S c i e n c e, Tr a d i t i o n a lKnowledge and SustainableDevelopment

Series on Science for Sustainable Development No. 4

I N T E R N ATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE

… strengthening international science for the benefit of society…

ICSU Series on Science for Sustainable Development

The ICSU Se r i es on Sc i e n ce for Sus tai n a ble Dev elopment is produ ced by th e

I n te r n ational Co uncil for Sc i e n ce in co n n ec tion with pre parations for the 2002

World Summit on Sus tai n a ble Dev elopment (WSSD). The aim of WSSD is to

bring tog e ther gov e r n m e n t s, Un i ted Nations agencies and other key sta keh ol-

d e rs, including re p res e n tativ es of civil soc i e ty and the Sc i e n ti fic and Tec h n ol og i-

cal Co m m un i ty, to build upon the 1992 Un i ted Nations Co n fe re n ce on Envi ro n-

ment and Dev elopment (UN CED) and to enhan ce efforts tow ard the future of

s us tai n a ble dev elopment. The Se r i es includes a set of inte r - d i s c i pl i n ary re po r t s

focusing on major issues th at are rel ev ant to science for sus tai n a ble dev el o p-

ment. The Se r i es is meant to serve as a link be tw een the scienti fic co m m un i ty an d

d ec i s i o n - m a ke rs, but the re ports should also be us eful to all oth e rs inte res ted in

the co n tr i b ution of science to sus tai n a ble dev elopment. The Se r i es highlights th e

fun d am e n tal role science has pl ay ed and will pl ay in finding sol utions to the chal-

l e n g es of sus tai n a ble dev elopment. It exam i n es expe r i e n ces since UN CED an d

l ooks tow ards the future. It provi d es up-to - d ate know l edge, exam i n es les s o n s

l ear n ed, succes s es achiev ed, and diffi cu l ti es enco un te red; while also outl i n i n g

future res earch agendas and actions to enhan ce problem sol ving and good pra c-

ti ces in sus tai n a ble dev elopment. The Se r i es was made po s s i ble due to a gene-

ro us grant provi d ed by the David and Lucile Pa c kard Fo un d ati o n .

ICSU

The Inte r n ational Co uncil for Sc i e n ce (ICSU) is a non- gov e r n m e n tal org an i-

s ation re p res e n ting the inte r n ational science co m m un i ty. The membe rsh i p

i n c l u d es bo th national science aca d e m i es (98 membe rs) and inte r n ati o n a l

s c i e n ti fic unions (26 membe rs). The co m b i n ed expe r tise from th ese two gro u p s

of scienti fic org an i s ations provi d es a wide spec tr um of scienti fic expe r ti s e

e n a bling ICSU to address major inte r n ational, inte rd i s c i pl i n ary issues, bey o n d

the sco pe of the indivi dual org an i s ations. ICSU builds upon this scienti fic expe r-

tise in a num ber of ways. It initi ates, des i gns and co - o rd i n ates major inte r n ati o-

nal, inte rd i s c i pl i n ary res earch program m es, par ti cu l arly in the areas of globa l

e nvi ro n m e n tal change. It also es ta bl i sh es pol i cy and advi s o ry co m m i ttees to

a d d ress impo r tant matte rs of common co n cern to scienti s t s, such as edu cati o n

and ca pa c i ty building in science, access to data, or science in dev eloping co un-

tr i es. ICSU acts as a focus for the exc h ange of ideas, co m m un i cation of scienti-

fic info r m ation and dev elopment of scienti fic stan d ards and netw o r ks. Beca us e

I C SU is in co n tact with hun d reds of th o us ands of scientists worldwide, it is ofte n

ca l l ed upon to re p resent the world scienti fic co m m un i ty.

ICSU Series on Science for Sustainable Development No. 4

Science, Traditional Knowledge and Sustainable Development

Prepared by

The International Council for Science and

the United Nations Educational, Scientific

and Cultural Organization

The reports in this series have been put together

by groups of scientists on behalf of the various

sponsoring bodies. While every effort has been

made to make them as authoritative as possible,

the reports do not formally represent the views

of either the sponsoring organisations nor, where

applicable, the individual members affiliated to

those organisations.

Suggested Citation:

International Council for Science. 2002. ICSU

Series on Science for Sustainable Development

No. 4: Science, Traditional Knowledge and

Sustainable Development.

24 pp.

This Report was compiled and edited primarily

by D. Nakashima and D. Elias, UNESCO.

© ICSU 2002

ISSN 1683-3686

Cover Images:

Each of the photographs on the cover represents

one of the three pillars of sustainable

development. (from left to right):

• Environment: © CNRS Photothèque / P. Dollfuss

View of Lake Yamdrok, a field of mustard crops

in southern Tibet, China.

• Social: © IRD / E. Katz

Mixtec woman washing coffee grains, Oaxaca,

Mexico.

• Economic: © IRD / E. Deliry-Antheaume

View of the Newton, Johannesburg, Gauteng

Province, South Africa.

Graphics and layout:

Atelier Marc Rosenstiehl, France

Printed by Stipa

Printed on recycled paper

S C I E N C E, T R A D I T I O N A L K N O W L E D G E A N D S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T 3

Preface

In addressing the goals of sus tai n a ble deve l o p m e n t, th e

role of science is crucial; scienti fic knowledge and appro-

p r i ate te c h n ol og i es are ce n tral to res olving the eco n o m i c ,

s ocial and env i ro n m e n tal problems th at make cur re n t

d evelopment paths un s us tai n a ble. Howeve r, science does

not co n s ti tute the only form of knowledge, and closer links

need to be es ta bl i shed be tween science and other fo r m s

and sys tems of knowledge in addressing sus tai n a ble deve-

lopment issues and problems at the local level such as

n atural res o urces management and biod ive rs i ty co n s e rva-

tion. Tra d i tional soc i e ti es, usually with strong cu l tural roo t s,

h ave nur tured and re fined sys tems of knowledge of th e i r

own, re l ating to such dive rse domains as as tro n o my,

m e te o rol ogy, geol ogy, ecol ogy, bo tany, agr i cu l ture, phys i o-

l ogy, psyc h ol ogy and health. Such knowledge sys te m s

re p resent an enormous we a l th. Not only do th ey re p res e n t

o ther approa c h es of the acq ui s i tion and co n s tr u c tion of

k n owledge and har bo ur info r m ation often as yet un k n ow n

to science, but th ey are also expressions of other re l ati o n-

ships be tween soc i e ty and nature in general and of sus tai-

n a ble ways of managing natural res o urces in par ti cu l ar.

However, the research community, with the exception

of some disciplines specifically focused on studying tradi-

tional soc i e ti es and tra d i tional knowledge, such as eth-

nology, ethnobotany and ethnoscience, has not yet enga-

ged in ways of better linking science to other knowledge

sys tems. To do so would bring impo r tant advan ta g es to

both sides, and provide, to those in need of knowledge for

p urs uing sus tai n a ble development goa l s, a broa d e r

range of empirical information.

For scientists to reach a common understanding of the

importance of traditional knowledge, it is essential to dis-

ti n g ui sh clearly be tween science, pseudo-science an d

traditional knowledge. The first four chapters of the pre-

sent Re port re p resent the findings of an ICSU Stu dy

Group asked to establish such a distinction following the

1999 World Conference on Science (WCS) organized by

the Un i ted Nations Edu cational, Sc i e n ti fic and Cu l tura l

O rg an i zation (UN ESCO), in coo pe ration with ICSU.

UN ESCO itself has also moved towards impl e m e n ti n g

the WCS recommendations by launching an internatio-

nal project on Local and Indigenous Knowledge Systems

in a Global Society (LINKS). I am pleased that this Report

is published in cooperation with UNESCO. It is my hope

that the Report will be used as an inspiration for the way

ahead in co u pling science with tra d i tional knowl e d g e ,

and in developing par tn e rships be tween the scienti fi c

co m m un i ti es, the hol d e rs of tra d i tional knowledge, in

particular indigenous peoples, and other stakeholders in

sustainable development.

Professor TH OMA S RO S SWA LL

Exe cutive Dire c to r

I C SU

S C I E N C E, T R A D I T I O N A L K N O W L E D G E A N D S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T 5

Table of Content

Introduction

The Nature of Traditional Knowledge

Distinguishing between Science, Pseudo-Science and

Traditional Knowledge

Interactions between Science and Traditional Knowledge

Coupling Science and Traditional Knowledge: Towards More

Equitable Partnerships

The Way Forward

Literature Cited

Annexes

ANN EX I - TEX TS P E R TA IN IN G TO TR A D I T I ONA L AN D LOCA L KN OWLE DGE

F R OM T H E UN ESCO - I C SU WO R LD CON FE R EN CE ON SCI EN CE

ANN EX II - RESO LUT I ON O F T H E 2 6T H GEN E R A L AS S EM B LY O F I C SU

ON T H E FO LLOW-U P TO T H E WO R LD CON FE R EN CE ON SCI EN CE

ANN EX III - TH E I C SU STUDY GR O U P

7

9

11

13

16

18

20

22

22

23

24

S C I E N C E, T R A D I T I O N A L K N O W L E D G E A N D S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T 7

Introduction

The Declaration on Sc i e n ce and the Use of Sc i e n ti fi c

Kn owledge adopted by the World Co n fe re n ce on Sc i e n ce1

affirms that scientific knowledge has led to remarkable inno-

vations that have been of great benefit to humankind. Yet at

the same time it also notes the challenge re m aining to us e

this knowledge in a res po n s i ble manner to address hum an

needs and as p i rations. This is a task th at needs many par t-

n e rs, and which calls for a broad col l a bo ration be twe e n

science and society in meeting the challenges of the future.

In paragraph 01 of the Declaration it is stated:

“The sciences should be at the servi ce of hum an i ty as a

w h ole, and should co n tr i b ute to providing ev e ryone with a

deeper understanding of nature and society, a better quality of

l i fe and a sus tai n a ble and hea l thy envi ronment for pres e n t

and future generations.” For scientists to be better equipped

for th ese tasks th e re is a need for them to be aware of th e

social and cultural settings of their endeavour.

For many sustainable development problems at the local

level proper interaction between science2 and local and indi-

genous cultures is crucial in order to find viable solutions. In

this co n n e c tion para gra ph 26 of the Declaration (Annex 1)

ob s e rves: “ …th at tra d i tional and local know l edge sy s tems as

dyn amic expressions of pe rce iving and un d e rs tanding th e

w o r l d, can make and histo r i cally have made, a valuable co n tr i-

b ution to science and tec h n ol ogy, and th at th e re is a need to

p res e rve, pro tec t, res earch and pro m o te this cu l tural herita g e

and empirical know l ed g e .”

This principle is expanded in the Science Agenda - Frame-

work for Action also adopted by the WCS under the section

e n ti tled “Modern science and other sys tems of knowl e d g e ” .

Of critical interest to this Report are the following two recom-

mendations (Annex 1):

“G ov e r n m e n tal and non-gov e r n m e n tal org an i zati o n s

should sus tain tra d i tional know l edge sy s tems th rough activ e

s u p port to the soc i e ti es th at are kee pe rs and dev el o pe rs of th i s

k n ow l edge, their ways of life, their lan g u a g es, their social org a-

n i zation and the envi ronments in which th ey live, and fully reco-

gn i ze the co n tr i b ution of women as re po s i to r i es of a large par t

of tra d i tional know l ed g e .”

“G overnments should support coo pe ration be tw een hol-

d e rs of tra d i tional know l edge and scientists to expl o re the rel a-

ti o n ships be tw een diffe rent know l edge sy s tems and to fo s te r

i n te r l i n ka g es of mutual be n efi t .”

It is also included in the re co m m e n d ations coming fro m

World Conference on Science that the attainment of sustai-

nable development, calling for balanced interrelated policies

aimed at economic growth, poverty reduction, human well-

be i n g, social equi ty and the pro te c tion of the Ear th ’s

res o urces, commons and life - s u p port sys te m s, is one of th e

gre atest challenges which the world co m m un i ty has eve r

fa ced. We must enhan ce and har n ess knowledge and our

scientific capabilities to develop sustainably.

At its 30th Session in Paris 1999, the General Conference of

UNESCO adopted the two principal documents of the WCS,

the Declaration and the Framework. The 26th General Assem-

bly of ICSU held in the same year in Cairo, Egypt, also unani-

m o usly endorsed the two principal documents of the WC S .

Both ICSU and UNESCO urged members and Member States

respectively to make both documents widely known among

m e m be rs of the scienti fic co m m un i ty and decision-make rs .

Further, it was agreed by both governing bodies to promote

the principl es set out in the Declaration, and to ta ke th e

a p p ro p r i ate steps to tran sl ate into co n c re te action th e

1. The World Conference on Science (WCS), organized by UNESCO in co-opera-

tion with ICSU, was convened in Budapest, Hungary, from 26 June to 1 July 1999.

2. While the term ‘science’ used in this Report refers to the natural sciences in the

first place, it is often meant to include all domains of the sciences (including the

biomedical and engineering sciences, and the social and human sciences).

Science Agenda - Framework for Action by implementing the

recommendations set out within it and by forging new part-

nerships to this end.

The ICSU General Assembly acknowledged “the impo r-

tance of empirical knowledge built up over generations and

grounded in practical evidence but emphasized at the same

time th at such knowledge must be disti n g ui shed fro m

a p p roa c h es th at seek to pro m o te an ti - s c i e n ce and pseudo-

science.” It is for this reason that the ICSU General Assembly

re q u es ted the ICSU Exe cutive Board to car ry out a criti ca l

study of this issue. The ICSU Executive Board established an

Ad hoc ICSU Stu dy Group for this pur pose (Annex III). This

Re port makes the findings and co n c l usions of the Stu dy

Group available to a larger public in the context of the pre-

paration of the World Summit on Sustainable Development

(WSSD). The first four chapters of this Report, following this

Introduction, represent an edited version of the Study Group’s

own report. In the last two chapters of the present Report, the

S tu dy Gro u p ’s own re co m m e n d ations which we re targ e te d

only on possible ICSU follow-up, have been expanded signifi-

can tly in sco pe in order to provide gui d e l i n es for par ti c i pa-

tory research aimed at interlinking scientific and traditional

knowledge, and for the type of partnership initiatives advo-

cated by the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

Throughout the preparatory process of the World Summit

on Sustainable Development, governments and other stake-

holders have stressed the need for making greater use of both

s c i e n ti fic knowledge and te c h n ol ogy on the one han d, an d

tra d i tional knowledge on the oth e r. Many issues re l ated to

sustainable natural resources management and to biodiver-

sity conservation, as well as its sustainable use, require indeed

a co u pling of scienti fic and tra d i tional knowledge. Thus,

moving towards sustainable development in many areas will

require a closer cooperation between scientists and the hol-

ders of traditional knowledge which include local people in

general and indigenous peoples in particular. Necessarily, for

addressing concrete sustainable development problems this

cooperation will have to be expanded to include other rele-

vant sta ke h ol d e rs such as national governments and loca l

a uth o r i ti es, bus i n ess and indus try, and other major gro u p s

identified in Agenda 21. At the meetings of the UN Commis-

sion for Sus tai n a ble Development during the fi rst half of

2002 devo ted to the pre parations of the World Summit on

Sustainable Development, representatives of the Internatio-

nal Sc i e n ti fic and Te c h n ol og i cal Co m m un i ti es, Indigenous

Pe o pl es and of Bus i n ess and Indus try have initi ated a dia-

l ogue and have agreed to expl o re, tog e ther with UN ESCO,

the po s s i b i l i ty of developing a small num ber of par tn e rsh i p

projects in different parts of the world.

S C I E N C E, T R A D I T I O N A L K N O W L E D G E A N D S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T8

In this report the term “Traditional Knowledge” is used in

the fol l owing sense, which is in acco rd an ce with co m m o n

usage of the term in the literature:

“Traditional knowledge is a cumulative body of knowledge,

k n ow - h ow, pra c ti ces and re p res e n tations mai n tai n ed an d

d ev el o ped by peo pl es with exte n d ed histo r i es of inte ra c ti o n

w i th the natural envi ronment. These soph i s ti cated sets of

un d e rs tan d i n g s, inte r p re tations and meanings are part an d

parcel of a cu l tural co m plex th at enco m pas s es lan g u a g e ,

n aming and clas s i fi cation sy s te m s, res o urce use pra c ti ces,

ritual, spirituality and worldview.” 3

Tra d i tional knowledge prov i d es the basis for loca l - l eve l

decision-making abo ut many fun d am e n tal as pects of day -

to-day life:

• hunting, fishing and gathering;

• agriculture and husbandry;

• preparation, conservation and distribution of food;

• location, collection and storage of water;

• coping with disease and injury;

• interpretation of meteorological and climatic

phenomena;

• manufacture of clothing and tools;

• construction and maintenance of shelter;

• orientation and navigation on land and sea;

• management of ecological relations of society

and nature;

• adaptation to environmental/social change.

It is impo r tant to note th at the term ‘tra d i tional know-

ledge’, is only one of several designations currently employed

by practitioners in the field. A variety of scientific, social and

political considerations make it all but impossible for a single

term to suit all settings – each one has its sh o r tco m i n g s

( Na kashima and Roué 2002). The terms ‘tra d i tional know-

ledge’ and ‘tra d i tional ecol og i cal knowledge’ (TEK), fo r

example, may be misleading as they underscore knowledge

a ccum u l ation and transmission th rough past generati o n s,

b ut ob s cure their dy n amism and ca pa c i ty to adapt an d

c h ange. Another widely used term, ‘indigenous knowl e d g e ’

(IK), emph as i zes attachment to pl a ce and es ta bl i sh es a link

with indigenous peoples. For some, however, this connection

is problematic because it narrows the term’s application and

excludes certain populations who may not be officially reco-

gn i zed as ‘indigenous pe o ple by their res pe c tive gove r n-

m e n t s, but who neve r th e l ess po s s ess soph i s ti cated sets of

k n owledge abo ut their natural env i ronments. In co n tras t,

terms such as ‘local knowledge’ are easily applied to a variety

of contexts, but suffer from a lack of specificity. Other terms

th at are enco un te red in the lite rature include ‘indigenous

s c i e n ce’, ‘far m e rs’ knowledge’, ‘fi sh e rs’ knowledge’ and ‘fol k

knowledge’.

Traditional knowledge, like any other form of knowledge,

is developed within certain cultural groups over a given per-

iod of time and within specific environmental and social set-

tings. At the same time, history has demonstrated how know-

ledge has been actively sh ared and exc h anged am o n g

societies, and in this matter, holders of traditional knowledge

are no diffe rent. They acknowledge, accept and adopt ele-

ments from other knowledge systems, just as other societies

adopt elements of traditional knowledge.

As with any other system of knowledge, traditional know-

ledge is embedded within particular worldviews. In this res-

pect modern science is no diffe re n t, it is also an c h o red in a

s pe c i fic wo r l dv i ew an d, more to the po i n t, a spe c i fic view

about people’s relation to nature that is strongly instrumental

(Thomas 1983). In contrast, the worldview embraced by tra-

ditional knowledge holders typically emphasizes the symbio-

tic nature of the relationship between humans and the natu-

ral world. Rather th an opposing man and nature as in

S C I E N C E, T R A D I T I O N A L K N O W L E D G E A N D S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T 9

The Nature of Traditional Knowledge

3. The formulation endorsed by the ICSU Study Group.

Western thought, traditional knowledge holders tend to view

people, animals, plants and other elements of the universe as

i n te rco n n e c ted by a network of social re l ations and obl i g a-

tions (i.e. Feit 1973, Fienup-Riordan, 1990).

Hol i s tic co s m ol og i es th at inte r twine elements th at are

ecological and social, as well as empirical and spiritual, have

confounded scientists who seek to separate ‘fact’ from ‘super-

stition’. The scientist’s dualistic approach, however, presents

certain dangers. Practices that appear in the first instance as

s u pe rs ti ti o us to the outside ob s e rver may, once additi o n a l

k n owledge abo ut the env i ronment and cu l ture is acq ui re d

p rove to be appro p r i ate and empirically sound ways of

coping with environmental problems. Furthermore, practices

may have latent meanings that may only be revealed through

a fuller understanding of the culture as a whole. Traditional

knowledge interweaves empirical, spiritual, social and other

co m ponents. In general, by isol ating elements from such a

holistic worldview, one runs the risk of misrepresenting both

the elements and the whole.

S C I E N C E, T R A D I T I O N A L K N O W L E D G E A N D S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T10

This section discus es the re l ati o n ship among science ,

pseudo-science and traditional knowledge. It first addresses

the noto r i o usly diffi cult problem of the demarcation be t-

ween science and pseudo-science. Once the characteristics

of pseudo-science are clarified this provides a basis distingui-

shing pseudo-science from traditional knowledge.

The Demarcation of Pseudo-science from Science

Ph i l o s o ph e rs of science have debated the demarcation of

p s e u d o - s c i e n ce from science for many deca d es. Un fo r tun a-

te l y, hope of finding a criterion th at would un am b i g u o usl y

d e m arcate pseudo-science from science has not been fu l-

fi l l e d, and is no longer ente r tained (see Curd and Cl over 1998).

The main reason for the abandonment of this project is a

growing awareness of the diverse and fractured approaches

to knowledge within science itself. Diffe rent sciences are

much more dissimilar to each other than previously thought,

and th e re is little hope to expose the un i ty of science by an

a p peal to a unique scienti fic meth od or any other mean s

(Feyerabend 1993, Galison and Stump, 1996). Consequently,

the demarcation of science from pseudo-science can not be

a c h i eved by identi fying a single un ive rsal criterion. Wh at

counts as good scientific practice in one scientific field may

be outdated or even inappropriate in another scientific field.

At best, there are different criteria whose validity depends on

the res pe c tive scienti fic co n text an d, fur th e r m o re, on ti m e ,

which is ve ry un s ati s fa c to ry. In addition, many pra c ti ces,

ideas, concepts, models, hypotheses and even speculations in

a lively field of science are of a heur i s tic chara c ter with o ut

being expl i c i tly mar ked as such in eve ry instan ce of th e i r

occur re n ce. Mo re ove r, the degree to which a spe c i fic ele-

ment of science is accepted as a heuristic device or as a more

or less solid result may vary from one scientist to the oth e r.

T h ese fa c to rs make the co n trast be tween science an d

pseudo-science appears somewhat blurred.

However, the project of demarcating pseudo-science from

science is not so hopeless even if the inner diversity and the

h e ur i s tic elements of science are ta ken into acco unt. Two

main approaches present themselves. The first one is broadly

s oc i ol og i cal, co n ce n trating on social as pects of pseudo-

science, and the second one is epistemological. Commencing

w i th the soc i ol og i cal approach, it is noted th at a pseudo-

s c i e n ti fic field from its ince p tion is always in more or les s

explicit competition with a corresponding science. Further, it

is typically not propounded by people educated in the scien-

tific field with which it is competing. For example, there is a

movement against relativity theory that defends ideas about

time and spa ce th at are more in agreement with co m m o n

sense than relativity theory. Proponents of the movement are

typ i cally not physicists but pe o ple often edu cated in oth e r

s c i e n ti fic discipl i n es. A be tter known movement is cre ati o n

s c i e n ce, which co m pe tes strongly with evol uti o n ary th e o ry.

Again, many if not most proponents of creation science are

not professional biol og i s t s, and the extra - s c i e n ti fic, i.e. re l i-

gious base of the movement is obvious. However, this socio-

logical approach results only in a necessary but not in a suffi-

cient co n d i tion for a demarcation of pseudo-science fro m

s c i e n ce. Ps e u d o - s c i e n ce does stand in co m pe ti tion with

some es ta bl i shed scienti fic tra d i tion, but so someti m es do

minority views within science, fighting a prevalent tradition,

without becoming unscientific. Thus, we need additional evi-

d e n ce in order to chara c te r i ze a field as pseudo-scienti fi c ,

and this evidence relates to its cognitive content.

The second approach to demarcate pseudo-science from

s c i e n ce is episte m ol og i cal. It is based on a somewh at more

advanced form of a characterization of science given at the

World Science Conference in Budapest in 1999 (Hoyningen-

Huene 2000). According to this account, science is characte-

rized as being systematic to a higher degree than comparable

p i e ces of eve ryd ay knowledge. Sc i e n ce is more sys te m ati c

th an eve ryd ay knowledge with res pect to the fol l owing six

aspects:

S C I E N C E, T R A D I T I O N A L K N O W L E D G E A N D S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T 11

Distinguishing between Science, Pseudo-Science and Traditional Knowledge

• how science describes;

• how science explains;

• how science establishes knowledge claims;

• that science has an ideal of completeness;

• how science expands knowledge;

• how science represents knowledge.

Due to its ideal of co m pl e te n es s, science has inbuilt dy n a-

m i cs re g arding the improvement of knowledge. This dy n a-

mic can abstra c tly be des c r i bed as the te n d e n cy to

co n s tan tly incre ase the sys te m atic chara c ter of knowl e d g e

and th e re by to make progress. Des c r i p tions be come more

sys te m atic by higher degre es of accura cy of ob s e rvati o n ,

e x pl an ations be come more sys te m atic by th e o r i es th at are

m o re and more co m p re h e n s ive, new and more accurate l y

re pe ated experiments incre ase the degree of sys te m atic tes-

ting and th e re by the effi c i e n cy of dete c ting mista kes, re pe a-

ted surveys of the field incre ase the aware n ess of knowl e d g e

g a p s, and so on. In any area of science, the te n d e n cy to make

k n owledge more sys te m atic in all pra c ti cal po s s i ble dire c-

tions can be ob s e rved.

In co n tras t, many of the pseudo-scienti fic fields are co m-

paratively static. It is extremely rare for such fields to atte m p t

a sys te m atic as s essment of their cogn i tive claims. In par ti cu-

l ar, wh e re claims are of an es s e n tially proba b i l i s tic nature ,

l i ke in all talk abo ut te n d e n c i es or (not exa c tly spe c i fi e d )

i n fl u e n ces, sys te m atic stati s ti cal tes ting proce dures are ca l-

led fo r. Howeve r, ve ry rarely do pseudo-scienti fic move-

ments get invol ved in any sort of stati s ti cal tes ting proce-

dures; an e cd o tal ev i d e n ce prevails. If cogn i tive claims of

p s e u d o - s c i e n ti fic movements are sys te m ati cally eva l u ate d

at all, this is usually not done by the movement itself in a self-

c r i ti cal way, but by science. Fur th e r m o re, in pseudo-scienti-

fic fields usually no attempt is made at a sys te m atic expan-

sion of cogn i tive claims into new are as; typ i ca l l y, with

res pect to sco pe, pseudo-scienti fic movements are extre-

mely co n s e rvative. Mo s tl y, the dy n am i cs to be ob s e rved in

p s e u d o - s c i e n ti fic fields (if any) is defe n s ive: it consists at

most of attempts to oppose the co un te r - atta c ks of the res-

pe c tive scienti fic tra d i ti o n .

In co n c l usion: Ps e u d o - s c i e n ce is an enterprise th at is

a l ways in co m pe ti tion with science; it po s es as science by

mimicking it. Howeve r, a closer look reveals th at pseudo-

s c i e n ce displ ays a deve l o p m e n tal pattern th at is ve ry diffe-

rent from the developmental pattern of science proper. Whe-

re as science tr i es to incre ase the degree to which it is

systematic with respect to all those aspects where this is fea-

sible, pseudo-science is mostly static and if moving forward

at all, it is only enhancing its protective belt against criticism

from the scientific tradition it tries to displace.

On the Demarcation of Pseudo-science from Traditional Knowledge

The demarcation of pseudo-science from tra d i ti o n a l

k n owledge is fairly strai g h tfo rward. As noted ear l i e r, tra d i ti o-

nal knowledge is a cum u l ative body of knowledge, know -

h ow, pra c ti ces and re p res e n tations mai n tained and deve l o-

ped by pe o pl es with extended histo r i es of inte ra c tion with th e

n atural env i ronment. Thus, it has typ i cally originated indepe n-

d e n tly of science in a par ti cu l ar cu l tural setti n g, and criti ca l l y,

i n d e pe n d e n tly from Wes tern cu l ture. Tra d i tional knowledge is

th e re fo re neither intended to be in co m pe ti tion with science ,

nor is such a co m pe ti tion the neces s ary result of their inte ra c-

tion. On the co n trary, tra d i tional knowledge has info r m e d

s c i e n ce from its ve ry beginnings and it co n ti n u es to do so

tod ay. If co m pe ti tion be tween science and tra d i tional know-

ledge ar i s es at all, then the initi ative typ i cally co m es fro m

pe o ple who want science to re pl a ce th ese other forms of

k n owledge. Ps e u d o - s c i e n ce, on the other han d, tr i es at leas t

par tly to de-legiti m i ze existing bod i es of scienti fic knowl e d g e

by gaining equal episte m ol og i cal status. The existe n ce of

p s e u d o - s c i e n ce as an enterprise in co m pe ti tion with science is

th us invar i a bly bo und to the existe n ce of science itself wh e-

re as tra d i tional knowledge is independent of science .

S C I E N C E, T R A D I T I O N A L K N O W L E D G E A N D S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T12

While inte ra c tion be tween tra d i tional knowledge an d

science has recently emerged as an issue of widespread inter-

est and co n cern, in actual fact the dialogue be tween th es e

knowledge systems has a long history. The important role that

tra d i tional knowledge has pl ayed in the development of

modern science has been clearly demonstrated by historians

of science. This includes contributions not only to the expan-

sion of empirical data but also to the construction of schemes

by which this informa tion is ordered, as well as the develop-

ment of scientific methods and concepts.

The dialogue be tween scientists and tra d i tional know-

ledge holders has an extensive history within occidental tra-

ditions. Noteworthy examples include the physics of Galileo,

who used knowledge of ballistics developed by craftsmen at

the arsenal in Ve n i ce, and Li n n a e us’ cod i fied use of Lati n

binomials for plant and animal nomenclature, that was foun-

ded on studies of Sami (Lapp) naming and classification sys-

tems (Balick and Cox 1997).

During the colonial period, when Europe was ‘discovering’

the world, the disciplines of ethno botany and ethno zoology

were established to grapple with the sudden influx of biologi-

cal information from distant places. These disciplines grew by

leaps and bo unds with the es ta bl i shment of bo tan i cal gar-

dens and the publ i cation of herbal and tre ati s es in Re n ai s-

sance Europe from the sixteenth century onwards (Ambrosoli

1997), all bolstered by substantial inputs of traditional know-

ledge. The prima ry mission, however, was not to understand

th ese other knowledge sys tems per se, but rather to glean

from them useful information for the further development of

wes tern science during the colonial pe r i od. Efforts focus e d

on compiling lists of novel plants and animals that were ‘use-

ful’ to local populations and consequently, thought to be of

potential utility ‘back home’.

D uring the colonial pe r i od scientists did not rely only on

l ocal experts to identi fy spe c i es of inte rest. They adopte d

e n ti re clas s i fi cation schemes th at order and inte r p ret th es e

e col og i cal sys tems acco rding to an indigenous logic. In th i s

m an n e r, Wes tern ta xonomic knowledge and pra c ti ce we re

significantly transformed by their encounter with traditional

systems of knowledge and meaning. For example, Rumphius’

seminal eighteen ce n tury wo r k, He r bar i um Ambo i n e n s e,

relied heavily upon indigenous descriptions of plant ecology,

and in par ti cu l ar Ma l ay sys tems of clas s i fi cation (Pe e te rs

1979; Ellen and Harris 1999). During the ninete e n th an d

twentieth centuries, this tapping of local knowledge became

routine, and many additions and revisions to scientific taxo-

nomic un d e rs tandings “iro n i cally depended upon a set of

diagnostic and classificatory practices, which though repre-

s e n ted as science, had been derived from earlier cod i fi ca-

tions of indigenous knowledge” (Ellen and Harris 1999). Thus

s c i e n ce has a long histo ry of expansion th rough the appro-

p r i ation of tra d i tional knowledge, at ti m es with little ack-

nowledgement of the origins of these borrowed ‘discoveries’.

A mar ked sh i ft occur red in the inte ra c tion be twe e n

science and traditional knowledge during the middle of the

twentieth century with the emergence of a new umbrella dis-

c i pline. Eth n o - s c i e n ce is a scienti fic approach to tra d i ti o n a l

k n owledge th at is roo ted in the pioneering work of Harol d

Conklin among the Hanunoo of the Philippines in the 1950’s.

Conklin (1957) dedicated his study of a society’s knowledge

of its natural environment on a rigorous examination of indi-

g e n o us seman tic cate g o r i es. The disti n g ui shing fe ature of

Conklin’s methodological approach was his focus on indige-

nous taxonomies of almost 2000 plant species and his appre-

ciation that this knowledge was intimate to Hanunoo culture

and wo r l dv i ew. Subsequent res e arch co n firmed the subtl e

and meticulous nature of indigenous knowledge, illustrating

for exam ple th at this ‘s c i e n ce of the co n c re te’ (Lev i - S tra us s

1966) names and orders large numbers of plant and animal

taxa, bypassing in many cases those known to science. Ethno-

science focused its attention on indigenous taxonomies, sti-

mulating considerable debate over the extent to which these

S C I E N C E, T R A D I T I O N A L K N O W L E D G E A N D S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T 13

Interactions between Science and Traditional Knowledge

classification systems exhibit universal characteristics (Berlin

1974, 1992, Atran 1991, Bulmer 1967, Friedburg 1974, Ellen

and Reason 1979, Ellen 1998).

Ethno-botanical research has continued as a strong tradi-

tion, p articularly in India and in Mexico. Extensive work has

focused on “sacred” groves occurring throughout India that

are protected and managed by local communities. Research

into these groves integrates botanical, ecological and mana-

gement pe rs pe c tives with local soc i o - cu l tural fram ewo r ks .

Such approa c h es have examined the re l ati o n ship be twe e n

traditional knowledge and biodiversity conservation in terms

of how proh i b i tions may co n tr i b ute help to managing an d

preserving ecosystems (Ramakrishnan et al 1998).

Early res e arch in Arc tic No r th America on Inuit (Esk i m o )

knowledge of the bio-physical environment, in particular the

i ce env i ro n m e n t, was co n du c ted by Nelson (1969). Subse-

q u e n tl y, res e arch on indigenous knowledge in the circum

polar region was stimulated by the need to resolve territorial

land claims and as a result, document land use and related

traditional ecological knowledge (Freeman 1976, 1979). The

application of traditional knowledge to the assessment of the

environmental and social impacts from large-scale develop-

ment projects emerged soon after (Berkes 1988, Nakashima

1990, Roué and Nakashima 2002).

In the Pacific Islands, research was initiated on traditional

knowledge and systems of marine resource tenure. The pio-

neering work of Johannes (1978) on the demise of traditional

conservation methods in Oceania set the stage for a number

of impo r tant co n tr i b utions in this domain, such as on th e

knowledge of the marine fishers of Palau, (Johannes, 1981) a

UNESCO anthology on Traditional Knowledge and Manage-

ment of Coastal Systems in Asia and the Pacific (Ruddle and

Joh an n es 1985) and more re ce n tl y, Hv i d i n g ’s writings on

maritime knowledge and tenure in the Solomon Islands (Hvi-

ding 1996). These studies focus upon traditional knowledge

of marine species including their habitat, aggregation beha-

viour, spawning migration and taxonomies. In addition, they

illustrate that there exist elaborate indigenous conservation

and management practices for marine biodiversity.

During the 1980s, researchers in multilateral and bilateral

d evelopment agencies be g an to re cogn i ze the sign i fi can ce

of indigenous knowledge for sustainable development, both

for environmental conservation and technologies for agricul-

tural produ c tiv i ty (Bennett 1992). For exam ple, scientists in

the CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural

Res e arch) sys tem be g an to value par ti c i pato ry te c h n ol ogy

development, using the traditional practices and indigenous

knowledge of lo cal populations as a starting point. Work on

indigenous soil classification and management systems has

been undertaken by Warren (1992) within a broader frame-

work of illus trating par ti c i pato ry approa c h es to deve l o p-

ment in Afr i ca. The Ce n ter for Indigenous Kn owledge fo r

Agriculture and Rural Development (CIKARD) has promoted

indigenous knowledge systems as a critical resource base for

development and the design of sustainable agricultural sys-

tems. Work done on indigenous soil characterization in nor-

thern Zambia by Si kana (1994) clearly demonstrates th at

local knowledge is relative and site specific. Having reviewed

both research and development work on rural people’s know-

ledge and western agricultural science undertaken in Africa

(Scoones and Thompson 1994) one can conclude that both

systems are value-based, context-specific and influenced by

social relations of power. It is advocated that to engage with

local knowledge systems, research must come to terms with

contrasting sets of ideas, values, representations and perfor-

mances.

Most recently, there has been renewed recognition of indi-

g e n o us knowledge as a po te n tial source for biod ive rs i ty

science. Traditional peoples knowledgeable about their local

fl o ra and fa una have co n tinued to draw the atte n tion of

scientists to new species (e.g. primate species recently disco-

vered in Central and South America, ungulates in Southeast

Asia, and plant species throughout the tropics). In the 1980s

and 1990s, this taxonomic knowledge has attracted the inter-

est of ph ar m a ce uti cal and agr i cu l tural co m pan i es (Ch a d-

wick and Marsh 1994), triggering co n cern abo ut bio-pro s-

pe c ting and the inte l l e c tual pro pe r ty rights of loca l

communities.

Traditional knowledge and traditional medicinal practices

co n tinue to provide for the primary health care needs of

some 80% of the wo r l d ’s po p u l ation (WHO et al. 1993). In

China (Lin 2001) and India (Mishra 2002), traditional medi-

cine is actively suppo r ted and res e arched. Even wes te r n

medicine, founded on Greek traditions, continues to be stron-

S C I E N C E, T R A D I T I O N A L K N O W L E D G E A N D S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T14

gly infl u e n ced by tra d i tional knowledge. In the USA, pl an t

materials continue to be an important component in 25% of

p res c r i p tions (Far n swo r th and Soe j ar to 1985). Disow n i n g

the role of tra d i tional knowledge in medicine would disen-

franchise a large maj o r i ty of the wo r l d ’s po p u l ation, ign o re

much of what constitutes modern medicine, and curtail dis-

covery of new drugs and the treatment of diseases for which

we still have no satisfactory cures.

Conservation strategies can be based on traditional know-

ledge and resource use (Redford and Padoch 1992, Redford

and Mansour 1996) and enable effective management and

par tn e rships with o ut which co n s e rvation goals are un l i ke l y

to be attained. This also raises a number of challenges inclu-

ding land te n ure, genetic res o urce ow n e rsh i p, inte l l e c tu a l

property rights and benefit sharing (ten Kate and Laird 1999),

and co n fronts scientists with issues of professional eth i cs

(Cunningham 1996).

Tra d i tional knowledge is providing empirical insight into

c rop domes ti cation, bre e d i n g, and management (Co n k l i n

1957, Boster 1984, Na bh an 1985, Br ush 2000, Johns an d

Keen 1986, Sa l i c k, Ce l l i n ese, and Knapp 1997), as well as

p r i n c i pl es and pra c ti ces of swidden agr i cu l ture, agro - e co-

logy, agro-forestry, crop rotation, pest and soil management

and other agr i cu l tural activ i ti es (Bunch 1982). Tra d i ti o n a l

knowledge also informs science about natural forest mana-

gement and biodiversity management (Nabhan 2000, Posey

1985, Peters 1990, Pinard 1993, Pinedo-Vasquez et al. 2001,

Salick 1992).

S C I E N C E, T R A D I T I O N A L K N O W L E D G E A N D S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T 15

The study of indigenous knowledge has expanded and has

re ce ived incre ased inte rest from res e arch and fun d i n g

bodies. The debate has grown from what constitutes and is

the value of indigeneous knowledge to include “how can

such knowledge systems be used to ensure equitable benefit

sharing of the resources with the contributing communities”

(Slikkerveer 1999). In the context of the application of tradi-

tional knowledge in sus tai n a ble development this mar ks a

sh i ft away from inte ra c tions and exc h an g es of knowl e d g e

th at have prev i o usly co n ce n trated on te c h n ol ogy tran s fe r,

based on ‘to p - d own’ approa c h es to deve l o p m e n t, toward s

more equitable partnerships (Sillitoe 1998, 2001).

There are a number of complex obstacles to protecting the

rights of holders of traditional knowledge, innovations, prac-

ti ces and te c h n ol og i es. Inte r n ational pro pe r ty right re g i m es

m ay pose bar r i e rs to equi ta ble be n e fit sh aring (Dutfi e l d

1999). One of the most pra c ti cal means to negoti ate an d

move forward in this complex area has been the drawing up

of codes of ethics and research guidelines. Numerous inter-

n ational professional as s oc i ations and soc i e ti es have be e n

addressing the important issues concerning rights, participa-

tion, disclosure, co n s e n t, ve to, co n fi d e n ti a l i ty, pro te c ti o n ,

compensation, reward sharing, research support and access

(Laird and Posey 2002). Patent and copyright laws, have evol-

ved within ve ry par ti cu l ar soc i o - e conomic and pol i ti ca l

contexts. They are designed to protect individuals or compa-

nies whose specific ‘inventions’ require safeguarding in view

of their pe rce ived mar ket value. Yet it is diffi cult for such

ar rangements to acco m m od ate tra d i tional knowl e d g e ,

which is collectively owned, whose ‘invention’ extends across

several generations, and whose intent is not commercial pro-

fitability but rather understanding about the natural environ-

ment, support for subsistence, and social meaning.

Given these inherent incompatibilities, the application of

co nve n tional inte l l e c tual pro pe r ty rights (IPR’s) may have

impacts quite other that those intended. By protecting select

elements in isol ation from the larger cu l tural co n te x t, IPR’s

e n co urage fra gm e n tation and ato m i s ation of the cu l tura l

system. By designating knowledge ‘owners’, they may trigger

s ocial dissention be tween those re cogn i zed as pro p r i e to rs

and other co m m un i ty membe rs th at are excluded. And

fi n a l l y, as co nve n tional IPR’s serve to pro tect knowledge by

setting the rules for their commercial exploitation, they in fact

deliver up local knowledge to the global market place (Barsh

1999). Ex i s ting IPR ar rangements are cu l turally inappro-

p r i ate for pro te c ting tra d i tional knowledge sys tems. Tod ay

e fforts are turning towards the co n s i d e ra bly more challen-

ging task of defining co m pl e tely new or s ui generis sys te m s

for protection.

Universal education programs provide important tools for

h um an deve l o p m e n t, but th ey may also co m p romise th e

transmission of indigenous language and knowledge. Inad-

vertently, they may contribute to the erosion of cultural diver-

sity, a loss of social cohesion and the alienation and disorien-

tation of yo uth. A classic exam ple from Afr i can school

cur r i cula co n cerns the instr u c tion abo ut the fo ur seas o n s .

This ethnocentric representation of nature as an annual cycle

of “spring, summer, autumn and winter” is completely at odds

w i th the real life expe r i e n ce of No r th Afr i can children. Its

uncritical imposition erodes confidence of youth in their own

experience and in the cultural interpretation of the world pro-

vided by their parents and grandparents.

In sh o r t, when indigenous children are taught in science

c l ass th at the natural world is ord e red as scientists order it,

and that it functions as scientists believe it functions, then the

va l i d i ty and auth o r i ty of their pare n t s’ and gran d pare n t s’

k n owledge is denied. While their parents may po s s es an

extensive and sophisticated understanding of the local envi-

ro n m e n t, clas s room instr u c tion impl i c i tly informs th at

science is the ultima te authority for interpreting ‘reality’ and

by extension local indigenous knowledge is second rate and

obsolete.

S C I E N C E, T R A D I T I O N A L K N O W L E D G E A N D S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T16

Coupling Science and Traditional Knowledge: Towards More Equitable Partnerships

In many communities, there is an urgent need to reconsi-

der the ar ti cu l ation be tween exog e n o us and endog e n o us

k n owledge fl ows and the pe d a g og i cal meth ods th at gui d e

these processes. Actions are urgently needed to enhance the

i n te rg e n e rational transmission of local and indigenous

knowledge, in order to empower communities to build their

own sus tai n a ble futures based upon bo th endog e n o us an d

exogenous knowledge.

Greater emphasis must be placed on levelling the playing

field and appre c i ating tra d i tional knowledge not as sets of

i n fo r m ation but as inte gral co m ponents of other living an d

dynamic societies and cultures.

Tra d i tional knowledge co n s e rvation th e re fo re must pas s

through the pathways of conserving language (as language

is an es s e n tial tool for cu l tura l l y - a p p ro p r i ate encoding of

k n owledge); ensuring knowledge transmission; stre n g th e-

ning the control of traditional societies over the processes of

c h ange th at affect them; and co n s e rvation and co n ti n u e d

a ccess to the env i ronments upon which their way - of - l i fe

depends.

S C I E N C E, T R A D I T I O N A L K N O W L E D G E A N D S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T 17

It is acknowledged in the introductory note to the Science

Agenda – Framework for Action of the World Conference on

Sc i e n ce (Annex 1) th at modern science does not co n s ti tute

the only form of knowledge available to further the develop-

ment of humankind. Traditional knowledge systems harbour

an enormous an d, for the most par t, un ta p ped we a l th of

information that is acquired and constructed within a wide

range of cultures. It is also acknowledged that these unique

knowledge systems are increasingly weakened in the face of

globalization and the growing dominance of a single view of

the natural world as espoused by science.

The va l u a ble co n tr i b ution to science th at has been made by

tra d i tional knowledge sys tems was re cogn i zed at the Wo r l d

Co n fe re n ce on Sc i e n ce. Fur th e r, the need to pres e rve, pro te c t,

res e arch and pro m o te this empirical knowledge was advoca-

ted. To as s ure mutually be n e ficial and enriching exc h an g es

be tween th ese two distinct knowledge sys tems re q ui res th e

d evelopment of a way fo rward th at is based on two lines of

a c tion. The fi rst co n cerns re co m m e n d ations for action with i n

the scienti fic co m m un i ty to raise aware n ess abo ut the un i q u e

va l u es of tra d i tional knowledge sys tems. The second area of

a c tion th at must be pre d i cated on the fi rs t, co n cerns es ta bl i sh-

ment of a fo un d ation upon which to build par tn e rships th at

can co n s tr u c tively co u ple science and tra d i tional knowl e d g e .

Measures to be Taken by the Scientific Community

Sc i e n tists and scienti fic insti tutions should pro m o te dia-

l ogue and build aware n ess and un d e rs tanding within th e

s c i e n ti fic co m m un i ty abo ut tra d i tional knowledge and its

relationship to science. Specifically, they need to:

• Recognize that science does not constitute the only form

of empirical knowledge about the world;

• En co urage res e arch into the histo ry and ph i l o s o phy of

s c i e n ce to identi fy and highlight the tan g i ble co n tr i b u-

tions that traditional knowledge systems have made to the

development of science;

• Raise aware n ess of the impo r tant disti n c tions be twe e n

traditional knowledge, science and pseudo-science;

• Re cogn i ze th at tra d i tional knowledge sys tems offe r

unique and va l u a ble approa c h es to the acq ui s i tion an d

co n s tr u c tion of knowledge, proces s es th at can only be

a d d ressed by acknowledgement of the spe c i fic cu l tura l

milieu within which they are reproduced;

• Recognize that scientists are also influenced by their own

cultures in which they learn, work and research;

• Promote and support research into traditional knowledge

systems that represent considerable stores of, as yet “undis-

covered”, knowledge and potential for mutually beneficial

exchanges with science.

Actively support and strengthen the systems of acquisition,

transmission and mai n te n an ce of tra d i tional knowledge in

the societies that are keepers and developers of that know-

ledge. Specifically with respect to building appropriate bases

to articulate equitable exchanges between traditional know-

ledge and science:

• Un d e rs tand th at knowledge in tra d i tional soc i e ti es,

contrary to an often held perception, is also dynamic and

constantly evolving;

• Re cogn i ze th at th e re also exist tra d i tional proces s es of

tran s m i tting and acq uiring tra d i tional knowledge, an d

th at th ese proces s es des e rve to be mai n tained and sup-

ported;

• Recognize, support and encourage research into the role

of wo m e n ’s tra d i tional knowledge th at has often be e n

neglected.

UN ESCO, ICSU and other scienti fic bod i es should wo r k

together to advocate and implement these measures.

S C I E N C E, T R A D I T I O N A L K N O W L E D G E A N D S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T18

The Way Forward

Building Partnerships for Enhancing Knowledge and Action

Partnerships between the S&T communities and local and

indigenous peoples will in many areas be essential to promo-

ting sustainable development. The founding principle to fos-

ter positive interaction between holders of traditional know-

ledge and the scienti fic co m m un i ty is th at col l a bo rati o n

m ust be initi ated be tween equal par tn e rs. This goal can n o t

be attained un l ess par tn e rships are fo unded upon mutu a l

respect and understanding, transparent and open dialogue,

and informed consent and just returns for the holders of tra-

ditional knowledge through the flow of rewards and benefits.

These commitments are critical, as the fields of interplay bet-

ween tra d i tional and scienti fic knowledge extend we l l

beyond research and environmental management into areas

i nvolving bus i n es s, government and development inte rve n-

tion. Re co m m e n d ations to assist in the development of res-

po n s i ble approa c h es to the co u pling of tra d i tional know-

ledge with science in sustainable development must address

a broad range of stakeholders.

In the fi rst pl a ce the S&T co m m un i ty must be re a dy an d

co m m i tted to impl e m e n ting neces s ary chan g es in th e

conduct of science aimed at sustainable development goals

which are particularly relevant for working with the holders

of tra d i tional knowledge. A much gre ater sh are of res e arc h

m ust be inte grated probl e m - o r i e n ted and inte rd i s c i pl i n ary,

addressing the social, economic, and environmental pillars of

s us tai n a ble development. Tra d i tional div i d es be tween th e

n atural, social, economic, and engineering sciences an d

other major stakeholders must be bridged. Research agendas

m ust be defined th rough broad- bas e d, par ti c i pato ry

a p p roa c h es involving the hol d e rs of tra d i tional knowl e d g e

and those in need of scientific information.

In the formulation of partnerships the issue of ownership

of knowledge must be understood and acknowledged as the

s tar ting point for building effe c tive par tn e rships be twe e n

other stakeholders and the holders of traditional knowledge.

The holders of traditional knowledge must be fully recogni-

zed as the rightful owners of their intellectual heritage. Scien-

tific research must pay due attention, and give due credit, to

those peoples who produce and hold that knowledge.

In tra d i tional soc i e ti es the acq ui s i tion, transmission an d

maintenance of knowledge most often takes place outside of

the formal classroom setting. Local social and cultural frame-

wo r ks of auth o r i ty, meaning and re p res e n tations of know-

ledge must be understood, respected and upheld. The reco-

gn i tion of the ow n e rsh i p, use and pra c ti ce of tra d i ti o n a l

knowledge systems in their local context (social and cultural)

p rov i d es the neces s ary fo un d ation to fo rge equi ta ble par t-

nerships. It is only on this basis that scientific research and tra-

ditional knowledge can be articulated on equal terms in sus-

tainable development, research and resource management.

B eyond the building of col l a bo rative par tn e rships at th e

local level between members of the scientific community and

h ol d e rs of tra d i tional knowledge, it will be neces s ary to

expand these collaborative partnerships to include national

g overnment agencies, local auth o r i ti es, bus i n es s, indus try,

NGOs and, appropriate intergovernmental organizations. At

the most fundamental level, it is critical for the scientific com-

munity and other partners to understand that for indigenous

pe o pl es res pect for their te r r i to r i es and self-dete r m i n ati o n

are basic preconditions for partnerships.

In this respect, the following principles should be applied:

• En s ure the full and effe c tive par ti c i pation of tra d i ti o n a l

knowledge holders during all stages of elaboration of sus-

tai n a ble development pol i c i es, pl ans and program s,

alongside the scientific and technological community;

• A c k n owledge and res pect the social and cu l tural bas es,

including the authority structures within which traditional

knowledge is embedded;

• Recognize the rights of traditional people to own, regulate

a ccess and sh are be n e fits of their unique sets of know-

ledge, resources and products

• Ensure that traditional knowledge holders are fully infor-

med of po te n tial par tn e rships and th at th ese are only

entered into with prior informed consent;

• Promote models for environmental and sustainable gover-

nance that incorporate principles of genuine partnership

and col l a bo ration be tween scienti fic and tra d i ti o n a l

knowledge;

• Pro m o te training to be tter equip yo ung scientists and indige-

n o us pe o ple to car ry out res e arch on tra d i tional knowl e d g e .

S C I E N C E, T R A D I T I O N A L K N O W L E D G E A N D S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T 19

Ellen, R. and Re ason D. (1979). Cl as s i fi cations in

their Social Co n text. London: Academic Press.

Far n swo r th, N. and Soe j ar to, D. (1985). Po te n ti a l

co n s e q u e n ce of pl ant exti n c tion in the US on

the cur rent and future avai l a b i l i ty of pres c r i p-

tion drugs. Economic Botany, 39, 231-240.

Fe i t, H. (1973) The Eth n o - Ecol ogy of the Wasw a-

nipi Cree – or How Hun te rs can Manage th e i r

Res o urces . In: Cox, B. Cu l tural Ecol ogy: Re a-

dings on the Can a d i an Indians and Esk i m o s .

To ro n to: Mc Cl e l l and and Stewar t .

Fi e n u p - R i o rd an, A. (1990). Original Ecol og i s t s?

The Re l ati o n ship be tween Yup’ik Eskimos an d

Animals. In: Fi e n u p - R i o rd an, A. (Ed.). Esk i m o

Es s ays. London: Rutg e rs UP.

Feye ra be n d, P. (1993). Against Me th od. (3rd Ed . ) .

London: Ve rs o.

Fre e m an, M. M. R. (1979). Tra d i tional land us e rs

as a legiti m ate source of env i ro n m e n ta l

e x pe r tise. In: Nelson G. (Ed.). The Can a d i an

National Par ks: Tod ay and To m o r row, Stu d i es

in Land Use, Histo ry and Lan d s ca pe Ch an g e .

Wate r l oo Un ive rs i ty.

Fr i e db urg, C. (1974) Les proces s us clas s i fi ca-

to i res appliqués aux objets naturels et leur

mise en évidence: quelques principes méth o-

d ol og i q u es. Jo urnal d’agr i cu l ture Tro p i cale et

de Botanique Appl i q u é e 21, 313-34.

Galison, P. and Stump D. (Eds.). (1996). The Disu-

n i ty of Sc i e n ce: Boun d ar i es, Co n te x t s, an d

Powe r. Stan fo rd UP.

G o m ez - Po m pa, A., Wh i tm o re, T.C., and Ha dl ey,

M. (Eds.). (1990). Rain fo rest re g e n e ration an d

m anagement. Cambridge: Cambridge U

Pres s .

Hoy n i n g e n - Huene, P. (2000). The Nature of

Sc i e n ce. In: Ce tto, A. (Ed.). World Co n fe re n ce

on Sc i e n ce. Sc i e n ce for the Tw e n ty - Fi rst Ce n-

tury: A New Co m m i tm e n t . 52-56, Par i s :

UN ESCO.

Hv i d i n g, E. (1996). Guard i ans of Marovo

La g oon: Pra c ti ce, Pl a ce and Pol i ti cs in Me l a-

n es i a. Ho n ol u l u: Un ive rs i ty of Hawaii Pres s .

A grawal, A. (1993). Mob i l i ty and co n trol am o n g

nomadic sh e ph e rds: The Case of the Rai kas .

Hum an Ecol ogy 21: 261-79.

Al e x i a d es, M., and Sheldon J. (Eds.). (1996). Se l e c-

ted Gui d e l i n es for Eth n obo tan i cal Res e arc h .

N YBG, NYC .

A m b ro s oli, M. (1997). The wild and the sow n :

B o tany and agr i cu l ture in Wes tern Euro pe

1350-1850. Cambridge: Cambridge U Pres s .

A tran, S. (1991). Eth n o s c i e n ce Tod ay. Soc i a l

Sc i e n ce Info r m ati o n 30, 595-62.

B a l i c k, M. and Cox, P. (1997). Pl an t s, Pe o ple an d

Cu l ture: The science of eth n obo tany. Sc i e n ti-

fic American, NY.

Bellon, M. and Br ush S. (1994). Ke e pe rs of mai ze

in Ch i a pas, Me x i co. Economic Botany 4 8 ,

1 9 6 - 2 0 9 .

B e n n e tt, B. (1992). Pl ants and pe o ple of th e

A m a zo n i an rai n fo rests: The role of eth n obo-

tany in sus tai n a ble development. B i oSc i e n ce

42, 599-607.

B e r kes, F. (1988). The intrinsic diffi cu l ty of pre-

d i c ting impacts: Lessons from the Jam es Bay

Project. Envi ro n m e n tal Impact Asses s m e n t

Revi ew 8, 201-220.

Berlin, B. (1992). Eth n ob i ol og i cal Cl as s i fi cati o n :

Pr i n c i pl es of Cate g o r i zation of Pl ants an d

Animals in Tra d i tional Soc i e ti es. Pr i n ce to n :

Pr i n ce ton Un ive rs i ty Press.

B o s te r, J. (1984). Cl as s i fi cation, cu l tivation, an d

s e l e c tion of Aguar una cu l tivars of Man i h o t

es cu l e n ta (Eu ph o r b i a ceae). In: Pran ce, G.T.

and Ka l l unki, J. (Eds.). Eth n obo tany in the Ne o-

tro p i cs. A dv an ces in Economic Beth an .

Br ush, S. (1980). Po tato Ta xo n o m i es in Andean

A gr i cu l ture. In: Broke n sh a, D., War ren, D. an d

We r n e r, O. (Eds.), Indigenous Kn owledge Sys-

tems and Development. (pp. 37-47) Lan h am ,

MD: Un ive rs i ty Press of America.

Br ush, S. (2000). Eth n oe col ogy, biod ive rs i ty an d

m od e r n i zation in Andean po tato agr i cu l ture.

In: Minnis, P. (Ed.). Eth n obo tany. No r m an: Un i-

ve rs i ty of Oklahoma Press.

B u l m e r, R. (1967). Why is the Cas s owary not a

B i rd?: A problem of zool og i cal ta xo n o my

among the Karam of the New Guinea High-

l ands. Man: The Jo urnal of the Royal Anth ro-

pol og i cal Insti tute 2, 5-25.

B unch, R. (1982). Two Ears of Corn: A guide to

pe o ple ce n tred agr i cu l tural improve m e n t .

Oklahoma Ci ty: World Ne i g h bo rs.

Ce tto, A. (Ed.). (2000). World Co n fe re n ce on

Sc i e n ce. Sc i e n ce for the Twe n ty - Fi rst Ce n tury :

A New Co m m i tm e n t, Paris: UN ESCO.

Ch a dw i c k, D. and Marsh, J. (Eds.). (1994). Eth n o-

bo tany and the Se arch for New Drugs. Ch i-

c h es ter: John Wi l ey & So n s .

Conklin, H. (1957). Han un oo Agr i cu l ture. Ro m e :

FAO and UN .

Co tton, C. (1996). Eth n obo tany. Ch i c h es ter: Joh n

Wi l ey & Sons.

Cun n i n g h am, A. (1996). Professional eth i cs an d

e th n obo tan i cal res e arch. In: Al e x i a d es, M.,

and Sheldon J. (Eds.). Se l e c ted Gui d e l i n es fo r

Eth n obo tan i cal Res e arch. NYBG, NYC .

Cun n i n g h am, A. (2001). A p pl i ed Eth n obo tany.

London: Ear th s can.

Curd, M. and Cl ove r, J. (Eds.). (1998). with co n tr i-

b utions by I. La kato s, P. Thagard, M. Ruse an d

L. La u d an; Ph i l o s o phy of Sc i e n ce: The Ce n tra l

I s s u es, New York: No r to n .

D utfi e l d, G. (1999). Rights, Res o urces and Res-

po n s es. In: Po s ey, D. A. (Ed.) Cu l tural and Sp i r i-

tual Va l u es of Biod iv e rs i ty, 503-540. Nai rob i ,

Ke nya: UN E P.

Ellen, R. (1993). The Cu l tural Re l ations of Cl as s i-

fi cation: An an a l ysis of Nuaulu animal cate-

g o r i es from Ce n tral Se ram. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge Un ive rs i ty Pres s .

Ellen, R. (1998). Doubts abo ut a un i fied cogn i tive

th e o ry of ta xonomic knowledge and its memic

s tatus. B eh avi o ral and Brain Sc i e n ces 21, 572

Ellen, R. and Har r i s, H. (1999). Em be d d e d n ess of

i n d i g e n o us env i ro n m e n tal knowledge. In:

Po s ey, D. A. (Ed.) Cu l tural and Sp i r i tual Va l u es

of Biod iv e rs i ty, 180-184, Nai robi, Ke nya: UN E P.

S C I E N C E, T R A D I T I O N A L K N O W L E D G E A N D S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T20

Literature Cited

S C I E N C E, T R A D I T I O N A L K N O W L E D G E A N D S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T 21

Joh an n es, R. (1978). Tra d i tional Marine Co n s e r-

vation Me th ods in Oce ania and th e i r

Demise. Annual Revi ew of Ecol og i cal Sy s te m s

9. 349-364.

Joh an n es, R. (1981). Wo rd of the La g oo n :

Fi shing and marine lore in the Palau Distr i c t

of Micro n es i a. Berke l ey: Un ive rs i ty of Ca l i fo r-

nia Pres s .

Joh n s, T. and Keen, S. (1986). Ongoing evol uti o n

of the po tato on the Al ti pl ano of wes te r n

B ol iv i a. Economic Botany 40. 409-424.

Lai rd, S. and Po s ey, D. (2002) Profes s i o n a l

s oc i e ty stan d ards for biod ive rs i ty res e arc h :

cod es of eth i cs and res e arch gui d e l i n es. In:

Lai rd, S. (Ed.). B i od iv e rs i ty and Tra d i ti o n a l

Kn ow l edge. London: Ear th s can Pu bl i cati o n s .

Lev i - S tra us s, C. (1966). The Savage Mind. Ch i-

cago: The Un ive rs i ty of Ch i cago Pres s .

Lin, Y. (2001). Drug Discove ry and Tra d i ti o n a l

Ch i n ese Medicine. Boston: Kluwe r.

Lu bc h e n co, J. (1998). En tering the Ce n tury of

the Env i ronment: A New Social Co n tract fo r

Sc i e n ce. Sc i e n ce 3. 279

Mar tin, G. (2001). Eth n obo tany. London: Ch a p-

m an and Ha l l .

M i n n i s, P. (Ed.). (2000). Eth n obo tany. No r m an :

Un ive rs i ty of Oklahoma Press.

M i sh ra, S. K. (2002). Ayurve d a, Un ani and Si d-

dha Sys tems: An ove rv i ew and their pres e n t

s tatus. In: Subbaraya p pa B. V. (Ed.). Med i c i n e

and Li fe Sc i e n ces, 479-520. New Delhi: Ce n-

ter for Stu d i es in Civ i l i zations.

Na bh an, G. (1985). Native crop dive rs i ty in ar i d

am e r i ca: Co n s e rvation of regional gene

pools. Economic Botany 39, 387-399.

Na bh an, G. (2000). Pa pago (O’odh am) infl u-

e n ces on habitat and biotic dive rs i ty. In: Min-

n i s, P. (Ed.). Eth n obo tany. No r m an: Un ive rs i ty

of Oklahoma Press.

Na kash i m a, D. (1990). Appl i cation of Native

Kn owledge in EIA: Inui t, Ei d e rs and Hu d s o n

B ay Oil. Hull: Can a d i an Env i ro n m e n ta l

A s s essment Res e arch Co un c i l .

Na kash i m a, D. and Roué, M. (2002). Indigenous

Kn owledge, Pe o pl es and Sus tai n a ble Pra c-

ti ce. In: Ti m m e r m an, P. (Ed.). En cy c l o pedia of

G l obal Envi ro n m e n tal Ch an g e. Ch i c h es te r :

John Wi l ey & So n s .

Pe e te rs, A. (1979). No m e n c l ature and Cl as s i fi ca-

tions in Rum ph i us’s He r bar i um Amboinense. In:

Ellen, R.F. and Re ason, D. (Eds.). Cl as s i fi cations in

their Social Co n te x t s . London: Academic Press.

Pe te rs, C. (1990). Pl ant demogra phy and th e

m anagement of tro p i cal fo rest res o urces. In:

G o m ez - Po m pa, A., Wh i tm o re, T.C., and Ha dl ey,

M. (Eds.). (1990). Rain fo rest re g e n e ration an d

m anagement. Cambridge: Cambridge U Pres s .

Pi n ard, M. (1993). Impact of stem harves ting on

po p u l ations of Iriar tea deltoidea (Palmae) in

an extra c tive res e rve in Acre, Brazil. B i o tro-

p i ca 25, 2-14.

Pi n e d o - Vas q u ez, M., Zarin, D., Coffey, K., Pa d oc h ,

C. and Ra be l o, F. (2001). Po s t - boom log g i n g

in Amazo n i a. Hum an Ecol ogy 29, 219-239.

Po s ey, D. (1985). Dive rs i fied management of tro-

p i cal fo rest by the Kaya po Indians of the Bra-

z i l i an Amazon. In: Pran ce, G.T. and Ka l l unki, J.

( Eds.) (1984). Eth n obo tany in the Ne o tro p i cs .

A dv an ces in Economic Botany 1, 34-47.

Pran ce, G.T. and Ka l l unki, J. (Eds.) (1984). Eth n o-

bo tany in the Ne o tro p i cs. A dv an ces in Eco n o-

mic Botany 1, 34-47.

Ram a k r i sh n an, P., Sa xe n a, K. and Ch an d ra-

sh e n ka, U. (Eds.) (1998). Co n s e rving th e

Sa c red for Biod ive rs i ty Management. En fi e l d,

New Ham p sh i re: Sc i e n ce Pu bl i sh e rs .

Re d fo rd, K. and Pa d och, C. (1992). Co n s e rvati o n

of Ne o tro p i cal Fo rests: Working from tra d i ti o-

nal res o urce use. Col um b i a, NY.

Re d fo rd, K. and Man s o ur, J. (1996). Tra d i ti o n a l

pe o pl es and biod ive rs i ty co n s e rvation in

l arge tro p i cal lan d s ca pes. Wash i n g ton DC :

The Nature Co n s e rvan cy.

Re e d, C. (1977). Origins of Agr i cu l ture. The

Hague: Mo uto n .

R h oa d es, R. (1989). The Role of Far m e rs in th e

Cre ation of Appro p r i ate Te c h n ol ogy. In:

Ch am be rs, R., R. Pa cey, and Thrupp, L. (Ed s . ) .

Farmer Fi rst: Farmer Innov ation and Agr i cu l-

tural Res earc h . 3-9, London: Inte r m e d i ate

Te c h n ol ogy Pu bl i cations.

Ru d d dle, K. and Joh an n es, R. (Eds.). (1985). Tra d i-

tional Kn owledge and Management of Coas-

tal Sys tems in Asia and the Pa c i fic. Ja kar ta:

UN ESCO.

Sa l i c k, J. (1992). Amuesha indigenous fo rest us e

and natural fo rest management. In: Re d fo rd,

K. and Pa d och, C. Co n s e rvation of Ne o tro p i-

cal Fo rests: Working from tra d i tional res o urce

use. Col um b i a, NY.

Sa l i c k, J., Ce l l i n ese, N. and Kn a p p, S. (1997). Indi-

g e n o us dive rs i ty of cas s ava: generati o n ,

m ai n te n an ce, use and loss among the Amue-

sh a, Pe r uv i an Up per Amazon. Eco n o m i c

B o tany 51: 6-19.

Sa l i c k, J. et al. (1999). Wh e n ce Biod ive rs i ty? A

d i rect re l ati o n ship be tween biod ive rs i ty an d

us e ful pl ants with the Dus un of Mt. Kinaba l u ,

B o r n e o. B i od iv e rs i ty and Co n s e rv ati o n 8, 797-

8 1 8 .

Scoo n es I. and Thompson, J. (1994). Kn owl e d g e ,

power and agr i cu l ture – towards a th e o re ti ca l

un d e rs tanding. In: Scoo n es, I. and Thompson,

J. (Eds.). Beyond Farmer Fi rst: Rural pe o pl e ’s

k n owledge, agr i cu l tural res e arch and exte n-

sion pra c ti ce. London: Inte r m e d i ate Te c h n o-

l ogy Pu bl i cations.

Si kan a, P. (1994). Indigenous soil chara c te r i za-

tion in northern Zam b i a. In: Scoo n es, I. an d

Thompson, J. (Eds.). Beyond Farmer Fi rs t :

Rural pe o pl e ’s knowledge, agr i cu l tura l

res e arch and extension pra c ti ce. Lo n d o n :

I n te r m e d i ate Te c h n ol ogy Pu bl i cations.

Si l l i toe, P. (1998). The Development of Indige-

n o us Kn owledge: A New Applied Anth ro po-

l ogy. Cur rent Anth ro pol ogy. 39 (2): 223-251.

Si l l i toe, P. (2001) Wh at Kn ow Natives?: Loca l

Kn owledge in Development. Gras s roo t s

Vo i ce 4 (1): 1-27.

Sl i k ke rve e r, L. (Ed.). (1999). Eth n o s c i e n ce, TEK

and its Appl i cation to Co n s e rvation. In: Po s ey,

D. A. Cu l tural and Sp i r i tual Va l u es of Biod iv e r-

s i ty, 169-177. London: Inte r m e d i ate Te c h n o-

l ogy Pu bl i cati o n s .

Ten Kate, K. and Lai rd, S. (1999). The Co m m e r-

cial Use of Biod ive rs i ty: Access to geneti c

res o urces and be n e fi t - sh aring. Lo n d o n :

Ear th s can .

T h o m as, K. (1983). Man and the Natural Wo r l d .

Ox fo rd: Ox fo rd Un ive rs i ty Pres s

T h r u p p, L. (1989). Le g i timizing Local Kn ow-

ledge: ‘Sc i e n ti zed Pa c ka g es’ or Em powe r-

ment for Third World Pe o ple. In: War ren, D. ,

Sl i k ke rve e r, J. and Ti tl ol a, S. (Eds.). I n d i g e n o us

Kn ow l edge Sy s tems: Impl i cations for Agr i cu l-

ture and Indus trial Dev el o p m e n t . A m es, Iowa:

Iowa State Un ive rs i ty.

WH O, IUCN, and WWF (1993). Gui d e l i n es on

the Co n s e rvation of Medicinal Pl ants. Glan d,

Sw i tze r l and: IUCN.

Par. 35 Modern science does not co n s ti tute the only form of know-

ledge, and closer links need to be es ta bl i shed be tween this and oth e r

fo r m s, sys tems and approa c h es to knowledge, for their mutual enrich-

ment and be n e fit. A co n s tr u c tive inte r - cu l tural debate is in ord e r, to

help find ways of be tter linking modern science to the broader know-

ledge heritage of hum ankind.

Par. 36 Tra d i tional soc i e ti es, many of them with strong cu l tural roo t s,

h ave nur tured and re fined sys tems of knowledge of their own, re l ati n g

to such dive rse domains as as tro n o my, mete o rol ogy, geol ogy, ecol ogy,

bo tany, agr i cu l ture, phys i ol ogy, psyc h ol ogy and health. Such knowl e d g e

sys tems re p resent an enormous we a l th. Not only do th ey har bo ur info r-

m ation as yet un k n own to modern science, but th ey are also expres s i o n s

of other ways of living in the wo r l d, other re l ati o n ships be tween soc i e ty

and nature, and other approa c h es to the acq ui s i tion and co n s tr u c ti o n

of knowledge. Special action must be ta ken to co n s e rve and cu l tivate

this fragile and dive rse world heritage, in the fa ce of globa l i zation an d

the growing dominan ce of a single view of the natural world as es po u-

sed by science. A closer linkage be tween science and other knowl e d g e

sys tems is expe c ted to bring impo r tant advan ta g es to bo th sides.

S C I E N C E, T R A D I T I O N A L K N O W L E D G E A N D S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T22

un d e r taking scienti fic work and for tran sl ating the results of scienti fi c

res e arch into tan g i ble be n e fits for soc i e ty. …There is also a need to fur-

ther develop appro p r i ate national legal fram ewo r ks to acco m m od ate

the spe c i fic re q ui rements of developing co un tr i es and tra d i ti o n a l

k n owledge, sources and produ c t s, to ensure their re cogn i tion an d

a d e q u ate pro te c tion on the basis of the informed consent of the cus-

to m ary or tra d i tional ow n e rs of this knowl e d g e .

Par. 26 Considering …th at tra d i tional and local knowledge sys tems as

dy n amic expressions of pe rce iving and un d e rs tanding the wo r l d, can

m a ke and histo r i cally have made, a va l u a ble co n tr i b ution to science

and te c h n ol ogy, and th at th e re is a need to pres e rve, pro te c t, res e arc h

and pro m o te this cu l tural heritage and empirical knowl e d g e …

Par. 38 Inte l l e c tual pro pe r ty rights need to be appro p r i ately pro te c te d

on a global bas i s, and access to data and info r m ation is es s e n tial fo r

Annexes

Annex I – Texts pertaining to Traditional and LocalKnowledge from the UNESCO-ICSU World Conferenceon Science

DECLARATION ON SCIENCE AND THE USE OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE

INTRODUCTORY NOTE TO THE SCIENCE AGENDA-FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

S C I E N C E, T R A D I T I O N A L K N O W L E D G E A N D S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T 23

Par. 32 Modern scienti fic knowledge and tra d i tional knowl e d g e

should be brought closer tog e ther in inte rd i s c i pl i n ary projects dealing

w i th the links be tween cu l ture, env i ronment and development in such

are as as the co n s e rvation of biol og i cal dive rs i ty, management of

n atural res o urces, un d e rs tanding of natural hazards and miti g ation of

their impact. Local co m m un i ti es and other re l evant pl aye rs should be

i nvol ved in th ese projects. Indiv i dual scientists and the scienti fic co m-

m un i ty have the res po n s i b i l i ty to co m m un i cate in po p u l ar lan g u a g e

the scienti fic expl an ations of th ese issues and the ways in wh i c h

s c i e n ce can pl ay a key role in addressing them.

Par. 33 Gove r n m e n t s, in co - o pe ration with un ive rs i ti es and higher

e du cation insti tuti o n s, and with the help of re l evant Un i ted Nati o n s

o rg an i zati o n s, should extend and improve edu cation, training an d

fa c i l i ti es for hum an res o urces development in env i ro n m e n t - re l ate d

s c i e n ces, utilizing also tra d i tional and local knowledge. Special effo r t s

in this res pect are re q ui red in developing co un tr i es with the co - o pe ra-

tion of the inte r n ational co m m un i ty.

Se c tion 3.4 Modern science and other sys tems of knowl e d g e

Par. 83 Governments are called upon to fo r m u l ate national pol i c i es

th at allow a wider use of the appl i cations of tra d i tional forms of lear-

ning and knowledge, while at the same time ensuring th at its co m-

m e rc i a l i zation is pro perly rewarded.

Par. 84 En h an ced support for activ i ti es at the national and inte r n ati o n a l

l evels on tra d i tional and local knowledge sys tems should be co n s i d e red.

Par. 85 Co un tr i es should pro m o te be tter un d e rs tanding and use of tra-

d i tional knowledge sys te m s, instead of focusing only on extra c ti n g

elements for their pe rce ived uti l i ty to the S&T sys tem. Kn owl e d g e

should fl ow simultan e o usly to and from rural co m m un i ti es

Par. 86 Gove r n m e n tal and non-gove r n m e n tal org an i zations sh o u l d

s us tain tra d i tional knowledge sys tems th rough active support to th e

s oc i e ti es th at are ke e pe rs and deve l o pe rs of this knowledge, th e i r

ways of life, their lan g u a g es, their social org an i zation and the env i-

ronments in which th ey live, and fully re cogn i ze the co n tr i b ution of

women as re po s i to r i es of a large part of tra d i tional knowledge.

Par. 87 Governments should support coo pe ration be tween hol d e rs of tra-

d i tional knowledge and scientists to expl o re the re l ati o n ships be tween dif-

fe rent knowledge sys tems and to fo s ter inte r - l i n ka g es of mutual be n e fit.

Annex II – Resolution of the 26th General Assembly of ICSU on the Follow-up to the World Conference on Science

1. World Conference on Science

The 26th General Assembly of ICSU

No ting the succes s ful holding of the World Co n fe re n ce on Sc i e n ce in

B u d a pest from 26 June to 1 July 1999;

Re cogn i zes and appre c i ates the par tn e rship with UN ESCO in the org a-

n i zation and staging of the Co n fe re n ce ;

Re co rds its grate ful appre c i ation to the Hun g ar i an Government and th e

Hun g ar i an Aca d e my of Sc i e n ces for their genero s i ty and coo pe ration in

h o s ting the Co n fe re n ce ;

Ex p res s es co n cern abo ut parts of the documents adopted by the Co n fe-

re n ce, nota bly para gra ph 26 of the Declaration on Sc i e n ce and secti o n

3.4 Modern science and other sys tems of knowledge of the Fram ewo r k

for Action; of par ti cu l ar co n cern is the ph rase “tra d i tional and loca l

k n owledge sys te m s”. The impo r tan ce of empirical knowledge built up

over generations and gro unded in pra c ti cal ev i d e n ce is acknowl e d g e d

b ut such knowledge must be disti n g ui shed from approa c h es th at seek to

p ro m o te an ti - s c i e n ce and pseudo-science, and which degrade th e

va l u es of science as un d e rs tood by the ICSU co m m un i ty. ICSU re affi r m s

its support for the va l u es and meth ods of ve r i fi a ble science ;

Re cognizing th at the re l ation be tween tra d i tional knowledge an d

m odern science is bo th impo r tant and a highly co m plex pol i ti cal an d

s oc i ol og i cal ques tion and one th at cannot be addressed in a few lines of

a wide-ranging docum e n t ;

Re q u ests the Exe cutive Board of ICSU to set up a criti cal stu dy of this issue.

Wi th the above res e rvati o n s, the 26th General Assembly of ICSU

D e c i d es to endorse the two principal documents of the Co n fe re n ce: th e

D e c l aration on Sc i e n ce and the Use of Sc i e n ti fic Kn owledge and th e

Sc i e n ce Agenda - Fram ework for Action, taking into acco unt th e

co n cerns expressed; an d

Urg es all ICSU Me m be rs to :

d i s tr i b ute and make bo th documents and this res ol ution widely know n

among membe rs of the scienti fic co m m un i ty, pro m o te the principl es set

o ut in the Declaration, and ta ke the appro p r i ate steps to tran sl ate into

co n c re te action the Sc i e n ce Agenda - Fram ework for Action by impl e-

m e n ting the re co m m e n d ations set out within it, fo rging new par tn e r-

ships to do so;

Keep the ICSU Se c re tar i at re g u l arly informed of all meas ures th ey have

ta ken to implement the Sc i e n ce Agenda - Fram ework for Acti o n .

SCIENCE AGENDA-FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

• Wesl ey Sh r um is a Professor of Soc i ol ogy at Lo ui s i ana State Un ive r-

s i ty, USA. He is Ch air of the US National Co m m i ttee of the Inte r n ati o-

nal Union of Histo ry and Ph i l o s o phy of Sc i e n ce and Se c re tary of th e

Soc i e ty for Social Stu d i es of Sc i e n ce.

• B. V. Subbaraya p pa is a Professor at the National Insti tute of Advan-

ced Stu d i es in Ban g a l o re, India. He was the Exe cutive Se c re tary of th e

I n d i an National Sc i e n ce Aca d e my and a former President of the Inte r-

n ational Union of Histo ry and Ph i l o s o phy of Sc i e n ce (Division of His-

to ry of Sc i e n ce). He chai red the WCS Session on “Sc i e n ce and Oth e r

Sys tems of Kn owl e d g e ” .

Annex III – The ICSU Study Group

At its meeting on 19 Se p te m ber 2000, the Exe cutive Board of ICSU deci-

ded to set up a small Stu dy Group to pre pare a re port on this issue for th e

next session of the General Assembly in Rio de Jan e i ro in Se p te m be r

2002. The man d ate spe c i fi cally asked the Stu dy Gro u p :

(i) to car ry out the re q ui red an a l ysis of the re l ati o n ship be tween tra d i ti o-

nal knowledge sys tems and modern science; an d

(ii) to give adv i ce to ICSU on fur ther action (see, in par ti cu l ar, para gra ph

87 of the WCS Fram ework for Acti o n ) .

The Stu dy Group was es ta bl i shed in mid 2001 and was asked to pre pare

a Re port for the next GA of ICSU in 2002. This meant th at the Stu dy

Group had to submit its Re port to the EB of ICSU by the end of Jan u ary

2002. The Stu dy Group met th ree ti m es: a fi rst org an i zational meeti n g

on 2-3 Octobe r, 2001; a working session on 10-11 Dece m be r, 2001; an d

a final session on 28-29 Jan u ary, 2002. All meetings have took pl a ce in

Paris.

The membe rship of the Stu dy Group was as fol l ows :

• Jens Erik Fe n s ta d( c h ai r ) is a Professor of Math e m ati cs at the Un ive r-

s i ty of Osl o, No rway. He was Vi ce - Re c tor of the Un ive rs i ty and a fo r-

mer President of the Inte r n ational Union of Histo ry and Ph i l o s o phy of

Sc i e n ce (Division of Logic, Me th od ol ogy and Ph i l o s o phy of Sc i e n ce ) .

He was a member of the Exe cutive Board of ICSU and is now th e

Ch air of the UN ESCO World Commission on the Eth i cs of Sc i e n ti fi c

Kn owledge and Te c h n ol ogy.

• Paul Hoy n i n g e n - Hu e n e is the Dire c tor of the Ce n ter for Ph i l o s o phy

and Eth i cs of Sc i e n ce at the Un ive rs i ty of Han n ove r, Germany. He

g ave the pl e n ary lecture on “The Nature of Sc i e n ce” at the Wo r l d

Co n fe re n ce on Sc i e n ce (WCS) in Budapes t, 1999.

• Hu Qiheng is a Res e arch Professor on Auto m atic Co n trol of Ch i n es e

A ca d e my of Sc i e n ces. She is the past Vi ce - President of CAS and Vi ce -

President of China Assoc i ation for Sc i e n ce and Te c h n ol ogy (CA S T). Sh e

is a member of the ICSU SC R ES (Standing Co m m i ttee on Res po n s i b i-

l i ty and Eth i cs in Sc i e n ce) and heads the Internet Soc i e ty of Ch i n a.

• John Kokwaro is a Professor of Botany at the Un ive rs i ty Of Nai rob i ,

Ke nya. He is a specialist in sys te m ati cs and eth n obo tany. He is a Fe l l ow

of the Li n n e an Soc i e ty, London, and was the fi rst Exe cutive Dire c tor of

the Afr i can Aca d e my of Sc i e n ces .

• D o u g l as Na kash i m a ( ob s e rver) is a Programme Specialist in th e

UN ESCO ’s Sc i e n ce Se c to r, Par i s, Fran ce. He heads the UN ESCO pro-

ject on «Local and Indigenous Kn owledge Sys tems in a Global Soc i e ty

( LINKS)». He was a co - o rg an i zer of the WCS Session on «Sc i e n ce an d

Other Sys tems of Kn owl e d g e » .

• Jan Sa l i c k is the Curator of Eth n obo tany at the Missouri Botan i ca l

G arden, USA. She is a Pas t - President of the Soc i e ty of Eco n o m i c

B o tany, a member of the US National Co m m i ttee of the Inte r n ati o n a l

Union of Biol og i cal Sc i e n ces, and a Fe l l ow of bo th the American Asso-

c i ation for the Advan cement of Sc i e n ce and of the Li n n e an Soc i e ty.

S C I E N C E, T R A D I T I O N A L K N O W L E D G E A N D S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T24

ICSU Series on Science for Sustainable Development

1. Report of the Scientific and Technological

Community to the World Summit

on Sustainable Development, 20 pp. 2002.

2. Energy and Transport, 20 pp. 2002.

3. Resilience and Sustainable Development,

37 pp. 2002.

4. Science, Traditional Knowledge and

Sustainable Development, 24 pp. 2002.

I C S U ’s Mission

To identify and address major issues of importance to science and society,

by mobilising the res o urces and knowledge of the inte r n ational scienti fi c

community; to promote the participation of all scientists, irrespective of race,

citizenship, language, political stance or gender in the international scientific

e n d e avo ur; to fa c i l i tate inte ra c tions be tween diffe rent scienti fic discipl i n es

and be tween scientists from ‘Developing’ and ‘Deve l o ped’ co un tr i es; to sti m u l ate

constructive debate by acting as an authoritative independent voice for inter-

national science and scientists.

51, Boulevard de Mo n tm o re n cy

75016 Par i s, Fran ce

Tel.: 33 (0) 1 45 25 03 29

Fax: 33 (0) 1 42 88 94 31

E - m ail: secre tar i at@ i cs u.o rg

h ttp : //w w w. i cs u.o rg

I N T E R N ATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE