Relevance of Indigenous/Local Agricultural Knowledge: Its Importance in Food Security

Relevance of Indigenous/local Agricultural Knowledge: Its Importance in Food Security

Isabel A. Gutierrez-Montes[1] and Edith Fernández-Baca[1]

Abstract

Indigenous/local knowledge (IK/ LK) has been gaining ground in the academic world, both within the social and natural sciences. This paper discusses the different definitions on this topic, and examines its growing importance inside the social sciences and the Research and Development (R&D) projects. IK appears truly important to the research on sustainable development. It is also relevant for addressing issues of protection of biodiversity, the effects of Intellectual Property Rights over the rural communities and the fact that IK must be used as the starting point in the construction of a truly alternative agriculture. Likewise, there is a real concern in the scientific world about the implications -on the global food security- of standardization, privatization and appropriation, issues that characterize the Transnational Corporations (TNC) based agro-food industry. It is important to recognize that indigenous/local knowledge guarantees the survival of cultural and biological diversity. This knowledge must be seen as a threshold to an alternative agricultural science that takes into account the needs and experiences of the resource users. To illustrate our argument, we are including some examples from Latin America (The Andes and Mexico).

Introduction

Awareness of indigenous/local knowledge (IK/ LK) has been steadily gaining ground in the academic world, both within the social as well as in the natural sciences. “A growing number of scientists and policy makers are aware of the contribution indigenous knowledge (IK) can make to a more sustainable development” (Viergever 1999: 341). IK also seems to be relevant to the scientific world for a number of reasons including issues of protection of biodiversity (Iwanaga 1998), the effects of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) over the rural communities (RAFI 2000, RAFI/ UNDP 1995), and the fact that IK could be used as the starting point in the construction of a truly alternative agriculture (Flora 1992, Kloppenburg 1991). Due to these reasons, research and development institutions (R&D) started to include in their agendas not only the term, but also all its implications.

Some centers have become involved in looking at IK as a key component of sustainable agricultural practices; others have been in charge of researching and cataloguing existing IK. The Center for Indigenous Knowledge for Agriculture and Rural Development (CIKARD), established in 1987 at Iowa State University, is an example of the latter. CIKARD “focuses its activities on documenting and preserving the indigenous knowledge of farmers and other rural people around the globe” (Warren and McKiernan 1995:426). Inside of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Centers (CGIAR), the incorporation of local/indigenous knowledge in the generation of technology started when some technologists from the International Potato Center (CIP) in Peru, worked with local farmers to develop storage technologies for potato seed (Fujisaka 1995). IUCN (The World Conservation Union) “concludes that indigenous people who live in intimate contact with their major resources could provide much of the intellectual raw material for a shift to sustainable societies” (McNeely 1995:448). This “raw material” cited by McNeely is nothing different than indigenous knowledge, the knowledge resulting from the co evolution -"intimate contact” in the author's words- between human beings and their resources.

Some authors remark that it is important to pay attention to the fact that: “Actually existing science is bound to capitalism ideologically, epistemologically and financially” (Kloppenburg 1992:104). This “science” bound to capitalism in different forms could threaten the survival of the local/indigenous knowledge. In this paper, we will use the definition of indigenous knowledge as the knowledge that is inside of the agricultural workers and that is related to a given locality (Kloppenburg 1991, Maurial 1999, Warren and McKiernan 1999). As Viergever (1999:333) states “some of the knowledge held by indigenous peoples may lead to commercial applications.” Improvements in the agricultural processes, seeds and germplasm due to or tied to indigenous/local knowledge could be the object of a Property Right Patent. In other words, indigenous/local knowledge could be the focus of monetary interests. This monetary reward not always goes to the generator of the knowledge but to the one that registered it first. Mwadime (1999) sees several risks associated with IK, such as risk of specialization, risk of “the limited scientists”, the risk of “the transferred IK”, and the risk of competition. In this paper we will try to explore the latter one, and discuss the effects of IPR on biodiversity.

We argue that indigenous/local knowledge is the starting point in the “construction” of an alternative agricultural science. “Material resources for the reconstruction of a “successor science” are to be found in the “local knowledge” that is continually produced and reproduced by farmers and agricultural workers” (Kloppenburg 1991:519). Kloppenburg (1991) also argues that there must be a “deconstructive” process in the “reconstruction” of an alternative science applied to the agricultural process. A truly alternative agriculture “would move farmers into knowledge creators” (Flora 1992:95). In order to achieve a “truly just and sustainable agriculture”, it is necessary to recognize that knowledge has multiple sources (Flora 1992, Kloppenburg 1992). Prakash (1999) proposes the “deconstruction” of modern knowledge system or “modern Science” and the inclusion not only of the well known “science for the people” term, but “science by the people” which includes the traditional or indigenous systems of knowledge. Mwadime (1999) devotes attention to terms such as “reconstruction” and “deconstruction” of knowledge. He argues that the only way to curb the crisis in food production in Africa is through the deconstruction of the current “education systems” and the reconstruction including local knowledge systems and farmers in the whole knowledge generation system. In Latin America, biodiversity fairs are evidence that IK not only maintain an important level of biodiversity but assure food security and sustainability of farmers' agriculture (Scurrah et al., 1999).

Indigenous/local Agricultural Knowledge: Definitions

There are several definitions of the term Indigenous/local knowledge. Some authors use just one part of the sentence: Indigenous knowledge or local knowledge (Dei et al 2000, Semali & Kincheloe 1999). Others used the combined form: Indigenous/local knowledge (Flora 1992, Kloppenburg 1991, Warren et al 1995, among others). In this paper, We will use the combined term indigenous/local knowledge. According to Warren and McKiernan “Indigenous Knowledge (IK) is local knowledge- knowledge that is unique to a given culture or society” (1999: 427). Furthermore as Maurial states “Indigenous knowledge is local because it is the result of the quotidian interactions in indigenous people’s territories” (1999:63); or in Dei et al.'s words, “indigenous knowledges are those acquired by local peoples through daily experience” (2000:19).

Kloppenburg remarks that local knowledge is the “knowledge contained in the heads of farmers and agricultural workers“(1991: 520). Flora draws the relation of indigenous knowledge to the development of technologies: “Part of indigenous knowledge consists of technologies developed over decades of adjusting farming systems to local agro-climatic and social conditions. And in some circumstances, local knowledge also consists of knowing how to keep conditions of productivity over the long run, rather than maximizing productivity in years of optimal conditions” (1992:94). In Semali & Kincheloe's words “Indigenous knowledge reflects the dynamic way in which the residents of an area have come to understand themselves in relationship to their natural environment and how they organize that folk knowledge of flora and fauna, cultural beliefs, and history to enhance their lives” (1999:3). Warren et al. explore the connection between indigenous knowledge and cultural and sociological background, and say that indigenous knowledge or local knowledge is the one that “is unique to a given culture or society“(1995:xv).

Intellectual Property Issues

“The wisdom of indigenous knowledge is an asset from which all humanity should benefit. One way of using this asset is to ensure that the rights, knowledge and production systems of traditional people are properly valued in economic assessments of development projects” (McNeely 1995: 448).

Nazarea (1998) in her book “Cultural memory and diversity” talks about two kinds of diversity (“two fronts”). Genetic diversity, that includes all the species and varieties that the farmers or indigenous peoples have been using over the centuries, and cultural diversity, which includes different agricultural practices and techniques that have been developing as a result of centuries of coevolution between human beings and the environment.

There are different possibilities or strategies to preserve these “two fronts” (Nazarea 1998:4). One is the establishment of working collections in gene banks, which are considered ex situ conservation by the scientists (Pistorius 1997). In relation with the conservation ex situ, Nazarea states “One strategy that has been pursued with varying degrees of success by both national and international agricultural research systems is the collection, maintenance, documentation, and evaluation of “representatives” of diversity” (1998:4). This diversity includes all the agricultural crops and various cultivars, landraces and wild relatives (Nazarea 1998; Pistorius 1997). The main gene banks are located in the centers belonging to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research network (CGIAR).

The key importance of the conservation ex situ in gene banks is that the material registered in the gene banks is considered public good so it will be free of any attempt to claim an Intellectual Property Right. Pistorius states “agricultural values, for genes used in breeding program’s, although potentially enormous (in terms of production) and vital for future development, cannot be so easily appropriated, or treated as intellectual property” (1997:99). Nevertheless there are several examples of seeds or genetic material that have been registered and some companies, institutions or even individuals that claim Intellectual Property Right (IPR) over this genetic material.

Nevertheless, Nazarea (1998) argues that the maintenance of the gene banks is not enough. There is something that is missing, and this is the knowledge associated with the agricultural genetic material also known as memory banking: "parallel collection and documentation of indigenous knowledge and technologies, including uses, preferences and evaluation criteria associated with traditional varieties of crops” (1998:5).

We also would add to Nazarea’s strategies a third one, “an alternative strategy”. The preservation and recognition of the presence in the rural areas of agricultural material, that perhaps could have the solution to some possible agricultural problems: this is called in situ conservation(Kloppenburg 1988, Pistorius 1997). “In situ conservation of plant genetic resources (PGR) can make direct contribution to the well-being of farmers and communities by ensuring that adapted plant types remain directly available to them for their own continuing use” (Iwanaga, 1998:vi).

Several works have been calling attention to the issue of appropriation of indigenous knowledge. “Indigenous genetic seed resources may become extracted and exploited by external interests or displaced by the spread of dominant new strains. Some analysts have warned that new genetic material could solely benefit resource-rich farmers and agroindustry, exacerbating social inequities and neglecting the needs of the poor” (IDS Workshop 1989b: 50).

Appropriation of indigenous genetic resources has been dubbed bio-piracy, patenting of life forms and Intellectual Property Protection, and is currently a topic of discussion. Bio-piracy is the term referring to the illegal appropriation of biological or genetic resources. Either a person, a company or an organization could register or patent with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) genetic material and claim Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) over it, so nobody else could use, name or sell it (RAFI 2000, RAFI/ UNDP 1995). The traditional owners, and also keepers of the resources, including countries and local and indigenous communities remain excluded, not only with no benefits, but also without their ancestral right to use them. Shiva says, “The phenomena of “biopiracy” and “intellectual piracy”, whereby Western commercial interests claim products and innovations derived from indigenous traditions as their “intellectual property” (through protections such as patents), have emerged because indigenous knowledge systems have been devaluated and (it follows) have not been afforded protection” (2000:ix).

There are several examples of Biopiracy reported in documents. The most notorious ones: the patent of several varieties of “Quinua Andina” registered by Colorado State University; “Yacon” or “Jacon”, an Andean plant claimed by Japan. Both species are considered among what has been dubbed “las semillas perdidas”, or “lost seeds”, called this way because they once formed part of the staple food of Andean civilizations, and now with the globalization trends, they are loosing ground and importance in the local diet. Other examples are the “Enola Yellow Bean” and “Ñuñas or Pop beans”; these two have been registered by US seed companies and reclaimed by CIAT (Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical) as existing in their germplasm bank and thus considered as public good (RAFI 2000, RAFI/ UNDP 1995).

As such examples increase, the local/indigenous communities will have to produce only what a few companies and organizations will let them grow or, as a strategy to conserve their rights, the communities can adopt the existing intellectual property system of copyrights, trademarks, patents. They also can develop their own system to protect their intellectual property as the negotiation of some kind of bilateral contractual agreement (supported by the Convention on Biological Diversity) or recur to investor’s certificates, “model law on folklore” or a mix of some of these intellectual property recognition systems (RAFI 2000, RAFI/ UNDP 1995).

Reactions from the R&D institutions

For many years, inside of R&D institutions, and moreover, within the “scientific world”, indigenous/local knowledge was not taken seriously; furthermore, it was totally ignored. Any innovation, improvement or technological breakthroughs ”made by farmers on their own were thought to be accidental and to have developed unsystematically through trial and error” (Rhoades & Bebbington 1995:297). Mwadime (1999) argues that now it is a known fact that the development programs that imposed “outsider” knowledge, ignoring local initiatives, are the origin of “detrimental consequences on agriculture, the environment, the health status and on urbanization settlements” (1999: 244). He uses the Green Revolution as an example of the consequences of “outsider” knowledge: it succeeded mainly in the places where the technology was developed, and failed especially in those places where the farmers had different needs, values and constrains than those where the technology was developed. Mwadime’s work gives new status to indigenous knowledge, because it presents IK as a relief to the ecological damage caused by the Green Revolution and some development programs.

Inside R&D, particularly in the CGIAR centers, some of the scientists involved in participatory research “have learned from farmers to the point that they have started to reexamine their assumptions about the technology generation and transfer process”, and these scientist also recognized that “the knowledge of farmers can be used first to identify and prioritize research issues” (Fujisaka 1995: 139). Nazarea’s book (1998) links perfectly the genetic diversity that the farmers and indigenous peoples have been using during centuries with the knowledge related and resulting from the work with this the genetic diversity. In her proposal for developing “memory banking” (1998:5), the base is the relation, in the scientific world, of the genetic material with the knowledge associated to this genetic material. Another example of the reaction of R&D institutions is, as we mentioned before, the position taken by CIAT regarding genetic material registered in its gene bank and recognized as public goods (see the above example on beans).

Recognition and incorporation of indigenous knowledge

“Although scientists may respect some farmers' innovations such as a modified hoe which saves labor, they are likely to ridicule the idea that the moon influences plant growth or that injections can encourage a plant to fruit, because these make no obvious sense to them. Indeed, such ideas provide ammunition to scientists who are tempted to dismiss local knowledge as worthless” (IDS Workshop 1989a: 36). Fujisaka (1995:124) notes “Although studied by social scientists for the last 30 years, the technical knowledge of farmers has only recently been incorporated into agricultural research leading to the generation of new technologies”.

After several critiques from the social sciences of the R&D projects carried out by natural/ agricultural scientists, there is an explicit recognition of the importance of IK in the R&D arena. The incorporation of IK in the research agendas is evident, and as Nazarea (1998:58) quotes, “The next constructive step is to seriously analyze the interface between agricultural science and indigenous knowledge, and to study how local perspectives and strategies can be effectively integrated into ongoing research and development”

Some International R&D centers have been recognizing the importance of indigenous knowledge. Throughout the research process, they have been bringing not only the indigenous knowledge on seeds and germplasm but also the agronomical practices and the cultural acceptance (Scurrah, personal communication. Figure 1).

Figure 1. Traditional agronomical practices in the Peruvian Andes: “Chakytaklla” (Photo Grupo Yanapai, Perú)

Practical Examples from Latin America

There are clear examples of in situ conservation in Latin American Countries. One interesting example is found in the biodiversity fairs that have been taking place in various Andean regions of Peru since the 1980's. In these fairs the role of women as the ones in charge of selection and maintenance of seeds, as part of strategies to guaranty the family's food security, is enhanced (Scurrah et al., 1999; CCTA, 2001). In a study of a biodiversity fair in the Central Sierra of Peru, Scurrah et al. (1999) found a large array not only of crops but also of diversity within these crops (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Women at the Biodiversity fair in the Central Sierra of Peru showing diversity within traditional crops (Photo Grupo Yanapai, Perú)

The most exhibited crop observed by Scurrah et al. (1999) in these biodiversity fairs was potato (native and improved). On the other hand, the most common crop was maize, where 51 different variety names were identified. Other important crops were faba beans, peas, Andean tubers (olluco, mashua and oca. Figure 3), and pulses (Scurrah et al., 1999).