Integrating traditional and scientific knowledge(s) for an equitable and use of natural Titulo resource Kleiche-Dray, Mina - Autor/a; Autor(es) En: . ( ). : En: Lugar Institut de Recherche Pour le Développement Editorial/Editor 2012 Fecha Colección Sociology of science; Natural resources; Environmental governance; Scientific Temas knowledge; Traditional Knowledge; Knowledge production; Anthropology; Agriculture; Health; América Latina; Doc. de trabajo / Informes Tipo de documento "http://biblioteca.clacso.org.ar/clacso/engov/20130828063928/ENGOV_AFR_WP5_IRD.pdf" URL Reconocimiento-No Comercial-Sin Derivadas CC BY-NC-ND Licencia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.es Segui buscando en la Red de Bibliotecas Virtuales de CLACSO http://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO) Conselho Latino-americano de Ciências Sociais (CLACSO) Latin American Council of Social Sciences (CLACSO) www.clacso.edu.ar Integrating traditional and scientific knowledge(s) for an equitable and sustainable use of Natural Resources Analytical Framework Report D.5.1 Deliverable 5.1 – Analytical Framework Report Project Nº: 266710 Funding Scheme: Collaborative Project Objective: FP7-SSH-2010-3 Status: Final version, 2012-01-29 Due date of delivery: 29/01/2012 Work Package: WP 5 – Building and Exchanging knowledge(s) on Natural Resources Leading Author: Mina KLEICHE-DRAY Co-author(s): Text written by M. Kleiche-Dray (coordinator) taking in account observations and case studies proposed by WP5’s research team : IRD members (Roland Waast, Etienne Gérard, Esther Katz, Isabel Georges), IRD post-doc, Fréderique Jankowski, IRD Partners in LAC countries (Elena Lazos, UNAM, México; Antonio Arrellano, UAEM, Mexico; Claudia Lopez, Museu Goldi, Brazil; Pablo Kremeir, CONICET, Argentina); IRD Partners in France (Jean Foyer, CNRS; David Dumoulin, IHEAL, Paris 3; Julien Blanc, MHN) PHD students (Yoscelina Hernandez Garcia, DCTS, Cinvestav, Mexico; Carolina Guzman, DCTS, Cinvestav, Mexico). FP7 –SSH – 2010 – 3 GA 266710 Integrating traditional and scientific knowledge(s) for an equitable and sustainable use of Natural Resources Analytical Framework Report D.5.1 Table of Contents 1. Introduction: Contribution of knowledge(s) to the environmental governance’s issue. .................... 5 2. State of the Art. ................................................................................................................................... 7 3. Beyond the State of the Art: Research gaps. ...................................................................................... 8 4. WP5’s contributions: To study knowledge (s) on natural resources needs establishing bridges between the disciplines ........................................................................................................................... 9 5. Methodology : following transformation chain of knowledge(s) based on case studies, survey, bibliometric analysis. ............................................................................................................................. 10 6.Outcomes: To identify the links between knowledge(s) on natural resources. ................................ 13 7. Case studies, surveys and bibliometrics analysis .............................................................................. 14 7.1. Dynamic processes in the use of Natural Resources in therapeutic and food systems by indigenous and mestizo communities in Mexico and Brazil ............................................................. 15 7.1.1. Case study I: Ethnopharmacopeia of "Malinalco Orchards" ( Huertas de Malinalco ) ......... 17 7.1.2. Case study II: Natural resources in agriculture, cooking and diet, in indigenous and mestizo population of Brazil and Mexico: Challenges facing development plans. ..................................... 18 7.2. Natural resources as scientific objects: production of knowledge and socio-political legitimation in Argentina and Mexico. .............................................................................................. 18 7.2.1 Case study III: focus on some disciplines and some natural resources ................................ 19 7.2.2. Case study IV: Bibiometric analysis. .................................................................................... 19 7.3. Circulation of knowledge in merchandising and processing natural resources ......................... 21 2 FP7 –SSH – 2010 – 3 GA 266710 7.3.1. Case study V: The Promac as a program of Payments for Environmental Services? .......... 21 7.3.2. Case study VI: Interactional and communicative practices of scientists and farmers in agronomic participatory research: The Cata in Mexico. ............................................................... 22 7.3.3. Case study VII: Actors, plants and natural substances: report, meaning and projections of bioprospecting activities in Mexico. .............................................................................................. 22 7.3.4. Case study VIII: Organic Farming and family farmers: new networks, new values and rules in the peripheral area of Sao Paulo. .............................................................................................. 23 8. Final words ........................................................................................................................................ 24 9. Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................... 25 3 FP7 –SSH – 2010 – 3 GA 266710 4 FP7 –SSH – 2010 – 3 GA 266710 1. Introduction: Contribution of knowledge(s) to the environmental governance’s issue. Current debates on environmental governance emphasize the need for building new knowledge, in order to better address complex socio-ecological processes. In this context, countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) are among those being most directly affected by these changes due to their biological and cultural diversity. 20 years ago, the inclusion of traditional knowledge(s) 1 in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) opened to them the possibility of integration into the building of environmental governance , what would allow an equitable) and sustainable use of natural resources. The CBD recognizes, particularly in its famous article 8.J, the respect for “ indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation” but also the need to “encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge innovations and practices” . In LAC there are hotspot countries (home to over 50% of the biological resources of the planet) that have implemented strategies (regional forums, decisions and directives, national and regional laws) to mobilize with respect to negotiations on the CBD. In this countries societies, debates (on topics such as sovereignty of biodiversity, access to natural resources and traditional knowledge(s), intellectual property rights on innovations based on natural resources, the right to development for traditional communities and indigenous peoples , and researchers’ right to freely conduct their research on biological material for the benefit of humanity) are then identified as important issues that become subject to public policies (Aubertin et al., 2005). In this context, all the different branches of academic science with an interest in natural resources (botanists, pharmacologists, anthropologists, biologists and chemists in particular), knowledge(s) and know-how of traditional communities had to reconsider, in recent years, their relationships with those knowledge(s) and their representation of those knowledge(s), which cannot only be seen from a disciplinary point of view. “Traditional” and “scientific” knowledge(s) on nature are then at the centre of this debate, as well as how they can be integrated (Freire, 1998; Ellen and al. 2000; Berkes and al., 2008) in order to allow policy makers to incorporate all skills and learning (by integrating 1 One of the main objects of our WP5 consists precisely in discussing all the words in italics to historicize and finally define them. 5 FP7 –SSH – 2010 – 3 GA 266710 traditional knowledge(s) with scientific knowledge(s)) and bond all those interests in order to reach an equitable and sustainable use of natural resources. Marginalized or excluded in the past and sometimes disused today (or to the contrary, appropriated and valued), “ traditional knowledge(s)” about nature have influenced “development” policies. They have also had an impact on the new configuration of knowledge on nature (as our biophysical environment) and on the social relations that “knowledge holders” ( scientific and traditional actors) maintain. Thus the debates about “good governance” toward the equitable and sustainable use of natural resources challenged the construction – and the history- of knowledge in the twentieth century (Lemos and Agrawal, 2006). The integration of knowledge(s) on natural resources involves the exchange and internalization of different sources of information, lore and experiments embedded in different cultures, values and institutions of both scientific and traditional actors. This drew attention to different “épistémès” (Foucault, 1969), “views of nature” (Levi-Strauss, 1962; Descola, 2005) , “Champs", “Habitus” (Bourdieu, 2001), or “cognitive / organizational blocks” (Shinn & Marcovich, 2009; Waast & Shinn, 2010), on how these actors produce different “knowledge(s)”,