Diapositiva 1

1
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)
2
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). Organizati
onal 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
3
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.
4
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

5
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.

6
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)
7
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.

8
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

9
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
10
Results of Literature Review
Some General Findings TEK erosion as a
consequence of cultural modernization is a
recurrent and widespread trend but not universal
and therefore not inevitable
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

• 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

11
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
12
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

1. age 8. distance to city/forest
2. gender 9. wealth
3. education 10. market participation
4. language fluency 11. years living in place
5. occupation 12. availability of modern goods services
6. religion 13. activity experience
7. community 14. intercultural contact
13
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 persons 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

14
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
15
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.
16
Types of TEK studied from quantitative perspective

• 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

• 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

17
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)
Theoretical In Practice Transmission
Plants names, taxonomic clasif., uses, interspecific relationships Resource procurement activities agriculture, livestock raising, hunting, fishing, collection Practices that imply knowledge transmission
Animals names, taxonomic clasif., uses, interspecific relationships Resource processing food/medicine preparation Social channels of knowledge transmission
Bio. communities names, characteristics Ethnomedicine diagnosis, curing, prevention Time allocation
Soils names, taxonomic clasif., uses, indicator species Traditional technology (basketry, textiles, ceramics, dyes, tools, etc.)
Climate seasons, indicators Housing and other construction
Ethnogeography toponymy, location, significance Religious participation rites, myths, dancing, etc.
18
Steps to Developing the TEKVI

• 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