Political and epistemic uses of local knowledge in the face of environmental global change (EN).
Panel W127 at conference EASA2012: Uncertainty and disquiet.
Twenty years after the Rio Convention, which institutionally recognized the ecological contribution of "indigenous and local communities", this workshop aims to examine the present uses (both political and epistemic) of local knowledge in the face of environmental global change.
Long Abstract:
Following the Rio Convention (1992) which institutionally recognized the contribution of "indigenous and local communities" to the sustainable management of natural resources, following the book "Acting in an uncertain world" (Callon et al. 2001) which called for opening up research to a large range of knowledge to face situations of uncertainty, the broad topic of local/traditional ecological knowledge (L/TEK) has given rise to many academic works from different traditions.
In line with the institutional framework, some works emphasized the relevance of mobilizing L/TEK with the prospect of achieving norms of sustainability (including ecological and democratic dimensions). Other works critically examined the participatory turn in the environmental governance as a way for institutions to legitimize their action. Others deciphered the power relations and new identities generated by the sudden recognition of formerly ignored forms of knowledge.
Since then, the context of both the environment and environmental governance has slightly changed: climate change and biodiversity loss appear as imminent and with unexpected effects, the agenda is less and less about mitigation and more about adaptation, and L/TEK is now presented as a resource for peoples to adapt to the coming changes. This workshop aims to continue and renew these works on the political and epistemic uses of local knowledge (as opposed to scientific knowledge), with a special interest in critical contributions on adaptation and resilience, two notions that have recently become pervasive in the environmental governance discourses.
Based on a long term fieldwork in rural Latvia in 2010 and 2011 this paper provides a rich empirical reflection on the diverse approaches to environmental and developmental issues as seen by farmers, by policy makers and by anthropologists.
Paper long abstract:
The purpose of this paper is to challenge the notion of development in the context of organic farming and small holder economies in rural Latvia. The paper indicates that economic development guidelines set out to modernise peripheral EU rural areas, enhance productivity and introduce common standards for agricultural production have to deal with complex relationships embedded in local environmental knowledge and socio-cultural settings. However, more often than not the knowledge of local farmers and embeddedness of their practices are ignored by the development policy makers. Farmers' concerns for environment and biodiversity are seen as obstacles to rural development and economic efficiency. Local ecological knowledge is even perceived as backward by the policy makers.
By disclosing relationships and meanings in which local (agro)cultural economic practices are embedded in Latvian organic and small holder economies, this paper emphasizes the vital role of local ecological knowledge in planning and implementing rural development strategies. In Latvia several agro-activities (such as, for instance, bath-house services, home beer-brewing and organic farming) are not primarily guided by economic efficiency, but rather by culturally construed awareness of environmental issues, one's own identity and that of others, of certain values, of social and natural environment, of continuity, all amounting to a certain vision of a good life. But whose knowledge counts in the rural development and environmental issues after all?
Based on a long term fieldwork in rural Latvia in 2010 and 2011 this paper provides a rich empirical reflection on the diverse approaches to environmental and developmental issues as seen by farmers, by policy makers and by anthropologists.
Biocultural protocols are an important tool to set up traditional knowledge commons that enable indigenous communities to negotiat their cultural values in prospect commercial enterprises. Taditional commons can here be viewed as a means of cultural security in times of economic uncertainty.
Paper long abstract:
Cultural values are important means in the discussion around the protection of traditional knowledge. In African societies, knowledge is not manifested in a written codex, but essential part of the daily living of communities. However, in times of intellectual property debates, communities are requested to define the value of their knowledge. Biocultural protocols (BCPs) aim to enable communities to negotiate their bio-cultural values and adhere to their traditional knowledge. This is s a new process that calls for the engagement with "African identity" and values that were suppressed over centuries of colonilalization. At the same time, it may help these communities to secure their rights in times of economic uncertainty. This goes in line with new forms of governmetality that includes the environment as much as indigenous groups in political negotiation processes.
This paper discusses the development of a biocultural protocol of the Bushbuckridge Healers Association in the South African "Kruger to Canyon (K2C) Biosphere" region and the idea of a "traditional knowledge commons" and its implications for indigenous communities in (South) Africa. In discussing their "traditional knowledge commons" the healers set guidelines for future commercial enterprises and a basis for intellectual property debates. Different layers of hierachies and actual negitiation processes are involved in the set up these protocols and the definition of a "traditional knowledge commons". This paper aims to unfold the different layers and structures involved in this "local debate" in the K2C region. This region might eventually stand as a role model for future szenarios.
The paper explores the potential contributions of Mongolian herders' knowledge to studying climate change. It argues that its main contribution is a specific epistemological stance (a holistic worldview) but that the inclusion and framing of such knowledge are profoundly political processes.
Paper long abstract:
Pastoralist socio-ecological systems (SES) the world over appear to remain resilient despite the combined effects of a range of disturbances and stressors such as variable climate, marginalization and encroachment on their resources. Yet, the mechanisms and dynamics of this resilience are seldom acknowledged, let alone investigated. The present article proposes a critical evaluation of the role indigenous ecological knowledge plays in ensuring different elements of system resilience. By looking at the Mongolian system the article proposes that indigenous ways of knowing (i.e. locally relevant epistemologies) may provide insights into the main elements of system resilience: latitude, resistance, precariousness and panarchy. Whereas the knowledge employed by the Mongolian pastoralists cannot be termed exclusively indigenous (the majority are literate and exposed to formal scientific knowledge), the holistic ways by which all the elements of their body of knowledge are acquired, tested and employed are indigenous in that they reflect a specific form of interaction between people and their environments. Such interactions contribute to acquiring valuable information regarding environmental dynamics (e.g. of climate change and impacts thereof) that western science may otherwise be impervious to and what stresses and disturbances are important. At the same time it acknowledges that the way this knowledge is negotiated and transformed by what can be termed 'knowledge brokers' (e.g. elders) and the way it may be used to inform climate change studies and policies, are profoundly political.
This paper critiques adaptation discourse in the Canadian Arctic in the context of the political economy of Inuit knowledge production. It argues that a reconceptualization of both ‘adaptation’ and ‘Inuit knowledge’ are needed to account for the increasing importance of bureaucratic skill in connecting Inuit communities to needed resources.
Paper long abstract:
Inuit in the Canadian Arctic have been at the forefront of efforts to document local observations of environmental change. Inuit knowledge, or Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, holds an official role in the bureaucratic practice of the Government of Nunavut, Canada's newest and largest territory. Many arguments for the importance of Inuit knowledge in research and decision-making focus on its epistemic strength in identifying and supporting local level adaptive response. This paper situates the production of Inuit knowledge of environmental change in the larger political economy of knowledge production in the contemporary Canadian Arctic. Transmission and documentation of land-based knowledge is increasingly dependent on institutional support and funding. The emphasis on Inuit knowledge in the context of adaptation obscures the daily practices of Inuit involved in government and community-based organizations. At the same time, Inuit workers in these institutions affirm the significance of land-based knowledge as a fundamental value that animates their bureaucratic work. I argue that a reconceptualization of both 'adaptation' and 'Inuit knowledge' beyond land-based knowledge and skill is needed to account for the increasing importance of bureaucratic practices in connecting Inuit communities to needed resources. At the same time, the value of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit for Inuit is more than epistemic or political; it serves as an affirming and life-orienting ideal. My critique therefore aims to unsettle adaptation discourses in the context of Inuit knowledge production while upholding a role for Inuit knowledge in contributing to both local and global understandings of change.
Contextual local knowledge and decontextualized knowledge from biophysical modeling both have valid claims as contributors to climate adaptation. However, their divergent problem frames generate radically different forms of knowledge, which serve different interests and have strong implications on how adaptation is pursued at the policy level.
Paper long abstract:
While adaptation has become a contemporary buzzword in relation to climate change, it has a long history in anthropological research. The evolution of human cultural practices and knowledge over the millennia is a process through which integrated and dynamic systems of ecologically-embedded technologies, social organizations and ideologies developed. In short, not only has deeply contextual "local knowledge" always been a resource for adaptation, it could be argued that it is the core dimension of adaptation as cultural process. However, the rising recognition of the value and validity of local knowledge, and the "participatory turn" in research and development fields, has been paralleled by the rise of biophysical modeling technologies, which generate environmental knowledge that is highly abstracted and decontextualized, providing a "God's-eye view" on the environment. Being the main medium through which climate change is understood, modeling now stands as central reference points in guiding adaptation to it, usually framed in terms of its ability to "inform policymakers".
These two approaches to understanding climate adaptation - one based on culturally and ecologically contextualized practices and processes, the other based on, decontextualized abstractions - now both vie for influence in the climate change adaptation policy arena. The two approaches to adaptation frame the problem in fundamentally different ways which influence the nature of the knowledge and recommendations they generate. While there is potential for complementarily, substantial gaps remain between approaching adaptation as an organic and diffuse cultural process and approaching it as a process that is centrally planned and managed.
has 1 download
1