Subject: [IKD] Strategies to document and share indigenous knowledge
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 11:38:18 +0100
From: "Paul Mundy" <paulmundy@netcologne.de>
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
To: "IKD conference" <ikd@jazz.worldbank.org>
The International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (iirr@cav.pworld.net.ph)
has a manual on 'Recording and Using Indigenous Knowledge'. It outlines more
than 30 different recording and assessment methods drawn from participatory
appraisal, anthropological, sociological and community organizing approaches
(see list below). For each method, it gives a brief definition and purpose,
lists the materials needed, gives a step-by-step approach on how to
implement it, describes its value, and lists some do's and don’ts based on
practical field experience.
The manual also provides 10 case studies on how development efforts can
build on indigenous knowledge, and question guides on more than 20
development fields ranging from animal husbandry to water and sanitation.
Finally, it lists key publications on indigenous knowledge and resource
institutions worldwide promoting the use of indigenous knowledge in
development.
Below is a list of the methods described.
Identifying indigenous specialists
Observation and interviewing
Case studies
Field observation
In-depth interviews
Interviewing
Participant observation
Participative technology analysis
Surveys
Brainstorming
Five questions
Games
Group discussion
Role play
Strengths and weaknesses
SWOT analysis
Village reflections
Village workshop
Using diagrams
Flowchart
Historical comparison
Illustrations and diagrams
Mapping
Matrix
Modelling bioresource flows
Seasonal pattern chart
Sorting and ranking
Taxonomies
Transect
Venn (or chapati) diagramming
Webbing
Audio-visual media
Cassette documentation
Participatory video
Photo/slide documentation
More details at http://www.netcologne.de/~nc-mundypa/IKmanual.htm
Paul Mundy
development communication specialist
paulmundy@netcologne.de
http://www.netcologne.de/~nc-mundypa
tel +49-2202-932 921, fax +49-2202-932 922
Subject: [IKD] Workshops to document and share indigenous knoweldge
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 11:42:26 +0100
From: "Paul Mundy" <paulmundy@netcologne.de>
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
To: <ikd@jazz.worldbank.org>
CC: "Silang VP Program IIRR" <ovp-iirr@cav.pworld.net.ph>,
"Terri Willard" <twillard@iisd.ca>,
"Isaac Bekalo" <iirraro@form-net.com>,
"Evelyn Mathias" <evelynmathias@netcologne.de>
In response to the moderators' plea for strategies to preserve and share
indigenous knowledge, here is one approach using workshops to produce
information materials. I mentioned this approach briefly in an earlier
posting (18 February).
The idea is to bring together local specialists (eg, indigenous healers),
scientists and intermediaries (eg, extension workers, NGO staff, teachers)
to develop a set of information materials on a particular theme (say,
traditional veterinary medicine).
(a) Before the workshop, each participant is invited to prepare a
presentation on a particular topic (eg, mange, footrot, birthing
difficulties).
(b) Each participant in turn presents his or her topic, and the audience
critiques it and offers additional information.
(c) The participant then works with an editor and artist to revise and
illustrate the manuscript.
(d) The particpant then presents the revised manuscript to the audience, who
get another chance to critique it.
(e) By the end of the workshop, near-final manuscripts can be prepared,
needing only final editing and layout before being printed.
In a 1- or 2-week workshop, it is possible to produce a 200-page illustrated
manual in easy-to-understand language. We have used this basic process on
several occasions to document indigenous knowledge, including for two
workshops on ethnoveterinary medicine (Philippines and Kenya), one on family
planning methods (Ethiopia), and one on sustainable agriculture (Kenya).
The process can work surprising well with local people among the
participants. In the Kenya ethnovet workshop,
(http://www.netcologne.de/~nc-mundypa/EthnovetKenya.htm), for example, there
were indigenous healers from several ethnic groups, both pastoralist and
sedentary. Most could not speak English or read and write; they were
accompanied by interpreters to help overcome these obstacles. The workshop
resulted in a 226-page book, containing hundreds of indigenous remedies for
80 livestock diseases and other problems. The remedies came from the
healers; the scientists reviewed their efficacy. Many remedies used by the
healers contained active ingredients known to science. Some remedies that
the scientists felt would be ineffectual or harmful were dropped from the
book after discussion and agreement among the participants.
These workshops have benefits other than the production of a book. They
allow an exchange of ideas and experience among participants who might
otherwise never meet. The healers learned techniques from the scientists
that they could use in their own practice; the scientists learned to respect
local knowledge (several told me how impressed they were at the depth and
accuracy of the healers' knowledge of things veterinary). Ethnoveterinary
medicine has also achieved a higher profile at the University of Nairobi and
in the Ministry of Agriculture.
See http://www.netcologne.de/~nc-mundypa/workshop.htm for a description of
the process and a list of information materials produced in this way. If
interested participants contact me directly, I can send send them a Word 97
file describing the process in more detail.
Workshops can be adapted to computer-less and electricity-less venues: Terri
Willard (twillard@iisd.ca) has done something similar on indigenous tree
propagation in Negros, Philippines, resulting in a hand-written booklet.
Paul Mundy
development communication specialist
paulmundy@netcologne.de
http://www.netcologne.de/~nc-mundypa
tel +49-2202-932 921, fax +49-2202-932 922
Subject: [IKD] Re: Indigenous knowledge and intellectual property rights
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 12:16:31 -0600
From: "Elisabeth A. Graffy" <egraffy@usgs.gov>
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
To: <IKD@jazz.worldbank.org>
As I read the thoughts about patents on ideas, products, and the benefits of
biodiversity; and the predominance of various information technologies for
disseminating information, I find myself reflecting on the presumed
objective that got us all talking about these things to begin with:
empowering sustainable development in its many forms, in many different
places....and I offer these observations which may be cynical, helpful, or
irrelevant.
1--The basic tension between "transmitting/disseminating" information versus
"sharing" information and knowledge has emerged repeatedly in this
discussion, regardless of the specific topic of the week. Most sympathies
appear to lie with the "sharing" model, but its implementation remains
murky. Part of the problem, I think, is that there really are different
categories of development-related goals that probably benefit from different
kinds of information/informational structures. For instance, providing
information about AIDS or about risks of natural hazards is not the same use
of information and knowledge that goes with promoting environmentally-sound
commerce or developing society-wide strategies to combat global warming.
There's both a time element (urgency of information needs) and degree of
specificity or "discreteness" of the goals the information will support
(evacuating people from an areas about to be hit by an earthquake versus
developing a whole different economic paradigm).
2--Another persistent tension has to do with the relative dominance of the
"developed" and "developing" world voices in this discussion. Several have
already noted that there is a western slant. I sense it, too. Some have
questioned how we can get more diverse participation. I can see that there
might be many different kinds of obstacles, but I can't help but wonder if
the conversation itself may be one of them.
First of all, we tend to talk about indigenous knowledge and development as
something primarily non-western. Isn't western knowledge "indigenous
knowledge," too? If the earlier week 1 and 2 notion that there are different
"knowledge cultures" was accepted, as I think it was, then it seems to me
that we must agree that western knowledges (political, technological,
economic, artistics, etc.) are "indigenous" to western societies just as
other varieties of knowledge are indigenous to other parts of the world.
Then the framework within which we think about indigenous knowledge (both as
a source of information and as a context within which shared information is
processed) shifts from one in which we are protecting indigenous knowledge
from western incursion (which is how it is normally discussed) to one in
which we attempt to even the playing field among the diversity of indigenous
knowledges, while accepting all as legitimate (which is more consistent with
the sharing of knowledge that many seem to feel corresponds to sustainable
development). So....the institutional arrangements we may wish to promote
differ greatly, depending on which of those paradigms we start from.
I also wonder if the philosphical underpinning of the indigenous knowledge
dialogue that we are having is not pluralistic democracy--a rather western
philosophy. But think about it: our premise is that, while we may benefit
from interaction with other cultures of knowledge, we each certainly are
entitled to set our own societal goals -- sustainable development goals, if
you like. We have a "right" to not be overwhelmed by another, perhaps more
globally influential knowledge base. By extension, western indigenous
knowledge proponents do not have the right to impose that world view on
others with different kinds of indigenous knowledge.
But I think there are other elements at work here, too. The politically
dominant culture extols the principle of pluralism and actively seeks to
preserve it in all its forms, including indigenous knowledge--as a principle
in itself. The dominant culture knows its faults and is relying on
indigenous knowledge/wisdom borrowed from other cultures to "save" itself.
There is a market for exotic-ness and the artistic expression of cultural
diversity within the economically dominant culture (an outgrowth of the
value of pluralism). The dominant technologically/consumption-oriented
societies believe that the development paths spearheaded by them are
anathema to "sustainable development" as it is presently understood, and
would like to convey that insight to others who might embark on that path.
In all of these ways, the irony remains that the perspectives of the
dominant culture frame the ways that indigenous knowledge will be valued. I
can see how it might be construed as paternalistic by those on the de facto
receiving end.
Maybe we're missing the boat about how indigenous knowledge and sustainable
development are connected--from the perspective of those who begin with a
different set of implicit themes and principles...those who come from places
where many of us may live in for periods of time but will never be "from."
Elisabeth A. Graffy (egraffy@usgs.gov)
Subject: [IKD] Indigenous Knowledge
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 18:14:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Henryka Manes <hmanes@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
This has been a fascinating and enlightening discussion.
1) I would like to know more from Betos Borges of Shaman Pharmaceuticals
about the model they use to provide benefits to the indigenous
population for the IK it provides.
2) A participant from Indonesia asked a pertinent question about how
to involve more the indigenous population in the discussion about IK. I
agree, language is not a barrier. Any comments?
3) I would like to share a story that illustrates an exchange of
information in the other direction. While implementing an eye treatment
project in Zimbabwe, we realized that tribal healers misunderstood the
problem of cataract and were causing irreparable damage. When people
came to them with a cataract problem tribal healers applied a mixture
that literally burned the surface of the eye and caused irreversible
blindness. Realizing the essential role of tribal healers within their
communities, and their effectiveness in other areas of health provision,
we decided to bring some of them into the operating room to demonstrate
a cataract surgery. It resulted in the following: tribal healers
understood that the cataract was situated inside the eye not on the
surface, therefore, the burning of the surface of the eye was not
recommended. Following that experience they referred patients to the
clinic and enhanced their role in the community as being the source of
the referral.
Henryka Manes
Consultant in International Development
hmanes@earthlink.net
Subject: [IKD] Re: concrete ways of rewarding creativity and ik
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 18:20:56 -0500 (EST)
From: "Prof. Anil K. Gupta" <anilg@iimahd.ernet.in>
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
Organization: Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India
To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
For those looking for concrete strategies for recognizing, respecting
and rewarding indigneous knowledge, creativity and innovations, please
visit SRISTI's web site and also read about Honey Bee network--largest
network of its kind in 71 countries, six languages, and a data base with
name and addresses of more than 8000 innovators and committed to
preserve the IPrs of local communities as well as individuals.
anil
http://csf.coloardo.edu/sristi
Subject: [IKD] Re: Introduction to Week 5
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 08:40:24 -0000
From: "Michael Benfield" <Miben@email.msn.com>
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
To: <IKD@jazz.worldbank.org>
Angela de Siqueira touches the nerve in asking "Who established the named
"conventional patenting requirements"? who benefits from them?" and in
arguing that "In fact all knowledge is a collective and historical
production. No one creates knowledge from nothing... The basis of all
knowledge is some other knowledge produced by generations, even if used to
neglect it."
Historically, many 'inventions' may be seen to have arisen in different
parts of the world at approximately the same time. This is so even when
there has been no apparent connection between the 'inventors' (e.g.
photography, telephony). While such 'universal knowledge' may have been
'discovered' for the general advancement, not to say benefit, of humanity,
only those who were / are first to secure appropriate patent rights capture
the 'right' to exploit such 'discoveries'. Usually such exploitation is
financial and to the cost (or dis-benefit) of everyone else.
Leaving on one side, for the moment, discussion of whether or not
exploitation aids dissemination, the extent of the finances needed for this,
and the 'creation' of 'markets', perhaps it would be no bad thing to
re-appraise our global approach to 'equity' in patents, for example:-
* Equity between all of those parties who can be shown to have been working
toward the 'evolution' of the same 'invention', whether by research or
development. (Is it fair that the efforts of the 'also rans' should be
penalised in favour of the 'winner'?)
* Equity between all of those parties who can be shown to have contributed
to this, including indigenous knowledge.
* Equity in considering the 'price' charged to different global communities
(Why not, say, link pricing to hours of effort spent to make the purchase,
rather than tie this to a hard currency like the USD or Euro? If it only
takes a German worker 1 hour of effort to be able to afford a 'new' product,
how fair is it that someone in Africa should have to work for a week or more
to 'buy' the same thing? This is especially so when the original knowledge
may have come from their own country?)
* Equity in awarding exclusivity of exploitation to whoever manages to
patent the 'idea' first.
* Equity, perhaps, in setting some limits on the extent to which exploiters
are able to profit from the patent, i.e. what is a 'fair' return? Is this
1,000%, 100%, or 10% on the basic cost of production? Also in re-assessing
for how long should this ability be granted?
In addressing these issues it may be necessary to revisit the question of
what was in the minds of the framers and legislators of current regulation.
When viewed inside the "sustainability imperative", they may all become far
more demanding.
Keep on digging, Angela !!
(Dr) Michael Benfield
Director
Centre for a Sustainable Future
Warwickshire College
Moreton Morrell Campus, CV35 9BL
England Miben@msn.com
Subject: [IKD] Language engineering
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 14:19:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Alice Watson <awatson@club-internet.fr>
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
Organization: Home
To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
I work in multilingual information management and retrieval, and in the
development of multilingual thesauri. I would like to react to Chris
Green's point on the difficulty of mastering another language (in this
case, English) to a level where it becomes possible to establish
efficient communication with speakers of other languages (leaving aside
cultural and technology infrastructure issues for a moment), and to his
question regarding what practical issues might be addressed.
A decade or two ago, some linguists and artificial intelligence experts
began to make confident predictions that computers would soon be able to
'speak' English (or French, or Swahili, or Chinese...). Some schools of
linguistic thought took Noam Chomsky's theories about the 'deep
structure' of language to mean that all one had to do to translate from
one language to another was to set up computer programs armed with
appropriate vocabularies and rules for grammatical transformations.
Computer translation has, however, proved very difficult to implement.
On a practical level, one can note that AltaVista now provides SYSTRAN
for translating Web pages (for a few languages); one can download a
personal version of this software for translating other documents such
as e-mail messages. The results may not always be entirely satisfactory,
but they usually do enable one to get the gist of texts that one would
otherwise be unable to read. Also, those interested in this field might
like to take a look at the European Commission's Human Language
Technologies Web site at: http://www.linglink.lu/.
Language technologies certainly have a long way to go, but they do offer
the hope that in a perhaps not too distant future, speakers of different
languages will be able to communicate with each other in both speech and
writing, using their native languages and without a human intermediary,
thus reducing the need to invest in years of foreign language learning
and, to some extent perhaps, the hegemony of a single language such as
English.
Alice Watson
awatson@club-internet.fr
Subject: [IKD] Indigenous Knowledge
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 14:22:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Henryka Manes <hmanes@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
Since I have not followed this discussion from the very beginning, I may
have missed the subject I wish to address. If so, I am sure that the
moderator will edit me out.
As a field professional, I have witnessed time and again the destruction
of indigenous knowledge by international NGOs. The most egregious ones
are the ones that are primarily funded by Christian Churches with the
expressive purpose of proselytizing. Some will study the local myths
and then publish them in the local language, in a completely perverse
form with major changes that promote New Testament stories which now
supersede the indigenous ones. The original stories are slowly lost to
the local populations and the new stories -- now the only ones in
published form -- become prevalent. In other cases, missionaries settle
in areas where extreme poverty exists and, in effect, exchange food and
clothing for attendance at Christian services and adoption of the
Christian faith. Often public funding supports these activities.
Indigenous knowledge is made up of a cohesive whole made of myths,
beliefs, knowledge of psychology, local mores, plants and their
benefits, etc. It seems to me that when we, in the international
development community, address the issue of environmental destruction,
and paying for the benefit of commercializing products that derive from
indigenous knowledge, we must also address this very crucial issue of
the effects international development teams have on the local
population, and in particular, those teams that come with a specific
agenda of destroying local knowledge and replacing it with Western myths
and beliefs without the informed consent of local populations.
It would be naïve to think that change will not take place in a
situation where people of two different cultures come together to work
on a day-to-day basis. Ideally, in this type of situation those who
come from the outside have gone through a thorough learning process
about the culture and traditions of the local community and are careful
about not destroying them. Learning and change should occur in both
directions. But this is different from the situations discussed
above.
NGOs must look hard at themselves, develop a charter of acceptable
conduct when working in the field that take into account indigenous
knowledge, traditions, beliefs, etc. That charter should specify
absolute requirements such as studying local culture, traditions,
languages etc. of the locales where NGOs are active and instruct field
staff in the preservation of local cultures. (Other important areas to
include in the charter are: demonstrated need, sustainability,
empowerment; gender issues, impact of the project on other areas;
follow-up, to name a few.) And, make sure that those NGOs that do not
abide by those rules are known and do not receive public funding. If we
are ready to do this then we can be in a better position to point out to
corporations which use indigenous knowledge for commercial purposes, and
ask for accountability.
Henryka Manès
Consultant, International Development
hmanes@earthlink.net
Subject: [IKD] Re: Indigenous Knowledge
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 16:17:00 -0500 (EST)
From: mmitra@mail.AsianDevBank.org (Manoshi Mitra)
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org, moderator1@worldbank.org
Dear IKD members,
My name is Manoshi Mitra and I live in the
Philippines currently.I would like to submit that indigenous knowledge
is not only important in terms of processes and products that can be
patented and monopolized, but also in terms of social organization
principles, which indeed offer to the mainstream societies,
alternative principles for a more equitable and fair way of doing
things. Unlike product specific knowledge which need to protected with
indigenous communities,if such indigenous knowledge as referred to
above, can indeed be widely disseminated, it will help all. I am going
to narrate here an instance of such knowledge and practice from
India,emanating from women of indigenous communities, and their
efforts to organize and work on the basis of their traditional
knowledge, and harness it to earn incomes and improve the quality of
life of their househlds and community. The knowledge I am referring to
here relates to principles of social organization, social capital
formation,gender equity, among others, that such women had,much before
such ideas became common parlance in the international development
community.
In the state of West Bengal, in the tribal area of South West Bengal,
tribal communities had gradually lost control of their land and forest
resources, leading to a systematic degradation of their socio economic
conditions, institutions, and their environment. This had led to
growing immiseration, and repeated migrations by entire families
looking for employment. This was taking a tremendous toll on the
health and well being of the people, particularly of the
children(increasing child mortality) and older people.
The government at the time, with a view to controlling the growing
rural poverty and distress, was advocating reforms in land relations,
so as to provide greater security to sharecroppers and tenant farmers.
However, in these tribal communities, there was not much response to
the call of the state to come forward and register titles to land
use.At a certain point in time, the interest of external agencies such
as government and development workers, in improving the situation
coalesced, and led to a systematic enquiry as to what was preventing
these communities, particularly women, from participating in tenurial
reforms etc.
The issues that emerged from participatory researches included the
following: the need to restore control over resources such as land
and forest which is particularly important for tribal communities,
and over decision making, to the community.Women came forward and
stated that if they were given back their resources, they would be
able to organize effectuvely and tackle their poverty related
problems.
The 'project' began, and soon it became clear that the women of the
community were the ones willing to struggle with the depleted soils of
the area, because they felt that they were the most adversely affected
by the loss of access to resources, both in terms of their own status,
as well as with regard to their capacity to meet the practical needs
of their families of food, fuel, water. The women became the focal
point for further work. They formed their own organization, and aided
by the external agencies were able to access financing for the start
up of productive activities.
However, the basic resource was land, which was controlled by non
tribals, the state, and in instances where lands were still retained
by the tribal community, by the men. But none of these agencies had
looked after the lands, which had been depleted of tree cover, and had
gradually become wasteland. Despite this the men were not willing to
hand over the lands to the women's organization.A struggle followed
after which the men reluctantly agreed to hand over use rights to the
women. The role played by the local women in convincing the men was
remarkable. They among other approaches, used the logic that
traditionally among such communities, women had access rights to
land,and so, this was a going back to the roots.
Once the women had access to land, they were the ones who decided what
could be best grown there. Defying the scientific knowledge of
foresters, they argued that silkworm host plants could be reared on
these soils. They put in tremendous physical and moral effort in
making the plantations of terminalia tomentosa,terminalia arjuna,
successful and reared silkworms on these.
When the kands started yielding employment,the organizers were at a
loss as to how the employment would be distributed. There were many
poor women in the area and some were non tribal. The available
employment was not sufficient to meet everyone's needs.The tribal
women flabbergasted them with their own decision making. At an
internal meeting they decided the principles upon which their
organization would be run for years to come. The principle was of
equity, based upon poverty criteria, and the willingness to abide by
the colective principles of the organizatoin. Despite their suffering
it was decided that all poor women living in the area, irrespective of
community, would be eligible to work on the plantations, and the
employment would be shared between groups of women from different
villages. A group leader was appointed to take over from the preceding
group of workers and hand over to the next group.Everyone was amazed
at the lack of effort to control and dominate the new employment
benefits by the indigenous women. Their response was simple:"We all
live in the same community. We have starved together. Now when we get
to eat, how can we see our neighbors starve?" They also told the
external researchers that tribal tradition of resource allocation,
production and consumption, centered around the community, and if non
tribals live and work in tribal villages, they are counted as part of
the community.
There are many such instances of indigenous knowledge and practice
around the world. Such principles of sharing and equitable
distribution of resources, between poor men and women, and tribal and
non tribal poor, continue to provide a lesson in socially equitable
development principles.
M.Mitra (m.mitra@mail.asiandevbank.org)
Subject: [IKD] Indigenous Knowledge -- some thoughts on the discussion
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 20:08:34 -0500
From: Rwoytek@worldbank.org
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
As the very interesting and lively discussion evolved over the last ten
days,
the following important messages emerge:
1. Indigenous Knowledge is not only an issue of technical practices,
processes and products but also about social organizations and institutions
2. The importance of Indigenous Knowledge needs further re-enforcement
3. Addressing intellectual property rights for indigenous knowledge is not
only about remuneration
4. Indigenous intellectual property rights systems should be considered
when
designing international standards of ethics or rights on IK.
5. Capturing, sharing, and dissemination of IK is not only a legal issue
but a question of empowerment
A number of interesting examples were reported how IK and practices affected
the life of communities - and how international or government activities
affect local knowledge or its bearers.
Other participants discussed the paradigms of development cooperation,
globalization, the role of media or other, wider aspects that have a bearing
beyond this weeks discussion, rather within the framework of this list's
overall context.
The following is a comment to these five messages within the context of the
introductory message for week 5, that IK is an underutilized resource in
the development process, and that IK should be shared across communities.
Knowledge to be appreciated, to develop, to adapt and to evolve requires
some form of exchange and dissemination. If a community learns some IK
practices from another community and adapts them to their requirements,
value is added on both, the receiving as well as the providing sides - as
long as provider and recipient control the process. This ideal situation
rarely exists. (Incidentally, I learned of a very exciting example of a
cross-cultural exchange last year in Zimbabwe: a traditional healer had
traveled to China to learn Acupuncture. He had done so on his own account
- no donor, no NGO involved - had learned the practice, excelled in the
exams and incorporated it into his practices.)
This is where development agents or the private sector come in and play a
role - usually according to their own rules. As we have learned from the
Shaman Inc. example, briefly discussed here last week, alternatives exist
that serve both interests.
The development community can play a role of leveling the field, too:
--Raising awareness among the development practitioners and decision makers
about value and importance of IK
--Provide information of relevant practices
--Establish platforms and opportunities of exchange and build partnerships
--Support local communities to protect, or share their knowledge according
to
their requirements
--Support an international process that addresses the IPR issue of IK in
such
a way that the exchange of knowledge is fostered without compromising the
rights of the local communities
As the list's focus moves on to other issues, I would like to invite list
members to stay in touch with the "Indigenous Knowledge for Development"
Initiative of the World Bank. You are also invited to share those
experiences
where IK has played an important role in a development project or you may
want
to consider contributing to the referral database that you find under:
http://www.worldbank.org/html/afr/ik/access.htm
(Those of you, not having access to the World Wide Web, please drop a line
and
we'll send you a respective e-mail or even a hard copy of our report.
Please,
also note that some of the material is also available in French.)
Reinhard Woytek
The World Bank
Practice Manager Indigenous Knowledge for Development Initiative
1818, H Street NW
Washington D.C. 20433
USA
Tel: 1-202-473 1641
Fax: 1-202-477 2977
URL: http://www.worldbank.org/html/afr/ik/
Email: rwoytek@worldbank.org
Subject: Plant Patents in Africa
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 23:26:00 -0800
From: "Preston D. Hardison" <prestonh@home.com>
To: indknow@u.washington.edu
No comments:
Post a Comment