PLEC NEWS AND VIEWS - United Nations Universityarchive.unu.edu/env/plec/pnv/PNV6 study site through...

The United NationsUniversity

PLEC NEWS AND VIEWSNo. 6 – March 1996

A Periodical of the United Nations University Project ofCollaborative Research on People, Land Managementand Environmental Change (PLEC)

Edited by Harold BrookfieldScientific Coordinator

Produced in the Department of Anthropology, Division of Societyand Environment, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies,The Australian National University for the United Nations University

ISSN 1020 0843

54

3

12

Tokyo

Canberra123

45

WEST AFRICAEAST AFRICAMONTANE MAINLANDSOUTHEAST ASIAPAPUA NEW GUINEAAMAZON

CLUSTER-IN-FORMATION

The clusters of PLEC

P L E C N E W S A N D V I E W S No. 6, March 1996

CONTENTS

PageNEWS OF THE PROJECT AND THE CLUSTERS

News of the Project: a Progress Reportby the Editor

WAPLEC Activities in 1995 and early 1996, including a Workshop in Northern Ghanaby Edwin Gyasi

The Regional Symposium on Montane Mainland Southeast Asia in Transition, Chiang Mai ,November 12-16 1995by Benjavan Rerkasem and Harold Brookfield

The Upper Amazon Várzea (Iquitos, Peru) Team in the Amazonian Clusterby Miguel Pinedo-Vasquez

A Journey to Baoshan and Gaoligong Mountain (Gaoligongshan), Western Yunnanby Harold Brookfield

News of the South-South Programme (The South-South Cooperation Programme onEnvironmentally Sound Socio-Economic Development in the Humid Tropics)by Miguel Clüsener-Godt (with an Explanatory Note by J.I. Uitto)

PAPERS BY PROJECT MEMBERS

Collaborative Agroecosystems Management Project (‘CAMP’): A Proposed Community-Based Initiative in Ghana, by WAPLEC in Collaboration with the Chief and People ofGyamfiaseby Edwin Gyasi and Lewis Enu-Kwesi

Agrodiversity and Biodiversity on the Ground and among the People: Methodology fromYunnan

by Guo Huijun, Dao Zhiling and Harold Brookfield, with a comment by Daniel Zarin

Indigenous Knowledge: a Long History and an Uncertain Futureby Muriel Brookfield

Local Experts and Local Leaders: Lessons from Amazoniaby Miguel Pinedo-Vasquez

1

2

3

4

6

9

11

14

23

30

P L E C N E W S A N D V I E W SNo. 6, MARCH 1996

REPORTS ABOUT GENERAL AND CLUSTER ACTIVITIES

NEWS OF THE PROJECT: A PROGRESSREPORT

by the Editor

PLEC, UNEP and the GEF

The report in the September issue (PLECNews and Views 5 (1995), p.1), left theproject document being prepared in shorterform for submission to UNEP in October,following receipt in September of newguidelines, and in particular of the GEFBiodiversity Strategy in final draft form. Thedocument, when sent, took the form of therequired 10-page Project Brief plus asubstantial set of Annexes and Appendices.In November, Juha Uitto and I left theChiang Mai Symposium (described below)on its last day to travel to Nairobi, andstayed there a week. Juha then returned toTokyo, and I to Thailand to resume aplanned itinerary to Yunnan (also describedbelow). Nairobi was for me a ‘side-trip’,albeit a rather long one.

On arrival, we were asked to abbreviatethe already reduced document much further,getting everything about the project as awhole into the 10-page Project Brief,reducing the size of the Annexes whichdescribed Central Activities and eachCluster, and eliminating the Appendicesaltogether. We did this, also taking all thefinancial material out of the text and creatinga Financial Annex which put it all together.The result was a document consisting of the10-page Project Brief, then 28 pages ofAnnexes with 23 financial pages. (Copieswere sent to all Cluster leaders in January).

UNEP appeared satisfied, so we thenmade maximum use of the capabilities of e-mail, sending the revised document as anattachment to the project’s ‘Canberra crew’,(a term provided by our friend TimoMaukonen in UNEP) who expertly edited itand added a cover, and returned the wholelot to Nairobi as e-mail attachment withinfive days. By this time it was almostDecember. The next steps were in thehands of UNEP, who first decided that theyliked the project enough to handle theformal presentation themselves, then sentthe document to an expert externalreviewer. A favourable review report wasreceived in February, and UNEP has nowinitiated action to present PLEC to theGEFOP (Operations Committee) at an earlydate. While large hurdles remain, we haveat last got this far.

This Periodical and the GEC SpecialIssue

The core management group met in ChiangMai, and one of the main items of discussionwas the future of this periodical, theproduction cost of which is significant inrelation to our available funds. Though itnow publishes some very respectablepapers, we decided not to move towardrefereeing. Events have overtaken someother interim decisions, but costs determinethat in one way or another this periodicalhas to change its nature in 1997. The oneitem to be noted this time is that for severalof the issues, including this one, MurielBrookfield of the ‘Canberra crew’ has beende-facto Associate Editor, and thiscontribution is formally acknowledged.

2 · PLEC NEWS AND VIEWS, NO.6, MARCH 1996

1995 contracts were extended for someClusters to March 1996, and only aproportion of Clusters have yet reported ontheir 1995 work. One such report appearsbelow, together with a selected piece ofAmazonia reporting.

Most space this time goes to four articlestreating aspects important to PLEC, in afortuitously but usefully interrelated manner:• the growing debate about method in

studying biodiversity and agrodiversity;• the rising importance of ‘participatory’

work in PLEC, and its problems;• ‘Indigenous (or Rural People’s)

Knowledge’, its future, and complexity.

The PLEC special issue of GlobalEnvironmental Change, Human andPolicy Dimensions 5 (4), appeared on timein October 1995, again with thanks to the‘Canberra crew’. It contains 12 papers byauthors who are, or have been, members ofthe Project. It has been well received.

WAPLEC ACTIVITIES IN 1995 AND EARLY1996, including a workshop in Northern

Ghana

Edwin A. Gyasi

Highlights

Work by the West Africa cluster of PLEC(WAPLEC) centred on the deepening ofresearch into the human and ecologicaldynamics of the southern sector of Ghana'sforest-savanna ecotone, and the extensionof studies into other ecological zones inGhana and Guinea-Conakry through the fourresearch groups now formed.

The principal activities were:1. A meeting in February 1995 at Kumasi,

to discuss research extensionmodalities;

2. A technical working session in May1995 at Legon, to review researchprogress, fine-tune methodologies andfoster linkage between official policy andPLEC work;

3. Documentary research, and a series offield studies;

4. An October 1995 PLEC mission by theWAPLEC Leader to Guinea, Conakry;

5. Exchange of visits and other forms ofinteraction between PLEC researchersand farmers from PLEC study sites,most especially in southern Ghana, tostrengthen PLEC-farmer relationships;

6. A December 1995 mission to Ghanaby Janet Momsen, PLEC ScientificAdvisor;

7. The start of a research linkage betweenthe Institute of Development Studies,University of Sussex, and the Universityof Ghana, Legon, through Legon'sDepartment of Geography andResource Development, with col-laboration of PLEC;

8. The workshop described below.

Northern Ghana Workshop

Held at Tamale, between 11 and 13 January1996, the Workshop objectives were to:a) discuss, in the context of relevant national

and international policies, the findings of thestudies on Production Pressures, Changesin the Biophysical Environment andSustainability of Small-Farmer Agriculture inWest Africa;

b) map out strategies for the defence andimprovement of agrodiversity, biodiversityand agroecological conditions especially inthe context of small-farming situations;

c) discuss the future form and directions ofWAPLEC research work.

Among the 30 participants were:- Government officials including represent-

PLEC NEWS AND VIEWS, NO.6, MARCH 1996 · 3

atives of the Ministries of Environment,Science and Technology, Food andAgriculture, and Lands and Forestry;

- representatives of the Vice-Chancellor,University for Development Studies, and ofthe Director of the Nyankpala SavannnaAgricultural Research Institute;

- Jan Nibbering, special guest from AntenneSahalienne, Burkina Faso/Holland ;

- Bede N. Okigbo, Director UNU/INRA and aPLEC Scientific Advisor;

- representatives from the four WAPLECgroups, including Ibrahima Boiro and K.A.Barry, respectively Leader and DeputyLeader of the Guinean group.

The 18 papers presented on 11 Januaryin Tamale centred on general PLECresearch objectives, policy, and WAPLECstudy findings.

On 12 January, the Workshop visited theUNESCO-CIPSEG bio-reserve at Malshieguwhile en route by road to the Manga-BawkuPLEC study site through Bolgatanga, wherethe Workshop passed the night.

The journey to Manga-Bawku providedfirst-hand experience of the dry 'harmattan'conditions that severely constrain farming,and of the serious environmentaldegradation in the Upper East Region. Atthis site were study villages visited on 13January, before final departures for homefrom Bolgatanga the following day.

The Workshop was enthusiasticallywelcomed by the local Chiefs and people,and by officials of Bawku District Assemblyand Manga Savanna Agricultural ResearchInstitute.

Conclusions reached by the Workshop

The Workshop reiterated the relevance ofPLEC research, and urged strengthening ofPLEC work and its impact, through:- improved funding to motivate the

researchers and enhance researchcapacity;

- enhanced research and policy-environ-

mental improvement synergy;- greater emphasis upon action-oriented

environmental improvement activities;- greater decentralization together with

enhanced coordination of PLECactivities;

- improved intra-cluster and inter-clusterlinkage through workshops, whichshould embody field visits.

Also recommended were greatercollaboration between research workers incentral Guinea and northern Ghana, whodeal with similar environmental problems;integration of Burkina Faso into WAPLEC;and recognition of PLEC as a permanentproject.

THE REGIONAL SYMPOSIUM ONMONTANE MAINLAND SOUTHEAST ASIA

IN TRANSITIONCHIANG MAI , NOVEMBER 12-16 1995

Benjavan Rerkasem and HaroldBrookfield

This Symposium, advertized in PLEC Newsand Views 5, was held in the Amari RincomeHotel in Chiang Mai, where it attracted aneven larger attendance than was expected.A total of 155 registered participants camefrom 18 countries: Thailand, China,Vietnam, Laos, Kampuchea, Bhutan,Singapore, Indonesia, the United States,Sweden, the United Kingdom, Germany,Australia, the Netherlands, Japan, Denmark,Kenya and France. Thirty-seven paperswere presented.1

1 The Symposium was organized by the Chiang MaiUniversity Consortium, a collection of research groupswithin the University, in collaboration with a number ofnational institutions. These included the ChineseAcademy of Sciences/Kunming, Yunnan Academy ofSocial Science, the Vietnam Upland Management


The Chiang Mai PLEC members wereprominent among the meeting’s organizers,and particularly prominent as principalorganizer was Benjavan Rerkasem. Abouthalf the papers given were by regionalspecialists, the other half by visitors. PLECmembers giving papers or making generalpresentations were (in order) ChristinePadoch, Guo Huijun, Dao Zhiling, MichaelStocking, Guo Huijun a second time, TakuAbe with Ryutaro Ohtsuka, and Juha Uitto.Harold Brookfield chaired a session and wasa member of a working group on the‘MMSEA Agenda’. All our conference labelsdescribed us as ‘UNU/PLEC’, and Juha Uittoused the opportunity of a question to make asplendid statement about the project, so thatby the end of the meeting few can haveremained in doubt about who we are andwhat we are doing. The mailing list for thisperiodical was augmented significantly.

Since the end of the meeting the ChiangMai University Consortium has produced a‘research agenda’ for wider use, but exceptwhere this includes collaborative work withmembers of other institutions, it does not yetincorporate the agenda of associated bodiesin the wider group that attended theSymposium. Such a wider agenda isplanned. It is also intended to follow theChiang Mai Symposium with a secondregional meeting, probably two or threeyears hence, but firm plans are not yetestablished.

Unedited versions of all papers that arecomplete have been distributed to registered Working Group, the Thailand Development ResearchInstitute, and CARE International - Thailand.International organizations which assisted or jointlysponsored the Symposium included Ford Foundation,the East-West Center, the World Resources Institute,the International Institute for Environment andDevelopment, the Centre for International ForestryResearch, the International Centre for Research inAgroforestry, DANCED and SAMUTE, the SoutheastAsian Universities Agroecosystems Network and, notleast, the United Nations University/PLEC. Membersof several other Universities and organizationsattended. Thus grew what had originally beendesigned as an ‘informal gathering of specialists’.

participants in February 1996. The processof reviewing, editing and modifying papers toform a book will take longer, but has nowbegun. Arrangements are being made with apublisher. The outcome will be a major stepforward in the understanding of a region thatis changing so rapidly that the regularacademic literature is mostly out of date wellbefore it appears.

THE UPPER AMAZON VARZEA (IQUITOS,PERU) TEAM IN THE AMAZONIAN

CLUSTER

Miguel Pinedo-VasquezColumbia University, New York

Since the arrival of Europeans, forest, fish,game, and soil resources have beenintensively exploited in the Upper Amazonvárzea region (Iquitos, Peru). Over time,agriculture, fishing and timber extractionhave become the most common land andresource uses practised by the residents ofthe region. These activities have resulted insignificant changes in the vegetation andlandscapes of the upper várzea region.

To understand how agriculture, fishingand forest management activities haveinfluenced the formation and functioning ofupper várzea ecosystems, a Peruvianresearch team has now joined PLEC-Amazonia, and is focusing its work on:1. identification, documentation and

analysis of historical changes in landand resource use and tenure sincecolonial times,

2. research and long-term experi-mentation on traditional agricultural,agroforestry, and forest managementmethods and techniques, and

3. inventory, documentation andoutreach on fishing activities withincommunal, inter-communal andnational lake reserves.


Research on historical changes in land andresource use is being conducted by JoséBarletti Pasqualle, a Peruvian historianspecializing in Amazonia history, and withmore than 20 years experience as aresearcher and teacher in the Iquitos region.Studies on traditional agricultural,agroforestry and forest managementtechniques are conducted by Mario PinedoPanduro, an agronomist native to the Iquitosregion, with more than 25 years of researchexperience. Research on fisheries is theresponsibility of Victor Hugo Montreuil, a fishbiologist with much experience in PeruvianAmazonia. Activities of this upper várzeateam are coordinated by Miguel PinedoVasquez, who works as a researcher andlecturer at the Center for EnvironmentalResearch and Conservation (CERC) atColumbia University.

Research sites of the Upper Amazonvárzea team are located in várzeacommunities downriver from the city ofIquitos. Researchers are working in várzeacommunities that are well-organized andhave actively participated in regulating landand resource use within their territories.Villages in this region are also carrying outconservation activities within their communalor inter-communal lake and forest reserves.

The Peruvian researchers are connectedto the Research Institute of the PeruvianAmazonia (Instituto de Investigaciones de laAmazonia Peruana - IIAP). This institute isthe largest Peruvian research agencyspecializing in Amazonian matters and isbased in the city of Iquitos. The institute isconducting several research projects inupper Amazonia. One of its main projects isthe ecological zonation of PeruvianAmazonia. All researchers of the uppervárzea team participate in this project.Members of the research team are alsoparticipating in other research andconservation projects implemented by localnon-governmental institutions.

The integration of the Upper Amazonvárzea research team into the Amazoniacluster will help:• broaden the comparisons that can be

made among várzea sites;• exchange research information and

materials such as seeds and seedlingsof species and varieties that are floodresistant;

• conduct training courses in the threevárzea regions;

• write integrated management anddevelopment plans for the sustainableuse of várzea ecosystems; and,

• propose to national and regionalgovernments some developmentalternatives for the várzea that areecologically sustainable, economicallyviable and socially acceptable.

Meetings in Belém and Santarém

The visit to the Universidade Federal do Paráand EMBRAPA in Belém and the ProjectoVárzea and its research sites in the communitiesof Sector Ituqui (19-26 January) by Miguel PinedoVasquez, José Barletti Pasqualle andMario Pinedo Panduro was the first PLEC-sponsored activity for the Peruvian team. Thevisit helped begin formal exchange of ideas withresearchers from all the institutions. The visit toEMBRAPA included a meeting with Dr. AdilsonSerrão and Dr. Tereza Ximenes, where theresearch plan and ideas of the upper várzearesearch team were presented. Generaldescription of the structure, objectives andmethodologies of PLEC were presented byAdilson Serrão, David McGrath and MiguelPinedo. The upper várzea research team alsoparticipated in the presentation and discussion ofthe results of the project Roça Demostrativa(Demonstration Plot). This research andextension agricultural project is implemented byIPAM researchers in communities along theCapim River, near Belém.

The visit to the Projecto Várzea in Santarémallowed the upper várzea research team toexchange ideas with the researchers and theleaders of the fishery unions (Colonia dePescadores Z-20). The team had an opportunityto visit the communities of sector Ituqui andexchange ideas with local residents. The visit


also helped the Peruvian researchers tounderstand the patterns of land and resource useand tenure and the impact on the landscape inthe lower várzea region.

Information collected from interviews andobservations allowed the Peruvian researchers tomake some useful comparisons with várzeaareas in the Iquitos region. Some of the mostinteresting observations made by the Peruviansconcerned differences between the regions ineducational situations as well as different landuses, especially the large water buffalo ranchesin the várzeas of Ituqui. An important aspect thatmakes várzea uses in Ituqui different from theIquitos region, is the existence of very little areasof forest várzea. The intensive and extensiveproduction of water buffalo seems to have had agreat impact on the várzea forest and other plantcommunities of Ituqui. Ecologically the Ituquiregion also presents other very interestingdifferences; its landscape is in some ways morestable than in the Peruvian region with far fewersigns of lateral river migration than the verydynamic Iquitos zone. Agricultural methods inItuqui, however, were found to be quite similar tothose of Peruvian Amazonia.

A JOURNEY TO BAOSHAN ANDGAOLIGONG MOUNTAIN

(GAOLIGONGSHAN), WESTERN YUNNAN

Harold Brookfield2

After the Chiang Mai symposium, and the‘side-trip’ to Nairobi described in the sectionon ‘News of the Project’ I paid a long-planned two-week visit to Yunnan. This wasnot specifically a ‘PLEC’ visit, since it wasfunded under a grant from the AustralianResearch Council, but an opportunity torevisit certain villages in Xishuangbanna(seen in 1993); and then to accompany Guoand his colleagues to Baoshan, and to their

2 This note is based on one prepared for theNewsletter of the Gaoligongshan project.

newer research area on the flanks ofGaoligong mountain, west of the Nu Jiang(Salween river) in western Yunnan. Iconcentrate almost solely on this westernexcursion in the present report.

The journey

The outward journey was fast. After a brief visitto Xishuangbanna, to the principal field site ofKunming Institute of Botany student Guan Yuqing(Guan Yuqing et al. 1994), I got back intoKunming shortly before midnight on 30November, and was picked up at 7.30 nextmorning, Friday 1 December, for the long driveto Baoshan, which took 14 hours. Guo Huijun,his colleagues Dao Zhiling and Shen Lixin, andMs Liu Wenhui, journalist for Chinese ScienceNews, were company and interpreters of thepassing scene. This included the variedmanagement of flat land, unstable slopes andpockets among degraded land of the Yi peoplesoutheast of Dali. Fortunately, I was able to seeall this at a little greater leisure on the way back,when we took two full days to cover the samedistance, stopping overnight in Dali-Xiaguan.

At Baoshan, the main business was the first-ever training course for both forestry andvillage officials on biodiversity conservation,which got under way on Monday. Presentationsand discussions were interpreted for me by DaoZhiling, and by Guo Xiao Li of the Foreign AffairsOffice of Baoshan County. The first afternoonwas occupied by opening presentations, thepresentation by the Director of the BaoshanDivision of the Gaoligong Mountain State NatureReserve, Zhou Xiaodong, being particularlyinformative to me by providing a lot ofbackground on the history and nature of thereserve. During the following two days long andimportant presentations were made by ProfessorXu Zaifu and by Guo Huijun, and there was anopen discussion among the officials and theKunming participants on the problems ofmanaging the reserve and its buffer zone. I alsomade a presentation, which I based on theproblems of managing nutrient depletion and itsconsequences in agricultural land cleared offorest, and on participatory resource-


management projects elsewhere in PLEC,especially in Thailand, Ghana and AmazonianBrazil, in each case in socio-political conditionsdifferent from one another, and from Yunnan.Guo Huijun and Xu Zaifu, in particular, were veryhelpful in expanding what I said about ideas andsituations that were unfamiliar to the village andforestry officials. It was clear that the meeting asa whole was highly successful.

We had already visited two of the 127administrative villages surrounding Gaoli-gongshan on the Sunday, both these villagesbeing in land from which the forest had beencleared years ago. After the meeting wereturned to the Nu Jiang valley, being impressedby the enormous contrast between its two sides -the Gaoligongshan side with many permanentstreams with opportunity for irrigation, and theNushan side totally deforested, very dry andexhibiting in places evidence of quite severedegradation. We then went up the long and verybeautiful valley to Baihualing and before darkreached the headquarters of the Nature Reserve,close to the forest edge above Baihualing village,where we spent the night. Most of the next daywas spent in the Reserve, mainly in its bufferzone below 2,500 m where secondary growthafter forestry activity has reached a range ofstages. We returned to Baoshan well after dark,after Professor Guo and I had together formallyinaugurated the Gaoligongshan Farmers’Biodiversity Conservation Association, at theadministrative centre of Baihualing village. Tomy great pleasure, I was made a member of theAssociation.

The Gaoligongshan Project

The problems facing the Gaoligongshanproject are formidable. Some 300,000people live around the reserve, in Baoshanand Tencong Counties, and there are moreliving across the international boundary,below the northern part of the reserve thatborders on Myanmar. Twenty-seven ethnicgroups are represented, dominated by Daiand Lisu, and although some villages cantrace 20 generations of history, most of thepopulation has migrated into the area quite

recently, much of it within the last 20 years.In Yunnan Province as a whole the ruralpopulation is still growing faster than theurban population, with the fastest growthrate now among the minorities. Since theidea of a Nature Reserve was first seriouslymooted about 1958 most of the formerforest below about 1,800 m has beencleared and converted into agricultural land,although on some parts of the forest edgepressure may have been eased by theconcentration of villages into clusters atlower altitude during the period ofProduction Teams, before 1978.

Within the same period, however, a majoraddition to the demand on land has comefrom the development of the Nu Jiang valleybelow its gorge into one of Yunnan’s mainsugar-cane growing regions, supplying sixsmall factories. Although most cane isgrown on the lower slopes of the Nu Jiangvalley between 700 and 1,000 m, itscultivation extends almost right up to theforest edge where the yield is poor. There isconflict between the conservation goal andthe demands of the Agriculture Departmentand Baoshan County, which seek sugarquotas even from high-altitude Baihualing.However, under what is now virtuallyindividual control over cropping decisionsthere is progressive shift toward tree crops,especially coffee, mango, walnut, chestnut,oranges and most recently cinnamon, andthe sugar factories are finding it moredifficult to get supplies of cane. In the valleythere is also growing intensity of both foodand cash-crop production, with complexsystems of land and water management.

Baihualing village is the main pilot area ofthe project, although there are also twoothers, one on the western side ofGaoligongshan in Tencong County.Baihualing has about 221 ha of land ofwhich 140 ha is under wet rice, some of ithigh yielding but most of the land is not yetadequately cleared of stones. Here, aselsewhere around the mountain, there was aperiod of rapid forest-edge clearance forswidden cultivation in the early 1980s,during a time following the introduction of


individual responsibility and land distributionwhen there was major uncertainty overwhere new boundaries would lie.Uncertainty still remains, and Baihualingvillagers have interpretations of where thereserve boundary lies that differ substantiallyfrom those of the Nature Reserveadministration. Ingression into this disputedarea of the buffer zone, especially forfirewood and collection of forest products,continues.

The problem facing the project is tocombine integrated land management anddevelopment for the villagers with a rationalschedule for Nature Reserve development.It is essential to gain the cooperation of thevillagers, and this is being done not onlythrough the Association mentioned above,but also by experimental planting of treecash crops on farmers’ land, with theircooperation. To an outside observer itseems clear that economically-marginalsugar cane should be phased out of theupland side-valleys and replaced by moreprofitable permanent crops, but this involvesnot only the villagers but also the Countyand Agriculture Department authorities.Moreover, since the declared buffer zoneextends some way into the forest,conservation of biodiversity and its rationaluse in this zone has to be a matter forpersuasion and mutual agreement. Use ofdisputed land, in particular, has to be agreed.The project therefore has to have asubstantial aid function, and with its presentlimited resources it is not going to be easy toextend this to many more than the presentthree of the 127 villages surrounding theReserve, even though there is generalawareness that both the present and futureagricultural prosperity of the whole regiondepends on the good water supplies thatcome from the forest-fed streams.

Gaoligongshan is an area ofextraordinary beauty and physical as well asbiological diversity. It has tourist potential,initially being developed by the constructionof a small guest house at the headquartersabove Baihualing. At present, tourism isalmost non-existent in this remote area, over

two hours from Baoshan town and a wholeday’s drive from the nearest city at Dali-Xiaguan. There is awareness of the need toimprove tourist access and manage it withgreat care, but clearly tourism is also apotential economic resource of somesignificance to the minority-group villagers,among whom at least the women retain theirtraditional dress.

Because Gaoligongshan has such arange of altitudes, and lies along a corridorfrom the Himalaya to the hills of northernSoutheast Asia, its global significance as abiodiversity reserve is very apparent. But itis only now that a new high-altitudebotanical garden is being planned to providethe basis for ex-situ as well as in-situconservation of rare species. It will be along time before such a garden can matchthe established facilities in Xishuangbanna,and in Kunming. The conservation goal hasa number of potential assets. There is somevery good land management, and use ofintensive practices around Gaoligongshan,and there is a significant minority among thevillagers who are interested in experimentingwith new crops and new ways, even thoughsome have to leave the village and rentcommunity land in order to be free to dothis. The present project is admirable, but itis small, and the task is very large.

Reference

Guan Yuqing, Dao Zhiling and Cui Jingyun1994 Evaluation of the cultivation of

Amomum villosum under tropical forestin southern Yunnan, China, PLECNews and Views 4: 22-28.


NEWS OF THESOUTH-SOUTH PROGRAMME

(The South-South CooperationProgramme on Environmentally Sound

Socio-Economic Development in theHumid Tropics)

Miguel Clüsener-GodtUNESCO, Paris

Explanatory Introduction by J.I. Uitto: TheSouth-South Cooperation Programme onEnvironmentally Sound Socio-EconomicDevelopment in the Humid Tropics was initiatedat the conference with the same title organized bythe Association of Amazonian Universities(UNAMAZ), the Programme on Man and theBiosphere (MAB) of UNESCO, UNU and theThird World Academy of Sciences (TWAS), inManaus, Brazil, directly following the EarthSummit in June 1992. Collaboration wasestablished between the Programme and PLEC,which has continued through the participation ofPLEC members in the South-South CooperationProgramme's meetings in Chiang Mai, Thailand,in 1994, and in Madagascar in 1995. Inrecognition of the complementarity between thestated aims of the two initiatives, it was agreedthat space would be offered both in PLEC Newsand Views and in the South-South PerspectivesNewsletter for brief notes on the progress of theother programme. It is felt that this amicableexchange of information is mutually beneficial.

The Programme on ‘South-South Co-operation on Environmentally Sound Socio-Economic Development in the HumidTropics’ aims to put into action therecommendations of Agenda 21 adopted inRio de Janeiro at UNCED, and particularlythe Convention on Biodiversity. TheProgramme tries to identify best ways ofproviding sustainable and decent livelihoodsfor the inhabitants of the Humid Tropics.Most specifically, it seeks to createopportunity for maximum interaction among

scientists, resource managers andenvironment policy makers working in similarecosystems in different areas of LatinAmerica, Africa and Asia.

First of all it is necessary to assess thevariety of ecological and social landscapesin various parts of humid tropical areas ofthe world: this could improve our knowledgeon how we can work in these fragile socio-ecosystems and prepare transition strat-egies towards sustainable development.We could improve a lot by studyingcomparatively across the South thesuccessful cases of management ofresources and development processesresponding to the three criteria of socialequity, ecological sustainability andeconomic efficiency.

A second step is to strengthen theexisting response capacities of thedeveloping countries, rather than buildingnew institutions. This is done by increasingthe local capacity for carrying outmanagement, research and training in thehumid tropics to face the challenges of theworld. The industrialized countries couldbest contribute by establishing endowmentfunds for research institutions in the South.Southern countries should find ways ofmobilizing local resources. It is fundamentalthat the research and development systemsof the developing countries becomeincreasingly self-reliant. The Programmeaims to strengthen the local capability oftraining high-level specialists able to planand implement sustainable developmentstrategies and manage the natural resourcesin the best way.

To this end, the Programme has alreadyorganized a number of conferences andseminars in the last three years, and plansfor further meetings are detailed below,together with information on otherpublications of the Programme.

The Programme publishes a newsletterentitled South-South Perspectives, inEnglish, and also in French and Spanish,describing its activities.

10· PLEC NEWS AND VIEWS, NO.6, MARCH 1996

South-South Activities and Publicationsof the Programme

Forthcoming Meetings

1. International workshop on ‘Biovillages’,Madras, India, foreseen in August 1996.UNESCO, UNU, TWAS, SwaminathanFoundation;

2. Regional workshop on ‘Management ofBiosphere Reserves in South-East Asia andProgrammes for Sustainable Development’,UNESCO Office for Science andTechnology, Jakarta, Indonesia, foreseen in1996;

3. International workshop on ‘Management ofCoastal Areas with Particular Emphasis toBiosphere Reserves’. Victoria, Seychelles,foreseen in late 1996;

4. Regional workshop on ‘Management ofBiosphere Reserves in Africaand Programmes for SustainableDevelopment’, Dja Biosphere Reserve,UNESCO and IUCN, foreseen in 1996.

Strengthening of Biosphere Reserves

In the humid tropical regions, specialattention must be given to strengthening ofBiosphere Reserves and rational use ofbiodiversity for the benefit of local andindigenous populations. Research, mon-itoring and collaboration between thesereserves will focus on testing hypotheses inthe field of sustainable use of biodiversity toidentify the relevant technologies and know-how. This is why exchange of experience,training of biosphere reserve managers andparticipation of local and indigenous peopleis organised.

The Programme published severalworking papers on some of the BiosphereReserves concerned, about their work, theirproblems and the solutions adopted toachieve sustainable development byimproving management structures withregard to financial autonomy:

1. The Mata Atlântica Biosphere Reserve(Brazil): An Overview. Antonio CarlosDiegues. 36 pp. In English, with Frenchabstract (1995);

2. The Xishuangbanna Biosphere Reserve(China): A Tropical Land of Natural andCultural Diversity. Wu Zhaolu, Ou Xiaokun.52 pp. In English, with French abstract(1995);

3. The Mae Sa-Kog Ma Biosphere Reserve(Thailand). Benjavan Rerkasem, KanokRerkasem. 28 pp. In English, with Frenchabstract (1995);

4. La Réserve de biosphère de Dimonika(Congo). Jean Diamouangana, 28 pp. InFrench, with English abstract (1995);

5. Le Parc National de Taï (Côte d'Ivoire): Unmaillon essentiel du programme deconservation de la nature. Yaya Sangaré.28 pp. In French, with English abstract(1995);

6. La Réserve de Biosphère de MananaraNord (Madagascar) 1987-1994 : bilan etperspectives. Noëline Raondry, MarthaKlein, Victor Solo Rakotonirina. 72 pp. InFrench, with English abstract (1995);

7. A Study on the Homegarden Ecosystem inthe Mekong River Delta and the Ho ChiMinh City (Viet Nam). Nguyen Thi Ngoc An.In English, with French abstract (1995, inpress);

8. The Manu Biosphere Reserve (Peru).Gustavo Suarez de Freitas. In English, withFrench abstract (1995);

9. The Beni Biosphere Reserve (Bolivia).Carmen Miranda L. In English, with Frenchabstract (1995 in press);

10. La Reserva de Biosfera Sierra del Rosario(Cuba). Maria Herrera Alvarez, MaritzaGarcia Garcia. In Spanish, with Englishabstract (1995);

11. The Omo Biosphere Reserve (Nigeria).Augustine O. Isichei. In English, withFrench abstract (1995);Cont. on p. 32

PAPERS BY PROJECT MEMBERS

COLLABORATIVE AGROECOSYSTEMS MANAGEMENT PROJECT (‘CAMP’):A PROPOSED COMMUNITY-BASED INITIATIVE IN GHANA, BY WAPLEC IN

COLLABORATION WITH THE CHIEF AND THE PEOPLE OF GYAMFIASE

Edwin A. Gyasi and Lewis Enu Kwesi,University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana

Background

A decentralized, bottom-up approach basedon community participation is widelyadvocated for development (Economicand Social Commission for Asia and thePacific, 1979; Bamberger, 1988; PNDC,1989). An opportunity to test this and thedevelopmental strategy based on collabor-ative research and the biovillage concept(Swaminathan, 1995), is provided by theCollaborative Agroecosystems ManagementProject (CAMP), proposed to protect therelict forest and indigenous agroforestry atGyamfiase, and to rehabilitate the degradedsurrounding areas in Ghana, in line with thegeneral PLEC research objectives(Brookfield, 1995).

In tropical Africa, the forests and thesystems indigenously developed for theirsustainable use, along with theirunderpinning agroecological knowledge andconservation values and taboos arethreatened by a constellation of forcesincluding:• inappropriate technologies;• the spread of European or Western

culture; and• production pressure which, ultimately,

derives from the demands of anexpanding, increasingly urbanizedpopulation (Gyasi et al. 1995).

As a result of the generally negativeenvironmental impact of these forces, thetrue or nearly true forests and sustainableindigenous farming practices have largelydisappeared, except in isolated localitiessuch as Gyamfiase (Fig. 1).

The Gyamfiase forest grove andindigenous agroforestry system atGyamfiase, a farming village, is located 70km north of Accra in Akuapem, a rural areain the southern sector of the forest-savannaecotone, once characterized by thick semi-deciduous forest and environmentally low-impact economic activities includingdiversified rotational agroforestry. However,there is a growing domination of savannaspecies and of less sustainable sedentaryfarming practices and their localadaptations, except in a few localities such


as Gyamfiase, where there remains a richforest grove, the abode of the shrine,Obosom Gyamfi. The grove is immediatelysurrounded by a biodiverse indigenousagroforestry zone, which grades into a zoneof severe biophysical degradation assoc-iated with overcropping, especially by themigrant settler-tenant farmers who rent theland from the Akuapem owners.

Problem

How the Gyamfiase agroecological'greenbelt' of forest and agroforestry hasmanaged to survive the pressures of thegrowing population, and the demands of theneighbouring migrant-tenant and urbanmarkets is somewhat enigmatic. It appearsto relate to the fact that the grovetraditionally serves as the sanctified abodeof a fetish. But, perhaps, a morefundamental factor lies in the sheer tenacityof Nana Oduro Darko II, the conservationistand environmentally conscious Chief ofGyamfiase.

However, the demands of the expandingpopulation and the weight of the forces ofmodernity cast doubts over the survivabilityof the rare Gyamfiase natural and culturalheritage. The threat to the forest groveunderlies the need to encouragecountervailing interventionist measures,after understanding the composition,structure and management systems basedupon the pilot PLEC study findings (Gyasi etal. 1995), and further studies.

Objectives

Therefore, the project seeks to carry outdetailed survey and analysis of thebiophysical conditions of the Gyamfiaseforest grove and of the character of thefarming practices there, with a view to usingthe knowledge gained as a basis for theirplanned protection and enhancement, and,ultimately, for rehabilitation of the degradedsurrounding areas. Towards this end, thefirst and foremost aims are:

a) mobilization of the community toencourage biophysical conservationand agroforestry practices byeducation;

b) identification of the threatened plants,and their propagation in a buffer zonearound the grove through in situ and exsitu seed multiplication (by orthodoxmethods and modern tissue culture),using the relict grove as a germplasmbank;

c) more job opportunities, povertyreduction and minimisation of pressureon the remnant forest through thedevelopment of fodder banks and otherfacilities to sustain a livestock industry,promotion of mushroom and snailfarming, and development of eco-tourism which we have, throughparticipatory field studies, identified aspriority needs or realistic aspirations.

A related objective is to use Gyamfiaseas a field laboratory for research intosustainable agroecological management, forpossible extension to other areas.

Project management

Implementation of the project will be guidedby a modified version of the Swaminathan(1995) biovillage concept. The modifiedconcept seeks to protect bioreservesthrough an integrated strategy. This willinvolve plant propagation in a buffer zone,and the promotion of sustainable economicactivities in a transition zone around thecore forest. The project employs themodern developmental concept, whichemphasizes a participatory community-based approach centred on the localpeople, but involving other interestsincluding the researchers. This is reflectedby the composition of the committeeconstituted to manage the project incollaboration with other GOs and NGOs:- 5 representatives of the local

communities ( including the GyamfiaseChief) who shall hold the key executive

PLEC NEWS AND VIEWS, NO.6, MARCH 1996 ·13

positions;- 2 representatives of PLEC;- 1 representative each of the NGOs,

GACON, GhRRM and UNU/INRA.It is proposed to implement the project in

four 18 months phases spanning six years,after which period it is expected to be self-sustaining or sufficiently established formanagement by the local people withoutexternal support.

Similar initiatives in agroecosystemsmanagement are planned for otherWAPLEC study sites, including Manga-Bawku in Ghana's Upper East Region,characterized by a severely degradedsavanna environment.

References

Bamberger, M.1988 The role of community participation in

development planning and projectmanagement. Washington, D.C.: TheWorld Bank.

Brookfield, H.1995 Postscript: The 'population-environment

nexus' and PLEC. Global EnvironmentalChange 5(4): 381-393.

Economic and Social Commission for Asia andthe Pacific

1979 Guidelines for rural centre planning.New York: United Nations.

Gyasi, E., G.T.Agyepong, E.Ardayfio-Schandorf,L.Enu-Kwesi, J.S. Nabila and E.Owusu-Bennoah

1995 Production pressure and environmentalchange in the forest-savanna zone ofSouthern Ghana. Global EnvironmentalChange 5(4):355-366.

PNDC, PNDCL 207:1988, Local government law. Accra: Ghana

Publishing Corp./Assembly Press.Swaminathan, M.S

1995 Agriculture, food security and employ-ment : changing times, uncommonopportunities. Nature and Resources 31(1): 2-15

mrt


AGRODIVERSITY AND BIODIVERSITY ON THE GROUNDAND AMONG THE PEOPLE:

METHODOLOGY FROM YUNNAN

Guo Huijun, Dao Zhiling and Harold BrookfieldChinese Academy of Sciences/Kunming; Kunming Institute of Botany, CAS;

Australian National University

With a comment by Daniel Zarin, University of New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Introduction

The paper on diversity measurement byZarin (1995) in PLEC News and Views No. 4provides an excellent guide to basic surveyand measurement techniques. It stops shortof detailing methodology on the ground infocus sites where the participation of menand women farmers becomes not onlypossible, but necessary. Zarin advocatesan essentially random approach to sampleselection, based on ‘landscape units’determined initially by interpretation of aerialphotographs and remote sensing imagery.We do not dissent from this approach as aset of guidelines for diversity measurementwhere the object is research into --ultimately -- the pattern diversity ofecosystems and agroecosystems. In workin Montane Mainland Southeast Asia, andespecially in Yunnan, however, a morepurposive approach is taken for the reasonthat consultation with the people, and theparticipatory use of their own deepknowledge of biodiversity within theirhabitats, is essential.

This is also the case in some other PLECClusters. The inclusion of Brookfield as thirdauthor of this paper, at the invitation of thefirst two authors, derives from hiscontribution in bringing together keyelements of three differently constructedshort papers into a single paper, and inpresenting a wider PLEC perspective.Methodological debate of this kind is ofmajor importance in the development of theproject and essential to the ‘harmonization’of methodologies that need to beinterrelated, but cannot in all cases be

uniform. A comment by Dan Zarin, whosesystem remains basic to PLEC, appearsbelow. 1

The most important aim of PLEC inYunnan is to undertake participatoryplanning and experimental work togetherwith communities, with the purposes ofprotecting biological diversity and improvingagricultural sustainability and watermanagement. Work is already in progressin Yunnan, both directly within PLEC inXishuangbanna Prefecture (or County)along the Lancang Jiang (Mekong river) inthe far south of Yunnan, and in a closelyrelated project funded by the MacArthurFoundation on forest management andbiodiversity along both eastern and westernslopes of Gaoligong mountain, between theNu Jiang (Salween river) and the Myanmarborder in Baoshan and Tencong Prefecturesof western Yunnan. Both areas includemajor official nature reserves.

This work has led to the development of apurpose-driven methodology called ‘Agro-biodiversity Assessment’ (ABA). Its scaleis that of the village or villages within agroup of villages which, in China, togethermake up an ‘administrative village’.2 TheYunnan group begins ABA at the level of theadministrative village, but then focuses onthe ‘natural’ village as a manageable unit.

1 The substantial help of Muriel Brookfield and HelenParsons in detailed editing is gratefully acknowledgedby the authors. We also appreciate the suggestions ofan anonymous reviewer.2 An Administrative Village in China commonlyincludes from two to as many as ten ‘natural villages’.


The group is presently working in six such‘natural’ villages, three in each of the twoareas, all of which contain tracts of forest,and are adjacent to large or small naturereserves.3 The paper outlines themethodology used, and explains how andwhy it varies from Zarin’s proposals. It alsoprovides an example of the value ofinvolving local people directly in the surveywork itself, as well as in subsequentplanning. The paper is condensed andrewritten from a set of short unpublishedpapers edited by the senior author, andentitled ‘Agro-biodiversity Assessment(ABA)’, which were presented to the PLEC-MMSEA methodology and training workshopheld in Chiang Mai and Xishuangbanna, inMay-June 1995.

The relationship of biodiversity toagrodiversity is close in Yunnan, where 110patterns of agroforestry systems have beenidentified, many of them embracingconservation and most of them makingextensive use of wild plant species (GuoHuijun et al. 1994: Guo Huijun and Padoch1995). Among 5,000 species of higherplants, 1,715 have been recorded as havingmedicinal use, 86 provide food, 29 yield.fibre and 22 provide perfume, dyes, orpotable liquids. The numerous Dai minority,among whom homegardens are particularlywell developed, cultivate 315 speciesbelonging to 219 genera and 85 familiesaround their houses; these include 69species domesticated by the Dai themselves(Xu Zaifu and Yu Pinghua 1991).4

3 In Yunnan, 29.5 per cent of the forest is managed bythe state, 70.5 per cent by the communities: of thelatter 20 per cent is collectively managed, while 80 percent is managed by individuals, who therefore manage56 per cent of the whole. This division is not static, thecommunity having the power to change ownership.4 In these circumstances it is essential thatbiodiversity assessment capture and measure thegenetic diversity created and innovated by theindigenous people, which can be easily lost withcommercialization and monocultural production trendsduring modern times.

Defining the terms

The Yunnan group first proposes a variationof the definition of ‘agrodiversity’ provided byBrookfield and Padoch (1994), where itwas defined as the many ways in whichfarmers use the natural diversity of theenvironment for production, including notonly their choice of crops but also theirmanagement of land, water and biota as awhole. In order more clearly to separatebiodiversity from the total diversity inenvironmental management, it is hereproposed that ‘agro-biodiversity’, withinagrodiversity as a whole, has the specificmeaning of management and direct use ofbiological species, including all crops,semi-domesticates and wild species. It istherefore the result of interaction betweenthe diversity of cultural practices andbiological diversity. Some diverseagricultural systems contain within themmuch greater biodiversity than others. Agro-biodiversity can be viewed in much the sameway as all biodiversity, as ecosystemdiversity, species diversity and geneticdiversity. Ecosystem diversity is the basis ofland management diversity.

Land management diversity can beviewed in stratified quasi-hierarchicalmanner, with higher and lower orders ofdiversity. Thus in Yunnan, all managementsystems except the village and roads can beclassified into just seven major types: waterbodies, forests, agroforests, wet rice fields,upland fields, orchards and homegardens.Within each type, there are many sub-types.For example, within agroforest systems thereare four basic types: systems includingtotally-harvested trees, systems in whichtrees are only partially used, protectionbelts, and cash crops under natural forest.Within this, however, the Yunnan group hasidentified eleven sub-types, 82 forms and220 associations. No less important isclassification by land tenure. Again there arethree basic types: state, community andindividual. But holdings may be large orsmall, and biodiversity differs significantlybetween the larger plots and the smaller,


fragmented plots. Several tenure types maybe found within the same managementsystem. In Baihualing village, for example,the Gaoligong mountain survey found sixdistinct types of forest ownership. Analysiswhich takes these variables into account willreveal evidence of the function anddynamism of biodiversity which has neverbeen studied, but which is essential as abasis for planning.

Field methods

The place to begin is with the collection ofall available secondary data. The ‘admin-istrative villages’ of Yunnan are in someways comparable to the ‘landscape’ level ofecological classification, where the‘landscape’ unit is taken to mean an area inwhich a cluster of interacting stands orecosystems is repeated in similar form(Forman 1982). The administrative villagescontain repeated patterns of land-useelements. The administrative village is thesmallest unit for which data on population,broadly classified land use and productionare available, in each case on an annualbasis. At this level, topographic maps andnew land-use survey, begun in 1990 on ascale of 1:25,000, can provide additionalbasic sources of data for classification ofmanagement types. These secondary datasources may contain many inaccuracies, butthey must first be studied for all that they canyield.

In ABA, we then turn to the people, first tokey informants, then to the communitiesthemselves where both semi-structuredinterviews and more formal questionnairesneed to be implemented in order to establishnecessary data on land use and holding,needs and consumption, and the use ofnatural biodiversity. More detailedinformation is obtained from a sample. Thisleads logically, through inquiry andobservation, to the beginning of survey onthe ground. For detailed baseline data wehave to make observations at the farm level;and all resource-management patterns must

be mapped and described on a scale notsmaller than 1:10,000. 5

The value of remote sensing is limited atthis scale, and aerial photographs are moreuseful, especially where a sequence throughtime is available. They then need to besupplemented by transects and territorialmapping. For agro-biodiversity assessmentit is necessary first to focus on the dominantspecies in each land management pattern.It is essential to understand the contributionof each land-management pattern within thewhole village territory, where some are ofmajor importance and some are only minor.This can best be done by drawing a villageterritory map, engaging a participatory groupamong the villagers, as a first step. Theinvestigators draw the map, but it is thencorrected by the informants to get usefulinformation that reveals local perceptions ofboundaries, resources available and theirdistribution. It is often useful to start with amap of the village settlements, streams andhighest hill tops as landmarks, and then todraw the boundary of the territory of each‘natural’ village. Sometimes, this revealsdisputes but less so than between bothcommunity and individual land and areasdeclared natural reserve.6 Informants arethen asked to point out other things on themap that are important landmarks in thevillage. They should not be interrupted untilthey have finished pointing. It is up to theinvestigator to decide how much detail is 5 In work in a closely-settled part of the centralhighlands of Papua New Guinea, Brookfield (1973)found it necessary ultimately to map at a scale of1:3,600 in order to capture the full detail ofmanagement diversity and land tenure.

6 While the team was doing the territorial map ofBaihualing village in Gaoligong mountain, they foundthat 30 per cent of the forest was under disputebetween the village and the nature reserve. This wasbecause of historical policy changes, as well asmisunderstanding over boundary marks. The teamasked the farmers to draw the historical territorialmaps of each natural village as additional information.Usually, according to observation and interview, theseareas are more often cut than other land, andbiodiversity destruction is heavier than elsewhere.


needed on this first village map. Even on thevillage map, however, the land-holdings ofsingle families, and the different types ofland tenure can often be mapped in outline.

The next stage is transect method.Transects are selected so as to cross all themajor micro-ecological and productionzones, along lines of greatest agrodiversityas determined in the initial stage. Theyensure representation of the full topo-graphic, resource and tenurial variation in thecommunity. In large village territories morethan one transect is usually required.Transects add a great deal of detail, onslope, drainage, vegetation, water, soils,cropping patterns, trees and othervegetation, and on farm size. It is at thisstage that the range of management typesis fully determined, together with sampleplots for species diversity measurement.Villagers accompany the investigators, oneof the major advantages being that peopleare often more willing to discuss sensitiveissues such as land ownership patterns andconflicts when away from the village. Themore often villagers accompany theinvestigators on these walks, the moreinformation is obtained.

Finally comes the work on sample plots.Here the Yunnan ABA method differs mostsharply from that advocated by Zarin, sincesample determination is based on landmanagement type, as determined during thetwo previous stages, and not on landscapeunits. Sample plots are selected pur-posively, rather than randomly, according tothe higher levels of management pattern,broadly-determined species diversity,elevation, and different classes of landtenure. However, the Yunnan team iscareful to follow the same basic rules, thatsample plots must be chosen so that aminimum of two, and usually three to five,represent each land-management type, thatthe plots are of standard size and shape, andthat they must be well marked for datavalidation and future re-sampling.7 Plots

7 In the tropical forest in Xishuangbanna plot size hasbeen 50 x 50 metres, with 1 x 1 metre plots for the

within the forest need to be more numerousthan in managed land. Land ownership maybe an important indicator of diversity incultural practices, which has significantimpacts on biodiversity.

The teams working in sample plotsinclude at least a botanist, an agronomistand a forester, but it is essential they beaccompanied by one villager, or more ifnecessary, for on-site identification of plantuse, and any human activities. It is alsoessential that one or more of the scientistsspeak the local language. The informationrecorded includes both scientific and localname of each species, the height anddiameter of plants, their use, humanactivities, and the ownership of both landand plants. The social, economic, andecological value of each species can thusbe archived.

The inclusion of on-site ethnobotanicalinformation is vitally important where thelong-term goal is the planning of diversitymanagement. Plants which cannot beidentified, or which can be identified onlywith a local name, are collected for furtherexamination by taxonomists. Theknowledge of local people can be employedeven by researchers who are notthemselves taxonomists, or who lack fieldexperience of plant identification. Localknowledge obtained from field studyaccompanies the collection of specimens fortaxonomic identification. Many ethnicnames of plants have been recorded insome regions. A Name List ofXishuangbanna Flora records about 1,000species ethnic names in the Dai, Hani andJinuo languages (Yunnan Institute ofTropical Botany, 1983). Scientific namescan therefore be checked from thishandbook.

The greatest value of using local peopleas participating field workers is that they

lowest storey. In sub-tropical forests a 20 x 20 metreplot has been used, and this is now being adopted asa standard quadrat in all work. For the homegardenmanagement system, sampling is not feasible and thewhole area must be surveyed.


have more detailed knowledge of theirenvironment and plants than any outsider.Indigenous knowledge is comprehensiveconcerning land use, vegetation, the soil,and plants, especially the plants commonlyused by them for food, medicine, fibre,ornament, timber and for ritual purposes. Aseparate note on use of the ethnotaxonomicapproach among the Dai people isappended.

Analysis and evaluation of agro-biodiversity

The system described above follows thesame general path as that described byZarin, from the most general, regional viewto the particular site. It uses or adapts eachof the specific steps proposed by Zarin. Theprincipal differences are first, that it givesless emphasis to remotely-sensed datasources and moves onto the ground at amuch earlier stage, and second that itinvolves the people, their tenure of the land,their information, and most importantly theiruse and evaluation of plants almostthroughout the work. This last is essentialwhere the purpose is participatory design ofconservationist systems of land manage-ment. What is described here is thepreliminary stages of assessment, and eventhey are not necessarily rapid. Toundertake a complete inventory of bio-diversity in a large landscape unit couldoccupy several years of work. For example,a still incomplete biodiversity inventory ofGaoligong Mountain (Li Gui and Xue Jiru,eds 1995), recently published, is based onformal work that began in the early 1980s,and informal work that goes back to 1920.

When we turn to analysis we can againfollow, or parallel, the approaches proposedby Zarin, and similarly can either scale up orscale down as required. Following thecategories of diversity proposed byWhittaker (1972), and also discussed byZarin, Alpha (species) diversity can beestablished within each management type,generalized or subdivided. Available indices

of species richness and relative abundancecan be derived. The beta (habitat) diversitybetween habitats is also applicable to useon land management types, and so also isthe gamma (landscape) diversity. We canalso go further, and analyse the interactionbetween the diversity of human culturalpractices and institutions, and biologicaldiversity. A measure not captured instandard biodiversity studies is the resourcevalue of the elements in biodiversity, inrelation to the abundance or scarcity of eachelement. Resource value, in relation toabundance or scarcity, indicates thelikelihood whether people will conserve, ordestroy species. In this context, we mayhypothesize that economic demand is themost critical determinant of resource value,because while subsistence needs can besatisfied, economic demand cannot. Thereal key to planning conservation is to matcheconomic demand to what is available,without destruction.

This paper has suggested that theconcepts of agrodiversity and biodiversitycan be linked through agro-biodiversity, inwhich biodiversity measurement andevaluation are undertaken within man-agement types and their subdivisions, ratherthan in subdivisions of the landscape as awhole. Management is not only a matter ofagro-technology, but also of tenure,regulation and the culture of the people.The early evidence from Yunnan suggeststhat understanding the status of agro-biodiversity in the community is central toany planning for biodiversity. The methoddescribed above can capture the essentialsof agro-biodiversity by a straightforward pathof investigation in a comparatively shorttime, and then permits later elaboration.This path has to lead to gaining theparticipation of people in managing theresource that biodiversity constitutes, and ittakes time to develop that participation. TheWest African and Amazonian Clusters areproposing participatory planning ofsustainable and conservationist use of landand biodiversity over five year or longerperiods in selected communities.


PLEC in montane mainland SoutheastAsia must similarly view its initial work asonly a first step. The assessment methoddescribed here makes use of a number ofshort cuts, but ultimately it leads toexperimental work in close participation withthe farmers, resolution of difficulties anddisagreements, and commitment to a long-term exercise together with the local peoplein planning their future. The real issue is theinteraction between people and theirresources, how much of these resourcesthey will use and, if the resources areinadequate or are degrading, what steps arerequired. Some preliminary experimentalwork in agroforestry with economic tree-crops on degrading land is already attractingfavourable attention among the farmers, aspresenting an alternative to further invasionof forest. A Gaoligong Mountain Farmers’Biodiversity Conservation Association hasbeen formed, and was inaugurated inDecember 1995.

APPENDIX

The ethnotaxonomic approach amongthe Dai People of Xishuangbanna

Dao Zhiling

Dai are one of largest ethnic groups ofYunnan Province, living mainly inXishuangbanna and Dehong prefectures.Among the local flora of Xishuangbannaregion more than 1000 plant species, andmore than 600 species of medicinal herbs,are used by Dai people (Zhao Shiwang andZhou Zhaokui, 1985, Dao Zhiling, 1991).People not only use different wild plants(Hong diteng in Dai), but distinguish thesefrom domesticated plants (Hong bubian inDai). Each plant species has its Dai name,with a nomenclature that can broadly berepresented as distinguishing a sort ofequivalent of ‘genus’ and ‘species’. Twoexamples can explain this system. The Dainame for Alstonia scholars is Mai dingbie.

‘Mai’ means this plant is a tree, and ‘dingbie’means duck's toe. For Cassia tora, the Dainame is Ya haohuai. ‘Ya’ means this plantis herb, and ‘haohuai’ mean its fruitresembles a buffalo horn.

The ‘genus’ level is based both on lifeform and use value. Thus mai = tree; ya =herb, he = rattan, gu = fern, man or huo =tuber plant; ma = fruit, pa = vegetable, kao =grain, tuo = beans, ya = medicinal plant, andluo = flower (Xu Zaifu and Yu Pinghua,1991). The ‘species’ name indicates theproperties, characteristics, uses, origins andhabitats, thus helping to identify whichfunction the plant has and where the plantgrows. However, different genders may usedifferent ‘genus’ forms to name plants. ForBauhinia variegata, men use the name ofMaixiu, while women use Luoxiu or Paxiu;men and women form different workinggroups, and they have different indigenousknowledge about the natural resources. Thetraditional Dai doctor (Mo yadai) has a muchmore rich botanical knowledge than allothers. Medicinal plants are grown in manyhomegardens, sometimes in specificmedicinal-plant gardens, and many speciesof known curative value are carefullypreserved in the wild.

Indigenous knowledge and biodiversityconservation

Dai have a number of sayings that expresskeen understanding of the importance ofnatural resources and their conservation.Such sayings (paraphrased) include:’without forests, there will be no water;without water there will be no farming land;without farming land there will be no grain;without grain there will be no people.’Another states that ‘with shifting cultivationone can be rich for three years, and then bepoor for several years while there are noforests on the mountain’ (Dao Guodong,1992). Such folk knowledge of theimportance of forest conservation has beenhanded down through many generations.


Moreover, there is another element in thebeliefs of people that is significant forconservation. In common with some animistethnic groups, the Buddhist Dai retain aprofound belief in the existence of spirits.Some unique big trees are thought of as‘ghost trees’ and some mountain forests as‘ghost mountains’. Each village and towncommonly possess a ‘holy hill’, which is thehome of the supernatural and the rest site ofspirits after people are dead. Such trees andhills are strictly protected by thecommunities. There are about 400 ha of‘holy hills’ in Xishuangbanna, each with anarea of 1-30 ha. These religious reserveshave protected significant areas of tropicaldry seasonal rain-forest and semi-greenmonsoon forest (Pei Shengji 1985, LiuHongmao and Xu Zaifu 1992, Zhu Hua et al.1993). Moreover, Dai follow HinayanaBuddhism, and each Dai village has its owntemple, where many kinds of plants arecultivated. They include Ficus religiosa andTerminalia bellirica. ‘Five kinds of trees andsix kinds of flowers’ is the minimum number(Dao Guodong, 1992). More than 100species of plants connected with theactivities of Buddhism are planted invillages, temple yards and homegardens, orprotected in the wild.

Ethnotaxonomic work can greatly aidbiodiversity inventory. It is, however,important to recognize that ethnotaxomicknowledge is not uniformly shared. Men arebest informed about trees, women aboutwild vegetables, flowers and fibre plants.The doctor’s knowledge is mostcomprehensive about medicinal plants. Thisdifferential knowledge needs to be carefullyexplored. If resource management is tosucceed, ethnotaxonomical information isessential. To understand how many plantsare used by local people, the function andimportance of each plant, and the resource-management types in the local community,is important not only for science, but also forthe most practical purposes of conservation.

COMMENT

D.J. Zarin

The Agro-biodiversity Assessment (ABA)methodology described by Guo, Dao andBrookfield is an appropriate and usefulmeans of acquiring information about thediversity of local land management. Theirhierarchical definition of managementsystems into types, sub-types, forms andassociations is a particularly useful way oforganizing what, at first glance, must be anoverwhelming complex of information. It isalso an especially effective way ofcommunicating that information to non-specialists. Within the context of themethodology I outlined in a previous PN&Varticle, the hierarchical definition ofmanagement systems described by Guo etal. provides a needed organizationalframework for categorizing ‘investigator- orpopulation-defined resource managementtypes’ (Zarin, 1995).

I also applaud Guo et al.'s emphasis onthe participation of local populations withinthe context of ABA, although I am notconvinced that all local people ‘have moredetailed knowledge of their environmentthan any outsider’ or that indigenousknowledge is always ‘comprehensiveconcerning land use, vegetation the soil andplants...’ Since I have no experience insoutheast Asia, I cannot dispute the claimfor that region. Among non-tribalpopulations of rural Amazonia, however,indigenous knowledge of the environment isextremely variable, both within and betweenlocales. Some number of local individualsare likely to be natural resource experts parexcellence; they are not the only onesentitled to contribute to, and be informedabout, research efforts which are intendedto influence their communities (see Zarin1995, footnote 2).

How does ABA differ from themethodology outlined in Zarin (1995)? Thedifference is more in emphasis than insubstance, and I believe the approaches arecomplementary, rather than mutually


exclusive. Guo et al. measure replicatesample plots within each of their six landmanagement types: forests, agroforests, wetrice fields, upland fields, orchards andhomegardens. Precisely how they selectplots within each of these categoriesremains somewhat unclear. Are theyrandomly selected? Or do they furtherstratify on the basis of sub-type (n=11), form(n=82), and association (n=220)?Randomization at the level of the major landmanagement type will produce data whichwill permit comparison between the majortypes, but is unlikely to permit rigorouscomparisons at the lower hierarchical levels(sub-type, form, and association).

Where adequate aerial photo coverage isavailable, it may be feasible to distinguishamong the six major land managementtypes defined by Guo et al. throughrigorously ground-truthed aerial photointerpretation (API). If this is feasible, thereis then an obvious overlap between whatZarin (1995) refers to as a ‘landscape-unit’and this first hierarchical level of Guo et al.Even where the overlap is only partial (i.e.API can distinguish among some, thoughnot all, of the major land managementtypes) the exercise is useful, or ‘purposive’to use the language of Guo et al., becausethe bird's eye view provided by remotesensing adds a dimension unavailable toeither the researcher or the local on theground. Just as the bird can see farther andwider, API can be used to gain insights intoareas beyond the sites of intensive studywithout having to replicate all of thefieldwork. Although such insights areobviously limited by the resolution of theimages, even a coarse ability to interpretlandscape patterns, analyze their spatialdistributions and assess temporal shiftsbeyond the borders of the study site isextremely valuable. Accomplishing thispurpose was one of the major goals of themethodology outlined in Zarin (1995), andwithout the use of remote sensing data thisscale of analysis is not possible.

As a final point, I would like to emphasizethat there is no dichotomy between random

and ‘purposive’ sampling, as suggested byGuo, Dao and Brookfield. Randomizationalways has a purpose, and that is to insurethat the sampling results provide anunbiased estimate of reality. As anexample, at the lowest hierarchical level,Guo et al. have identified 220 landmanagement associations and a minimumof three land tenure types; they make afurther categorical distinction between largeand small holdings. Their sampling universetherefore consists of a minimum of 1320discrete potential categories, although someof these may be hypothetical rather thanactual (e.g. association 119 may not bepresent in a large holding under land tenuretype 3). Nonetheless, this is a formidablesampling challenge, especially where thegoal is an assessment of ‘diversity.’ UnlessGuo et al. intend to sample all of thediscrete categories for which an actualoccurrence exists, they will need to includesome level of randomization in the selectionof which discrete categories to sample inorder to produce an unbiased estimate ofagrobiodiversity.

References

Brookfield, H.1973 Full circle in Chimbu: a study of trends

and cycles. In H. Brookfield (ed.) ThePacific in transition: geographicalperspectives on adaptation and changepp. 127-160. London, Edward Arnold.

Brookfield, H. and C. Padoch1994 Appreciating agrodiversity: a look at the

dynamics and diversity of indigenousfarming systems. Environment 36 (5):6-11; 36-45.

Dao Guodong1992 Some historical culture of Dai. Beijing,

Ethnic Press. [in Chinese]Dao Zhiling

1991 Medico-ethnobotany of XishuangbannaDai People, Unpublished Master’sThesis in Botany, Kunming Institute ofBotany, Chinese Academy of Sciences[in Chinese].


Forman, R.T.1982 Interaction among landscape elements:

a core of landscape ecology. In S.P.Tjallingii and A.A. de Veer (eds)Perspectives in landscape ecology:contributions to research, planning andmanagement of our environment.Proceedings of the InternationalCongress organized by the NetherlandsSociety of Landscape Ecology,Veldhoven, the Netherlands, April 6-111981, pp. 35-48, Wageningen, Centrefor Agricultural Publication andDocumentation.

Guo Huijun and C. Padoch1995 Patterns and management of

agroforestry systems in Yunnan; anapproach to upland rural development.Global Environmental Change: Humanand Policy Dimensions 5 (4): 273-279.

Guo Huijun, Dao Zhiling, Shen Lixin and WangWeibing

1994 Agroforestry systems in Baoshan,Yunnan, Southwest China. Kunming,Yunnan University Press.

Li Gui and Xue Jiru, chief editors1995 Gaoligong Mountain National Nature

Reserve, Beijing, China ForestryPublishing House [in Chinese].

Liu Hongmao and Xu Zaifu,1985 Ecological significance of Xishuang-

banna Dai Nationality’s Holy Hill.Chinese Journal of Ecology 11 (2) : 41-43.

Pei Shengji1988 Some effects of the Dai people’s cultural

beliefs and practice upon theenvironment of Xishuangbanna,Yunnan, China. In K.L. Hutterer, A.T.Rambo and G. Lovelace (eds) Culturalvalues and human ecology in southeastAsia. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan[page numbers to find].

Whittaker, R.H.1972 Evolution and measurement of species

diversity. Taxon 21(2-3): 213-251.Xu Zaifu and Yu Pinghua

1991 A survey on traditional cultivated plantsof Xishuangbanna Dai people. ActaBotanica Yunnanica 7 (2): 169-186.

Yunnan Institute of Tropical Botany.1983 Name list of Xishuangbanna flora.

Jinghong, Yunnan Institute of TropicalBotany.

Zarin, D.J.1995 Diversity measurement methods for the

PLEC Clusters. PLEC News andViews 4: 11-21.

Zhao Shiwang and Zhou Zhaokui1985 Records of Dai medicine, Kunming,

Yunnan People’s Press [in Chinese].Zhu Hua, Xu Zaifu, Wang Hong and LiuHongmao

1993 A survey of the vegetation on holy hillsof Dai nationality in Xishuangbanna.Kunming, Institute of Botany, ChineseAcademy of Sciences.

mrt

INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE - A LONG HISTORY AND AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE

Muriel BrookfieldAustralian National University, Canberra, Australia

Introductory Note: I had almost finished writingthis article when I read Agrawal’s provocativediscussion paper in the December IndigenousKnowledge and Development Monitor (IKDM)(Agrawal 1995b) which makes several of thepoints about indigenous and scientific knowledgethat I had hoped to raise. I commend his paper toall readers, and offer some additional materialand comment.

‘Indigenous knowledge’ (IK) and itsusefulness came into vogue withanthropologists and development workers inthe 1980s, and has become something of acult in the 1990s, particularly since the Rioconference in 1992. A burgeoning literature,several new institutions, and a network ofdata collection points have resulted. Yetonlookers could well ask ‘Why theexcitement? Has not IK been around for along time?’.

Early history

We could answer ‘Yes, for a million years ormore’. The early humans were foragers bynecessity, and knowledge of the localenvironment built up over millennia.Eventually homo sapiens had sufficientinformation and skills to develop a form ofprotoagriculture, though its genesis inparticular areas is debated (Reed 1977:Clark and Brandt 1984), and newarchaeological work keeps the debategoing. During the Neolithic, around 10,000years ago, the advent of farming stimulatedchanges in culture and further growth ofknowledge. Localized and variable this had

to be, but the indigenous knowledge database took a big leap forward. Theaccompanying selective use of food sourceswas followed by both human-engenderedand evolutionary change in animals andplants. Though this took place over a verymuch longer period of time, it caused whatSchusky (1989:13) describes as ‘a botanicalrevolution that makes the contemporaryGreen Revolution pale in significance’.Thousands of years later, when contact waspossible on a large scale, empire buildersand small-traders were quick to extract thefruits of this, both in information and goods,to the industrializing world.

By the time of the early explorers, it wasknown that there were many medicinal andplant discoveries to be made - even riches! -by tapping indigenous knowledge. In theeighteenth century, thousands of plantspecimens, and drawings of birds, insectsand animals were sent back to Europe. Alarge botanical network was set up (Philip1995). The hunt was on for pharmaceuticalsubstances, as Holmstedt tells in a shorthistory of the discovery of strychnine. Theplant was found in 1805 in Indonesia, andprocessed some years later in France. Hemakes the interesting observation that ‘wehave here for the first time an inter-disciplinary study starting with fieldworkamong natives on botany andpharmacology, and up to the isolation of theactive principle’ (Holmstedt 1995:323).

Is it Science?

In the nineteenth century academics beganto cogitate about the form and processes ofindigenous knowledge, and asked whetherthis knowledge system could be regarded as


science -- a question which has beenrecurring recently. The French philosophers-sociologists and anthropologists were earlyin the field. Lévy-Bruhl, at the turn of thiscentury, disagreed with English thinkers that‘primitive’ thought is concerned mainly withexplanation. He emphasized that ‘primitives’do not use an infantile version of our owncanons of logic: they have a different way ofthinking and perceiving their surroundings,much of it due to their mystical orientationand magical beliefs. The people communewith their world and feel part of it. Lévy-Bruhlplaced their common sense with science(Horton 1973), but believed that mysticalinfluences took precedence.

Durkheim and Mauss in 1903 presenteda different view. They were impressed with‘primitive’ classifications and posited that themethod had developed from familiarity withdivisions and clan systems of knownsocieties. Their conclusion was that‘primitive’ classifications of objects wereconnected ‘with no break in continuity, tothe first scientific classifications. ...they haveall their essential characteristics...systems ofhierarchized notions, ....(which) form asingle whole. Moreover, these systems, likethose of science, have a purely speculativepurpose. Their object is not to facilitateaction, but to advance understanding, tomake intelligible the relations which existbetween things’ (Needham’s translation1963:81).

Sixty years later Lévi-Strauss, the Frenchintellectual who liked to put otheranthropologists’ findings into a globalframework, argued that ‘primitive’classifications were scientific, but arrived atby a different route from that of modernscience. He wrote of two distinct modes ofscientific thought (Lévi-Strauss, in TheSavage Mind 1966:15-16) ‘one roughlyadapted to that of perception and theimagination: the other at a remove from it’.For the former, he used the term ‘science ofthe concrete’, which stemmed from mythsand rites whose value was ‘to preserve untilthe present time the remains of methods ofobservation and reflection which

were....adapted to discoveries...from thestarting point of a speculative organisationand exploitation of the sensible world insensible terms’. ‘Neolithic, or early man, was.. the heir of a long scientific tradition’. Inother words, ‘primitive’ man has beenpractical in a scientific way. The brilliance ofLévi-Strauss and his quotability ensure thathis varying ideas are still discussed. He andthe French school were important inconfirming the place of indigenousknowledge in history, but a more rigorousinterpretation of the definition of science hassince been sought.

Agrawal (1995 a,b) seeks to put the longscience v. non-science, open v. closed andsystematic v. non-systematic, debate to rest.He writes that numerous philosophers ofscience have not been able to findsatisfactory demarcation criteria betweenscience and non-science: and that furthertedious investigation of claims thatindigenous knowledge fits into one or othercategory is perhaps unnecessary, and‘would constitute, as it were, a reinvention ofthe wheel’(1995b:4).

The holistic approach

One point the critics usually agree on is thatthe indigenous approach is holistic, incontrast to much of western science. Thecomplexity, yet simplicity, of indigenousinsight into landscape was not in doubt withmany field scientists of an earliergeneration. Anthropologist Audrey Richards,gathering data in Africa in the 1930s, wrote(1939:234) that the Bemba of NorthernRhodesia (Zambia) had a completelydifferent way of looking at landscape fromWesterners. ‘He views the country roundhim as all one unit, all accessible to him, andall ready to supply his needs’. Thisindigenous knowledge was not onlyconcerned with animals and plants: itincluded extensive knowledge of trees andsoil. It was normal for Bemba people to beable to name fifty to sixty species of trees,which they valued for materials, and for


medicinal and magical properties.Over fifty years and many case studies

later, researchers are still being astonishedby the sophisticated nature of localecological knowledge. Wilson (1995:292)says of an area further south, in Zimbabwe,that ‘the sheer scope of local thinking abouterosion in whole catchments - with suchconcerns as the pattern of paths, soilcompaction, local spatial heterogeneity andits drainage implications, and tree-soildynamics - is awe-inspiring, and indeedalongside or ahead of the cutting edge workby ecologists and soil scientists’.

Ethnoscience and research method

This brings me to the ethno-sciences, one ofthe twentieth century developments inindigenous studies. Harshburger in 1895recognized the importance of the culturalcomponent in plant distributions, and coinedthe term ethnobotany. Since that time, thegrowth of other ‘ethno’ disciplines has beenremarkable. The field sciences areincreasingly taking account of local culture,but at the same time are dividing theacademic territory into more and moresubdivisions. We now have not onlyethnobotany but also ethnobiology,ethnoecology, ethnomycology, ethno-pharmacology, ethnomedicine andethnoveterinary medicine (Schultes and vonRies 1995), plus paleoethnobotany,ethnopedology and many others1. Therehas been a corresponding increase in new‘ethno’ journals. In addition, eachsubdivision has its gender breakdown, sothat titles such as ‘Gender-baseddifferences in the ethnoveterinaryknowledge of Afghan nomadic pastoralists’(Davis 1995) now add to the literature.Detailed studies are basic, and it isinteresting to see scientists recreating theindigenous path to knowledge without

1There would seem to be a danger here of losingthe essence of IK by imposing the reductionism of muchformal science in the effort to clarify IK.

having lived the process. The present trendis, first to unravel, then to validate thisinformation. The final outcome -- the searchfor synthesis, global formulae or regionalpanacea -- is guaranteed to take the historyof IK well into the twentyfirst century.Meantime Agrawal’s wry comment on theirony of attempts to valorise IK, by usingwestern scientific criteria, should give usthought.

The method of data collection in the fieldbrings up the old anthropological dilemma --how does the researcher make contact withlocal people without affecting them in someway? Since indigenous knowledge hasproved over millennia to be dynamic, itwould appear obvious that contact of manysorts, if not of any sort, is likely to causeongoing changes. Is this what is wanted,when IK itself is only very partiallyunderstood? It needs to be recognized thatIK includes many elements that areimported, along with new crops andmethods, through both informal and formalchannels.

Researchers do not always ask the mostenlightened questions, and are sometimesbiased by their particular discipline orcultural perceptions. Nor do they always askthe appropriate people - caution, rank, evenmisinformation can affect replies, particularlywhere the nuances of the language are notknown, and the whole context is notunderstood. Some familiarity with the historyof the area is essential, and it is fortunatethat historians are increasingly interested inpast environmental changes, which has ledto what has been called ethnohistory, andthe initiation of new journals such asEnvironment and History.

The written word

The body of published work on IK was tinyuntil a few years ago. When themodernization era of development faltered,a need to know about IK began. In the lastfifteen years, there has been an exponentialgrowth in the literature. Authors now find no


dearth of places to publish work, but theyare scattered widely. In addition to theethnoscience, ecological, environmental,agricultural, developmental and geo-graphical journals, some coverage of IKappears in journals of the human and socialsciences, in conservation and other fields,and in less obvious places such asinstitutional newsletters and internationalreports. Increased awareness has led tothere being an appropriate forum for almostanything which is currently written. There isalso an associated proliferation of databases.

Bibliographic search for the literature iscomplicated by the several names by whichIK has been known, and a lack of clarity onwhat indigenous knowledge is or is not. Attimes it has been referred to as IndigenousPeoples’ Knowledge (IPK), IndigenousTechnical Knowledge (ITK), then as RuralPeoples’ Knowledge (RPK), and sometimesas traditional knowledge or folk knowledge.It can appear under ‘agricultural knowledgesystems’, ‘ecological knowledge systems’,‘community knowledge systems’,‘environmental knowledge’, ‘localknowledge’ - or just ‘knowledge’. Or undertitles mentioning none of these, see van denBreemer (1989) and Hobart (1993).

Cataloguing

Fears that under modern pressures a greatamount of indigenous knowledge will be losthave led to phenomenal growth of archivalresource bases. CIKARD (Center forIndigenous Knowledge for Agriculture andRural Development) was set up in Iowa in1987, to facilitate participatory andsustainable approaches to domestic andinternational agricultural and ruraldevelopment. As part of this objective,CIKARD manages a central literaturecollection, which includes ‘grey’ literature,and is using an integrated bibliographicsoftware package PRO-CITE, on the AppleMacintosh system, for cataloguing andindexing. A retrieval and reference service

is planned (Warren and McKiernan 1995).Together with CIRAN (Centre forInternational Research and AdvisoryNetworks) in The Hague, a global networkwith regional and national centres forgathering indigenous knowledge has beeninitiated. When the joint publication, theIndigenous Knowledge and DevelopmentMonitor, was first published in 1993 therewere six national centres listed. Two yearslater, the total had risen to nineteen,reflecting perhaps the present politicalcorrectness and fund-raising possibilities inthe indigenous knowledge field.

A concern shared by Agrawal (1995a, b)is the inherent danger in isolating andfossilizing fragments of IK in ex situ databases. IK is by nature dynamic and holisticand in situ. The present likelihood is thatyears, maybe decades, will be spent by alarge number of people in the busywork ofcollecting and cataloguing compartmental-ized data, without there being a general, letalone full, understanding of their relevance insitu.

Ritual and politics

The influence of ritual and politics inpresent-day indigenous societies is not easyto assess, but cannot be ignored. TwoAfrican scientists have recently written ofsocieties in areas that they know well.Amanor (1994:130) describes threeinterrelated plant-based medical systems inthe Krobo district of Ghana. The systemmost closely associated with priestly cultsand ritual has conserved and classified agood deal of sought-after plant geneticmaterial.2 Anthropologists, who have longstudied folk myth and the power of magic,would be aware of their conservationpotential: but agricultural scientists whohave utilized the plant product often havelittle idea of its history and development, andagricultural economists even less. Yet if thestore of IK is to continue to grow in a natural

2 See also Dao Zhiling in this issue at p. 19.


way, this ritual knowledge componentcannot be overlooked. Nor should it be over-emphasized. Amanor (1995:27-28) warns‘ritual knowledge .. which .. regulatesactivities in such a way as to preserve theenvironment’ is not the whole story. There isneed for detailed understanding ofindigenous environmental knowledge as apractical and ever-changing body ofinformation, the use of which is related todaily activities.

Mukamuri (1995) writes that in centraland southern Zimbabwe local religiousinstitutions are sometimes used by rulinglineages for political control, and to grantpreferential access to particular resources.Individuals share the same environment, butcompete for resources and land. It is clearthat what people actually do may be at oddswith the traditional custom of acting for thecommon good. Indigenous conservationinstitutions should be regarded as ‘centresof inherent conflict’ and ‘researchers shouldbe more sceptical when they talk about aritually-controlled ecosystem’ (1995:297-298). Groups and individuals have divergentinterests, though both have a great deal ofenvironmental knowledge, and Mukamuriconcludes (1995:310) ‘development projectsshould not aim at homogeneity, but atbenefitting as wide a range of people aspossible.’

Knowledge and power

The use of IK material as a commoditybrings many problems for the researcher.These can be ethical or practical. If themotive for research is to make use of localknowledge elsewhere, a degree offossilization or specialization in a data basemay not inhibit this. Large pharmaceuticalfirms have already made big profits out of IKover the last century, and now the matter ofpatents for plant genetic material is comingto the fore (Juma 1989: Mooney 1993). Thequestion is being asked in human and socialscience as well as by field scientists, ‘Whoowns indigenous knowledge? If it is science,

should it be free? Or is it the intellectualproperty of the local people?’

Political scientists have said thatknowledge is power. Should this apply toIK? If the primary motive for highlighting theknowledge of the marginalized poor is tofind them a greater voice in development,then Agrawal suggests their empowerment.This would be attained by a very differentcourse of political action from the present:namely that ‘attempts be made to reorientand reverse state policies, to permitthreatened populations to determine theirown future, thus facilitating in situpreservation of indigenous knowledge’(Agrawal 1995b:5). Amanor (1994:230-231)had already concluded that there is need todecentralize political systems ofadministration in the interests of localdevelopment. He believes that ruralregeneration should also be supported by anew scientific framework which will focus ‘onthe interactions of people and theenvironment in specific localities andregions, and ground development policy inhistorical experience’.

Conclusion

Indigenous knowledge has reached a criticalpoint in its long history. Recognition that it isof value, even of over-riding value, to therest of the world, is accelerating.Recognition that it could be erodedirretrievably by global interest is slow tofollow. Its value in situ has yet to bemeasured against various developmentproposals. It is possible that its contributionto biodiversity conservation, with westernscience as an adjunct, may prove to beimmeasurable.

The indigenous systems which hold theknowledge face a period of increasingincorporation into a larger regional, nationaland global polity, with all the conflictingpossibilities that are involved. Any systemwould find it hard to adjust to these multipleimpacts, and while indigenous people andtheir knowledge systems have been


demonstrated to be adaptable in the past,this adaptability will now be very stronglytested. The pace of change will relentlesslychallenge customary adaptive processes:and the future outcome for IK has to includeuncertainty. Researchers will be stretchedto give an accurate history of this time.

Awareness and accountability fromscientists and planners could be vital factorsin the future of IK. Östberg (1995:115) writesof the responsibilities of those undertakingdevelopment projects from outside a localarea. ‘It is demonstrated that many Burungiexperience problems of soil erosiondifferently from the way visiting conservationspecialists do. Mung’ong’o has recentlyargued that fifty years of conservationefforts in the Kondoa Eroded Area havedemonstrated that the Rangi prefer otherways of approaching problems of landdegradation to those advocated by theadministration. It then falls on outsiders tobe informed about the alternativeunderstanding.’

Before we go too far down the data-gathering track, should we not take stock?Should there not be a synthesis of earlystudies, and a testing of present archivalanalysis to see if it captures the essence ofIK systems, both past and present? Will theholistic reality of IK come through? Or arethere gaps to be filled? To be thorough, allfuture research projects in this field will needto take full account of the IK components.As a start, such projects should includeanthropologists, social scientists andspeakers of the local languages, with helpfrom historians where possible. To be akeen field or development scientist is notenough. It is not indigenous knowledge thatneeds to be validated, but the researchprojects.

PLEC adopts an approach different to thenorm, taking full account of what peopleactually do and why, within the largerframework of what they know and think.There is a clear role for PLEC in explainingfarmers’ own practices, their selective use ofnew information, and the function andpresent nature of rural peoples’ knowledge.

With real understanding of IK/RPK and itspotential, a memorable new chapter in thehistory of indigenous knowledge couldemerge. My thanks to Helen Parsons for valuable criticism ofthe draft paper.

References

Agrawal, A.1995a Dismantling the divide between

indigenous and scientific knowledge.Development and Change 26 (3): 413-440.

Agrawal, A.1995b Indigenous and scientific knowledge:

some critical comments. IndigenousKnowledge and Development Monitor 3(3): 3-6.

Amanor, K.S.1994 The new frontier. Farmers’ response to

land degradation: a West African study.London: Zed Books.

Amanor, K.S.1995 Indigenous knowledge in space and

time. PLEC News and Views 5: 26-30.Clark, J.D. and S.A. Brandt

1984 From hunters to farmers: the causesand consequences of food production inAfrica. Berkeley: The University ofCalifornia Press.

Davis, D.K.1995 Gender-based differences in the

ethnoveterinary knowledge of Afghannomadic pastoralists. IndigenousKnowledge and Development Monitor 3(1):3-4.

Durkheim, E. and M. Mauss1963 Primitive classification. Translated from

the French De quelques formesprimitives de classification (1903) byR.Needham (ed.). Chicago: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.

(N.B. Needham has corrected 69bibliographic errors found in the original).

Hobart, M. (ed.)1993 An anthropological critique of

development: the growth of ignorance.London: Routledge.

Holmstedt, B.R.1995 Historical perspective and future of

ethnopharmacology. In R.E.Schultes


and S. von Reis (eds) Ethnobotany:evolution of a discipline pp:320-337.Portland, Oregon: Dioscorides Press.

Horton, R.1973 Lévy-Bruhl, Durkheim and the scientific

revolution. In R.Horton and R. Finnegan(eds) Modes of thought. Essays onthinking in western and non-westernsocieties, pp. 249-305. London: Faberand Faber Ltd.

Juma, C.1989 The gene hunters: biotechnology and

the scramble for seeds. London: ZedBooks Ltd.

Lévi-Strauss, C.1966 The savage mind. Translated from the

French La pensée sauvage (1962).Chicago: The University of ChicagoPress.

Mooney, P.R.1993 Exploiting local knowledge: international

policy implications. In W. de Boef, K.Amanor, K.Wellard with A.Bebbington.Cultivating knowledge: genetic diversity,farmer experimentation and cropresearch. London: IntermediateTechnology Publications.

Mukamuri, B.B.1995 Local environmental conservation

strategies: Karanga religion, politics andenvironmental control. Environment andHistory 1 (3): 297-311.

Östberg, W.1995 Land is coming up: the Burungi of

central Tanzania and their environment.Stockholm Studies in Social Anthrop-ology, 34. Stockholm University.

Philip, K.1995 Imperial science rescues a tree: global

botanic networks, local knowledge andthe transcontinental transplantation ofCinchona. Environment and History 1(2) 173-200.

Reed, C.A. (ed.)1977 Origins of agriculture. The Hague:

Mouton Publishers.Richards, A.I.

1939 Land, labour and diet in NorthernRhodesia: an economic study of theBemba tribe. London: Oxford UniversityPress.

Schultes, R.E. and S. von Reis (eds)1995 Ethnobotany: evolution of a discipline.

Portland, Oregon: Dioscorides Press.

Schusky, E.L.1989 Culture and agriculture: an ecological

introduction to traditional and modernfarming systems. New York: Bergin andGarvey Publishers.

van den Breemer, H.1989 Yam cultivation and socio-ecological

ideas in Aouan society, Ivory Coast.Sociologia Ruralis 29 (2,4):265-279.

Warren, D.M. and G. McKiernan1995 CIKARD: a global approach to

documenting knowledge for develop-ment. In D.M.Warren, L.J.Slikkerveerand D.Brokensha (eds) The culturaldimension of development: indigenousknowledge systems, pp. 426-434.London: Intermediate Technology Pub-lications Ltd.

Wilson, K.B.1995 ‘Water used to be scattered in the

landscape’: local understandings of soilerosion and land use planning insouthern Zimbabwe. Environment andHistory 1 (3): 281-296.

Further sources

Indigenous Knowledge and DevelopmentMonitor, The Hague.

Publications from IDS (Sussex), IIED (London),ILIEA (Leusden)

ILIEA Newsletter for low external input andsustainable agriculture.

Leach, M. and R. Mearns (eds) forthcomingThe lie of the land: challenging receivedwisdom in African environmentalchange and policy. James Curry andIndiana University Press.

Warren, D.M., L.J. Slikkerveer and D. Brokensha1995 The cultural dimension of development:

indigenous knowledge systems.London: Intermediate TechnologyPublications Ltd.

(The latest collection on IKS, with 47contributions. Part V, on InternationalInstitutions and indigenous knowledge,details future plans of CIKARD, CIRAN,LEAD etc. The Bibliography is regrettablyincomplete, e.g. most of Slikkerveer’sreferences in his chapter on LEAD pp. 435-440 are omitted).


LOCAL EXPERTS AND LOCAL LEADERS: LESSONS FROM AMAZONIA

Miguel Pinedo-VasquezCenter for Environmental Research and Conservation, Columbia University

Introductory Note: Most of the componentprojects of the Amazonia Cluster work closelywith grassroots and rural unions in the designand implementation of their work, which will bedescribed in detail in a later issue. Here we onlybriefly outline a few factors that have provedimportant in some of our work.

In Amazonia, development andconservation projects implemented bygovernmental institutions and NGOs aredesigned to promote agricultural,agroforestry and natural resourcemanagement activities in order to increasethe income of peasants and to reducehuman pressures on river, lake and forestresources. The expectation is thathousehold income is increased andpressure on resources is reduced whenpeasant economies depend more onproductive activities -- especially agriculture-- than on extraction.

Although most rural Amazonians areengaged in some farming and managing ofresources, it is important to recognize thatnot all farmers are good producers ormanagers. Ample consideration should begiven to the diversity present and to thetemporal, spatial, and individual variationbefore implementing conservation ordevelopment projects.

Finding the right people

During the 1970s and early 1980s severalgovernmental institutions and NGOs workedto organize peasants in Amazonia. Most ofthe current peasant unions of Amazoniaresult from these efforts. This success has

led to more recent efforts to implementdevelopment and conservation projects withor through peasant unions. The majority ofthese experiences have producedcontroversial results and in some casesdeleteriously affected the unions and theirleaders.

There are several reasons whydevelopment and conservation projectswere less successful than earlier projectswhich organized communities and ruralunions. While organizing communities wasa socio-political activity, implementingdevelopment and conservation projectsinvolves some very specialized technicalactivities. Here we touch on this and otherfactors that may be of interest to the PLECcommunity.

While the prevailing internal and externalpolitical conditions in the 1970s and early1980s are believed to have helped toorganize rural Amazonians, other conditionsalso played an important role in the successof these projects. Most of the teammembers who worked on organizingpeasants spent long periods of time living intheir communities, getting the most qualifiedand charismatic individuals to lead theirproject activities in the communities, sectorsand regions.

In contrast, many team members ofgovernmental agencies and NGOs whichhave started promoting development andconservation projects have spent little or notime in identifying the most qualifiedindividuals to lead project activities.Direction of development and conservationprojects was often delegated to communal orunion leaders without prior knowledge oftheir qualifications to conduct such activities.


Most experts working in development andconservation projects sponsored bygovernmental institutions and NGOsassumed that peasants who are communityand union leaders must also be experts inmanaging and implementing operationalprojects. By ignoring the heterogeneity ofpeasant societies and failing to see that, asin any society, individuals have differenttalents, most NGO's and governmentalagencies have damaged more than helpedboth rural unions and communities. Goodpeasant leaders are not usually the bestproducers or resource managers in thecommunity.

In most Amazonian communities, theindividuals or families who are most expert inproducing, managing and processingresources do not participate extensively incommunity organizations. These individualsand families are in many cases opposed tocommunity organization and sometimes theyhave irreconcilable conflicts with the leadersand other members of the community.Amazonian peasants know that localexperts rarely share their knowledge withother members of the community. Becauseof these factors, the best farmers,agroforesters and resource managers oftencannot be contacted through community orunion leaders.

Although these community experts aredifficult to contact, they are the ones withwhom work in implementing production andmanagement activities can be most effectiveand rewarding. While communal and unionleaders have political talent and charisma,the community experts have extensive anddeep knowledge and expertise inagricultural, agroforestry and resourcemanagement activities. Yet not only havemany of these local experts been ignored inthe implementation of most projects, themajority of them have had no participationat all in project activities. Without localexperts, any technical advice is based onthe recommendations of university-trainedexperts, even though many of them lackrelevant field experience.

Many government institutions and NGOs

implementing these developmental andconservation projects have made extensiveand expensive efforts to train members ofcommunities in improved resourcemanagement techniques. Although villagersin several regions of Amazonia have learnednew techniques, they rarely use them toproduce, or manage their resources. Inmany cases we found these techniquespoorly suited to local situations. Virtually nouse had been made of the technicalknowledge and understanding of the bestlocal experts. The new techniques wereoften based on a misdiagnosis of localproblems and potentials. By taking the timeand acquiring the knowledge to seek out thebest farmers, agroforesters and resourcemanagers and then following their advice,many projects might have increasedsignificantly their chances for longer lastingsuccess.

A better way forward

Amazonian rural unions, like other unions,are political entities and their leaders shouldplay a political role motivating communityorganization, unionizing peasants anddefending the rights of their associates.Because of their political expertise,Amazonian peasant leaders have much tosay about development and conservationprojects. They must be consulted beforeprojects are implemented. Union leadershave helped us select the right communitiesfor our own research and training efforts,and are using some of our research findingsand recommendations in proposals theypresent to government agencies.

Most of us who work in Amazonian PLECbelieve that development and conservationproblems in Amazonia cannot be resolvedwithout the organized participation ofAmazonian peasants. Union and communalleaders have a great task, and should notbe distracted from it by being made projectmanagers, or being delegated technicalproject responsibilities. These leaders aregreat experts in their own domain. We


believe, however, that there are also manyother valuable experts in Amazonian villageswho are worth tracking down andincorporating in our research, demonstrationand training activities.

Cont. from p. 11Publications of the South-South Programme12. Environnement naturel et socio-économique

de la forêt classée de la Lama (Bénin).Marcel A. Baglo, P. Coubeou, B. Guedegbe,B. Sinsin. In French, with English abstract(1995);

13. The Calakmul Biosphere Reserve (Mexico),Eckart Boege. In English, with Frenchabstract (1995).

Other publications of the Programme1. Clüsener-Godt, M.; I. Sachs and J. I. Uitto

(eds), 1992. Final Report of the Conferenceon ‘Environmentally Sound Socio-EconomicDevelopment in the Humid Tropics’,Manaus, Brazil, 13 - 19 June 1992.UNESCO/MAB, UNU, TWAS, UNAMAZ,INPA, 52 pp.;

2. Aragón, L., (ed.), 1993. DesenvolvimientoSustentável Nos Trópicos Húmedos, SérieCooperaçao Amazônica No. 13, Vol. 1 and2., UNAMAZ, 634 pp.;

3. Uitto, J. I. and M. Clüsener-Godt, (eds)1993. ‘South-South Co-operation onEnvironmentally Sound Socio-EconomicDevelopment in the Humid Tropics:Perspectives from Asia and Africa’, UNU,180 pp.;

4. Ruiz Murrieta, J. 1993. Alimentos delBosque Amazónico, UNESCO, 225 pp.;

5. Aragón, L. (ed.), 1994. Proceedings of theInternational Symposium: ‘What Future forthe Amazon Region?’, Institute of LatinAmerican Studies, Stockholm University,204 pp.;

6. Clüsener-Godt, M. and I. Sachs (eds), 1994.Extractivism in the Brazilian Amazon: Pers-pectives on regional Development. MABDigest 18. UNESCO, Paris, 89 pp.;

7. Salinas, E. Aramayo, X. and M. SoledadQuiroga, 1994. Manual de EducaciónAmbiental. UNESCO/MAB, CIEC andAcademia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia,182 pp.;

8. Clüsener-Godt, M. and I. Sachs (eds), 1995.Brazilian Perspectives on SustainableDevelopment of the Amazon Region. MABBook 15 UNESCO, Paris, 311 pp.

Further InformationEverybody interested can contact :Dr. Miguel Clüsener-Godt UNESCO - Division of Ecological Sciences South-South Co-operation Programme 1, rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS,Cedex 15 , France Tel: 33.1.45.68.41.46 Fax : 33.1 40.65.98.97 Telex : 20.44.61 Paris E-mail : [email protected]

Three new books of interest to PLEC

Three books published by the UnitedNations University Press in Tokyo at the endof 1995 may be of interest to members ofPLEC, as they arise out of a UNU projectwhich preceded PLEC, and to some degreeflowed into it. All form part of a seriesentitled ‘UNU Studies on CriticalEnvironmental Regions’. They are, in theorder in which they were published:

1. Kasperson, J.X., Kasperson, R.E. andTurner, B.L. II, (eds). Regions at Risk:Comparisons of Threatened Environ-ments.

2. Brookfield, H., Potter, L. and Byron, Y. InPlace of the Forest: Environmental andSocio-economic Transformation inBorneo and the Eastern MalayPeninsula.

3. Smith, N.H., Serrão, E.A., Alvim, P.T. andFalesi, I.C. Amazonia: Resiliency andDynamism of the Land and People.

PLEC NEWS AND VIEWS is published for the United Nations University in the Department ofAnthropology, Division of Society and Environment, Research School of Pacific and AsianStudies, The Australian National University. Production work has been undertaken by MargaretForster, PLEC Administrator. Artwork is by Margaret Tyrie and Keith Mitchell.

Copyright: Permission to copy any material in this Periodical will be given, provided that fullreference to the author, title, volume title, and place and date of publication are given.Abstracting does not require permission. Enquiries should be addressed to the Editor, ProfessorHarold Brookfield, Department of Anthropology, Division of Society and Environment, ResearchSchool of Pacific and Asian Studies (RSPAS), The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT0200, Australia. Fax: (+61-6) 2494896. E-mail: [email protected]

PLEC NEWS AND VIEWS

• Published about twice yearly• Editor: Professor Harold Brookfield• Address: Department of Anthropology, Division

of Society and Environment, RSPAS,The Australian National University, Canberra,ACT 0200, Australia

• Phone: +61 (0)6 2494348• Fax: +61 (0)6 2494896• e-mail: [email protected]

PLEC NEWS AND VIEWS - United Nations Universityarchive.unu.edu/env/plec/pnv/PNV6 study site through...

Documents

Transcript of PLEC NEWS AND VIEWS - United Nations Universityarchive.unu.edu/env/plec/pnv/PNV6 study site through...