ind presentation1

Slide1: 

Project Title: Global Indicators of the Status and Trends of Linguistic Diversity and Traditional Knowledge Participants: Luisa Maffi (Project Director), Terralingua David Harmon (co-Principal Investigator, ILD), George Wright Society Jonathan Loh (co-Principal Investigator, ILD), Living Planet Index Stanford Zent (Principal Investigator, TEKVI), Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas (IVIC)

Slide2: 

Global Indicators of the Status and Trends of Linguistic Diversity and Traditional Knowledge General Objective: address the dearth of cultural indicators that can be used along with indicators of biodiversity to gauge the state and trends of biocultural diversity. Specific Objectives: develop two indicators of: (1) the status and trends of linguistic diversity, the Index of Linguistic Diversity (ILD), and (2) the status and trends of traditional environmental knowledge (TEK), the TEK Vitality Index (TEKVI). Organizational Sponsors: Terralingua (Coordination) and The Christensen Fund (Funding Support) Collaborating Institutions: Solidarity Foundation, Northern Arizona University, Department of Canadian Heritage, Universidad Autónoma de México, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Central Institute of Indian Languages, Monash University, Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, University of Maryland

Slide3: 

Key Events in the Effort to Develop Cultural Indicators relevant for Biodiversity “Fourth session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues”, New York, U.S.A., May 2005, sponsored by UNPFII. “Fourth meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Intersessional Working Group on Article 8(j) and related provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity”, Granada, Spain, Jan. 2006, sponsored by CBD. “The 2nd Global Consultation on the Right to Food, Food Security, & Food Sovereignty”, Bilwi & Puerto Cabezas, Nicaragua, Sept. 2006, sponsored by UN FAO and IITC. “Seminar of experts of Latin America and the Caribbean on pertinent indicators for indigenous and local communities and the Convention for Biological Diversity”, Quito, Ecuador, Dec. 2006, sponsored by CBD, FIIB & IUCN.

Slide4: 

“Seminar of experts of Latin America and the Caribbean on pertinent indicators for indigenous and local communities and the Convention for Biological Diversity”, Quito, Ecuador, Dec. 11-13, 2006, Sponsored by CBD, FIIB & IUCN Focal Areas for Indicator Development: Education Language Culture Health & Medicine Production Territory Spirituality & Sacred Sites

Slide5: 

Protection vs. Preservation of Traditional Knowledge (TK): Are these objectives contradictory, separate or mutual? Protection refers to the legal or ethical protection of fundamental rights, of which there are two different types: (1) the right to intellectual and material property – implies private rights to possession, use & transfer (while excluding third parties), and (2) the right to civil liberties and customary practices (i.e. human, cultural, political, resource rights, etc.) - implies inclusive rights that everyone should have equally. In the case of TK, it signifies protection against misappropiation, unauthorized use or sale, alienation, proscription, etc. Preservation refers to sustainability (or retention) and resilience (or adaptability) of intellectual and material patrimony over time. In the case of TK, it means the intergenerational transmission of knowledges, learning mechanisms and contexts, and practices of resource appropiation, use & management that are ancestral o particular to a cultural group. Crucial Interdependence: There is no support or incentive for preservation without the adequate protection. If it is lost, it cannot be protected.

Slide6: 

Indicator #2: Methodology for Developing a TEK Vitality Index (TEKVI) Purpose: design a locally-appropriate, globally-applicable data instrument that can be used to measure and assess the vitality status of TEK (i.e. inferrable trends of retention or loss over time) within selected groups and allow for relative comparisons of that status among groups at different scales of inclusiveness Justification: No such indicator currently exists Precedents: prior quantitative studies of TEK and its variation in space and time. Potential Users: local communities, ethnic-based organizations, academic researchers, government or public agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and intergovernmental organizations (CBD & partner organizations)

Slide7: 

Why do we need an indicator that directly measures TEK status & trends (loss, creation, persistence & change)? TEK and associated practices and innovations make an important contribution to biodiversity conservation TEK is situated at the interface of the natural environment & human cultural expression Growing concern that TEK is being lost or eroded under modernization Need reliable tool to assess TEK trends, such as: (a) Is knowledge really being eroded, retained or increased? (a) How fast is loss/change occurring? (b) What areas or groups are most affected? (c) What domains of knowledge are most vulnerable? (d) What are the causal or conditioning factors? Need to evaluate whether TEK trends are related to trends of biodiversity loss. Need more precise information for more effective policy making & evaluaion.

Slide8: 

What is Traditional Environmental Knowledge (TEK)? The locally distinctive, situated and learned knowledge by which a particular society or community apprehends the biotic and abiotic components of the environment and their interrelationships and engages it in a practical sense for sustenance, health, shelter, tools and other survival needs and wants. Diagnostic Properties (Ellen & Harris 2000): Local: rooted to a particular place & set of experiences; generated by people living in those places Oral & Visual: transmitted orally or through imitation & demonstration Practical: consequence of practical engagement in everyday life and is reinforced by experience, trial and error, and experiment Empirical: tends to be empirical and empirico-hypothetical knowledge Repetitive: repetition is a defining characteristic of tradition Dynamic: constantly changing, being produced as well as reproduced, discovered as well as lost Shared: characteristically shared to a greater degree than other forms of knowledge Fragmentary: differentially distributed among community members Functional: essentially “know-how” geared to practical response and performance Holistic: integrated and situated within broader cultural traditions

Slide9: 

Quantitative Studies dealing with levels, variations, changes and processes of Traditional Environmental Knowledges (TEKs) Bibliography: Adu-Tutu et al. 1979; Albuquerque 2006; Albuquerque, Andrade & Silva 2005; Albuquerque et al. 2006; Amorozo 2004; Alexiades 1999; Ankli, Sticher & Heinrich 1999; Anyinam 1995; Apaza et al. 2003; Atanazio da Silva 2006; Atran 2001; Atran & Medin 1997; Atran et al. 2002; Barham, Coomes & Takasaki 1999; Begossi 1996, Begossi et al. 2002; Benz et al. 1994, 2000; Bonet 1992; Boster 1984, 1986; Brodt 2001, 2002; Byg & Balslev 2001, 2004; Campos & Ehringhaus 2003; Caniago & Siebert 1998; Casagrande 2002; Case et al. 2006; Chipeniuk 1995; Cohen y Horm-Wingerd 1993; Collins & Liukkonen 2002; Cruz García 2006; da Rocha Silva & Andrade 2006; DeWalt et al. 1999; Draper & Cashdan 1988; Estomba, Ladio & Lozada 2006; Figueiredo et al. 1993, 1997; Florey 2006; Frazão-Moreira 1997, 2001; Frei et al. 1999; Friedman et al. 1986; Furlow 2003; Galeano 2000; Garro 1986, 1988; Gertsch et al. 2002; Ghimire, McKey & Aumeeruddy-Thomas 2004; Gispert & Gómez Campos 1986; Godoy et al. 1998, 2005; Godoy 1994, 2001; Gomez-Beloz 2002; Guest 2002; Guest & McLelland 2003; Harvey 1989; Hatano & Inagaki 1999; Heckler 2002; Heinrich et al. 1998; Hewlett & Cavalli-Sforza 1986; Hoffman 2003; Höft, Barik & Lykke 1999; Howe, Kahn & Friedman 1996; Hunn 2002; Johns, Kokwaro & Kimanani 1990; Johns et al. 1994; Johnson 2006; Kainer & Duryea 1992; Katz 1986, 1989; Kellert 1985; Kremen, Raymond & Lance 1998; Kristensen & Balslev 2003; Kvist et al. 1995; La Torre-Cuadros & Islebe 2003; Ladio 2001, 2004; Ladio & Lozada 2001, 2004; Lajones & Lemas 2001; Lawrence et al. 2005; Leduc et al. 2006; Lee et al. 2001; Lizarralde 2001, 2004; Lozada, Ladio & Weigandt 2006; Luoga, Witkowski & Balkwill 2000; Lykke, Kristensen & Ganaba 2004; Marulanda 2005; Matavele & Habib 2000; Medley & Kalibo 2005; Miller et al. 2004; Monteiro et al. 2006; Nabhan 1997, 1998; Nabhan & St. Antoine 1993; Nolan & Robbins 1999; Ohmagari & Berkes 1997; Olsen & Helles 1997; Peroni 2002; Pfeiffer & Butz 2005; Phillips 1996; Phillips & Gentry 1993a, 1993b; Phillips et al. 1994; Pinedo-Vasquez et al. 1990; Prance et al. 1987; Quinlan 2005; Reyes-García 2001; Reyes-García et al. 2003, 2004, 2005a, 2005b, 2006a, 2006b; Rocha 2005; Rosenberg 1998; Ross 2002, 2002b; Ross & Medin 2005; Ross, Barrientos & Esquit-Choy 2005; Rossato, Leitao-Filho & Begossi 1999; Ruddle & Chesterfield 1977; Shackleton et al. 2002; Shanley & Rosa 2005; Silva, Andrade & Albuquerque 2006; Soleri & Cleveland 2005; Sowerine 2004; Sternberg 2004; Sternberg et al. 2001; Stoffle 1990; Stross 2003; Takasaki, Barham & Coomes 2001; Thompson 2005; Ticktin & Johns 2002; Todt & Hannon 1998; Toledo et al. 1995; Trotter & Logan 1986; Turner 1988, 2003; van Etten 2006; Vandebroek et al. 2004; Varghese et al. 1993; Weller 1983; Weller & Baer 2002; Weller et al. 1993; Wiersum 1997; Wilbert 2002; Wong 2000; Zarger & Stepp 2004; Zent 1996; 1997, 1999, 2001; Zent & Zent 2004, 2006; Zitzow 1990

Slide10: 

Some General Findings: TEK erosion as a consequence of cultural modernization is a recurrent and widespread trend but not universal and therefore not inevitable Key Results & Conclusions: The relevant conditioning variables vary by site, history & environmental setting In some places, TEK is persistent despite surrounding socioeconomic changes The interactions among variables is not well understood No generalizations can be made at the present time Causal or Correlative Factors: age, gender roles, formal education level of person & parent, fluency in local or national language, marital status, degree and type of market participation, monetary income, wealth, primary occupation, habitat degradation, distance to forest or city, interethnic contact, availability of western medicine, change of religious beliefs & values, socioeconomic subsidies, size & sedentarization of community, migration history, years living in place, level of difficulty or frequency of knowledge/practice Results of Literature Review

Slide11: 

Quantitative Studies on levels, variations, changes and processes of Traditional Environmental Knowledges (TEKs) Strengths: systematic methods; precise and reliable measures of different types of knowledge; well informed about local ethnographic context Limitations: local studies (single community, ethnic group or region); focus on particular knowledge domains to the exclusion of others; various particular methods and measures used and therefore not transferable across sites; the results from different studies are not directly comparable in quantitative terms Conclusion: cannot use the previously collected data to develop an indicator of TEK change, but they do provide useful methods to adapt and build upon

Slide12: 

How to study TEK change? Time-series data collection & comparison (before/after key events or interventions, periodic intervals) Cross-sectional data on knowledge variation correlated with other indicators of change, such as:

Slide13: 

Recommendations for studying TEK change: Individualized testing/analysis Age is the most commonly-used social indicator used to infer trends of change; for most groups, it can produce up to a 50-yr time frame. Compare older vs. younger person’s knowledge levels. Statistical analysis focused on comparing degree & rate of change within a group Intergroup statistical comparisons focus on the different degress & rates of change between cohorts, communities, ethnic groups, subnational regions, countries, multinational regions, continents, etc. (aggregable/disaggregable components) Change is not always indicative of loss; invention and transfer also possible Once initial (baseline) measures taken, monitoring of ongoing trends can be performed by repeating the procedure at future dates

Slide14: 

How to rate individual knowledge differences? Techniques for study of knowledge distribution: Counting vs. Ranking vs. Scoring: depends on type of knowledge under consideration (e.g. skills vs. theoretical knowledge; taxonomic identification vs. use value; preferences vs. actual use) Comparative Use Value: simple counts, investigator-determined, user-determined Consensus Analysis: correct answers determined by majority agreement; individual scores determined by level of (dis)agreement with correct answers Matching with Expert: correct answers taken from expert consultant(s); individual scores determined by prportional agreement with expert Matching with Science: correct answers are determined by scientific information; individual scores determined by percentage of correct answers given

Slide15: 

Usefulness Index Methods 1. Uses totaled: resource use citations added up Advantage: requires least amount of data collection Disadvantage: yields least valuable data in terms of statistical relevance and hypothesis testing 2. Subjective allocation: (researcher- or informant-generated): values subjectively assigned to distinguish major/minor uses according to criteria of major/minor uses, exclusivity of use. Advantage: relatively fast & easy to score and produces more refined data set than 1. Disadvantage: subject to bias and thus less rigorous & less replicable 3. Informant Consensus: use value calculated as relative citation statistic (sum of species use value per informant/total no.of informants interviewed) Advantage: reduces individual bias, produces representative and highly differented array of use values which are amenable to more sophisticated statistical analysis & hypothesis testing Disadvantage: requires much more time and data collection than methods 1 & 2.

Slide16: 

Theoretical Knowledge: collective inventory of folk biological taxa no. of plants/animals known no. of uses per species known no. of biotopes known/named correct ID of plants/animals by name or taxonomic categorization correct ID of uses per species species rank by importance value ecological characteristics (morphology, behavior, habitat, interspecific relations) of species competence in ethnomedical curing Types of TEK studied from quantitative perspective In Practice: no. & type of skills known (self-reported) frequency of resource use events reported per time period no. & volume of species utilized per time period diversity of species utilized per time period diversity of cultivated crop species/varieties inventories frequency of use of medicinal plants by disease/by healer Transmission: comparative inventories of plants/animals by age, gender, community, occupation, education taxonomic complexity by age group nos. & types of social relations responsible for acquisition of traditional skills by type and life stage time allocation in different activities frequencies of interpersonal transactions by social category extension and density of social networks

Slide17: 

Problem of the Data Register: due to the particularity, variability, holistic integration and intangible quality of culture, it is necessary to disaggregate certain areas and categories of TEK that are universally present or applicable in all TEK systems yet are definable in different cultural and environmental contexts. Register Parameters (Local & Global Vision)

Slide18: 

Define relevant cultural domains or topical areas of TEK Define Inventory of Items (expert focal group interviews) Define Importance Value (relative weight) of items Test Design (TEK item selection, socioeconomic variables) Sample Population Selection (community, age, gender) Test Administration Test Evaluation & Scoring (intracultural comparability) Statistical Aggregation and Analysis by Social Variables Rate of Change Calculations (intercultural comparability) Pilot Study (Multiple sites) Method Evaluation and Modification as a result of the Pilot Study Steps to Developing the TEKVI