philippines and the Organizationof AfricanUnity,and underthe Andean Pact (Mugabe et al. 1997, Grajal 1999). Similar laws are being drafted in Brazil and Australiathatregulatebioprospecting and to negotiate researchwithindigenous requirescientists communities (Goering 1999). Implementingequitable principles for indigenous and local community in biodiversity manparticipation agementneed not wait on legislation. Scientists and scientificsocieties could increase supportfor IK research in partnership with communities;aid the developmentof indigenousinstitutions; providefortheir their fulland effective in policy,research, participation and management; in research,and ensuretransparency and support data management cultural revitalization efforts and thecontinued use of IK (IUCN ICTFIP 1997, Posey 1999). Indigenouspeoples should notbe treated as clients or mere stakeholdersin the process, but shouldbe invitedto participate in all levels of decisionon making and management,findingrepresentation steering committees, planningboards,advisorybodies, and similarorganizations. to reComanagement rights sources on lands ceded by tribesto national governments,as recognized in Canadian and U.S. treatiesto hunt, fish, and gather in "usual and accustomed places," should also be fullyrecognized,and this includes participation in policy and planning. Scientists should also be particularly aware of information issues regardingIK. The ability to control

benefit sharing undertheCBD requiresthatinformation not be placed in the public domain, and theremay be data in scientific IK databases consideredto be sacred by indigenous peoples, which or privilegedinformation should have oversight.For previouslypublished and scientists should make a strong databased information, effort to make the data available to the communities to help them of origin,and provide capacity-building manage theirown information. Some examples include the Pilot Project on Access to GeneticResources and Benefit Sharingforbotanical gardens and arboreta,and the ethical guidelines deSociety of Ethnobiology, veloped by the International the Society for Economic Botany, and the Pew Conservation Fellows Biodiversity and Ethics Working Group (Posey and Dutfield1996: K. ten Kate, unpubThese principleshave been clearly lished manuscript). statedin the UNESCO sponsoredDeclaration on SciKnowledge and the Science and the use of Scientific ence Agenda-Framework forAction,whichcalls upon the International Council of ScientificUnions (ICSU) and otherprofessionalscience bodies to incorporate theminto theiroperations(UNESCO 1999). Decisions of the COP of the CBD contain recommendationson IK that should be integrated into scientific policy and programsat all levels (available online on the CBD web site).4 Indigenous participation in the developmentof has been virtuallynonexistent Infrastructure theU.S. NationalBiological Information information networks (NBII) and similarbiodiversity has (e.g., BIN21, IABIN, NABIN, CHM). Participation such as Species 2000, the also been absentin programs the OrganizationforEcoGlobal TaxonomyInitiative, nomic Co-operation and Development Global BiodiFacility (GBIF), and the Global versityInformation Invasive Species Program(GISP). Each of these iniissues of monitoring, valtiativescontains significant and technicalcapacity builduation,benefits-sharing, ing forindigenouspeoples. of Respect for culturaldiversityand the treatment scientific to Western IK as coequal and complementary to thesepolicies. Indigenous knowledgeis fundamental peoples are asking for this respect and supportfrom traditional scientists because theuse oftheir knowledge their is necessaryforculturalsurvival,and it is through Much culturesthathealthyecosystemsare maintained. of the world's biodiversityoccurs on or adjacent to and it will only be traditionalindigenous territories, if the close interdependence betweenculture protected and ecosystemsis maintained(Nabhan 1997). It is not to save pages from thebook of lifewhile wise, or right, recklesslydiscardingpages fromthe book of culture, especially when these containvital lessons forus all.
I URL = (http://www.biodiv.org/)

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Mon, 2 Dec 2013 06:27:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1268

INVITED FEATURE

Applications Ecological
No. 5 Vol. I10,

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS access to genetic resources limitsbiodiversity researchin developing countries.ConservationBiology 13:(1)6-9. We thankC. Jumaand the guest editorsof thisissue of the Hanna, S. S., C. Folke, and K.-G. Maler, editors. 1996. journal for the stimulus to write this paper. One of us (F Rights to nature: ecological, economic, cultural,and poMauro) would like to recognize A. Luperini and L. M. Palitical principlesof institutions forthe environment. Island dovani and her co-workersforthe continuousand dedicated Press, Covelo, California,USA. collaborationin the fieldof biodiversity. The other(P. HarHarlan, J. 1995. The living fields: our agricultural heritage. dison) would like to thankF Fortier(Shuswap), D. Moore, CambridgeUniversity Press, New York, New York,USA. and T. Williams (Tulalip) formakingspace withinthecircle, Hunn, E. 1999. The value of subsistence for the futureof and J.Inglis forgenerouslysharinghis insights on traditional the world. Pages 23-36 in V. D. Nazarea, editor.Ethnoeecological knowledge. cology: situatedknowledge/located lives. Arizona UniversityPress, Tucson, Arizona, USA. LITERATURE CITED IAITPTF and EAIP. 1997. Indigenouspeoples participation Anaya, J. 1996. Indigenouspeoples in international law. Oxin global environmental negotiations.Indigenous Peoples fordUniversity Press, New York, New York, USA. Participationin Sustainable Development No. 2. InternaBlackburn,T. C., and Anderson,K., editors. 1993. Before tionalAlliance of Indigenous-Tribal Peoples of theTropical Forest and European Alliance with Indigenous Peoples, the wilderness:environmental management by native Californians.Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California,USA. London, UK. Brush,S. B., and D. Stabinsky, editors. 1996. Valuing local IUCN ICTFIP. 1997. Indigenouspeoples and sustainability: cases and actions. International knowledge: indigenous peoples and intellectualproperty Union fortheConservation of Nature and Natural Resources Inter-Commission rights.Island Press, Covelo, California,USA. Task Force on IndigenousPeoples. International Churchill,W. 1997. A little matterof genocide: Holocaust Books, Utrecht, and denial in theAmericas 1492 to thepresent. CityLights, The Netherlands. San Francisco, California,USA. King, A. B., and P. B. Eyzaguirre.1999. Intellectual property and Coombe, R. J. 1998. Intellectualproperty, humanrights rightsand agricultural biodiversity:Literature addressing New dilemmas in international law posed by the suitability of IPR for the protection sovereignty: of indigenous reand Human Values 16:(1)41-49. the recognitionof indigenous knowledge and the consersources. Agriculture vation of biodiversity.Indiana Journalof Global Legal and history. Krech,S., III. 1999. The ecological Indian: myth W. W. Norton,New York, New York, USA. Studies 6:(1)59-115. Cox, P. A. 1997. Indigenouspeoples and conservation. Pages Lepage, P. 1994. Indigenous peoples and the evolution of international 207-220 in F Grifoand J.Rosenthal,editors.Biodiversity standards:A shorthistory. Pages 1-24 in M. and humanhealth. Island Press, Covelo, California,USA. L6ger, editor. Aboriginal peoples: towards self-government.Black Rose Books, Montr6al,Qu6bec, Canada. Daes, E.-I. A. 1999. Human rightsof indigenous peoples: indigenous people and theirrelationshipto land. Second Lesser, W. 1998. Sustainable use of geneticresourcesunder on the workingpaper.E/CN.4/Sub.2/1999/ theConventionon Biological Diversity. progressreport CAB International, 18. Sub-commissionon Preventionof Discriminationand Wallingford, Oxon, UK. Protectionof Minorities,United Nations Commission on Lianchamroon,W., and R. Vellv6. 1998. Signposts to sui Human Rights,Geneva, Switzerland. generis rights: resource materials from the international at the time seminaron sui generis rights.GRAIN and Thai Network Dickason, 0. P. 1989. Concepts of sovereignty of first contacts. Pages 141-249 in L. C. Green and 0. P. on Community Rightsand Biodiversity (BIOTHAI), BangDickason, compilers. The law of nations and the New kok, Thailand/LosBanos, Philippines. World. Universityof Alberta Press, Edmonton,Alberta, Lyons, O., J. Mohawk, V. Deloria, Jr., L. Hauptman,H. BerCanada. man, D. Grinde, Jr.,C. Berkey, and R. Venables. 1992. Exiled in the land of the free: democracy,Indian nations, Esquinas-Alcazar, J. 1993. The global systemon plant genetic resources. Review of European Communityand Inand the U.S. Constitution.Clear Light Publishers,Santa ternational Environmental Law 2:151-157. Fe, New Mexico, USA. Esquinas-Alcazar, J. 1996. Agricultural biological diversity Maffi,L. 1998. Language: a resourcefornature.Natureand and the role of FAO. Pages 41-46 in P. Carrabba, L. M. Resources 34:(4) 12-21. Padovani, and E Mauro, editors.International Symposium Maybury-Lewis, D. 1997. Indigenouspeoples, ethnicgroups, on MediterraneanBiodiversity.Ministryof the Environand the state. Cultural Studies in Ethnicityand Change. ment and Ente Nazionale per le Nuove Tecnologie, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, Massachusetts,USA. l'Energia e l'Ambiente,Rome, Italy. Mugabe, J., C. V. Barber,G. Henne, L. Glowka, and A. La FAO. 1996. Reportof theInternational TechnicalConference Vifia,editors. 1997. Access to geneticresources:strategies on Plant Genetic Resources. FAO/ITCPGR/96/REP. Food forsharingbenefits. ACTS/IUCN/WRI. ACTS Press, Naiand Agriculture Organization,Rome, Italy. robi, Kenya. FAO. 1999. Commissionon GeneticResources forFood and Nabhan, G. P. 1997. Culturesof habitat: on nature,culture, and story.Counterpoint, Agriculture.Report of the Contact Group. FAO/CGRFAWashington, D.C., USA. Food and Agriculture 8/99/CG/REP. Organization,Rome, Pickett,S. T. A., R. S. Ostfeld,M. Shachak, and G. E. Likens, editors. 1997. The ecological basis-of conservation:hetItaly. Gadgil, M. 1996. People's Biodiversity Register.A recordof erogeneity,ecosystems, and biodiversity.Chapman and India's wealth. Amruth (October):1-16. Hall, New York, New York, USA. to Posey, D. A. 1996. Traditionalresourcerights:international Glowka, L. 1998. A guide to designinglegal frameworks determine access to geneticresources.IUCN Environmeninstruments forprotection and compensation forindigenous tal Law CentreEnvironmental Law Union forthe Policy and International peoples and local communities.Internatinal Union forthe Conservationof Paper No. 34. International Conservationof Natureand NaturalResources,The World Nature and NaturalResources, Gland, Switzerland. ConservationUnion, Gland, Switzerland. Goering,L. 1999. Brazil wants cut of biotech firms' jungle Posey, D. A. 1999. Safeguardingtraditional resourcerights of indigenous peoples. Pages 217-229 in V. D. Nazarea, plunder. Tuesday,July6, 1999. theTribuneCompany,Chieditor.Ethnoecology:situatedknowledge/located lives. Arcago, Illinois. and thenationstate:Regulating izona University Grajal, A. 1999. Biodiversity Press, Tucson, Arizona, USA.

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Mon, 2 Dec 2013 06:27:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

October200()

TRADITIONAL

ECOLOGICAL

KNOWLEDGE

1269

Posey, D. A., and G. Dutfield. 1996. Beyond intellectual property rights:towardstraditional resourcerightsforindigenous peoples and local communities. International DevelopmentResearch Centre,Ottawa, Canada. Prucha, F P. 1994. American Indian treaties:the historyof a political anomaly. CaliforniaUniversity Press,Berkeley, California,USA. Scott, J. C. 1998. Seeing like a state: How certainschemes to improvethe humanconditionhave failed. Yale UniversityPress, New Haven, Connecticut,USA. Shelton,D., editor. 1999. Does the law matter? The role of non-binding norms in the international legal system.OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford,UK. Stork,N. E. 1999. The magnitude of global biodiversity and its decline. Pages 3-32 in J. Cracraft, and F T. Grifo,editors.The living planet in crisis: biodiversity science and policy. Columbia University Press, New York, New York, USA. UN. 1994. United Nations Conventionto Combat Desertificationin CountriesExperiencingSerious Droughtand/or Desertification, in Africa.UnitedNations,Geparticularly neva, Switzerland. UNEP. 1992. Conventionon Biological Diversity. VNEP No. 92-8314. United Nations Environment Programme,Nairobi, Kenya.

UNEP. 1998a. Conventionon Biological Diversity.Report of the workshopon the ecosystemapproach. UNEP/CBD/ COP/4/Inf.9. United Nations EnvironmentProgramme, Nairobi, Kenya. UNEP. 1998b. Conventionon Biological Diversity.Report of the workshopon traditional knowledge and biological diversity.UNEP/CBD/TKBD/1/3. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. UNEP. 1998c. Reportof thefourth of theconference meeting of the parties to the convention on biological diversity. UNEP/CBD/COP/4/27.United Nations Environment Programme,Nairobi, Kenya. UNESCO. 1999. Declaration on science and the use of scientific knowledge and the science agenda-framework for action. Science fortheTwenty-First Century:A New Commitment, July 1, 1999. UNESCO, Paris, France. Venne,S. H. 1998. Our eldersunderstand ourrights: evolving internationallaw regarding indigenous rights. Theytus Books Limited,Penticon,BritishColumbia, Canada. D. M., L. J. Slikkerveer, Warren, and D. Brokensha,editors. 1995. The culturaldimensionof development:indigenous knowledgesystems.Intermediate TechnologyPublications, London, UK. WIPO. 1998. Roundtableon intellectual and indigproperty enous peoples. WIPO/INDIP/RT/98/1 Revised. World IntellectualProperty Organization,Geneva, Switzerland.

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Mon, 2 Dec 2013 06:27:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions