Transcript Diapositiva 1 - CSIN

Project Title:
Global Indicators of the Status and Trends of
Linguistic Diversity and Traditional Knowledge
Participants:
Luisa Maffi (Project Director), Terralingua
David Harmon (co-Principal Investigator, ILD), George Wright Society
Jonathan Loh (co-Principal Investigator, ILD), Living Planet Index
Stanford Zent (Principal Investigator, TEKVI), Instituto Venezolano de
Investigaciones Científicas (IVIC)
Global Indicators of the Status and Trends of
Linguistic Diversity and Traditional Knowledge
General Objective: address the dearth of cultural indicators that can be used
along with indicators of biodiversity to gauge the state and trends of biocultural
diversity.
Specific Objectives: develop two indicators of: (1) the status and trends of
linguistic diversity, the Index of Linguistic Diversity (ILD), and (2) the status and
trends of traditional environmental knowledge (TEK), the TEK Vitality Index
(TEKVI).
Organizational Sponsors: Terralingua (Coordination) and The Christensen Fund
(Funding Support)
Collaborating Institutions: Solidarity Foundation, Northern Arizona University,
Department of Canadian Heritage, Universidad Autónoma de México, Australian
Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Central Institute of
Indian Languages, Monash University, Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones
Científicas, University of Maryland
Key Events in the Effort to Develop Cultural
Indicators relevant for Biodiversity
“Fourth session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues”, New York,
U.S.A., May 2005, sponsored by UNPFII.
“Fourth meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Intersessional Working Group on
Article 8(j) and related provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity”,
Granada, Spain, Jan. 2006, sponsored by CBD.
“The 2nd Global Consultation on the Right to Food, Food Security, & Food
Sovereignty”, Bilwi & Puerto Cabezas, Nicaragua, Sept. 2006, sponsored by
UN FAO and IITC.
“Seminar of experts of Latin America and the Caribbean on pertinent indicators
for indigenous and local communities and the Convention for Biological
Diversity”, Quito, Ecuador, Dec. 2006, sponsored by CBD, FIIB & IUCN.
“Seminar of experts of Latin America and the Caribbean on
pertinent indicators for indigenous and local communities
and the Convention for Biological Diversity”, Quito, Ecuador,
Dec. 11-13, 2006, Sponsored by CBD, FIIB & IUCN
Focal Areas for Indicator Development:
• Education
• Language
• Culture
• Health & Medicine
• Production
• Territory
• Spirituality & Sacred Sites
Protection vs. Preservation of Traditional Knowledge (TK):
Are these objectives contradictory, separate or mutual?
Protection refers to the legal or ethical protection of fundamental rights, of which there
are two different types: (1) the right to intellectual and material property – implies
private rights to possession, use & transfer (while excluding third parties), and (2) the
right to civil liberties and customary practices (i.e. human, cultural, political, resource
rights, etc.) - implies inclusive rights that everyone should have equally. In the case of
TK, it signifies protection against misappropiation, unauthorized use or sale, alienation,
proscription, etc.
Preservation refers to sustainability (or retention) and resilience (or adaptability) of
intellectual and material patrimony over time. In the case of TK, it means the
intergenerational transmission of knowledges, learning mechanisms and contexts, and
practices of resource appropiation, use & management that are ancestral o particular to
a cultural group.
Crucial Interdependence:
• There is no support or incentive for preservation without the
adequate protection.
• If it is lost, it cannot be protected.
Indicator #2: Methodology for Developing a TEK Vitality Index (TEKVI)
Purpose: design a locally-appropriate, globally-applicable data instrument that can be
used to measure and assess the vitality status of TEK (i.e. inferrable trends of
retention or loss over time) within selected groups and allow for relative comparisons
of that status among groups at different scales of inclusiveness
Justification: No such indicator currently exists
Precedents: prior quantitative studies of TEK and its variation in space and time.
Potential Users: local communities, ethnic-based organizations, academic
researchers, government or public agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and
intergovernmental organizations (CBD & partner organizations)
Why do we need an indicator that directly measures TEK
status & trends (loss, creation, persistence & change)?
• TEK and associated practices and innovations make an important
contribution to biodiversity conservation
• TEK is situated at the interface of the natural environment & human cultural
expression
• Growing concern that TEK is being lost or eroded under modernization
• Need reliable tool to assess TEK trends, such as:
(a) Is knowledge really being eroded, retained or increased?
(a) How fast is loss/change occurring?
(b) What areas or groups are most affected?
(c) What domains of knowledge are most vulnerable?
(d) What are the causal or conditioning factors?
• Need to evaluate whether TEK trends are related to trends of biodiversity
loss.
• Need more precise information for more effective policy making & evaluaion.
What is Traditional Environmental Knowledge (TEK)?
The locally distinctive, situated and learned knowledge by which a particular society or
community apprehends the biotic and abiotic components of the environment and their
interrelationships and engages it in a practical sense for sustenance, health, shelter,
tools and other survival needs and wants.
Diagnostic Properties (Ellen & Harris 2000):
• Local: rooted to a particular place & set of experiences; generated by people living in
those places
• Oral & Visual: transmitted orally or through imitation & demonstration
• Practical: consequence of practical engagement in everyday life and is reinforced by
experience, trial and error, and experiment
• Empirical: tends to be empirical and empirico-hypothetical knowledge
• Repetitive: repetition is a defining characteristic of tradition
• Dynamic: constantly changing, being produced as well as reproduced, discovered as
well as lost
• Shared: characteristically shared to a greater degree than other forms of knowledge
• Fragmentary: differentially distributed among community members
• Functional: essentially “know-how” geared to practical response and performance
• Holistic: integrated and situated within broader cultural traditions
Quantitative Studies dealing with levels, variations, changes and
processes of Traditional Environmental Knowledges (TEKs)
Bibliography: Adu-Tutu et al. 1979; Albuquerque 2006; Albuquerque, Andrade & Silva 2005; Albuquerque et al.
2006; Amorozo 2004; Alexiades 1999; Ankli, Sticher & Heinrich 1999; Anyinam 1995; Apaza et al. 2003; Atanazio
da Silva 2006; Atran 2001; Atran & Medin 1997; Atran et al. 2002; Barham, Coomes & Takasaki 1999; Begossi
1996, Begossi et al. 2002; Benz et al. 1994, 2000; Bonet 1992; Boster 1984, 1986; Brodt 2001, 2002; Byg &
Balslev 2001, 2004; Campos & Ehringhaus 2003; Caniago & Siebert 1998; Casagrande 2002; Case et al. 2006;
Chipeniuk 1995; Cohen y Horm-Wingerd 1993; Collins & Liukkonen 2002; Cruz García 2006; da Rocha Silva &
Andrade 2006; DeWalt et al. 1999; Draper & Cashdan 1988; Estomba, Ladio & Lozada 2006; Figueiredo et al.
1993, 1997; Florey 2006; Frazão-Moreira 1997, 2001; Frei et al. 1999; Friedman et al. 1986; Furlow 2003;
Galeano 2000; Garro 1986, 1988; Gertsch et al. 2002; Ghimire, McKey & Aumeeruddy-Thomas 2004; Gispert &
Gómez Campos 1986; Godoy et al. 1998, 2005; Godoy 1994, 2001; Gomez-Beloz 2002; Guest 2002; Guest &
McLelland 2003; Harvey 1989; Hatano & Inagaki 1999; Heckler 2002; Heinrich et al. 1998; Hewlett & CavalliSforza 1986; Hoffman 2003; Höft, Barik & Lykke 1999; Howe, Kahn & Friedman 1996; Hunn 2002; Johns,
Kokwaro & Kimanani 1990; Johns et al. 1994; Johnson 2006; Kainer & Duryea 1992; Katz 1986, 1989; Kellert
1985; Kremen, Raymond & Lance 1998; Kristensen & Balslev 2003; Kvist et al. 1995; La Torre-Cuadros & Islebe
2003; Ladio 2001, 2004; Ladio & Lozada 2001, 2004; Lajones & Lemas 2001; Lawrence et al. 2005; Leduc et al.
2006; Lee et al. 2001; Lizarralde 2001, 2004; Lozada, Ladio & Weigandt 2006; Luoga, Witkowski & Balkwill 2000;
Lykke, Kristensen & Ganaba 2004; Marulanda 2005; Matavele & Habib 2000; Medley & Kalibo 2005; Miller et al.
2004; Monteiro et al. 2006; Nabhan 1997, 1998; Nabhan & St. Antoine 1993; Nolan & Robbins 1999; Ohmagari &
Berkes 1997; Olsen & Helles 1997; Peroni 2002; Pfeiffer & Butz 2005; Phillips 1996; Phillips & Gentry 1993a,
1993b; Phillips et al. 1994; Pinedo-Vasquez et al. 1990; Prance et al. 1987; Quinlan 2005; Reyes-García 2001;
Reyes-García et al. 2003, 2004, 2005a, 2005b, 2006a, 2006b; Rocha 2005; Rosenberg 1998; Ross 2002, 2002b;
Ross & Medin 2005; Ross, Barrientos & Esquit-Choy 2005; Rossato, Leitao-Filho & Begossi 1999; Ruddle &
Chesterfield 1977; Shackleton et al. 2002; Shanley & Rosa 2005; Silva, Andrade & Albuquerque 2006; Soleri &
Cleveland 2005; Sowerine 2004; Sternberg 2004; Sternberg et al. 2001; Stoffle 1990; Stross 2003; Takasaki,
Barham & Coomes 2001; Thompson 2005; Ticktin & Johns 2002; Todt & Hannon 1998; Toledo et al. 1995; Trotter
& Logan 1986; Turner 1988, 2003; van Etten 2006; Vandebroek et al. 2004; Varghese et al. 1993; Weller 1983;
Weller & Baer 2002; Weller et al. 1993; Wiersum 1997; Wilbert 2002; Wong 2000; Zarger & Stepp 2004; Zent
1996; 1997, 1999, 2001; Zent & Zent 2004, 2006; Zitzow 1990
Results of Literature Review
Some General Findings: TEK erosion as a consequence of cultural modernization
is a recurrent and widespread trend but not universal and therefore not inevitable
Causal or Correlative Factors: age, gender roles, formal education level of
person & parent, fluency in local or national language, marital status, degree
and type of market participation, monetary income, wealth, primary occupation,
habitat degradation, distance to forest or city, interethnic contact, availability of
western medicine, change of religious beliefs & values, socioeconomic
subsidies, size & sedentarization of community, migration history, years living in
place, level of difficulty or frequency of knowledge/practice
Key Results & Conclusions:
 The relevant conditioning variables vary by site, history & environmental setting
 In some places, TEK is persistent despite surrounding socioeconomic changes
 The interactions among variables is not well understood
 No generalizations can be made at the present time
Quantitative Studies on levels, variations, changes and
processes of Traditional Environmental Knowledges (TEKs)
Strengths: systematic methods; precise and reliable measures
of different types of knowledge; well informed about local
ethnographic context
Limitations: local studies (single community, ethnic group or
region); focus on particular knowledge domains to the
exclusion of others; various particular methods and measures
used and therefore not transferable across sites; the results
from different studies are not directly comparable in
quantitative terms
Conclusion: cannot use the previously collected data to develop
an indicator of TEK change, but they do provide useful
methods to adapt and build upon
How to study TEK change?
• Time-series data collection & comparison (before/after
key events or interventions, periodic intervals)
• Cross-sectional data on knowledge variation correlated
with other indicators of change, such as:
1. age
8. distance to city/forest
2. gender
9. wealth
3. education
10. market participation
4. language fluency
11. years living in place
5. occupation
12. availability of modern
goods & services
6. religion
13. activity experience
7. community
14. intercultural contact
Recommendations for studying TEK change:
• Individualized testing/analysis
• Age is the most commonly-used social indicator used to infer trends of
change; for most groups, it can produce up to a 50-yr time frame.
• Compare older vs. younger person’s knowledge levels.
• Statistical analysis focused on comparing degree & rate of change within a
group
• Intergroup statistical comparisons focus on the different degress & rates of
change between cohorts, communities, ethnic groups, subnational regions,
countries, multinational regions, continents, etc. (aggregable/disaggregable
components)
• Change is not always indicative of loss; invention and transfer also possible
• Once initial (baseline) measures taken, monitoring of ongoing trends can be
performed by repeating the procedure at future dates
How to rate individual knowledge differences?
Techniques for study of knowledge distribution:
Counting vs. Ranking vs. Scoring: depends on type of knowledge
under consideration (e.g. skills vs. theoretical knowledge; taxonomic
identification vs. use value; preferences vs. actual use)
Comparative Use Value: simple counts, investigator-determined, userdetermined
Consensus Analysis: correct answers determined by majority agreement;
individual scores determined by level of (dis)agreement with correct answers
Matching with Expert: correct answers taken from expert
consultant(s); individual scores determined by prportional agreement
with expert
Matching with Science: correct answers are determined by scientific
information; individual scores determined by percentage of correct
answers given
Usefulness Index Methods
1. Uses totaled: resource use citations added up
Advantage: requires least amount of data collection
Disadvantage: yields least valuable data in terms of statistical relevance and
hypothesis testing
2. Subjective allocation: (researcher- or informant-generated): values
subjectively assigned to distinguish major/minor uses according to criteria of
major/minor uses, exclusivity of use.
Advantage: relatively fast & easy to score and produces more refined data set
than 1.
Disadvantage: subject to bias and thus less rigorous & less replicable
3. Informant Consensus: use value calculated as relative citation statistic (sum
of species use value per informant/total no.of informants interviewed)
Advantage: reduces individual bias, produces representative and highly
differented array of use values which are amenable to more sophisticated
statistical analysis & hypothesis testing
Disadvantage: requires much more time and data collection than methods 1 & 2.
Types of TEK studied from quantitative perspective
Theoretical Knowledge:
In Practice:
Transmission:
• collective inventory of folk
biological taxa
• no. & type of skills known
(self-reported)
• no. of plants/animals known
• frequency of resource use
events reported per time
period
• comparative inventories of
plants/animals by age, gender,
community, occupation, education
• no. of uses per species known
• no. of biotopes known/named
• correct ID of plants/animals by
name or taxonomic
categorization
• correct ID of uses per species
• species rank by importance
value
• ecological characteristics
(morphology, behavior, habitat,
interspecific relations) of
species
• competence in ethnomedical
curing
• no. & volume of species
utilized per time period
• diversity of species utilized
per time period
• diversity of cultivated crop
species/varieties inventories
• frequency of use of
medicinal plants by
disease/by healer
• taxonomic complexity by age
group
• nos. & types of social relations
responsible for acquisition of
traditional skills by type and life
stage
• time allocation in different
activities
• frequencies of interpersonal
transactions by social category
• extension and density of social
networks
Problem of the Data Register: due to the particularity, variability, holistic
integration and intangible quality of culture, it is necessary to disaggregate certain
areas and categories of TEK that are universally present or applicable in all TEK
systems yet are definable in different cultural and environmental contexts.
Register Parameters (Local & Global Vision)
Theoretical
In Practice
Transmission
Plants: names, taxonomic
clasif., uses, interspecific
relationships
Resource procurement
activities: agriculture,
livestock raising, hunting,
fishing, collection
Practices that imply
knowledge transmission
Animals: names, taxonomic
clasif., uses, interspecific
relationships
Resource processing:
food/medicine preparation
Social channels of
knowledge transmission
Bio. communities: names,
characteristics
Ethnomedicine: diagnosis,
curing, prevention
Time allocation
Soils: names, taxonomic
clasif., uses, indicator
species
Traditional technology
(basketry, textiles, ceramics,
dyes, tools, etc.)
Climate: seasons, indicators
Housing and other
construction
Ethnogeography: toponymy,
location, significance
Religious participation:
rites, myths, dancing, etc.
Steps to Developing the TEKVI
 Define relevant cultural domains or topical areas of TEK
 Define Inventory of Items (expert focal group interviews)
 Define Importance Value (relative weight) of items
 Test Design (TEK item selection, socioeconomic variables)
 Sample Population Selection (community, age, gender)
 Test Administration
 Test Evaluation & Scoring (intracultural comparability)
 Statistical Aggregation and Analysis by Social Variables
 Rate of Change Calculations (intercultural comparability)
 Pilot Study (Multiple sites)
 Method Evaluation and Modification as a result of the Pilot Study