using multiple knowledge systems: benefits and challenges - unep

Chapter 5

Using Multiple Knowledge Systems: Benefits andChallenges

Coordinating Lead Authors:* Polly Ericksen, Ellen WoodleyContributing Authors: Georgina Cundill, Walter V. Reid, Luıs Vicente, Ciara Raudsepp-Hearne, Jane Mogina,

Per OlssonReview Editors: Fikret Berkes, Mario Giampietro, Thomas Wilbanks, Xu Jianchu

Main Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

5.2 Knowledge Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

5.3 Benefits of Using Multiple Knowledge Systems in an Assessment . . . 935.3.1 Information Benefits5.3.2 Participation as a Means to Empowerment for Local Resource Users5.3.3 Use and Application of Findings

5.4 Design and Process for Incorporating Multiple KnowledgeSystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025.4.1 MA Design: Guidelines for the Use of Multiple Knowledge Systems in

Sub-global Assessments5.4.2 The MA Process: Incorporating Multiple Knowledge Systems5.4.3 The Influence of Different Knowledge Systems5.4.4 The Utility of the MA Conceptual Framework for the Assessments5.4.5 Knowledge Systems, Institutions, and Scale

5.5 Lessons Learned: Incorporating Multiple Knowledge Systems inFuture Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

*When citing this article, please list both authors’ names, as they sharelead authorship.

PAGE 85

85

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:20 PS

86 Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Sub-global

BOXES

5.1 Ethical Protocol for the Use of Local and TraditionalKnowledge in Assessments

5.2 State–Local Interactions and Their Impact on theTransmission and Validity of Local Knowledge: South Africa

5.3 Adaptation of Traditional Ecological Knowledge for ResourceManagement: Bajo Chirripo

5.4 Constructing a Conceptual Framework for QuechuaCommunities: Vilcanota

5.5 Complexity in Scenario Development: Wisconsin

PAGE 86

TABLES5.1 Local and Traditional Knowledge (LK) Use by Selected Sub-

global Assessments

5.2 Participants and Their Roles in Selected Sub-globalAssessments

5.3 Methods Used to Incorporate Multiple Knowledge Systems inSelected Sub-global Assessments

5.4 Contributions of Various Knowledge Systems to SelectedSub-global Assessments

5.5 Institutions, Scale, and Knowledge Systems in Selected Sub-global Assessments

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:20 PS

87Using Multiple Knowledge Systems: Benefits and Challenges

Main Messages

The MA sub-global assessments were structured to encourage the useof multiple knowledge systems across scales, including the disciplinesof scientific knowledge, practitioner (or assessment user) knowledge,and local/traditional knowledge. The multidisciplinary framework and as-sessment teams enabled the contribution of different facets of scientific knowl-edge; multistakeholder teams facilitated the sharing of practitioner knowledge;and the involvement of local resource users allowed for sharing local andtraditional knowledge in several cases. There was more information, and thusanalysis, from the assessments on the use of local and traditional knowledgethan there was on multidisciplinary or practitioner knowledge.

Practitioner knowledge, the diverse knowledge of multiple stakeholders,contributed more in terms of information needs and expectations than interms of ecosystem management knowledge. Few assessments had sig-nificant analysis of the contribution of practitioner knowledge to the assess-ment. However, the Sweden KW assessment was structured so thatpractitioner knowledge was fully integrated within the assessment process. Inthe Tropical Forest Margins assessment, practitioners became more integratedover time as there were intensive efforts to encourage stakeholder participa-tion. Most other assessments encountered problems in utilizing practitionerknowledge, in many cases because practitioners were viewed as users of theassessment results instead of knowledge holders in their own right. Engage-ment of assessment users and other practitioners as knowledge holders re-quires more attention to how knowledge is used in policy, decision-making,nongovernmental organizations, and bureaucratic practice.

Local and traditional ecological knowledge added significant insightabout locally important resources and management practices, revealinginformation and understanding that is not reflected in the global assess-ments. This included information about: names and uses of locally importantplant species and practices to protect them (for example, India Local andSinai), local drivers of change (SAfMA Livelihoods), specialized soil and waterconservation practices (India Local), and coping strategies to protect humanwell-being (Sinai, SAfMA Livelihoods, Sweden KW). Local resource users alsocontributed valuable long-term perspectives about their social-ecological sys-tems (Bajo Chirripo, Vilcanota), as well as information on key ecosystem proc-esses that are important, uncertain, and difficult to control (Wisconsin).

The extent to which local and traditional ecological knowledge contrib-uted to the assessments varied, due to local circumstances, the predis-position and expertise of the assessment team, and the resourcesallocated to understanding and using local knowledge. Local knowledge isboth complex and inherently contextual, and a rigorous and comprehensiveinvestigation and interpretation of local knowledge is needed to fully under-stand it in its own right. Collaborative relationships, such as those developedin Vilcanota, Peru, and Bajo Chirripo, Costa Rica, as well as participatory toolsthat broaden the level of enquiry, often result in the emergence of key issuesof local importance. For example, in the Bajo Chirripo assessment, local parti-cipants found that much existing traditional knowledge about natural resourcemanagement strategies was being forgotten, so the assessment emphasizedlearning more about and reviving these management strategies instead of in-troducing new ones.

Sub-global assessments had to weigh the trade-offs involved in achiev-ing tangible results versus working through the transaction costs ofbuilding a partnership consisting of different knowledge holders. Multidis-ciplinary and multistakeholder research involves considerable transactioncosts. Working with local and traditional knowledge holders also requires timeto build trust and equitable relationships. Recent work has shown that thesecosts are likely to decrease as social learning occurs and solid working rela-

PAGE 87

tionships are established. In the Sweden KW assessment, transaction costswere low at the start of the assessment because of long-standing networksalready in place.

The MA assumed that participation would empower local resource usersin two ways: (1) through increased local ownership of the assessmentprocess and results, and (2) through scientific validation of local knowl-edge, which would in turn encourage policy-makers to recognize andutilize it. However, as local participation varied from fully collaborative toextractive, so too did the potential for empowerment. At one end of thespectrum was the Vilcanota assessment, in which local resource users de-signed and directed the assessment process. At the other end was WesternChina, in which any local knowledge that was used was inserted into a scien-tific, state-imposed framework, making it difficult for the assessment to realizethe full potential of local and traditional knowledge.

The sharing of knowledge across scales in the sub-global assessmentsdid not occur to the extent hoped for by the MA. This was partially due tomethodological issues such as uneven emphasis on different knowledge sys-tems and problems with validation. The MA had developed procedural guide-lines for validation of local and traditional knowledge at the local level, but thesub-global assessments often lacked adequate processes of validation for theuse of local knowledge at higher levels. Mediating institutions or boundaryorganizations are usually necessary for this, and these were not present for anumber of the assessments.

There is evidence that including multiple knowledge systems increasedthe relevance, credibility, and legitimacy of the assessment results. Forexample, in Bajo Chirripo, the involvement of nonscientists added legitimacyand relevance to assessment results for a number of potential assessmentusers at the local level. However, in many sub-global assessments, local re-source users were not decision-makers, so the question of legitimacy becameirrelevant in cases where they did not have the opportunity to use the assess-ment results.

Some sub-global assessments confirmed that local institutions have arole in conferring greater power to local knowledge holders in cross-scale decision-making. For example, in India Local and in Sweden KW, delib-erate efforts were made to embed the assessment within existing institutionsthat link local knowledge to higher-level decision-making processes. However,in the SAfMA Livelihoods assessment, the local institutions helped to maintainknowledge but were too weak to enable local knowledge to be used in higher-level decision-making. The Vilcanota and Bajo Chirripo assessments attemptedto create space to begin a dialogue between local communities and higher-scale decision-makers. The success of these efforts can only be evaluatedwith more time.

5.1 IntroductionThis chapter assesses the experiences of the MA sub-globalassessments in using multiple knowledge systems to exam-ine the relationship between ecosystem services and humanwell-being. The chapter also reflects on the benefits andchallenges of involving multiple knowledge systems in con-ducting such assessments. The intellectual and practical basisfor linking multiple knowledge systems is well established,as are the difficulties of making these links in practice (Agra-wal 2002; Nadasny 1999).

Recently, the incorporation of multiple knowledge sys-tems into integrated assessments of environmental and socialstatus has been established as critical (Pahl-Wostl 2003;

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:21 PS


Lawrence and Elphick 2002). The MA was concerned withincluding multiple knowledge systems in the sub-global as-sessments for several key reasons (MA 2003).• Linking human well-being to ecosystem services implies

that the perspectives of and information from local (usu-ally interpreted to mean community or village level) res-idents and users of the ecosystem are important tounderstand. Local people have particular knowledgeabout the ecosystems that they live and work within,as well as their own associated well-being, that othersdo not.

• Ideally, an assessment at any given scale should meet theneeds of resource users and managers at that scale, whoshould be involved in defining the issues of concern.Thus local level management depends on the voices oflocal people, which are all too often not heard, or elseare ignored or misunderstood.

• The use of multidisciplinary and multistakeholder per-spectives is important in order to understand the linksbetween ecosystem services and human well-being; anassessment is usually enhanced when informed by a vari-ety of research, scientific, or other perspectives. Just aspeople from different locations speak a different lan-guage and express their ideas differently, so do scientiststrained in different disciplines and people working indifferent organizations (NGOs, development agencies,etc).

• The gap between research and policy is often recognizedbut rarely solved; exploring the differences in framing,representing, and legitimating knowledge among scien-tific researchers and policy/decision-makers will help toclose this gap.

• The process of rigorous documentation and use of localand traditional ecological knowledge is often seen asempowering local resource users, as it can link them todecision-making at higher scales and possibly catalyzedecision-making capacity at the local level. However,novel institutional arrangements are often necessary forthis to occur.Along these lines, the MA adopted several principles to

guide the inclusion of multiple types of knowledge in thesub-global assessments (MA 2003):• A good assessment must be scientifically credible, politi-

cally legitimate, and respond to the needs of decision-makers (useful). The MA attempted to strengthen theapproaches of earlier assessments by investigating thelinks between ecosystem condition and human well-being at multiple scales, and according to the needs of abroad group of ‘‘users.’’ ‘‘Users’’ refers to those in adecision-making capacity who will use the results of theassessment (in contrast to ‘‘resource users,’’ which is de-fined as those who use local ecosystem resources). Forassessment findings to be credible to decision-makers atother scales, the conventional definition of scientificcredibility needs to be broadened so as not to excludelocal knowledge, which is often not easy to validate inscientific terms but is subject to local methods of valida-tion. The multiscale approach requires linking multiple

PAGE 88

knowledge systems, and credibility must be establishedin different ways.

• The MA explicitly valued local-level knowledge andrecognized that local and traditional ecological knowl-edge provides information that is often not documentedby science (used here to mean western science, modernscience, formal science, or conventional science, ratherthan indigenous science). The MA was also designed tobe policy-relevant. The MA sub-global assessments op-erated on the premise that assessments should be con-ducted at the level where decisions are made. Forexample, an assessment conducted at the national levelmay or may not be as useful to local people as an assess-ment conducted at the local level. The unique contribu-tion of the multiscale framework is that it enables theuse of multiple knowledge systems, including knowl-edge held by resource users, practitioners, decision-makers, and researchers.

• The MA aimed to empower local resource users,through the assessment process itself, by linking local andtraditional ecological knowledge to decision-making athigher levels.

• By establishing a multiscale process with assessmentsconducted at the sub-global level, the MA conceptualframework promoted cross-scale knowledge sharing.Researchers have promoted the need for cross-scale in-teractions, or dialogue, between knowledge systems, inorder to foster appropriate management for social–ecological systems (Cash and Moser 2000; Berkes 2002;Young 2002). This view recognizes that knowledge isembedded in institutions, which are located at particularsocial, political, and economic scales, because of howsocieties are structured.The MA faced two main challenges when using multiple

knowledge systems (Reid 2004):• Who establishes what appropriate ‘‘validation’’ of infor-

mation is?• Can a scientific assessment like the MA ever be seen as

‘‘legitimate, credible, or useful’’ to indigenous commu-nities or other individuals who hold different world-views and use different standards for evaluating theutility of information?Conversely, these questions may be asked: How can it

be ensured that a scientific assessment that utilizes local andtraditional ecological knowledge will be seen as crediblewithin the scientific community? Can an assessment thatcaters to the needs of multiple users be truly legitimate toany user? The MA took steps to ensure broad legitimacy;this chapter examines the process of bringing together mul-tiple knowledge systems within the MA sub-global assess-ments.

In recognition of these challenges, the MA organized aninternational conference in March 2004 on ‘‘BridgingScales and Epistemologies: Linking Local Knowledge andGlobal Science in Multiscale Assessments’’ in Alexandria,Egypt. The conference provided a forum for much theoret-ical debate on the issues, and an opportunity for sub-globalassessments to present how they dealt with using multipleknowledge systems. The conference included indigenous

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:22 PS


groups’ and local resource users’ discussions of how theyfelt their specific cultural-based knowledge could be usedtogether with science.

In general, the sub-global assessments used many differ-ent approaches to resolve the challenges of using multipleknowledge systems. This was, especially at the sub-globallevel, an experiment. This chapter explores the successesand difficulties faced in conducting this experiment. Thechapter first summarizes conceptual issues surrounding thedefinition of knowledge. This is followed by a discussionof the benefits of using multiple knowledge systems in anassessment, drawing on the experiences of the sub-globalassessments. The next section examines the design andprocesses used for incorporating multiple knowledge sys-tems, and the final section highlights lessons learned.

Of the 34 sub-global assessments, 25 used either local ortraditional knowledge. The examples used in this chapterare illustrative, pointing to trends among the sub-global as-sessments rather than quantified results. The tables, for ex-ample, highlight particular issues rather than summarize allthe sub-global assessment results. The chapter presents in-formation on the assessment process up to the end of Octo-ber 2004.

5.2 Knowledge SystemsIn order to understand why it is so difficult to ‘‘link’’ orto ‘‘use’’ different knowledge systems together for problemsolving, some discussion of what underpins different kindsof knowledge is necessary. A knowledge system is defined,for the purposes of the analysis in this chapter, as a body ofpropositions actually adhered to, whether formal or other-wise, which are routinely used to claim truth (Feyerabend1987). Knowledge is a construction of a group’s perceivedreality, which the group members use to guide behaviortoward each other and the world around them. Knowledgesystems have a social context and, in many settings, envi-ronmental knowledge is important to a group’s identity(Milton 1996). Understanding knowledge as a ‘‘context-dependent process of knowing’’ requires an investigationand analysis of prevailing social norms, values, belief sys-tems, institutions, and ecological conditions that providethe basis of a ‘‘place’’ where knowledge is applied (Woodley2005). Knowledge may also be understood as a process of‘‘engagement’’ (Ingold 2000), where through their actionspeople come to understand the world and what it affordsthem.

Working definitions in this chapter accept the premisethat all knowledge is situated and partial. One knowledgesystem is never treated nor understood as inherently supe-rior to another, nor is there a hierarchy in terms of the va-lidity of different knowledge systems. These premisesprovide a consistent way to look at highly diverse knowl-edge systems, in order to understand the reasons that peoplehave different yet equally valid explanations for what theyobserve in the world around them. Our exploration ofknowledge systems includes an examination of publishedscience, gray literature, user needs and understandings, andthe knowledge of local resource users. The definitionsbelow form the basis for discussion on how knowledge sys-

PAGE 89

tems may differ and how a plurality of knowledge systemsin an assessment may provide a firmer foundation for un-derstanding the linkages between ecosystem services andhuman well-being. The definitions provide a simple plat-form for discussion of the MA sub-global assessments; theyare not meant to provide definitive or prescriptive defini-tions.

Science can be defined as systematized knowledge thatcan be replicated and is validated through a process of aca-demic peer review by an established community of recog-nized experts in formal research institutions. Scientists use aseries of logical and empirical methods of systematic obser-vation in order to understand the world. The scientificmethod includes making empirical observations, proposinghypotheses to explain those observations, and testing thosehypotheses in consistent ways. In essence, scientific meth-ods are impersonal and any one scientist should be able toduplicate what another scientist has done. The validationof experimental results, hypothesis confirmation, and theacceptance of theories by the broader scientific community,through a process of peer review, are viewed as criticallyimportant to the maintenance of scientific standards and thequality of research.

Science strives to be objective. However, many philoso-phers of science argue that all systems of knowledge haveembedded assumptions that are socially derived. ‘‘Objectiv-ity is closely bound up with the social aspect of the scientificmethod, with the fact that science and scientific objectivitydo not result from the attempts of individual scientists to be‘objective,’ but from the cooperation of many scientists’’(Popper 1950).

Social science disciplines are distinguished from bio-physical sciences by the way that problems are articulated,the type of evidence that is used to establish truth or facts,and the way that facts are transmitted, tested, and verified(see, for example, Bryman 2004). Paradigm is a term usedto refer to a worldview or conceptual model to which acommunity of experts within a particular discipline mayagree. Adherents to a particular paradigm or discipline orga-nize and interpret observations of the world around themvia the constructed knowledge system important to theirparticular community. All disciplines, whether within thebiophysical or social sciences, have their own standards andrules.

Interdisciplinary research projects or assessment proc-esses have to overcome the barriers to understanding thatarise when knowledge derived from different processes isexchanged. These barriers may take the form of dismissingthe arguments of an unfamiliar discipline, questioning thevalidity of data analysis, or, more simply, finding it too dif-ficult to work within a foreign construct/worldview be-cause the logic does not make sense (for example, Scoones1999). Heemskerk et al. (2003) used an innovative approachto bridge disciplines by working in a group in order to pro-duce conceptual models of human ecosystems. These mod-els built on conventions previously established by bothecologists and anthropologists. Through the process ofbuilding a model together, the assumptions of each disci-

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:22 PS


pline, as well as the points of agreement and disagreementwere identified, revealed, and discussed.

According to Abel and Stepp (2003), ecologists and eco-systems managers recognize at least two important roles forsocial scientists in interdisciplinary teams. One is as ‘‘facilita-tors’’ who can explain culture and social resistance and maypermit the easier implementation of environmental policy(Groffman and Pace 1998, cited by Abel and Stepp 2003).Another role is as ‘‘interpreters’’ of traditional ecologicalknowledge that may provide the basis for sustainable eco-system management and appropriate institutions (McCayand Acheson 1987; Berkes and Folke 1998, cited by Abeland Stepp). Both of these roles are invaluable for what manynow agree constitutes sound ecosystem management.

A growing body of research suggests that the study ofcomplex social-ecological systems requires changes in thescientific approach, criteria for truth and quality, and con-ceptual frameworks. Properties of complex systems includenon-linearity, plurality of perspectives, multiplicity of scales,and irreducible uncertainty (Gallopin et al. 2001). ‘‘Post-normal’’ science, of which the study of complex systems isa part, involves an examination of human uses and impacts,and issues of value, equity, and social justice (Funtowicz andRavetz 1993). Hence, post normal science acknowledgesuncertainty and lack of predictability as well as a necessarydegree of subjectivity in scientific research. Methods associ-ated with post normal science call for participatory ap-proaches in which scientists work with local people orpractitioners to close the gap between local/traditional andmore formal scientific perspectives and to embrace valuesand a plurality of perspectives. Much of ‘‘normal’’ scientificpractice, it is argued, is limited in its ability to handle theseelements. Integrated assessments, as the sub-global assess-ments were designed to be, must deal with complex issues.Wilbanks (personal communication) says that these assess-ments require a ‘‘sort of softer version of the scientificmethod: rooted in evidence, analytical approaches, peer re-views, etc., [but also able to accommodate] such things asthe treatment of uncertainties, an assurance of balanceamong stakeholder views, and the possibility of getting theanswer wrong.’’

Indigenous knowledge is defined as the local knowledgeheld by indigenous peoples or local knowledge unique to agiven culture or society (Warren et al. 1995). In this chap-ter, the term indigenous knowledge is used only when thesub-global assessments themselves refer specifically to theknowledge held by people who identify themselves as in-digenous (for example, Bajo Chirripo and PNG).

Traditional ecological knowledge is a ‘‘cumulative body ofknowledge, practice and beliefs, evolving by adaptive proc-esses (i.e., innovation and feed-back learning) and handeddown through generations by cultural transmission’’ aboutlocal ecology (Berkes 1999, p. 8). Traditional ecologicalknowledge may or may not be indigenous, but has rootsfirmly in the past. The Four Directions Council of Canada(1996, cited in Oviedo et al. 2000) explains: ‘‘what is ‘tradi-tional’ about traditional knowledge is not its antiquity, butthe way it is acquired and used—the social process of learn-ing and sharing knowledge. This knowledge has a social

PAGE 90

meaning . . . and varies according to age, gender and othervariables.’’ Traditional knowledge explicitly includes peo-ple, feelings, relationships, and sacredness (Moller et al.2004).

Local knowledge is the term of choice for some scholarsin referring to place-based experiential knowledge. In thischapter, the term local knowledge is used to express knowl-edge that is largely oral and practice-based in contrast toknowledge that is acquired by formal education or book-learning. Local and traditional ecological knowledge isoften relational, in that human qualities are attributed toaspects of the biophysical environment. This belief oftenengenders a respect for elements in the environment thatinfluence, for example, the timing and the method bywhich resources are extracted. For example, the harvestingmethods and the timing of harvest for yellow cedar andother tree bark in the American Pacific Northwest ensuresthat the trees stay alive after harvest (Turner 2004).

This chapter uses the term ‘‘local and traditional knowl-edge’’ to describe the full range of knowledge that is en-compassed in both definitions. Such knowledge mayinvolve a ‘‘worldview’’ that is different from that of scien-tists and government decision-makers. On the other hand,local and traditional knowledge may, in some cases, incor-porate elements of scientific knowledge and vice versa.Clear delimitations of kinds of knowledge are difficult, ifnot impossible (Agrawal 1995). For example, the PNG as-sessment found that traditional ecological knowledge is notimmune to outside influences, since most coastal communi-ties in Papua New Guinea have been exposed to westernschooling and Christian teachings for several generations.

Though a community is considered to hold a certainbody of knowledge collectively, information is not distrib-uted evenly, so there is almost always a differentiation ofknowledge within a community (Berkes 1999). Certain in-dividuals may be considered the local experts on variousparts of the community territory or in various subject areas.Knowledge may be differentiated according to age, status inthe community, or specialization. Another critically impor-tant aspect of knowledge differentiation is gender. It is wellknown that women’s knowledge can be significantly differ-ent from men’s knowledge in some areas (Rocheleau et al.1996). The important implication for research, and specifi-cally for sub-global assessments, is that for the assessment tobe valid and legitimate, the study design needs to take intoaccount the issue of knowledge differentiation.

Another group of knowledge holders (and users) criticalto the MA are practitioners, which includes resource manag-ers, government bureaucrats, decision-makers, and person-nel in NGOs, development agencies, and civil societygroups. In most sub-global assessments, these are referred toas the assessment users. Although the integration of prac-titioners’ knowledge into research is relatively unstudied,some attention has been paid to the need to understandhow practitioners use knowledge for their purposes,whether implementing a development project, making apolicy decision, managing a resource, interpreting and im-plementing a national policy at the local scale, etc. A recentseries of studies commissioned by the Overseas Develop-

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:23 PS


ment Institute and the Global Development Networkthrough the Bridging Research and Policy Project reacheda number of conclusions relevant to the MA work:• ‘‘Knowledge utilization appears to be almost completely

context-dependent,’’ so any researchers wishing to in-fluence the policy process would do well to understandthe particularities of it (Stone et al. 2001). This contextincludes the dominant policy narratives, that is, the pre-vailing wisdom the policy community uses to make pol-icy decisions.

• The policy process is best understood as an interplayamong political interests, competing discourses, and theagency of multiple actors (Crewe and Young 2002).

• Researchers wishing to successfully engage with the pol-icy process must consider three factors: context, the typeof evidence, and the linkages in place. The second fac-tor, type of evidence, is directly relevant to this chapter,as it pertains to both the quality of the research and thecommunication and dissemination of research findingsto policy-makers. The linkages between research andpolicy are also relevant in that the legitimacy of the re-search institution will influence acceptance or utilizationof the research in policy-making (Crewe and Young2002).Guston (1999) proposed the concept of boundary organi-

zations, which are institutions that straddle and mediate thedivide between science and policy. Boundary organizationsare an alternative to the standard model of the transfer anduse of scientific information. Within a boundary organiza-tion, ‘‘decision-makers are involved in the creation andmaintenance of the relationship with scientists, the science-policy boundary, and the scientific and technical outputs’’(Cash and Moser 2000). The flow of information is multi-directional. Cash and Moser (2000) have also proposed thatboundary organizations are useful in multiscale or inte-grated assessments to bridge various types of knowledge.

The use of these premises illustrating the different kindsof knowledge that may come into play in an assessmentraises several issues for discussion. First, involvement oflocal people and use of local and traditional ecologicalknowledge in ecosystem assessments such as the MA is im-portant for several reasons: it promotes participatory proc-esses, it enables the creation or unveiling of new knowledgeto share across scales, it enables the optimal use of existingknowledge, it aids in the development of indicators ofchange and resilience to monitor ecosystem dynamics, andit aids in the transformation of existing institutions towardecosystem management (Gadgil et al. 2003). However, par-ticipation alone does not automatically result in multiplebenefits for all involved. Allocation of financial, informa-tion and decision-making resources so that local resourceusers have the means to make decisions about access to anduse of ecosystem resources is also important (Davidson-Hunt, personal communication). Local and traditional eco-logical knowledge systems not only provide recognizedinsights for the qualitative management of resources andecosystems; some also display several parallels to adaptivemanagement (Berkes et al. 2000; Alcorn et al. 2003). Adap-tive management is designed to improve on a trial and error

PAGE 91

basis, an attribute inherent in the social learning process,where learning occurs at the level of society, not of theindividual (Olsson et al. 2004). Berkes et al. (2000) suggestthat some traditional ecological knowledge can be describedas adaptive because it acknowledges that environmentalconditions will always change; it also assumes that naturecannot be controlled and that yields, for example, cannotbe predicted.

Second, there is a critical need for well trained, culturallysensitive, interdisciplinary teams who follow an ethical pro-tocol in assessing human–ecosystem interactions, especiallywhen local and traditional ecological knowledge is beingused. Expertise in interpreting and working with local andtraditional knowledge holders is essential when ecologistsare asking questions that may be different from questionsasked by local resource users. Anthropologists and othershave been researching, documenting, and theorizing on theuse of local, traditional, and indigenous knowledge forsome time, and the importance of this knowledge in re-source management has been discussed in the literature atleast since the work of Julian Steward in the 1950s, evolvingto the well-recognized field of ecological anthropology,which emerged during the 1960s and 1970s (Steward 1955;Davidson-Hunt and Berkes et al. 2003). Over the last 25years, the use of local knowledge has become mainstreamed,beginning with the work of D. M. Warren, who made thetopic his life’s work, and with the publication of IndigenousKnowledge Systems and Development (Brokensha et al. 1980).It is important that respect and an ethical protocol are inplace when local and traditional knowledge is used in assess-ments. (See Box 5.1.)

The use of local knowledge by ecological scientists ismore recent and the tensions are apparent, both in the MAdocuments and in the literature (for example, Brosius 2004;Agrawal 2002). There has been a tendency among scientificresearchers, as well as among people from outside a givencommunity, not to concern themselves with abstract ques-tions of epistemology or with the nuances of various tech-niques for gathering information about local and traditionalknowledge (Nadasny 1999). This undermines any attemptto bridge local/traditional knowledge with scientificknowledge, and it often places local and traditional knowl-edge within a scientific framework, granting epistemologi-cal privilege to the latter. To move away from the tendencyto use local and traditional ecological knowledge onlywithin a scientific framework, steps were taken within somesub-global assessments to ensure that indigenous epistemol-ogies and collaborative approaches themselves set the direc-tion for the assessment.

Involving practitioners’ knowledge in an assessmentposes the additional challenge of including information onhow knowledge is used to develop policy, as well as howpractitioners take action to implement a policy or a devel-opment project. Knowledge systems are often consideredas a tool for decision-makers—they draw knowledge frommultiple sources and look to experts to give them pertinentinformation. Policy processes can be considered opportuni-ties for cross-scale dialogue, although they are often viewedas rather closed processes until something happens which

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:24 PS


BOX 5.1

Ethical Protocol for the Use of Local and Traditional Knowledge in Assessments

The ethics involved in working with local communities requires the estab- and the requirement for the protection of intellectual property rights.lishment of, and commitment to, an ethical code of conduct, as well as These protocols enhance the practical aspects of conducting therespect and cross cultural understanding by all members of the assess- assessment, and provide a foundation for trust between the assess-ment team within the communities where the assessment is being con- ment team and the community(ies) involved. Prior informed consentducted. Specifically, the assessment team should consider: of knowledge holders is necessary for any use of data or information

from a sub-global assessment, and the protocol on IPR states that• Practical issues in establishing the assessment. Initial assessment communities are encouraged to provide information that can be

set up involves issues of how the assessment is initially received by freely shared and to clearly state what information must remain con-the communities and whether there is sufficient ‘‘buy in’’ for the fidential (see MA IPR policies at http://www.millenniumassessment.org/assessment to be based in the community(ies) and whether people en/about.policies.ip.aspx). There is an obligation on the part of thewill be willing to cooperate and collaborate with the assessment assessment team to ensure that the communities are aware of theteam. rights that they have over their own knowledge.

• Trust between community members and the assessment team. Alevel of trust is required to assist in the generation of knowledge at Despite the checks that are in place, there remain issues that are notthe local level, which has implications both for the extent to which captured in the protocol, and these are widespread issues that occur inknowledge will be shared (Coastal BC) and how interactions with most development interventions that involve the use of local and tradi-the same communities will proceed (San Pedro de Atacama). tional ecological knowledge. For example, it is difficult to make the separa-

• Ownership of assessment results. Ownership of the assessment tion between privately held knowledge and knowledge which is held byprocess and outcomes is enhanced when there is trust and commu- the collective community, in addition to a general lack of capacity in com-nity collaboration in the assessment process. When there is commu- munities to ensure that their knowledge is not misused. MA policies andnity ownership of results, there is increased potential for capacity- activities related to IPR are designed to help ensure that information con-building and empowerment of the communities involved, and a cerning ecosystems and their links to human well-being is freely available.greater likelihood that the assessment results will be used by those Notwithstanding the intent of this free flow of information, the MA soughtcommunities. Feedback from the community on the results of the to develop mechanisms and processes to ensure that the benefits fromassessment is important as well as delivery of assessment results the application of local/traditional/indigenous knowledge in sub-global andin a format that the community will use. global assessments can be obtained without compromising the rights of

• Ethical protocols. There were ethical protocols established by the the holders of that knowledge.MA, stating a requirement for prior informed consent by communities

opens up the possibility for change in the process (Keeley2001; Blaikie and Soussan 2001). Policy change relies notonly on new networks of actors but also on new knowledgeto create new discourses on issues.

Third, methods and processes for data collection as wellas expression, documentation, and validation of knowledgediffer among knowledge systems, and these differencesoften lead to misunderstandings, rejections, and other formsof conflict between people with different worldviews. Forexample, science accepts published facts after an elaborateprocess of validation established by the scientific commu-nity. What is of concern is that local and traditional knowl-edge that is maintained or transmitted via oral, practice-based, and other ‘‘tacit’’ methods may not be regarded ascredible within the scientific community, because the ex-pression of local knowledge is often through practice-basedprocedures, and validation occurs through processes thatdiffer from science. Science-based assessments need to rec-ognize and honor local processes of validation, instead ofinsisting on validation by the standards of science.

It is a commonly held view that local/traditional andscientific knowledge can be somehow ‘‘integrated’’ and ap-plied to a common purpose. However, the conceptual basisof the endeavor to integrate local/traditional and scientificknowledge has been challenged. Some researchers arguethat the very idea of integration (or synthesis) implicitly as-sumes that knowledge is an intellectual product that can be

PAGE 92

isolated from its social context (Nadasny 1999). In thischapter, the concept of ‘‘bridging’’ rather than integrationor synthesis is useful because it implies that the differenttypes of knowledge retain their integrity but exchange ideasand learn from each other. (See also Chapter 11.) The con-cept of bridging is also a way to acknowledge that oneknowledge system is not superior to the other. The meansto achieve bridging is to create dialogue between knowl-edge systems.

An example of the sensitivity of these issues comes fromthe indigenous views session at the Bridging Scales andEpistemologies conference in Alexandria, Egypt, in a quo-tation which questions whether local people would ever beon an equal footing when the two knowledge systems areused together:

We can only—consciously—sit down at a table of dialogue, ina world where many worlds (or epistemologies) are welcome,where we can talk between us, and also talk with modern sci-ence. But at this table we need to leave behind arrogance andthe wish or attitude to dominate. We have to come with hum-bleness, with eagerness to learn, with openness and respect. Inthis neutral space of encounter, what can everyone contribute,what is our gift? What is the gift of the scientist? Is the scientistprepared for a dialogue? Is he or she able to support us? Dothey have the means to talk with us? Can they enter an alliance

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:25 PS


and commit to overcoming the limitations of their world-views?

The sub-global assessments reflect the tension in thisquote to some extent. In the SAfMA local assessments, localknowledge was considered a vital component of the assess-ment process, although all local knowledge used was vali-dated by science. India Local is an excellent example ofsuccessful bridging, in that students, who themselves werecommunity members, were trained to document localknowledge in collaboration with knowledgeable individualsfrom the community. This information was then stored ina database at the Centre for Ecological Sciences where itwas evaluated by scientific experts. The knowledge wasthen stored at the National Innovation Foundation whereit is safeguarded and where there is value added to bothtraditional knowledge as well as grassroots innovations inthe informal sector. The Vilcanota and Bajo Chirripo assess-ments enabled communities to assert their knowledge andtheir understandings of their own environments. In thesecases, the communities led the validation process and thuslocal knowledge was valued in its own right.

Recent work in the field of participatory research forpolicy change has addressed how local people’s concernscan be successfully raised to others (that is, scientists andlocal officials or higher level decision-makers), but on theirown terms. For example, Holland and Blackburn (1998)describe three models for how this can be done: In the mostcommon model, intermediary institutions ‘‘translate’’ localvoices for the benefit of policy-makers and become activistsfor local people. In a second model, policy-makers and localpeople come together directly to discuss issues, and in thethird model, intermediary institutions are still active in thetranslation process, but they pay more attention to ensuringthat participation becomes part of the policy process. In asimilar vein, some scholars of local knowledge suggest thatto provide space for local knowledge, institutions are re-quired that facilitate inclusion without appropriatingknowledge (for example, Berkes 1999).

In conclusion, several critical points need to be acceptedby any assessment if goals such as those of the MA are to beachieved:• the importance of social values (including culture, spiritual, eth-

nic identity, etc.) and historical context that are embedded inall types of knowledge, including science;

• the challenges of addressing complexity and uncertainty. Theinterface between society and nature involves complexsystem dynamics, with multiple causes, feedbacks, andresponses. This suggests a high degree of complexity,where a system is difficult or impossible to analyzethrough the use of a simple disciplinary framework(Munda 2000). Methodological requirements for under-standing the complexity of local knowledge include firstand foremost methods grounded in the concepts of in-teraction and connectedness—that local knowledge re-garding human–ecosystem relationships cannot becompartmentalized, but must be understood as a myriadof interrelations between the social and biophysical.

PAGE 93

• the significance of institutions, or the rules and practices uponwhich knowledge interactions are based. There have been sit-uations in which the voices of particular groups havebeen suppressed (for example, women, minorities), forc-ing them to rely on others to articulate their knowledge;

• the validation of local and traditional knowledge. In additionto epistemological differences between knowledge tra-ditions, science is often viewed as being privileged orhaving hegemony over local, traditional, and indigenousknowledge (Scott 1998, p. 323). Satterthwaite (1996)suggests that underlying power relationships are com-pounded by prejudice resulting from incomprehensionof different forms of logic that occur within the institu-tional context of a project.

5.3 Benefits of Using Multiple KnowledgeSystems in an AssessmentIncluding multiple users in the assessment process is rela-tively new, but there are several previous experiences uponwhich the MA can reflect. Integrated assessment involvesthe participation of ‘‘non-scientists’’ on the basis that thisinvolvement will improve the quality of the research, viathe input of contextual and practical knowledge, experi-ence, and values. This is especially important for complexand/or unstructured problems, terms that can certainly beapplied to the MA. In a survey of the attempts by scientiststo include other knowledge in integrated assessmentsthrough participatory processes, van Asselt Marjolein andRijkens-Klomp (2002) praise the intent and acceptance ofthe principles of participation by assessment teams, but la-ment the lack of serious analysis of the actual methods andprocesses used to increase participation and hence the typesof knowledge used in assessments.

The MA conceptual framework states that there are cer-tain benefits of using multiple knowledge systems: informa-tion benefits, increased participation and empowerment,and broader use and application of assessment findings (MA2003). This section explores whether these anticipated ben-efits were realized in the sub-global assessments.

5.3.1 Information Benefits

Several sub-global assessments illustrate how local and tradi-tional ecological knowledge added significant insight to theassessment process (Table 5.1), providing information onlocally important resources and management practices, in-formation that is directly relevant to the assessment of eco-system services. In the India Local assessment, where localknowledge is recognized as complementary to science, along tradition of reliance on non-wood forest products hasresulted in local people’s intimate knowledge of native spe-cies and their uses, and this information added great valueto the assessment of biodiversity. Local knowledge also pro-vided an understanding of the history of surface water use,traditional irrigation and water sharing arrangements, aswell as modern developments, including growing demandsfor water and the associated implications (India Local). Inthe Sinai assessment, an indigenous Bedouin participant ex-

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:26 PS


Table 5.1. Local and Traditional Knowledge (LK) Use by Selected Sub-global Assessments (Data from assessment reports, knowledgemarkets, and questionnaires)

Sub-global Assessment Local/Traditional Knowledge Recognized Approach to Using Knowledge Systems

Tropical Forest Margins recognized LK composed of process-based knowledge used different models to incorporate LKand location-specific knowledge, with the former easier to long-term presence considered important for obtaining LKintegrate across scales

liaised with NGOs that work at local levelcase study of local ecological knowledge (Indonesia); doc-

progress in stakeholder negotiations came from develop-umentation and policy reform with Krui agroforestry sys-ing a shared articulation of the underlying cause-effect re-tems (one case)lations and the criteria and indicators that can reflect thevarious concerns

SAfMA assessment process added value to both formal and infor- interaction of multiple knowledge systems problematic (in-mal knowledge, though science dominated process troduces uncertainty) but also enriched findings

local coping and adaptive strategies important input to as- LK was validated only at the local scale by using rigoroussessment PRA and other methods

Coastal BC mapping cultural-spiritual places reluctance to share LK at policy level due to distrust

provincially mandated land and resource management difficulties in bringing LK to an analytical processprocess provided framework for LK difficult to use all knowledge systems due to time con-scientific systems favored due to ease of authentication straintsand availability more time and resources required for locally acceptable

modes of investigation

Sweden KW LK for management practices, species dynamics mutual learning through interviews with stakeholders

local agricultural and biodiversity-related knowledge strong linking through networks of steward associations

emphasis on social processes underlying successful eco- links made between conservation and development weresystem management considered important

adaptive co-management builds on institutions and learn-ing and avoids set prescriptions of management superim-posed on a particular context

San Pedro de Atacama active collaboration with LK holders Indigenous Law (1991) affirmed LK, however LK was notincorporated properly in the water management sectorpublic and private knowledge usedMining Foundation promotes community developmentLK provided more nuanced understanding of local condi-through social health and education projectstions not found on maps and datathe local museum, open to the public, disseminates infor-important to validate assessment processes and findingsmation about local culture

PNG robust cultural traditions, not subsumed under scientific prospects of compensation for communities distort merg-framework ing of scientific and local perspectives

rich body of LK relating to the many kinds of spiritual be- scientific assessment of the drivers challenged by the localings that inhabit local ecosystems community as a distortion or violation of LK, because the

practice of ‘‘science’’ was identified with the activities andclose collaboration with local communitiesclaims of a private sector environmental monitoring pro-gram

Downstream Mekong local perspective used to strengthen assessment consensus-driven linkage via workshops, dialogues

all information was validated by local communities poverty and low education impeded cross-scale under-standing at local levelspecific LK on medicinal plants used

Eastern Himalayas local level indigenous technologies shared among villages links made between villages and between scientists, localgovernment, and local resource users

India Local mapping used to integrate LK and science the people working in the assessment were locals (notoutsiders), which facilitated linksassessment built on traditional forestry management prac-

tices embedded in a national effort to use LK

Community Biodiversity Registers (CBRs)—compilations science taken to local level: computer techniques taughtof LK on medicinal plants to local students

PAGE 94................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:27 PS


local perceptions of soil and water provided insights: his- LK (because it is largely derived through a trial and errortory of surface water use, traditional irrigation and water process, commingled with beliefs) posed great difficultiessharing arrangements, modern developments (i.e., impli- for validationcations of increasing demands for water)

sacred conservation practices documented but very het-erogeneous and difficult to map

used five local languages and two scripts

Sinai LK was the most dominant knowledge system in assess- Bedouin associations supported in efforts to affirm the cul-ment tural transmission of knowledge

medicinal plant knowledge, and knowledge of water scar- conflicts in knowledge interaction due to concerns for intel-city, was stressed; gender recognized as a sociocultural lectual property rightsfactor determining variations in biodiversity management; LK considered essential for higher-scale water manage-government recognizes tribal law ment

Laguna Lake Basin both local and scientific, but scientific knowledge was dom- no direct work with LK holdersinant conflicts with the state over traditional tenure systemLK only based on literature review—no data

Portugal local-level knowledge (incl. practices) in the case study of integrated participatory methods usedSistelo some conflicts between local users and the state due topractical management knowledge from users in govern- appropriation of community forestsment, industry, agriculture, and NGOs

Altai-Sayan traditional land use patterns of local communities; environ- religious-based environmental consciousness of rural peo-mental consciousness based on religious beliefs ple was used to address issues on a larger scale to gener-

ate environmental awareness for conservation

Bajo Chirripo LK provided direction for assessment, conceptual frame- to be applicable, the MA framework needed to describework, and needs assessment ecosystem services and human well-being more integrally,

as the local perspective doesadaptation of the MA framework was based on stories andhistories from the elders about the habitat, its creation, andthe norms that regulate its use, complemented by scientificliterature review

a first interpretation of the relation of ecosystems andhuman well-being was from the indigenous Cabecar per-spective

information validated in community gatherings convenedby elders in other Cabecar communities

Vilcanota LK given equal footing with scientific knowledge (SK) knowledge interactions were key to the assessment

both LK and SK used to assess conditions and trends, how to work with multiple knowledge systems not fullyadaptation of conceptual framework, traditional practices, worked out yet, but to be performed by the technical teamlocal people cross-checked science in consultation with local technicians and reviewed by

community groupsentire process undertaken with community approval (localvalidation)

problems defined by the communities

knowledge mostly related to agroecosystems, also eco-system interactions (broader definition of ecosystems thatincorporates spiritual elements)

Argentine scientific knowledge dominated the assessment no strong linkage between agents and decision-makersPampas who operate at different scales and manage differentregional knowledge from farmers’ groups

scale-dependent knowledgetraditional technical knowledge from retired agronomists

conflicting interests and knowledge approaches to man-and farmersagement among farmers, agri-business, and governmental

corporate cultural knowledge from agri-business and gov- agentsernmental agents

workshops (driven by scientists) helpful to foster mutualunderstanding between stakeholders that represent con-flicting knowledge systems

Wisconsin LK used for scenario development

PAGE 95................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:28 PS


plained the reasons behind the increase in some of the inva-sive species that were not known in the region previously,which was considered an important driver of change at thelocal level. In the Kristianstad Wetlands assessment, localknowledge provided historical continuity with informationcovering time periods that scientific studies have not cov-ered (Sweden KW).

In the Altai-Sayan ecoregion, more than 20 different in-digenous ethnic groups have lived together for centuries.The assessment reported that protection of Altai-Sayan bio-diversity ultimately depends on the ability of the local com-munities to preserve their traditional land use practices. Forexample, in Mongolia people have, over millennia, devel-oped a specific traditional approach to the use of grazingareas, which includes the formation of a particular speciesratio composition of livestock (a combination of camels,horses, cattle, goats, and sheep). The specific percentage ofeach species in the livestock herds leads to the most uniformgrazing of the whole range of grazing plant species. Thispractice maximizes the efficiency of the use of pasture areas.However, for the past decade, new, young herders who arenot experienced in nomadic herding, along with weakeningstate control of grazing activities, is leading to unsustainableherding practices (Altai-Sayan).

Many local assessments found that local and traditionalecological knowledge had particular insights for humanwell-being. For example, in the Sinai, local knowledge isimportant for crisis mitigation practices. The Bedouin havea particular cropping system, based on growing a variety ofcrops, in order to reduce the risk of crop failures as a resultof drought, a common occurrence in Sinai. Very oftencrops are selected so that the presence of one protects theother from pest infestation. For example, cantaloupe isgrown beside Artemisia judica, a species that helps the canta-loupe set fruit and reduces insect infestations. Another ex-ample in Sinai is that in times of political conflicts and war,when people are cut off with no access to regular healthcare, they rely on their knowledge of local herbs to providethem with treatment for various diseases and illnesses. Inthe communities involved in the India Local and San Pedrode Atacama assessments, traditional healers are still highlyvalued for their knowledge of the different medicinal andnutritional properties of plants. In the India Local assess-ment, however, the popularity of medicinal plants is a factorleading to their decline.

In the Eastern Himalayas assessment, local knowledgeused to be important to well-being in terms of ensuringlivelihood security, such as rural handicraft production andfood production. The SAfMA Livelihoods assessmentfound that local people also rely on diverse local knowledgefor sustaining their livelihoods and managing risks. For ex-ample, they exploit resources over time and space and valuemultiple landscapes and mobility. They change labor strate-gies depending upon rainfall, and they use different micro-environments for agriculture, grazing, collection of wildfruits, etc. Resource and species substitution is a commonadaptive strategy. In the case of water, which is a vital butscarce resource, people protect it with cultural taboos aswell as management practices (SAfMA Livelihoods).

PAGE 96

Some assessments such as Eastern Himalayas, found thatcommunities no longer have the benefit of local or tradi-tional ecological knowledge contributing to human well-being, due to socioecological changes, economic changes,and the loss of local and traditional knowledge. Many as-sessments reported that local knowledge systems werethreatened or hard to articulate, because they have been soeroded. (See Box 5.2.)

Some sub-global assessments also gave examples of howlocal and traditional ecological knowledge deals withchange, which is critical in terms of information benefitsfor assessments, since it is an indicator of the resilience ofcommunities and ecosystems. In India Local, for example,local and traditional ecological knowledge bases forecastsof ecosystem productivity on bioclimatic indicators. Thisknowledge blends historical perceptions of crisis manage-

BOX 5.2

State–Local Interactions and Their Impact on theTransmission and Validity of Local Knowledge: SouthAfrica

Resource patches imbued with sacred qualities according to traditionalknowledge have played a well-documented role in the conservation ofkey ecosystem goods and services important to rural South Africancommunities. However, a history of state intervention in the manage-ment of natural resources in South Africa has resulted in the erosionof the importance attached to ‘‘sacredness’’ in many instances. InSouth Africa, this process has been linked strongly to apartheid ideolo-gies and policies on the one hand and to global and national trendstoward scientific agriculture on the other. More recently, basic serviceprovision has had unintended but equally important impacts on theperceived validity and importance of traditional knowledge.

Traditionally, among the isiXhosa people, local ecological knowl-edge developed through an adaptive process of learning by doing,and was transmitted orally between generations through story-telling,folklore, and ritual. However, state intervention in education and agri-culture between the 1960s and 1990s severely undermined local con-fidence in indigenous knowledge and belief systems. Scientific farmingpractices, for example, were enforced through local rangers and stateextension officers at the expense of locally developed farming prac-tices. At the same time, the legitimacy of traditional leadership, whichwas linked to local and traditional belief systems, was systematicallyundermined by a series of policies and interventions that effectivelylead to a general disillusionment with traditional leadership.

More recently, the nationwide drive to reduce inequitable access tobasic services has had important, albeit unanticipated, impacts on thevalidity and therefore transmission of local knowledge. The provisionof reticulated water in rural villages has drastically decreased localdependence on natural water sources, and therefore elders have inmany cases ceased transmitting knowledge regarding sacred pools.As a result, many youngsters have begun to water their livestock inthese pools, reducing vegetative cover and threatening sensitive spe-cies that were formally protected by the traditional belief systems. Simi-larly, traditionally protected fuelwood species reserved for ritualpurposes alone, have, since the political collapse of the ranger systemin the early 1990s, decreased dramatically. Fuelwood collectors, oftenyoung women, are often no longer aware of traditional taboos formerlyplaced on certain species and harvesting techniques.

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:29 PS


ment with philosophy, which can provide useful precau-tionary principles. However, despite this potential, local andtraditional ecological knowledge is not used to manage eco-logical crises at present. This area requires more researchinto the potential contribution of local and traditionalknowledge since the norm is to rely on scientific models ofchanges such as climatic events, soil fertility decline, andpollution from various sources.

The inclusion of knowledge held or used by prac-titioners, such as municipal officials, was possible in the MAprocess either through the inclusion of practitioners in theassessment team (for example, Sweden KW) or, as was morecommonly the case, through user forums. (See Chapter 6.)In the sub-global assessment user forums, practitionerknowledge was expressed according to the ‘‘role’’ of thepractitioner in the management of the area under assess-ment or their ‘‘need’’ for information from the assessment.However, the Kristianstad Wetlands assessment reviewed allparticipant knowledge according to whether it was ecologi-cal, used for management, or pertained to social processes.The wetlands ecosystem has been managed through an in-tegrated process for almost 15 years, and all groups acquirenew knowledge and learn from one another through thedesign of the management process.

The Coastal British Columbia assessment provides aninteresting insight into the use of practitioner knowledgein the assessment. The need for independent informationprecipitated the establishment of an independent, multidis-ciplinary information body and a transparent peer reviewprocess that would provide the best available informationand expertise to support the development of an ecosystem-based management approach to natural resource manage-ment and planning. The team consisted of independentscientists, practitioners, and traditional and local experts,overseen by a management committee and supported by asecretariat. The five-person management committee con-sisted of representatives of the founding partners (the pro-vincial government, First Nations, environmental NGOs,forest products companies) and the community at large, andwas co-chaired by provincial government and First Nationsrepresentatives. In this case, ‘‘technical’’ knowledge held byassessment users was seen as too subjective and possibly bi-ased if it was too closely aligned to particular sectoral inter-ests, for example the timber industry. The independentnature of the information gathering process was consideredimportant to this assessment (Coastal BC).

The Tropical Forest Margins assessment was heavily in-vested in a process of stakeholder engagement (strategicstakeholder analysis) in order to understand the needs andperspectives of multiple users at local, national, and interna-tional levels. While this work is on-going, the followingquote offers a rare insight into the barriers that must bebridged:

Initial findings from the efforts to contrast ‘‘local,’’ ‘‘public/policy’’ and ‘‘scientists/modelers’’ ecological knowledge suggestthat further analysis can help in reducing conflict and findingpractical solutions. Local ecological knowledge on watershedfunctions is ‘‘process-based’’ and well-articulated for observable

PAGE 97

phenomena such as overland flow, erosion, sedimentation andfilter effects. It does not depend on strict ‘‘land use categories.’’By contrast, public or policy ‘‘knowledge’’ is based on suchcategories and the attributes that are supposed to go along with‘‘forest’’ and ‘‘non-forest’’ land cover. Science can potentiallybridge between ‘‘process’’ and ‘‘pattern’’ based understandingand can usefully interact in both arenas. Progress in actualstakeholder negotiations can come from developing a shared ar-ticulation of the underlying cause-effect relations and the criteriaand indicators that can reflect the various concerns. Breakingthrough existing categories at the policy level, and especiallyrecognizing the ‘‘intermediate’’ systems and forest mosaics asthe focus of interest in natural resource management requires achange to ‘‘evidence-based’’ discourse. (Tropical Forest Mar-gins, p. 14)

Within the MA multiscale assessment design, local as-sessments were conducted at finer scales to provide infor-mation for the most appropriate levels for policy, decision-making, and action. Implicit in the inclusion of sub-globalassessments was the need to link knowledge systems acrossscales (and hence power and decision-making levels), witha particular emphasis on social and ecological knowledge atthe local level. The information benefits can only be real-ized if there is full participation of local/indigenous peoplesboth in the assessment process itself and in using the assess-ment findings. Other resource and assessment users alsoneed to be brought in, so that conflicts or synergies amongeither knowledge or information needs can be discussed andresolved. The second benefit of the use of multiple knowl-edge systems, participation, is discussed in the followingsection.

5.3.2 Participation as a Means to Empowerment forLocal Resource Users

It is generally acknowledged that care must be taken to en-sure that participation is done thoughtfully and in a collabo-rative manner. Many practitioners of participatory ruralappraisal methods acknowledge that there is a problem inusing these tools as part of a routine set of exercises, insteadof as the basis for real engagement, which is usually a time-consuming process (for example, Cleaver 2001; Mosse 1998).Full, collaborative participation is not easy to achieve andthere are often inherent problems of treating participationsuperficially. Even though the mechanics of participationare built into the assessment process, effective involvementof all stakeholders often requires training in facilitation andalways requires respect and an ethical protocol (Chambers1997). In addition, partnerships are necessary for effectiveparticipation, requiring reciprocity and humility (Berkes1999).

Others point out that participation without resourceallocation can be meaningless and unfair (Paci; Davidson-Hunt, personal communication). For example, participa-tion requires peoples’ time, it tends to raise the expectationsof the local participants for resource allocation, and it re-quires that research information and results are fed back intothe community for their verification and use as well as ap-propriate follow up action (Narayan et al. 2000). The inclu-

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:30 PS


sion of both resource and assessment users also raises thedistinct possibility of conflicts of interests, informationneeds, and the knowledge or evidence that is held to becredible, relevant, and legitimate.

Experts on participatory research such as Chambers(1997) point to differences in levels of participation. Suchdifferences can have profound implications for assessmentoutcomes. Table 5.2 describes the roles and influence ofdifferent knowledge groups (or participants) in the sub-global assessments. A difficult category to analyze is that ofassessment user, as this group included a wide range ofknowledge holders. Not every assessment made clear whetherthe resource users were in a decision-making capacity (SanPedro de Atacama), were collaborators in the assessment (asin Vilcanota, Bajo Chirripo, or BC Coastal), or were

Table 5.2. Participants and Their Roles in Selected Sub-global Assessments (Information from knowledge markets and questionnaires)

Knowledge Group/Participant Role in AssessmentSub-global Assessment Category Process Influence in the Assessment Process

Bajo Chirripo community members team members and users directed the assessment objectives and framework

biologist team member managed the work process

Vilcanota international expert on indigenous initiated assessment let community control processissues‘‘barefoot’’ (local) technicians part of team and also users facilitated work with community because they pos-

sess LK but also understand the scientific frame-work

Sweden KW local resource user organizations team members and users contributed ecological and management knowledge

administrative officials team members and users contributed ecological and management knowledge

Tropical Forest Margins scientists (interdisciplinary team) team members have led research process from initiation; set priori-ties for product delivery

policy-makers assessment users helped with problem identification and contributedknowledge

Western China scientists team members managed assessment process

politicians team members and assess- assisted with scenario developmentment users

Coastal BC scientists team members contributed knowledge to assessment

government officials team members and users initiated assessment and provided information toanalysis

private sector team members and users initiated assessment, contributed information

First Nations team members and users initiated assessment, contributed knowledge, gath-ered data

San Pedro de Atacama indigenous community members assessment users contributed local knowledge to all parts of the as-sessment

NGO in charge of assessment assessment team directed and managed the assessment process

government officials assessment users contributed knowledge and expressed informationneeds

India Local local community members assessment users contributed knowledge

educational institutes assessment team facilitated process with communities

scientists assessment team contributed scientific knowledge and validated localknowledge

policy-makers assessment users provided enabling policy environment for assess-ments to be institutionalized nationally

PAGE 98

merely consulted for their knowledge as input into the as-sessment (SAfMA).

In the Bajo Chirripo assessment, all participation wascollaborative. Local indigenous people were involved in as-sessment design, and they changed the direction and focusof the assessment. The communities decided that instead ofdeveloping a new resource management plan, they wouldfocus on recovering lost knowledge that in the past safe-guarded the integrity of the environment and ensured thesustainability of human activities. (See Box 5.3.) In the Vil-canota assessment, the indigenous Quechua groups had akey role in the problem identification process as well as theassessment of ecosystem services, indicating collaboration inthe early critical stages of the assessment that will likely in-fluence the outcome.

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:30 PS


BOX 5.3

Adaptation of Traditional Ecological Knowledge forResource Management: Bajo Chirripo

Asociacion Ixacavaa de Desarrollo y Informacion Indıgena began theBajo Chirripo assessment with the idea of developing a managementplan for the community’s resources. Through discussions and meetingswith community members, it soon became apparent that in the past, astrict ‘‘management plan’’ had existed and was based on norms andbeliefs regarding interactions between humans and their environment.The concept of reciprocity was key (between humans and the rest ofthe environment).

IXACAVAA therefore changed the focus of the assessment fromdeveloping a management plan to recovering lost knowledge that inthe past safeguarded the integrity of the environment and ensured thesustainability of human activities. A conical shaped house representsthe natural world. The flip side (also a conical house) is the spirit worldand is equally important. Communities have noticed a big decline inthe number of animals and the quantity of important natural resourcesavailable to them in their territory. They explain this by saying that theanimals have left the natural world and are hiding in the spirit world(the upside down cone). When humans begin to act more responsiblywith great reciprocity, the animals will return to the natural world (coni-cal house). Because of the discussion of these ideas within the processof the assessment, community members in one village decided to builda conical house (which can also be physically constructed on earthand becomes a spiritual icon to the communities), which has now beencompleted.

In San Pedro de Atacama, the Atacameno indigenouspeoples, along with several representatives of local miningcompanies, were members of the advisory committee; theyhelped to identify the focus of the assessment and offeredfeedback throughout the assessment process. However, theassessment team offered the following comment, which il-lustrates the difficulties of full participation when multiplestakeholders do not trust one another or the assessmentprocess:

Mining companies have information on monitoring and studieson the situation in the Salar basin that they had not sharedwith locals (prior to this assessment), and locals hold knowledgeabout the landscape they are not prepared to share for fear itwill be used against their interests. This is the main pitfall thatresearch projects in the area have to face. To counteract this, theproject has encouraged a policy of transparency and access to theinformation it has generated, but it has been difficult to achievethe participation of the wise men and women from the commu-nities after past experience with other initiatives that were nottotally open about their scope and objectives. A workshop withlocal leaders to discuss their views and possible future scenariostook one step towards overcoming this distrust. (San Pedro deAtacama)

Local users of these three assessments had different levelsof ownership over the assessment process. The capacity toinfluence the process in significant ways, through collabora-tion, contributed to the acceptance of the usefulness of theexercise in the cases of Bajo Chirripo and Vilcanota. None

PAGE 99

of the sub-global assessments were able to report (at the timeof writing) on how the assessment users will ultimately usethe assessment findings or benefit from the assessment expe-rience in the future. Potential benefits may include accessto assessment findings that are relevant to their politicalagendas, and access to MA tools and networks of communi-cation with which they could draw attention to their causes.In the case of assessments where local and traditional eco-logical knowledge was used in the assessment of ecosystemsand human well-being, the holders of that knowledge maybe empowered by the recognition of the value of theirknowledge at the national or international level.

In other assessments, it is less clear whether ‘‘participa-tion’’ in the assessment process was consultative or collabo-rative in nature. Chapter 9, which assesses the responses inthe sub-global assessments, emphasizes that collaboration(multisector and multi-level) is important for the best, inte-grated responses. The framework used in Chapter 9 listsknowledge systems as one of four features of any response,suggesting that the bridging of knowledge systems is crucialfor collaborative responses.

Since knowledge and values are both situational andtime-linked (Colson 1984, cited by Borofsky 1994), takingknowledge out of context is almost inevitable when knowl-edge systems are bridged through increased participation.When elders or other specialized knowledge holders in thecommunity are consulted, their contribution is often con-fined within an established scientific framework and theirvast repertoire of past experiences and what motivated themare not considered in their operative context. For example,the complex of personal relationships and the spiritual beliefsthat influence how people interact within their environmentmay be largely overlooked in the quest to find fact-basedlocal knowledge that is valued for environmental manage-ment. The indigenous, local or traditional knowledge that isaccessible to outsiders is often confined to present day reali-ties of secular life, information on scarce resources, and fea-tures of ecosystem change, based on long-term observation.Therefore, members of the assessment team must understandthe nature of knowledge that is context-dependent and beable to interpret non-factual knowledge as well.

Table 5.3 shows that the assessments used a variety ofparticipatory methods. In the Vilcanota and San Pedro deAtacama assessments, NGOs were the initiators of the par-ticipatory processes. However, in San Pedro de Atacama,the NGO was located outside the community and waslargely composed of scientists, which may have made theirrole as a ‘‘mediator’’ awkward. NGOs may function asboundary organizations between local and traditional eco-logical knowledge and practitioners and scientists; however,they may also define the parameters for the use of local/traditional knowledge, rather than the communities doingthis themselves (S. Gauntlett, personal communication).The experiences of the MA sub-global assessments in gen-eral have shown that there are often important trade-offsbetween developing meaningful local participation in as-sessments and progressing with the assessment work withina fixed time frame and within a prescribed budget. The

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:31 PS


Table 5.3. Methods Used to Incorporate Multiple Knowledge Systems in Selected Sub-global Assessments (Information fromknowledge markets and questionnaires). KI � key informant.

Methods Used

Household CommunitySub-global Assessment KI Workshops Visits Meetings Other Who Initiated

Western China � local governor

� local scientists

other participatory tools secretariat of Western Chinaassessment team

� local scientists

India Local � mapping, resource inventories, scientistsquestionnaires, validation methods

SAfMA collection of ‘‘tacit’’ knowledge scientiststhrough collation, evaluation, sum-marization, synthesis, dialectic andcommunication; other methods:focus groups, forum theater, storylines, cross validation, and triangula-tion

Sweden KW � EKV scientists

� scientists from Stockholm Univer-sity

literature reviews, including vegeta- EKV staff and scientists fromtion surveys and land use maps; Stockholm Universityalso social-ecological inventories

San Pedro de Atacama � communities, via IndigenousDevelopment Area policy initiative

� � � Advisory Committee meetings, the- RIDES (Recursos e Investigacionater, participant observation para el Desarrollo Sustentable)

Wisconsin � scenarios, computer games, web assessment teamsurvey, and randomized mail surveyof public responses to scenarios

Coastal BC � assessment team

� planning tables

literature review assessment team

GIS governments, First Nations,private sector

statistics federal and provincial govern-ments

modeling biophysical scientists

surveys (phone, mail) assessment team

Vilcanota assessment recognized that user engagement andthe development of an assessment process by indigenouscommunities would take a long time; the MA Secretariat(with Board approval) set aside funds for over a year whilewaiting for a proposal from the Vilcanota assessment team,knowing that the process would eventually contribute in-formation about how to advance the use of local/traditionalecological knowledge in sub-global assessments.

In summary, the MA recognized that assessments maybecome extractive processes, whereby particular elements

PAGE 100

of local/traditional ecological knowledge are taken out oftheir cultural context and used within a scientific frame-work. This use of local/traditional ecological knowledgemay assist the research process, but it is much less clear howlocal users benefit from the assessment, even when it relieson their knowledge. The question that needs to be asked inevery assessment is whether the information is appropriatedor obtained through a transparent collaborative process, inwhich knowledge holders are fully aware of their rights toconfidentiality. Once local and traditional ecological

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:32 PS


knowledge is documented, there is the question of legiti-macy, validation, and credibility, and who sets the standardsfor comparison (discussed further in the next section).

5.3.3 Use and Application of Findings

The need to be ‘‘relevant, credible, and legitimate’’ toassessment users was the main reason the MA initiallydecided to incorporate multiple knowledge systems. Forexample, the MA global Responses report recognizes thatin order to assess the social and ecological impacts ofa particular response, policy-makers must recognize theexistence of a range of worldviews and acknowledge thatthe adoption of a specific policy response may privilegespecific worldviews (MA Policy Responses, Chapter 2).This requires that knowledge holders be meaningfully en-gaged assessment users in order for results to be relevant,credible, and legitimate to them. This is reason to explorejust how effectively the voices of local farmers, fishers,indigenous peoples, and businesses are able to contributeto the assessment process as ‘‘users’’ and how they mayactually influence policy.

Chapter 6 of this volume shows that, in many cases, theinitial ideas for sub-global assessments came from individu-als linked to the global MA process. In general, scientists,rather than decision-makers or communities, initiated theassessment process. This suggests that relevance for scientistswas established from the outset in most cases, while rele-vance for other users required dialogue and varied from as-sessment to assessment. Coastal BC was an exception, asthe assessment was part on an on-going process of policydevelopment that was requested by a coalition of users,rather than initiated by scientists. The Sweden KW andIndia Local assessments were embedded in ongoing man-agement and policy innovations, so although local partici-pation played a significant role, this may have been aproduct of an on-going process rather than driven by theassessment itself. There are often challenges for making ex-ternally driven processes relevant to local resource users, asthey must respond to an idea generated outside the commu-nity. The imposition of ‘‘grassroots’’ processes generatedfrom demand at higher levels is problematic because own-ership is confused and contested (for example, Baumann2000). User engagement was generally better in assessmentswith higher levels of meaningful resource user participation(for example, directing the research process) and where po-tential users saw the assessment process as something theyneeded. (See Chapter 6.)

Most sub-global assessment users were members of na-tional, regional, or district governments that develop policyoutside the community level. (See Chapter 6.) This raisesthe question of when local people are actually assessment‘‘users,’’ since local people cannot ‘‘use’’ the assessment ifthey do not have broad-based decision-making power. Inmany cases, where decision-making power resides largelyoutside the community, community members are only‘‘consulted’’, and their knowledge is extracted for the pur-poses of other ‘‘users.’’ However, the literature indicates

PAGE 101

that when assessment results are made available and accessi-ble, local people will often make use of the results (for ex-ample, Berkes 1999; Alcorn et al. 2003). Although localpeople may not be able to influence higher-level decisions,they do make day-to-day decisions about resource manage-ment, and assessment results may be useful in this context.In addition, numerous local institutions are gaining in-creased authority over local resources as a result of decen-tralization processes; these local institutions may be able touse and benefit from the assessment results, although thisis not an automatic process. Recent studies (for example,Narayan et al. 2000; Ellis and Freeman 2002; SLSA 2003)emphasize that local institutions often do not respond effec-tively to the needs or objectives of the poor.

Most sub-global assessments report that including localand traditional ecological knowledge and other non-scientificknowledge improved the credibility and relevance of theirprocesses and outputs to certain users. For example, theIndia Local assessment addressed the information needs ofthe Panchayat (local) level of government, which, after thepassing of the Biodiversity Act of India in 2002, gained di-rect control over resources such as ‘‘minor forest products.’’In Bajo Chirripo, non-scientist participation, which focusedon knowledge held by the communities, both strengthenedthat knowledge and increased the relevance of the assess-ment to the communities. The international community(including the Swedish International Biodiversity Pro-gramme) has noted the usefulness and innovative qualitiesof the approach being taken by the local NGO, AsociacionIxacavaa de Desarrollo y Informacion Indıgena, and has re-sponded by providing funding for the project. Accordingto the assessment, ‘‘the community members working astechnicians seem to be empowered by the process, whichattaches credibility to the traditional knowledge of theirpeople’’ (Bajo Chirripo).

Finally, the SAfMA Garongosa-Marromeu assessmentreported that involving local resource users potentially in-creased the relevance and credibility of the findings; how-ever, the utility of local/traditional knowledge can also bedowngraded by the local community itself, as indicted bythe comment that ‘‘it is strange [that] in some communitieswe work with, they themselves downgrade their ownknowledge, wanting outside ‘scientific’ information be-cause it is seen as being better’’ (T. Lynam, personal com-munication). This comment points to a long history of thepower of dominant paradigms and how that may affectbridging knowledge systems.

There are more complex questions to ask as well. If theassessment users are at the national or global level, how canlocal and traditional ecological knowledge be seen as a cred-ible information source? What about ethics: Was the processextractive? Are the local knowledge holders aware of theimplications, in term of intellectual property rights, of shar-ing their knowledge with users at other scales? Similarly, ifthe assessment users are at the local level (as in India Local),how was capacity developed to enable local people to de-velop and implement policy? For example, did the assess-

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:32 PS


ment process help or was a different institutional or policyintervention required?

The Coastal BC assessment reported that it relied tooheavily on science for two reasons: (1) technical informa-tion was viewed as too closely tied to sectoral or other in-terest groups, and (2) bridging First Nations’ knowledgetook more time and resources than anticipated. The SanPedro de Atacama assessment commented that traditionalknowledge does not hold the same validity as scientificknowledge for decision-makers, who prefer to stick to thepredominant scientific codes sustaining government policy.Therefore, it is a challenge to generate mechanisms thatallow local and traditional ecological knowledge to be in-corporated into the decision-making process in a similarway to scientific knowledge (San Pedro de Atacama). Thissentiment has been echoed by others involved with partici-patory poverty assessments (for example, Schoonmaker-Freudenberger 1998), which underscores the importance ofwell-designed participatory processes.

A related point is that decision-makers often want accessto local knowledge on their own terms (S. Gauntlett, per-sonal communication). Traditional weaving and carvingamong the Maori in New Zealand provides an example; thetraditional patterns of this highly sought after art form arebeing copied (often without consent) by outsiders who arenot concerned about the cosmology that surrounds the im-portance of the weavings. In accessing the design withoutthe surrounding belief systems, the outsiders are inherentlychanging the knowledge systems that the artifacts are partof and this will over time affect the designs themselves. In asimilar way, Nadasny (1999) argues that often decision-makers co-opt knowledge.

Assessing the credibility, legitimacy, and relevance of in-formation for decision-makers involves difficult questionsof politics and power. A model for assessing the complexitythat is introduced by acknowledging the influence of politi-cal power over the knowledge that is accepted by assess-ment users is described by Pritchard and Sanderson (2002).Integrated assessments themselves deal with complex andinherently uncertain issues, but the reality is that alternativebut equally viable models of resource dynamics exist, whichmeans that different interest groups or political bodies canchoose models to support arguments that serve their ownpurposes. Pritchard and Sanderson point to this as the es-sence of so-called ‘‘wicked’’ problems, which involve a hostof academic and social perspectives that cannot be separatedfrom issues of values, equity, and social justice; that are rele-vant to multiple arenas of action; and that are difficult foranyone to solve.

Few assessments comment explicitly on conflicting in-formation, and indeed a full discussion of it is beyond thescope of this chapter. However, the Tropical Forest Marginsassessment team plans to explore how to ‘‘articulate partici-pation across multiple groups with conflicting interests,’’because they work with both local and national user groups,which have different knowledge, and because their problemdomain, land use at tropical forest margins, involves numer-ous trade-offs and conflicting interests.

PAGE 102

5.4 Design and Process for IncorporatingMultiple Knowledge Systems

5.4.1 MA Design: Guidelines for the Use of MultipleKnowledge Systems in Sub-global Assessments

The challenge of incorporating multiple systems of knowl-edge was not explicitly recognized by the exploratory steer-ing committee that designed the basic MA structure in1998–99. However, the committee did take the decision toinclude sub-global assessments within the MA structure andto include a broad array of stakeholders on the Board gov-erning the assessment process; these decisions, in turn, ledto a growing focus on the issue of knowledge systems dur-ing the technical design phase in 2001 and during the initialmeetings of the MA Board.

From a practical standpoint, the decision to include sub-global assessments, and particularly local assessments, withinthe MA process required that the MA modify the proce-dures used by the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (which were otherwise generally adopted for useby the MA) to enable the use of knowledge and informa-tion not published in the scientific literature. The IPCCprocedures had already provided a mechanism to incorpo-rate ‘‘gray literature’’ into that process, largely in responseto concerns expressed by the private sector that the firsttwo rounds of the IPCC were not taking full advantage ofmaterials published by the private sector that were not avail-able in scientific publications.

Other international forums have also addressed the needto include other sources of information and knowledge, forexample the International Council for Science Series onScience for Sustainable Development. During the secondtechnical design workshop of the MA in October 2001,the sub-global assessment ‘‘breakout’’ group developed aprocess and set of protocols for validating unpublished in-formation, with a particular focus on local or communityassessments. This process of validation was further refinedat the first Sub-global Working Group meeting in June2002 and the resulting mechanism was then incorporatedinto the MA procedures. The elements of these policiesconcerning the practices that would be used in workingwith different knowledge systems are presented in Appen-dix 5.1 of this chapter.

The array of proposed sub-global assessments involvedin the MA during the design phase in 2001 were largelyderived from a ‘‘call for proposals’’ circulated in September2000. (See Chapter 6.) Because this initial call for proposalswas circulated primarily through government, scientific,conservation NGO, and development NGO networks, theset of proposed sub-global assessments involved did notspan a particularly broad range of knowledge systems. Evenamong the MA local assessments, most were initiated byscientists external to the communities involved. The tech-nical design workshops in 2001 and the first meeting of theSub-global Working Group in 2002 both encouraged theincorporation of a broader array of sub-global assessments.This was also encouraged by the MA Board, which in-

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:33 PS


cluded individuals from indigenous communities, local as-sessments, and the private sector, all of whom argued foradditional assessments to be established within the commu-nities or sectors that they represented.

Efforts to expand the array of sub-global assessments toinclude assessments that involved using multiple knowledgesystems were not particularly successful, however. Buildingon MA Board contacts, an effort was made during 2001 tostimulate the establishment of several additional assessmentsled by indigenous peoples. This involved the circulation ofthe sub-global assessment concept paper through severalrelevant NGO networks, discussions with interested indi-viduals, and a small brainstorming session with indigenousparticipants at a meeting of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity’s Subsidiary Body for Scientific, Technical andTechnological Advice. Although interest was expressed inthe idea, particularly by indigenous peoples involved in theCBD, no new assessments were generated through this ef-fort. Similar steps were taken to generate ‘‘private sector’’MA sub-global assessments and these steps also did not yieldany new assessments. Despite the initial receptivity amongthese groups to the idea of launching new assessments, someof the likely factors that contributed to their ultimate reluc-tance to enter into the process included:• the benefits of undertaking the MA sub-global assess-

ments were not as clear to these stakeholders as theywere to governments and scientists;

• the basic approach of the assessment was not somethingthat either the private sector or indigenous communitieswere familiar with;

• some of the skills needed to undertake such an assess-ment were absent; and,

• particularly for indigenous communities, the inability ofthe MA to fully fund an assessment may have posed aninsurmountable hurdle.The elaboration of guidelines and methods for address-

ing multiple knowledge systems in the MA was undertakenin parallel with the process of launching both the global andsub-global assessments. By the time the product of the de-sign phase, the conceptual framework, was published in late2003, the MA was committed to including sub-global as-sessments and different knowledge systems. For example,the MA conceptual framework (2003) states:• . . . The management and policy options available and

the concerns of stakeholders differ greatly across thesescales. The priority areas for biodiversity conservation ina country defined by ‘‘global’’ value, for example, wouldbe very different from those defined by the value to localcommunities. The multiscale assessment framework de-veloped for the MA provides a new approach for analyz-ing policy options at all scales—from local communitiesto international conventions.

• Traditional societies have nurtured and refined systemsof knowledge of direct value to those societies but alsoof considerable value to assessments undertaken at re-gional and global scales. This information often is un-known to science and can be an expression of otherrelationships between society and nature in general andof sustainable ways of managing natural resources in par-

PAGE 103

ticular. To be credible and useful to decision-makers, allsources of information, whether scientific, traditional, orpractitioner knowledge, must be critically assessed andvalidated as part of the assessment process through pro-cedures relevant to the form of knowledge.Despite these statements of intent, the sub-global assess-

ments struggled with the methodologies for incorporatingmultiple knowledge systems. The first pilot assessment con-ducted as part of the MA, an assessment in the Mala Villagecluster in India Local, provided an early approach andmethodology for conducting assessments across knowledgesystems. This methodology was made available to the parti-cipants in the MA design meetings in 2001 and a presenta-tion on the approach was made as well as copies of theapproach distributed during the first meeting of the Sub-global Working Group in 2002. In general, working groupmeetings provided an opportunity for the sub-global assess-ment coordinators to learn from the methods used in theother assessments, but since the sub-global assessment teamshad sometimes already made key decisions regarding themethods and design of individual sub-global assessments,they could not always fully incorporate these lessons.

The MA conceptual framework makes explicit mentionof the assessments as a social process to bring the findings ofscience to bear on the needs of decision-makers. Reid(2004) discusses the provisions made within the MA for theinclusion of local knowledge. These provisions deal primar-ily with documenting and establishing the validity of non-scientific, particularly local, knowledge. They include tak-ing self-critical notes of the assessment process, triangulatingmethods to test results, ensuring that the community hasthe opportunity to review the assessment process and find-ings, and review by stakeholders at higher and lower scales.Making the connection from policy statements to imple-mentation is important because lack of guidance in how toarticulate local and traditional ecological knowledge so thatit is understood by all assessment users, as well as overcom-ing inherent mistrust and misunderstanding, hamperedsome sub-global assessments (as it has many other assess-ments and participatory projects).

The question remains as to how an indigenous groupcan become part of the authorizing environment when theassessment is to be ‘‘scientific.’’ Who decides what is ‘‘be-lief ’’ and what is ‘‘fact’’? This is not an issue specific to theMA, but rather part of the wider debate on the epistemo-logical basis of science (M. Nadkarni, personal communica-tion). In most places where sub-global assessments wereconducted, policy-related decisions are not made at thelocal level, so it is not clear how assessing local knowledgeand including it in the overall assessment can lead to em-powerment and more appropriate decision-making, twogoals the MA strives for (discussed later in this chapter).

5.4.2 The MA Process: Incorporating MultipleKnowledge Systems

The MA has explicitly recognized that to achieve conserva-tion and sustainable use of ecosystems, traditional and for-mal knowledge systems need to be linked and that the

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:34 PS


influence of intangible benefits, such as spiritual and reli-gious values, on sustainable natural resource management atthe landscape level needs to be strengthened. (See MA Cur-rent State and Trends, Chapter 18.) Limitations and short-comings of integrating non-formal knowledge and formalscience need to be addressed up front, and the methods thatare chosen to collect this knowledge should take the loca-tion-specific environments in which they operate into ac-count (Singhal 2000). Research suggests that if traditionalecological knowledge is to be integrated with other formsof knowledge, it must be understood within its historical,socioeconomic, political, environmental, and cultural con-text (Berkes 1999).

As discussed in the previous section, the MA design wasmodified to allow the inclusion of ‘‘non-scientific’’ infor-mation in the body of knowledge being used to assess eco-system services and human well-being. The MA Secretariatdid not itself develop methods to ‘‘bridge’’ knowledge sys-tems, as such an endeavor was regarded as beyond the scopeof the project. The design of the MA largely relied on en-couraging sub-global assessments to independently testmethodologies for the incorporation of local and traditionalecological knowledge into scientific assessments withintheir own local, national, or regional context. The MA didprovide a forum for the presentation and possible furtherdevelopment of methodologies to advance the understand-ing of bridging knowledge systems at the conference inAlexandria, Egypt. The MA process and working groupmeetings provided a forum for discussion for the sub-globalassessments, within which ideas, methods and approaches tothe treatment of different forms of knowledge were shared.At early meetings, a large amount of time was often spenton the topic of local/traditional/indigenous knowledge.The discussions highlighted the importance of incorporat-ing different forms of knowledge, particularly the challengesassociated with doing this. There appears to have been littleattention devoted to understanding how knowledge is usedin decision-making processes.

The Bridging Scales and Epistemologies conferencehighlighted the fact that guidance on the use of participa-tory methods was lacking in the sub-global assessments.One problem was that methods needed to be designed to fitthe specific context of each assessment and hiring an outsideconsultant to advise sub-global assessments on how to adapttheir process might be considered inappropriate. In the caseof Vilcanota, the process is still proceeding slowly at thetime of writing this volume, but control of the assessmentand development of methodologies will ultimately residewith the communities involved in the assessment. Theprocess must be allowed to develop in its own time; for thisreason, it may be some time before it can be truly under-stood what advances the sub-global assessments have madein this field.

Most often, local and traditional ecological knowledge isexplored by interdisciplinary teams, because multiple per-spectives strengthen results and the interdisciplinary ap-proach is a backbone of the entire field of participatoryresearch. An important consideration is the fact that, over-

PAGE 104

all, the MA process emphasized ecological science morethan the social sciences. This has been to the detriment ofthe inclusion and full understanding of the potential thatlocal and traditional ecological knowledge can make to anassessment. In many sub-global assessments, several differentscientific disciplines were represented in the assessmentteam. There were almost always ecologists, often econo-mists, but rarely people with long experience working withlocal knowledge, such as anthropologists, philosophers ofscience, or community-oriented researchers and develop-ment practitioners. (See Table 5.4.) Only a few assessments,such as SAfMA, Tropical Forest Margins, and Portugal, dis-cussed how the different disciplines in the assessment teamsshared knowledge or influenced the outcomes.

The Tropical Forest Margins assessment offers rich in-sights into achieving integration among knowledge systems.As part of their MA activities, 42 members of the assessmentteam participated in an online consultation on how the pro-gram has managed the goal of integrated research (Tomichet al. 2004). The results of this consultation pointed to thetime and dedication that working across disciplines and in-terests requires, although all of the team highly valued theinterdisciplinary approach and considered it essential to an-swering key questions. Essential to the success and longevity(10 years) of this team was commitment to a common set ofresearch issues and shared analytical protocols, yet enoughflexibility and free exchange so that new ideas could beincorporated and prior assumptions or hypotheses could berejected. The team was assisted by the constant presenceof a coordination office, which acted as a bridge betweenscientists and users.

The Portugal assessment, which involved 35 scientistsfrom the natural and social sciences, provides some insightinto interdisciplinary integration as well, with the recogni-tion of ‘‘technical and stakes’’ gaps (Pereira et al. 2005).These gaps illustrate the differences in both disciplines andinterests of scientists. Due to the complexity of social-ecological systems, there is a lack of scientific knowledge topredict how these systems will evolve, and scientists dis-agree on the future trajectory for particular social-ecologicalsystems. These gaps were bridged somewhat during the de-velopment of scenarios and the qualitative assessment ofconditions and trends. In the scenario work, the creativeprocess of developing descriptive narratives allowed for bet-ter communication between the different scientists.

SAfMA used a ‘‘trans-disciplinary’’ approach, as the as-sessment team held the view that working across disciplinesis indispensable when dealing with complex multiscale sys-tems (Cundill et al. 2004). Due to limited resources, theapproach involved a trade-off between the ability to includeand recognize the influence of a multitude of factors and thedevelopment of an in-depth understanding of the linkagesamong all identified processes. The SAfMA team also hadto struggle with interdisciplinary dialogues and competingexplanations of events by different scientists, which madeconsensus difficult.

In-depth understanding of local knowledge by outsidersrequires skill, training, respectful behavior, an open andnon-judgmental attitude, and experience of place within an

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:34 PS


Tabl

e5.

4.Co

ntrib

utio

nsof

Vario

usKn

owle

dge

Syst

ems

toSe

lect

edSu

b-gl

obal

Asse

ssm

ents

(Info

rmat

ion

from

ques

tionn

aire

s)

Sub-

glob

alAs

sess

men

t

Know

ledg

eSy

stem

sCo

ntrib

utin

gto

Asse

ssm

ent

Ecol

ogis

ts,B

otan

ists

,Zo

olog

ists

Oth

erBi

ophy

sica

land

Natu

ralS

cien

tists

Anth

ropo

logi

sts

and

Soci

olog

ists

Econ

omis

tsO

ther

Soci

oeco

nom

icSc

ient

ists

Prac

titio

ners

Boun

dary

Org

aniz

atio

ns

San

Pedr

ode

Atac

ama

desi

gned

and

exec

uted

the

asse

ssm

entp

roc-

ess;

diss

emin

atio

nof

findi

ngs

prov

ided

cont

exta

ndun

ders

tand

ing

ofin

dig-

enou

spr

actic

esan

dtra

ditio

ns

desi

gned

and

exec

uted

the

asse

ssm

entp

roc-

ess;

diss

emin

atio

nof

findi

ngs

publ

icse

ctor

agen

cies

assi

sted

with

deve

lop-

men

tofa

ccur

ate

sce-

nario

s

Coa

stal

BCte

amle

ader

san

dm

em-

bers

fore

cosy

stem

spat

iala

naly

sis,

eco-

syst

emtre

nds,

risk

anal

ysis

,eco

syst

em-

base

dm

anag

emen

t

geog

raph

ers,

fore

ster

s,m

inin

gge

olog

ists

con-

tribu

ted

toas

sess

men

t;te

amm

embe

rsfo

reco

-sy

stem

-bas

edm

anag

e-m

ent,

spat

iala

naly

sis,

and

wel

l-bei

ngas

sess

-m

ent

team

lead

eran

dm

em-

bers

forc

ultu

rala

ndsp

atia

lana

lysi

s,an

dfo

rw

ell-b

eing

asse

ssm

ent

team

lead

ers

and

mem

-be

rsof

econ

omic

anal

-ys

is;m

embe

rsof

ecos

yste

m-b

ased

man

-ag

emen

ttea

m

polit

ical

scie

ntis

tsan

dla

wye

rsco

ntrib

uted

to,

and

are

team

lead

ers

and

mem

bers

of,p

olic

yan

din

stitu

tiona

lana

ly-

sis;

mem

bers

ofec

o-sy

stem

-bas

edm

anag

emen

ttea

m

man

ager

sof

over

all

asse

ssm

ent;

team

lead

ers

ofec

osys

tem

-ba

sed

man

agem

ent

and

wel

l-bei

ngas

sess

-m

ent

Swed

enKW

info

rmat

ion

onsp

ecie

sdi

vers

ity,p

opul

atio

nch

ange

s,ha

bita

ts,

mon

itorin

gof

rare

spe-

cies

EKV

staf

fwer

epa

rtof

the

tech

nica

ltea

mth

athe

lped

inpr

oble

mid

en-

tifica

tion,

cond

ition

and

trend

san

dre

spon

seop

tions

deve

lopm

ent

Trop

ical

Fore

stM

argi

nsbi

odiv

ersi

tyin

dex

that

enab

led

anal

ysis

oftra

de-o

ffsw

ithot

her

disc

iplin

es

carb

onse

ques

tratio

n;ag

rono

mic

sust

ain-

abilit

y

insi

ghti

nto

nonq

uant

i-fia

ble

inst

itutio

nal/s

ocia

lva

riabl

es

econ

omic

profi

tabi

lity

ofla

ndus

esy

stem

sN

GO

s

Portu

gal

cond

ucte

dm

osto

fthe

asse

ssm

ent

fore

stan

dag

ricul

tura

len

gine

ers

assi

sted

inco

nduc

ting

mos

toft

heas

sess

men

t

one

anth

ropo

logi

stin

-vo

lved

inth

eso

cioe

co-

nom

ican

alys

isof

the

asse

ssm

ent

cond

ucte

dec

onom

icev

alua

tion

ofec

osys

-te

mse

rvic

es

soci

alsc

ient

istc

olla

bo-

rate

dw

ithec

olog

istt

oco

nduc

tSis

telo

com

-m

unity

asse

ssm

ent

repr

esen

tativ

esof

the

publ

ican

dco

rpor

ate

sect

orhe

lped

shap

eth

eas

sess

men

tque

s-tio

ns

SAfM

Apr

imar

yso

urce

ofkn

owle

dge

fora

sses

s-m

ent;

valid

ator

oflo

cal

know

ledg

e

impl

emen

ted

and

inte

r-pr

eted

parti

cipa

tory

met

hods

/resu

lts

deve

lope

dso

cioe

co-

nom

icpr

ofile

sN

GO

PAGE 105................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:35 PS


interdisciplinary team (Chambers 1994, 1997). It should benoted that some hold the view that only indigenous peoplethemselves should be the ones to investigate indigenousknowledge, stemming from a belief that all knowledge ispoliticized (Smith 1999).

The assessment technical teams differed greatly in termsof expertise and experience. While some teams were ableto progress rapidly with the general assessment work, othersstruggled with the design of the basic assessment. Few teamswere able to work effectively with local/traditional/indige-nous knowledge, due to lack of expertise, although threequarters (25 out of 34 assessments) tried to some extent. Bysharing experiences, methodologies, and lessons learned,the teams with less experience in this kind of work wereexposed to ideas on how to go about working with otherkinds of knowledge. For example, the expert in participa-tory methods from SAfMA spent several months workingwith both the Vilcanota and the San Pedro de Atacama as-sessments, training them in methods of working with localknowledge holders. Assessments run by teams primarilycomposed of biophysical scientists were encouraged towiden their perspectives on their assessment areas, inhabi-tants, and sources of information. Ultimately, however,individual assessment teams, along with their advisory com-mittees, decided to what degree they would work withlocal and traditional ecological knowledge systems in thecontext of their own assessments.

One indication of the limited experience that the sub-global assessments had in using multiple knowledge systemsis that gender differentiation of local and traditional knowl-edge was not considered in the MA even though it is almostalways recognized as critical in the study of human–ecosystem interactions (for example, FAO Sustainable Di-mensions 2001). Assessment reports did not discuss theimportance of understanding gender differences in knowl-edge, except for the Sinai assessment. As mentioned earlier,local and traditional ecological knowledge is also differenti-ated by age, wealth, and status in the community, all ofwhich need to be considered in the assessments that rely onlocal/traditional ecological knowledge. Several assessments(for example, San Pedro de Atacama and Sinai) did notethat the community elders were the primary holders of tra-ditional knowledge.

Understanding the social, cultural, and economic con-text of place requires a historical analysis of trends andevolution not only of knowledge (for example, recent dis-coveries), but also of the use of this knowledge over timeand space in different institutions. Few sub-global assess-ments gave much treatment to the historical context inwhich current knowledge use is based. San Pedro de Ata-cama and Eastern Himalayas both discussed economicchanges in the past decade as negatively affecting localknowledge, although in San Pedro de Atacama recent polit-ical and legislative changes are encouraging a renewed in-terest in indigenous identity, for cultural and economicreasons. In contrast, India Local embedded the assessmentin the national historical context, but did not discuss localknowledge within this.

PAGE 106

SAfMA reports that participatory rural appraisal toolswere useful for discussing local and traditional knowledgeat the local scale, but in order to make it meaningful athigher scales, the knowledge had to be re-articulated so thatscientists and others could relate to it. This often takes localand traditional knowledge out of its context and thuschanges it. SAfMA relied on cross-validation, which putslocal and scientific knowledge on an even plane, so thatlocal experts validate scientific knowledge, and scientistsvalidate local knowledge. In this way, as the assessment au-thors assert, the integrity of local knowledge can never be‘‘guaranteed’’ by scientific standards, but by using the vari-ous techniques in a complementary way, a form of ‘‘localpeer review’’ is introduced that greatly enhances the credi-bility of local and traditional knowledge from the perspec-tive of scientific users (Fabricius et al. 2004).

A process is on-going in India Local, where validationof local knowledge is a concern for national policy develop-ment. Validation is done by collating local knowledge, stor-ing it in the People’s Biodiversity Register, and thentransmitting it to the National Institute of Innovation, inEnglish. In Vilcanota, two different databases were used—one in Quechua and one in Spanish—to be able to get theinformation to central decision-makers. In San Pedro deAtacama, biophysical scientists did not take concrete stepsto exchange information and generate synergies with thosewith local knowledge; local knowledge was not used in theassessment for various reasons. Therefore, the challenge is tocall upon scientists from all disciplines involved to developbridges and exchange mechanisms for knowledge sharing. Itwill be similarly important to find institutions and decision-makers willing to share knowledge across levels as well. Inthis case, as well as in Vilcanota, Sinai, and Bajo Chirripo,the assessment itself can be viewed as an important first stepin building awareness of the need for and benefits of bridg-ing local knowledge with higher scale decision-makingprocesses.

Several assessments incorporated the knowledge of as-sessment users (practitioners), such as government bureau-crats or local NGO workers. In the case of India Local, theinvolvement, support, and participation of local govern-ment (Panchayat) officials was encouraged, given their di-rect control over natural resource access and managementat the local level; school teachers and students were respon-sible for the collection of local knowledge. In Sweden KW,all stakeholders were classified according to the knowledgethey have, from farmers up to municipal officials. The Swe-den KW framework considered that every user group has atype of basic ecological knowledge, as all stakeholders areconsidered to use the ecosystem services in some way.Many stakeholders have knowledge about technology andare skilled in management practices. The rarest form ofknowledge, regarding the social processes behind ecosystemmanagement, is held only by the Ecomuseum KristianstadsVattenrike, which is the mediating institution that coordi-nates the social networks that collectively manage the wet-lands (Sweden KW).

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:35 PS


5.4.3 The Influence of Different KnowledgeSystems

This section examines how the involvement of differentscientists and a range of non-scientists influenced the assess-ment processes and outcomes. The intent is to explore thedepth of contributions that non-scientific knowledge hold-ers were able to make. Table 5.1 above summarizes how allthe sub-global assessments viewed and used local knowl-edge, and the approach that different sub-global assessmentstook in using local and traditional knowledge systems. Notethat much of the information was verbally transmitted dur-ing the knowledge market during MA Sub-global WorkingGroup meeting held in Alexandria, Egypt, in March 2004.

Several assessments attempted to recognize the com-plexity of local and traditional ecological knowledge. Forexample, seven assessments (Coastal BC, PNG, India Local,Sinai, Bajo Chirripo, SAfMA, and Vilcanota) investigatedand helped to articulate the spiritual component of localknowledge, which is important in understanding what mo-tivates particular behavior in human–ecosystem interac-tions. In PNG, for example, local ecosystems are imbuedwith spiritual beings, an understanding of which lent insightinto the patterns of resource use. In another example, inthe sacred groves in India, the assessment drew upon theconservation benefits of the spiritual values associated withcertain forest areas. The reworking of the conceptualframework by the Quechua community of Vilcanota, Peru,and the Cabecar in Bajo Chirripo, Costa Rica, relied heav-ily on spiritual components of local and traditional ecologi-cal knowledge.

A number of sub-global assessments pointed out the im-portance of local knowledge to cultural identity; examplesinclude the Bedouin of the Sinai, the Atacamenos in SanPedro de Atacama, the Quechua communities in Vilcanota,the Cabecar of Bajo Chirripo, and the Haida Gwaii andthe north and central coast First Nations of Coastal BC.Transmission of traditional knowledge is currently havingthe positive effect of affirming the Atacameno culture andidentity in San Pedro de Atacama and of strengtheningcommunity cohesion in Vilcanota; in both these cases,however, the need for continued support of policy-makersis important. As several researchers have noted, failure tograsp and acknowledge these deeper or more complex as-pects of local knowledge, robs this knowledge of some ofits inherent meaning.

Most sub-global assessments, on some level, dependedupon local knowledge to complement science. For exam-ple, Western China and India Local highlight the importantobservations and innovations local and traditional ecologicalknowledge contains for soil and water conservation.SAfMA highlights the rich diversity of management prac-tices and coping strategies (which contain observationsabout complex use of landscapes) based on local knowledge.The Mekong Wetlands, Viet Nam, assessment highlightsthe tremendous value of local knowledge of medicinalplants.

In three assessments, the concept of integrating localknowledge with science was rejected: PNG, Sinai, and, tosome extent, Coastal BC. Local communities in Papua

PAGE 107

New Guinea see no need for science, because their localknowledge systems are so robust and form the basis of theirdaily practice. Similarly, in Sinai, the Bedouin rely heavilyon their own knowledge for their livelihood needs, but fearboth cultural erosion and knowledge appropriation.

In Coastal BC, local and traditional knowledge was notused along with science for a number of reasons. The assess-ment team used all four of the recognized knowledge sys-tems (scientific, technical, traditional, and local) to someextent. However, the timetable imposed on the assessment,the ready availability of scientists, the relative ease withwhich their qualifications could be authenticated, and theirapparent independence, favored the use of scientific sys-tems. In contrast, indigenous (First Nations) knowledge sys-tems posed certain challenges: (1) the information on FirstNations’ traditional territory will be used politically (to sup-port their position in treaty negotiations) and some FirstNations think they will put their case at risk if they revealthe information in advance; (2) some information on spiri-tual sites or sites closely associated with the identity of a clanor household is highly sensitive and must not be made pub-lic; (3) some information is not available to the First Nationas a whole but is owned by particular clans or families; and(4) time is required to observe rules of behavior, negotiatewith the owners of information, and grasp different world-views and classifications—time that was not available to theassessment. The authors of the assessment stated that therewas not enough time or resources to devote to incorporat-ing traditional knowledge. With hindsight (and the passageof time), they realize that they could have made better useof indigenous and other local knowledge, particularly in theassessment of provisioning/cultural services. Specifically,they could have developed expert-based indicators on thebiological and cultural diversity of food systems and thestatus of contributing ecosystems and species, using esti-mates from First Nation and other local experts as well asscientists (Coastal BC).

Six assessments achieved some form of two-way orcross-scale interactions between science and local and tradi-tional ecological knowledge: SAfMA, San Pedro de Ata-cama, India Local, Sweden KW, Vilcanota, and BajoChirripo. SAfMA, after validating and re-interpreting localknowledge, returned some of this knowledge, along withthe scientific results, back to the communities, using theaterand scenarios. The methods involved in scenario develop-ment in some sub-global assessments resulted in cross-scale(both vertical and horizontal) knowledge sharing as well asbridging knowledge among multiple stakeholders, includ-ing scientists, practitioners and local/traditional knowledgeholders. In SAfMA, scenarios developed at a national, re-gional, and basin level were presented to the community asstorylines, so that the community could relate to them. Theoutcome was that local people were able to envision takingcontrol of their own future as a plausible scenario. In SanPedro de Atacama, scenarios were used with the advisorygroup, which was composed of multiple stakeholders. Theoutcome was trust-building and the realization that allstakeholders need to be involved in an assessment to deter-mine what responses should be prioritized as follow up to

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:36 PS


the assessment. The scenarios helped both these communi-ties to better understand the reasons for participating in as-sessment processes.

In India Local, local/traditional ecological knowledgewas not viewed as an alternative to science, but rather asan integral part of ecosystem understanding, as only localresource users have in-depth knowledge about local biodiv-ersity and resources. The assessment was embedded in alarger effort to acknowledge and use local knowledge, butthere remain difficulties in validating some types of localknowledge and its use at a higher level is as yet untested. InSweden KW, the distinctions between local and scientificknowledge were not presented as distinctively as in IndiaLocal, but the whole evolution of the EKV represents amultiscale and multi-knowledge holder effort to combineinformation for the best ecosystem understanding and man-agement. So far, this appears to be a very successful dia-logue.

In Vilcanota and Bajo Chirripo, science deferred to thelocal indigenous knowledge base. Both sub-global assess-ments spent a lot of time working with the communities tovalidate and reinterpret the MA conceptual framework andthe science behind it in order to enhance the relevance ofthe MA to local communities. Science was seen importantto complement and strengthen local knowledge, as well asto help address ecosystem crises that are new to the regionand unfamiliar to local resource managers.

In contrast, in several assessments, no local knowledgewas used. The Caribbean Sea assessment acknowledged thatlarge organizations external to the region have more influ-ence regionally than the countries in the region, whichwidens the gap between local level realities and global per-ceptions (KM–Caribbean Sea). In Laguna Lake Basin, onlyscientists participated in a review of information from sec-ondary sources, thus current local level knowledge did notinform the assessment.

Approaches to using multiple knowledge systems alsovaried within assessments. Not all local assessments coulduse both local knowledge and science together. In EasternHimalayas, local knowledge is scarce. In Coastal BC, localpeople were reluctant to share some aspects of their knowl-edge with outsiders. In Downstream Mekong, differencesin educational and income levels impeded mutual under-standing between local stakeholders and the assessmentteam. In Sinai, outsiders recognized the richness of Bedouinlocal knowledge of water harvesting and medicinal plants;however, the Bedouin are protective of this knowledge, asit is integral to their cultural identity. The SAfMA assess-ment incorporated local knowledge predominantly from anatural resource management perspective, and the use ofthese management frameworks improved the legitimacyand validity of the assessment. The process, however, wasless participatory than that advocated by the proponents ofcommunity-based natural resource management (Fabriciuset al. 2004) and less legitimate than a bottom up assessmentin the eyes of the local people.

Table 5.2 highlights the differing influences of partici-pants’ knowledge systems on both process and outcome.From the materials available, we cannot with confidence

PAGE 108

explain how processes and outcomes were influenced bydifferent participants. However, it is evident in several as-sessments that the influence of scientists and policy-makersin the assessment process and outcomes was greater thanthat of local and indigenous communities. For example, inNorthern Range, SAfMA, Western China, Tropical ForestMargins, and Caribbean Sea, the assessment processes weredefined by the teams of scientists. The San Pedro de Ata-cama assessment predominantly relied on science, only se-lectively involving local ecological knowledge, but theassessment validated the knowledge and devoted attentionand resources to understanding it and reporting on it. Inseveral assessments, science was used where local knowl-edge may have been more informative. For example, in Ar-gentine Pampas, a sociologist translated the link betweenhuman well-being and ecosystem services and a govern-ment consultant was hired to consider outcomes.

Thus most assessments used local knowledge as an infor-mation source that science validated and reinterpreted forother assessment users. As of this writing, not many sub-global assessments have reached the stage of developingpolicy-relevant messages, which is consistent with the lackof evidence from the sub-global assessments on how to cre-ate policy–research dialogues or policy–local resource userdialogues.

5.4.4 The Utility of the MA Conceptual Frameworkfor the Assessments

Given the complexity of local knowledge, and the issuesinvolved in using multiple knowledge systems, the utilityof the MA conceptual framework for the local sub-globalassessments is important to consider. The framework repre-sents the worldviews of scientists and some assessment users,but while it proved useful to most of the sub-global assess-ments, there are lessons to be learned from those where itwas not found to be an effective tool for assessing human–ecosystem interactions in the local context.

In SAfMA, researchers found the conceptual frameworkof the MA to be insufficient to deal with dynamic localinteractions, and therefore difficult to use as a starting pointwith the communities. To overcome this challenge, theSAfMA local-level assessments combined the adaptive re-newal model (Holling 1986; Berkes and Folke 1998; Gund-erson and Holling 2002) with the MA framework as aconceptual guide. This model regards social and ecologicalsystems as intrinsically linked and posits that micro-levelphenomena can affect macro-level processes as much as themacro affects the local. The model also acknowledges theadaptive capabilities of local communities and ecosystems,an aspect significantly lacking in the MA framework thatwas crucial for the SAfMA assessment. The sustainable live-lihoods framework (Ellis 2000; www.livelihoods.org) wasalso used to accommodate these adaptive strategies.

In Bajo Chirripo, the basic concepts of the MA concep-tual framework were understood to some extent but it wasnevertheless quite foreign to community members’ way ofthinking. Recognizing a need to understand these conceptsin the language and from the perspective of the community,

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:37 PS


the assessment team and the Cabecar community togetherinvested considerable time in revising the conceptualframework. A full local framework has not yet been com-pleted/developed for this assessment, but components havebeen identified and discussed in the community.

In Vilcanota, the adaptation of the MA conceptualframework constituted an important part of the assessmentwork. (See Box 5.4.) The assessment team found that theEnglish terms used in the framework were difficult to trans-late into Quechua. In addition, the diagram itself and theterms used in the conceptual framework were difficult forthe community to relate to, based on their own experienceof the environment. The ANDES technical team realizedthat to move forward with the assessment and for the com-munities to take ownership of the process and results, theframework would have to be based on a Quechua world-view, and not on the MA worldview, translated for their use.

The Coastal BC assessment adapted the MA conceptualframework to emphasize key relationships. The essentialstructure of the MA conceptual framework was unchangedexcept for the addition of human interactions that directlylink human drivers and ecosystem services. These links re-flect the key role of competition and conflict among usersof ecosystem services in determining who benefits fromwhich services and how much they benefit. A separate boxin the diagram was added to Ecosystem Condition to high-light the need to maintain ecosystem integrity in order tomaintain the supply of ecosystem services. Drivers wereseparated into ‘‘human’’ and ‘‘ecosystem’’ drivers in recog-nition of the distinct differences between them. Humandrivers were reduced to three major groups: populations,needs and wants, and powers (such as technology, money,knowledge, access, and rights) that fuel competition andconflict among the users of ecosystem services and amplifythe combined impact on the ecosystem of populations andtheir needs and desires. Direct and indirect drivers weremerged, except for the ways in which human drivers act onthe ecosystem (identified in the human impacts box). Driv-ers were reduced to two major groups: conversion of eco-systems (to structures and cultivation) and use of ecosystemservices, which emphasized that the use of ecosystem ser-vices strongly affects ecosystem condition and hence thesupply of services.

Three assessments (Sweden KW, SAfMA, and Wiscon-sin) used the concepts and theories of resilience (Gundersonand Holling 2002) and adaptive co-management (Olsson et al.2004) as part of their conceptual frameworks. Sweden KWalso prioritized the idea of social-ecological systems (Berkesand Folke 1998) and highlighted the role of flexible institu-tions and matching management practices, social processes,and ecosystem processes at various scales. (See Chapter 11.)In the Northern Highlands Lake District, Wisconsin, assess-ment, the MA conceptual framework volume (MA 2003)appeared too late to be used explicitly in the assessment; theframework, however, was considered useful to assessmentorganizers, but too technical for local users. The assessmentused complexity theory to deal with the problems of unpre-dictability of ecological forecasts, which contributed to de-termining indicators of social–ecological resilience that

PAGE 109

could be drawn upon for sustainable development in thearea. (See Box 5.5.)

Several assessments had few problems, if any, in usingthe MA conceptual framework. In Western China, wherethe framework was also used for three other projects, it waseasily understood by local scientists but required some ex-planation to decision-makers. The framework was used todesign a questionnaire targeted at local farmers and othercommunity members. The San Pedro de Atacama assess-ment used the conceptual framework despite some initialproblems for some user groups that necessitated some inno-vation, such as changing the meaning of words (for exam-ple, instead of conditions and trends, the assessment teamuse the word ‘‘baselines’’ to refer to the current situation)and introducing the conceptual framework gradually. Thismade it more comprehensible and less complex, and thuspromoted the involvement of all users. Finally, in the Sinaiassessment, the conceptual framework was used, but it wasmostly understood by those with formal academic training,such as government officials working in the assessment area.However, the assessment team noted that the local Bedou-ins appreciated the way the framework examined connec-tions between a good environment and a good quality oflife.

5.4.5 Knowledge Systems, Institutions, and Scale

An initial MA hypothesis was that knowledge is embeddedas well as privileged at specific levels. Just as the MA con-cerns itself with linking biophysical and social data acrossscales, a treatment of knowledge systems and the institu-tional structures that support and use them, and howknowledge and institutions interact across scales, is in order.(See Chapter 11.) Institutions are defined broadly as therules of the game devised as constraints for shaping humanaction (Ostrom et al. 1994; Young 2002)

A question to be examined is whether the sub-globalassessments shed light on which type of knowledge pre-dominates in management at different scales. It appears thatscience is the knowledge system legitimized at national andregional scales and used as the primary source of informa-tion in most assessments, including SAfMA, WesternChina, Eastern Himalayas, San Pedro de Atacama, andTropical Forest Margins. While most community assess-ments reported that local knowledge is very important atlocal levels, it is more difficult to determine whether localknowledge is legitimized as a basis for decision-making atother levels, without more information on the institutionalcontexts that support decisions. (See Table 5.5 for details onthe relationship between knowledge systems and scale.)

A number of assessments described local or communityinstitutions as essential for the maintenance of local knowl-edge. SAfMA, for example, highlights the role of socialnetworks and rituals in maintaining and transmittingknowledge that is important for survival. However, theseinstitutions are weak, having been considerably influencedby a history of state interference and deliberate erosion oflocal knowledge and customs. Stewards associations andcraft associations are also important at the local scale. In

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:38 PS


BOX 5.4

Constructing a Conceptual Framework for Quechua Communities: Vilcanota

The Vilcanota assessment team initially planned to adapt the MA concep- The Vilcanota conceptual framework includes multiple scales (Kaypa-tual framework to be more easily understood by Quechua communities in cha, Hananpacha, Ukupacha), which represent both spatial scales andVilcanota. However, initial consultations with several Quechua communi- the cyclical relationship between the past, present, and future. Inherent inties suggested that in order to establish dialogue between the MA con- this concept of space and time is the adaptive capacity of the Quechuacepts and the Quechua communities, the team needed a framework built people, who welcome change and have become resilient to it through anup from the Quechua understanding of ecological and social relationships. adaptive learning process (although it is recognized that current rates of

The team began with the Quechua cosmovision, represented in an change may prove challenging to the adaptive capacities of the communi-ancient Inca icon that embodies the Andean conception of ecosystems. ties).This view can be interpreted to include most modern ‘‘scientific’’ notions The Southern Cross shape of the framework diagram represents theof ecosystem functioning, but has several key distinctions. Concepts such Chakana, the most recognized and sacred shape to Quechua people andas reciprocity (Ayni), the inseparability of space and time, and the cyclical orders the world through deliberative and collective decision-making thatnature of all processes (Pachakuti) are important components of the Inca emphasizes reciprocity (Ayni). Pachamama is similar to ecosystem ser-definition of ecosystems. Love (Munay) and working (Llankay) bring hu- vices combined with human well-being. Pachakuti is similar to the MAmans to a higher state of knowledge (Yachay) about their surroundings, ‘‘drivers’’ (both direct and indirect). Ayllu, Munay, Yachay, and Llankayand are therefore key concepts linking Quechua communities to the natu- may be seen as responses, and are more organically integrated into theral world. Ayllu represents the governing institutions that regulate interac- cyclic process of change and adaptation.tions among all living beings. These and other key components were then The MA’s four categories of ecosystem services had to be augmentedcompared with key components of the MA conceptual framework in order by one: Quechua working groups could not include the service of ‘‘protec-to determine which needed to be included in the local conceptual frame- tion’’ offered by the Pachamama—a broader vision of an ecosystem, de-work for the Vilcanota assessment. The resulting framework has many scribed as ‘‘mother earth, major divinity, place where past, present andsimilarities with the MA framework, but the divergent features are consid- future coincide, a living system embodying humans and all living beingsered to be important to the Quechua people conducting the assessment (including lakes, rocks, mountains, the sky etc), nurtures and cares for(see figure). all’’—in the four MA categories.

PNG, Bajo Chirripo, and Vilcanota, ritual and spiritual be-liefs help to maintain and validate local knowledge. TheBedouins of the Sinai protect their knowledge by maintain-ing a strong cultural identity, and they are reluctant to sharetheir knowledge with outsiders. In Sweden KW, IndiaLocal, and San Pedro de Atacama, the transmission of localand traditional ecological knowledge is supported by the

PAGE 110

education system. In PNG and Sinai, the practice of story-telling and intergenerational transmission are still viableways to maintain local knowledge, while in San Pedro deAtacama (as elsewhere) elders no longer transmit theirknowledge to younger generations in such a regular fash-ion. Experiential learning has long been a mechanism bywhich local and traditional ecological knowledge evolves,

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:41 PS


BOX 5.5

Complexity in Scenario Development: Wisconsin

The future of the Northern Highlands Lake District of Wisconsin isuncertain. For that reason, the assessment team decided that conven-tional scientific tools were inadequate for conservation planning, sincethese methods do not take into account uncertainty, contingency, andreflexivity (Carpenter 2002, cited in Peterson et al. 2003). For example,when the uncertainty of forecasts is rigorously evaluated it is usuallyfound that the prediction is uncertain, meaning that it assigns roughlyequal probability to a wide range of extremely different outcomes. Eco-logical predictions are contingent on drivers that are difficult to predict,such as human behavior. The reflexivity of human behavior furtherconstrains the possibility of ecological predictions (Funtowicz and Ra-vetz 1993)—if predictions are made and taken seriously, people willchange their actions in response to the predictions, making accurateforecasts difficult (Carpenter et al. 1999).

In the assessment, a scenario planning approach was adopted totake into account the problem of prediction and to deal with modellimitations and uncontrollable, irreducible uncertainties in a structuredway so as to create management plans for sustainable development.The assessment involved a series of workshops to determine who thekey actors are in the district, the key ecological services the districtprovides, the district’s history, the key social–ecological linkages, andthe external drivers that may affect the district. In doing so, the assess-ment identified critical processes that are important, uncertain, anddifficult to control and worked to identify key components of resilienceand possible actions to assure that the system remains resilient.

and transmission of local and traditional knowledge isstrongly dependent on its practice (Ingold 2000). In placeswhere traditional practices still support livelihoods and ac-cess to the resource base is assured, practice-based knowl-edge thrives.

When institutions change (as when rules governing ac-cess to resources change or when changes in economic con-ditions result in the disuse of certain resources), local andtraditional knowledge may be eroded or lost. In San Pedrode Atacama and the Eastern Himalayas, the decline in theeconomic significance of traditional agriculture and craftshas led to the abandonment of some local and traditionalknowledge. However, indigenous knowledge is dynamic—as some knowledge and practices are lost, other kinds ofknowledge and practices are elaborated (Berkes 1999). InSan Pedro de Atacama, efforts are under way to link indige-nous culture and knowledge to the tourism industry. Theindigenous population, represented by the Consejo dePueblos Atacamenos (Atacameno People’s Council), is un-dergoing a process to recover and affirm its identity, whichincludes the expression of cultural and spiritual values con-nected to the ecosystem. Indigenous people are looking todevelop a leading role in the growing tourism industry byinfusing these particular cultural features into tourism activ-ities (ethnotourism and agrotourism).

Discussion of decision-making and empowerment oflocal people requires not just including their knowledge,but also dealing with local and community institutions re-garding the acquisition, treatment, and transmission of

PAGE 111

knowledge. For local communities to participate in decision-making at higher levels of political organization, these knowl-edge institutions need to be functional, either recreated ornewly established. The Sweden KW and India Local assess-ments were embedded in institutional structures designedto enable interactions among knowledge held at differentscales (and with different amounts of power). The IndiaLocal assessment evolved both in response to a perceivedlack of interaction between science and local knowledge(Gadgil et al. 2003) and the changing policy structure thatenabled natural resource management and use of localknowledge at the local level (Gokhale and Gadgil 2004). InRichtersveld National Park, the importance of local peoplein conservation was recognized by ensuring protected userights (SAfMA). In San Pedro de Atacama, national lawswere passed to protect indigenous rights, but implementa-tion at the local level involves new, nontraditional institu-tions reaching out to local communities; the assessment teamchose to work at the local level because of local people’sdistrust of local institutions. The Vilcanota and Bajo Chir-ripo assessments attempted to create space to begin a dia-logue between local communities and higher level decision-makers.

The success of each of these efforts can only be evaluatedwith more time. However, in the three assessments mostcommitted to ensuring that local knowledge is heard athigher levels (India Local, Vilcanota, and Bajo Chirripo),key community members who have also been trained inthe scientific worldview were important for the bridging ofknowledge systems.

5.5 Lessons Learned: Incorporating MultipleKnowledge Systems in Future AssessmentsMany sub-global assessments demonstrated a real will anddesire to engage with local and traditional knowledge hold-ers and other non-scientist assessment users. Most assess-ment teams were multidisciplinary and involved multiplestakeholders. The analysis in this chapter focused more onthe use of local and traditional knowledge than on the syn-ergies and conflicts among various disciplines and stake-holders.

The sub-global assessments that used local and tradi-tional ecological knowledge reported on the utility of suchknowledge for assessment. Most importantly, the assess-ments stressed the value of this knowledge for the daily live-lihood practices and strategies of most local resource users.However, the outcomes of these efforts to include morethan just scientific knowledge varied greatly according to:• the level of effective participation of local users and their

role in decision-making;• the development of capacity in local institutions to work

with local and traditional knowledge;• the strength or intactness of local and traditional knowl-

edge systems;• the interest and will on the part of local communities

and other assessment users;

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:41 PS


Table 5.5. Institutions, Scale, and Knowledge Systems in Selected Sub-global Assessments (Information from assessment reports)

Sub-global Knowledge Systems Scale at which Institution that Uses the Interaction of Knowledge Systems acrossAssessment Used in Assessment Knowledge Operates Different Scales

Sweden KW combined and collaborative cross-scale: EKV (along with social net- the EKV documents interpreted local knowl-(science, decision-maker, works) edge for higher scales, and enables local man-and local resource user) agement by connecting to these higher-levellocal scale: recent initiatives for learning in

decision-makersschools; stewards associationsstewards associations enabled horizontal shar-ing of knowledge

SAfMA science legitimized at the national, regional scales little interaction of science with local knowl-edge, though assessment tried to facilitate this;local often most important for local scale but littlescience still the basis for decisions at national‘‘power’’ at any scale; social networks andlevel; local knowledge used for ‘‘survival’’; localrituals at local level maintain its useknowledge threatened by historical weakeningand economic trends

in Richtersveld National Park, local people im-portant to conservation efforts and their partici-pation is institutionalized

Northern Range science national, in the form of research organiza- science has multiple cross-scale interactions:tions, public agencies, individuals global, regional, and sub-national

San Pedro de Atacama science national and local—for mining, tourism science still dominates ecosystem manage-ment at all scalestraditional patchy local (elders hold it; only used for

pastoral, agricultural activities); other local ‘‘national’’ institutions assisted local social insti-users try to protect local and traditional tutions trying to revive traditional knowledge forknowledge from further weakening social identity purposes

national: law encourages participation indevelopment and resource management

India Local combined and collaborative People’s Biodiversity Register (PBR) used PBR enabled science and local knowledge in-local and traditional ecolog- at both local and national scales teractions and use for both local and nationalical knowledge decisions

Eastern Himalayas science dominates at local and higher levels via im- interaction between science and local peopleportance to economic activities constrained by differences in logic and world-

viewslocal survives at local level if artisan families stilltransmit; only use of knowledge can pre-serve local and traditional knowledge, whichis threatened by disuse and decline in eco-nomic importance; no local control over re-sources

Bajo Chirripo indigenous local, via internal mechanisms; indigenous assessment a process for cultural validation,spiritual beliefs being lost, so social proc- and recovery of knowledge allowed local peo-localesses such as education being used to sup- ple to interact with higher scalesport its continued use

Vilcanota indigenous at the local scale, customs maintained; assessment aimed to achieve interaction ofmany involve rituals local and indigenous people with science and

government (at higher levels) by empoweringscience functions at national and higher scalelocal people with the assistance of scientistsand international donors

science chose to defer to local knowledge forthe assessment

PAGE 112................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:42 PS


Tropical Forest Margins international research important at global level; expected to trans- interaction at global and national scales en-science fer to national institutions; increasingly abled because the Tropical Forest Margins as-

learning from national and local sessment was a boundary organization;coordination office provided institutional mem-national research science national and local research institutions im-ory for interdisciplinary learningportant for training and learning

local local; migrants bring outside knowledge process-based knowledge worked better thanfrom different locations location-specific knowledge for migrants, as

well as for integration with science

Sinai science national and higher science does not consult with Bedouins, al-though in the area of medicinal plants, interestlocal, indigenous special protection for knowledge on ecosys-is growingtems and human well-being as they rely on

it in crisis; local traditions, community regu-lation, and legal norms protect it; intergener-ational transmission via stories and tribalmeetings

• the predisposition of the sub-global assessment teamtoward including local/traditional, practitioner, andmultidisciplinary knowledge;

• the amount of time and funds devoted to the processof using multiple knowledge systems in the sub-globalassessments; and

• the level of expertise and/or training available to guidethe investigation and use of multiple knowledge systemsin the sub-global assessments.The first four factors, though distinct from an assessment

process, can be specifically built into the process, or influ-enced during the initial stages of attracting interest in anassessment. The latter three can be designed and modifiedat the beginning of or during an assessment process. Futureassessments would be wise to carefully consider how bestto allocate time, resources, and expertise according to theavailability and importance of different types of informationand knowledge sources.

The impact of using local and traditional ecologicalknowledge was generally limited by the overall weaknessof understanding how to best utilize multiple knowledgesystems within the MA, as reflected in the conceptualframework, MA policy and methods, the type of scientistswriting the assessments, and the composition of the assess-ment teams themselves. This problem is best illustrated bythe absence of a chapter in the MA conceptual frameworkreport (MA 2003) that discusses theoretical and practical is-sues around using multiple knowledge systems. This con-trasts with separate chapters devoted to each of the othercomponents of the MA framework: ecosystem goods andservices, drivers, multiscale assessments, and responses.

The contributions of practitioner knowledge werelargely limited by the MA assessment processes, which con-sulted with government officials, development agencies,local authorities, and NGOs to find out what their informa-tion needs were, rather than to investigate the type ofknowledge these practitioners have about the managementof social-ecological systems. Fuller engagement of assess-ment users and other practitioners as knowledge holderswould require more attention to how NGOs and ministriesuse and acquire knowledge in policy- and decision-making.

PAGE 113

This is, as already noted, a fairly new field of inquiry mostlyconducted by political scientists, institutional theorists, andsome researchers attempting to better influence policyprocesses. Only the Tropical Forest Margins assessment seri-ously analyzed its own policy–research interactions.

Numerous scholarly and practical analyses exist on theissues of multidisciplinary research, participatory researchand assessments, and the policy relevance of research. How-ever, considerable transaction costs are involved in multidis-ciplinary and multistakeholder research. Working with localand traditional knowledge holders also requires time tobuild trust. The sub-global assessments had to weigh thetrade-offs involved in achieving results versus workingthrough the transaction costs of building a broad coalition.Recent work has shown that as social learning occurs, andfirm working relationships are established, these costs arelikely to decrease. In both Sweden KW and Tropical ForestMargins, networks had been functioning for at least tenyears, and relationships were well established before the as-sessments began. In Sweden KW, the existing institution,the EKV, which has been in place since 1989, has the solepurpose of coordinating among knowledge systems and fa-cilitating social networks that arise to resolve particularproblems. The assessment was able to take advantage of thisto avoid the transaction costs that other assessments had toface. The Tropical Forest Margins assessment team had alsobeen working together for ten years; team members con-sciously reflected on the efforts required in the first fewyears to learn how to work together and appreciate allpoints of view. As a result, communication across disciplinesand interests improved considerably.

Key issues that have been problematic for the sub-globalassessments—knowledge documentation, validation, anduse—can be addressed in two ways. First, local and tradi-tional ecological knowledge documentation usually eitherrequires leadership by the local people/communities in-volved or else an assessment team well trained in cross-cultural and participatory techniques. The validation proc-ess at the local level should not require the verification oflocal and traditional ecological knowledge against the stan-dards of science. Instead, local methods of validation should

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:43 PS


be upheld. Second, the assumption in the MA conceptualframework was that successful assessments share three basicfeatures: they are scientifically credible, politically legiti-mate, and salient (that is, responsive to decision-makers’needs). It is questionable whether a small farmer, for exam-ple, who has expert knowledge, is a decision-maker athigher levels, beyond his or her day-to-day livelihood deci-sions. It is therefore necessary to understand the cross-scaleinstitutional structure in which knowledge is used and deci-sions are made in the current location of an assessment. Fu-ture sub-global assessments, especially at the local level,could benefit from an analytical framework that moreclosely links institutions and knowledge. The scholarly lit-erature on this is not as accessible to a wide range of readersas would be desirable, but an assessment process that trulybridges different knowledge systems should strive to over-come this problem.

The MA conceptual framework regarded elements ofecosystems as services and presented nature as ‘‘other,’’something that people might act on or exploit but fromwhich their lives are ontologically distinct. Yet, as this chap-ter illustrates, perceptions of ecosystem services vary acrosscultures. Thus the MA worldview may exclude key alterna-tive local framings, such as a dynamic landscape perspectivethat views biological patterns throughout the region asbeing shaped through the interaction of social and ecologi-cal processes over time (Fairhead and Leach 2003; Batter-bury and Bebbington 1999). The conceptual frameworkdid, however, provide opportunities for modification andexpansion, and some sub-global assessments incorporatedother frameworks that challenged normal science and drewupon complexity science. There is much to learn fromthese adaptations of the MA conceptual framework as theychallenge conventional scientific perspectives of ecosystemsand human impacts within them.

In terms of methods, although each assessment reportsusing a range of participatory tools, it is far more difficult totell what level of participation local users achieved (consul-tative or collaborative), and how much space the assessmentcreated for mutual reflection and consideration of the offer-ings of multiple knowledge systems to the assessment goalsand objectives. The task of an integrated assessment is par-ticularly difficult, and demands extensive resources, since itneeds to recognize the multidimensional nature of impacts,but also requires methods that are sensitive to a plurality ofperspectives from diverse intellectual disciplines (MA PolicyResponses, Chapter 3).

In terms of empowerment of local and indigenous re-source users, there are only two clear examples of wherethe local populations were engaged to the extent that theytook the lead in assessment design and implementation (Vil-canota, Bajo Chirripo). This could potentially happen inmore local assessments if some of the previously identifiedconditions are met, such as the existence or establishmentof local institutions that provide the catalyst for local knowl-edge to take the lead and engage science instead of the otherway around. Another important condition that would helppromote local leadership and empowerment is the involve-ment of expertise (whether local or from outside the com-

PAGE 114

munities) to facilitate mutual understanding so that oneknowledge system is not dominated by another. Empower-ment involves more than using local knowledge at a higherscale—it also means recognizing the intrinsic value andcomplexity of local knowledge as well as the existence oflocal institutions, and their ability to take the lead in theassessments and in the control over resource allocation andresults of the assessments.

Each assessment was additionally confronted with prac-tical implementation constraints. Common constraints in-cluded: limited funding, lack of data and information, andtime constraints (due to the voluntary nature of the expertcontributions and to the tight MA timeframe). Particularlyimportant were the lack of local and technical expertise toconduct the assessment and to deal with conflicting knowl-edge, and lack of familiarity with appropriate tools andmethods with which to study local knowledge systems. Forexample, SAfMA found that time constraints allowed forcommunities to respond to the scenarios that were pre-sented to them, but not to evaluate these responses andapply critical thought (Cundill et al. 2004).

Thus the assessments’ efforts to include local/traditionalecological knowledge varied in ability to cover all of theissues pertinent to the MA, for example envisioning plausiblefutures and suggesting policy responses. Local and tradi-tional ecological knowledge contributes to policy recom-mendations and management practices if a strong andexternal institutional structure is in place, as in India Local,and Sweden KW. It is quite possible, in the two cases thattook a more collaborative approach to working with localknowledge (Vilcanota, Bajo Chirripo), that with moretime, a process for articulating local knowledge and linkingit to decision-making processes may evolve. However, inthe short term, the sub-global assessments have largely lim-ited the role of local and traditional knowledge to a consul-tative one, helping to describe the state of ecosystems andhuman well-being within an established framework, butnot taking full advantage of this knowledge system.

Using practitioner knowledge was also constrained bythe MA framework and protocol, in that practitioners werelimited by their role as assessment users. While they mayalso have been knowledge holders and indeed a number ofthe sub-global assessments reported that they contributedinformation, their major role was to express informationneeds, and hence guide the priority questions for the assess-ment. Knowledge becomes a slippery and value-laden issuewhen political and power interests are at stake, as they inev-itably are in resource management. Future endeavors to as-sess the links between human well-being and ecosystemcondition may well learn from the lessons provided by theMA sub-global assessments. These assessments, several ofwhich are ongoing and will be a continuing source of infor-mation, provide a range of community-based case studiesby which to examine how local and traditional ecologicalknowledge, practitioner knowledge, scientific knowledge,and the multiple disciplines therein, may work together fora common goal of sustainable ecosystem management andhuman well-being.

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:44 PS


Appendix 5.1. Policies of the Sub-global WorkingGroup Related to Local Knowledge andCommunity AssessmentsThese policies were developed by the Sub-global WorkingGroup in 2002 to help guide their assessments in handlingissues related to the use of different forms of knowledge.

Review Procedures

Sub-global assessments may develop review processes tai-lored to the circumstances of the assessment and the scaleat which it is undertaken. Each sub-global assessment mustprovide a description of its review process to the MA Paneland Board at the time of its approval. Sub-global assessmentreview processes must meet the following criteria:• the review process must be independent. An independent

party not involved in the governance or operations of thesub-global assessment must have the authority to deter-mine whether reviewer inputs have been sufficient, andwhether the comments have been adequately handled;

• relevant governments (for the scale at which the assess-ment is conducted), NGOs, regional institutions andother organizations as appropriate must be contacted inadvance to identify appropriate reviewers, and reviewsshould be requested from all these sectors;

• reviews should be requested with the aim of obtaining abalanced representation of views within the region in-volved, and among scientific, technical and socioeco-nomic perspectives;

• reviewers should include experts involved in the largerand smaller scale assessments within which the assess-ment is nested, or that are nested within the assessment;

• all written review comments, and the responses to thosecomments, should be provided in their original languageto the MA Secretariat, where they will be kept on file.

Community-based Assessments

Community-based assessments generally will include sig-nificant amounts of information gathered from individuals,and based on local, traditional, and/or indigenous knowl-edge. These assessments should meet the review process cri-teria described above. In addition, they should also establisha process for ‘‘validating’’ information obtained through in-terviews, or based on such knowledge, as part of the appli-cation by the assessment to become a component of theMA. Typically, the validation process should include many,if not all, of the following features:• self-critical review notes or reflective diaries: the re-

searcher should record information on his or her ownperceptions of where information being recorded maybe incomplete, biased or in error;

• triangulation: multiple sources of information should beobtained, particularly for critical pieces of information;

• review by communities: members of the communityshould be given an opportunity to review the findingsprior to finalization of the assessment;

• review by stakeholders at higher and lower scales: indi-viduals who may not have detailed local knowledge of

PAGE 115

the area being assessed, but with knowledge of the re-gion in which the assessment is located, should be givenan opportunity to review the findings prior to finaliza-tion of the assessment.For the MA working group assessment reports (includ-

ing the synthesis report of the Sub-global Working Group),additional requirements exist for the use of informationbased on personal communication from individuals withlocal/traditional/indigenous knowledge, or direct inputfrom working group members with such knowledge.• Metadata concerning the personal communication (e.g.

names of people interviewed, dates and types of notesrecorded, presence or absence of self-critical reviewnotes by the researcher, sources of triangulation, etc.)should be made available to the Co-Chairs of the work-ing group.

• Where a working group member provides direct inputof local/traditional/indigenous knowledge, the workinggroup Co-Chairs should be given the following infor-mation:� basis for knowledge of the particular issues (e.g.,

length of time living in the area, individuals fromwhom historical information was obtained, etc.);

� names and contact information for 1–2 persons whocan be contacted for more information about thesource.

ReferencesAbel, T. and J.R. Stepp, 2003: A new ecosystems ecology for anthropology.

Ecology and Society, 7(3). Available at www.consecol.org/vol7/iss3/art12/.Agrawal, A., 1995: Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific

knowledge. Development and Change, 26(3), 413–439.Agrawal, A., 2002: Indigenous knowledge and the politics of classification.

International Social Science Journal, 173, 287–297.Alcorn, J., J. Bamba, S. Masiun, I. Natalia, and A.G. Royo, 2003: Keeping

ecological resilience afloat in cross-scale turbulence: an indigenous socialmovement navigates change in Indonesia. In: Navigating Social-Ecological Sys-tems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change, F. Berkes, J. Colding, andC. Folke (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 299–327.

Batterbury, S.P.J. and A.J. Bebbington, 1999: Environmental histories, accessto resources and landscape change: An introduction. Land Degradation andDevelopment, 10, 279–289.

Baumann, P., 2000: Sustainable Livelihoods and Political Capital: Arguments andEvidence from Decentralization and Natural Resource Management in India. ODIWorking Paper 136, Overseas Development Institute, London.

Berkes, F., 1999: Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and ResourceManagement. Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia and London.

Berkes, F., 2002: Cross-scale institutional linkages, perspectives from the bot-tom up. Chapter 9 in: E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, P.C. Stern, S. Stonichand E.U. Weber (eds.), The Drama of the Commons. National Academy Press,Washington, DC, pp. 303–321.

Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke, 2000: Rediscovery of traditional ecologicalknowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10, 1251–1262.

Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke, 2003: Navigating Social-Ecological Systems:Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK.

Berkes, F. and C. Folke (eds.), 1998: Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Man-agement Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge Uni-versity Press, Cambridge, UK.

Blaikie, P. and J. Soussan, 2001: Understanding policy processes: LivelihoodPolicy Relationships in South Asia, Working Paper Number 8. Leeds Uni-versity.

Borofsky, R., 1994: On the knowledge and knowing of cultural activities. In:Assessing Cultural Anthropology, R. Borofsky (ed.), Hawaii Pacific University,Hawaii, pp. 331–347.

Brokensha, D., D.M. Warren, and O. Werner (eds.), 1980: Indigenous Knowl-edge Systems and Development. University Press of America, Lanham, MD.

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:44 PS


Brosius, J.P., 2004: What counts as local knowledge in global environmentalassessments and conventions? Paper presented at Bridging Scales and Epistemolo-gies: Linking Local Knowledge and Global Science in Multi-Scale Assessments,March. Alexandria, Egypt.

Bryman, A., 2004: Social Science Research Methods. Oxford University Press,Oxford.

Carpenter, S.R., 2002: Ecolgical futures: Building an ecology of the long now,Ecology 83, 2069–2083.

Carpenter, S.R., W.A. Brock, P.C. Hanson, 1999: Ecological and social dy-namics in simple models of ecosystem management, Conservation Ecology 3(2),4. Available at http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art4.

Cash, D.W. and S.C. Moser, 2000: Linking global and local scales: Designingdynamic assessment and management processes. Global Environmental Change,10, 109–120.

Chambers, R., 1994: Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Analysis and expe-rience. World Development, 22, 1253–1268.

Chambers, R., 1997: Whose Reality Counts? IT Publications, London.Cleaver, F., 2001: Institutions, agency and the limitations of participatory ap-

proaches to development. In: Participation: The New Tyranny?, B. Cooke andU. Kothari (eds.), Zed Books, London, pp. 36–55.

Colson, E., 1984: The reordering of experience: Anthropological involvementwith time, Journal of Anthropological Research 40:1–13.

Crewe, E. and J. Young, 2002: Bridging Research and Policy: Context, Evidenceand Links. RAPID Working Paper 173, Overseas Development Institute andGlobal Development Network, London.

Cundill, G., C. Fabricius, and N. Marti, 2004: Foghorns to the future: Usingknowledge and transdisciplinarity to navigate the uncharted waters of com-plex social-ecological system. Paper presented at Bridging Scales and Epistemolo-gies: Linking Local Knowledge and Global Science in Multi-Scale Assessments,March. Alexandria, Egypt.

Davidson-Hunt, I. and F. Berkes, 2003: Learning as you journey: Anishnaabeperception of social-ecological environments and adaptive learning. Conserva-tion Ecology, 8(1), 5. Available at www.consecol.org/vol8/iss1/art5.

Ellis, F., 2000: Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

Ellis, F. and H.A. Freeman, 2002: Rural livelihoods and poverty reduction strategies infour African countries. LADDER Working Paper 30, University of East Anglia,Norwich.

Fabricius, C., R. Scholes, and G. Cundill, 2004: Mobilising knowledge forecosystem assessments. Paper presented at Bridging Scales and Epistemologies:Linking Local Knowledge and Global Science in Multi-Scale Assessments, March.Alexandria, Egypt.

Fairhead, J. and M. Leach, 2003: Practising ‘‘biodiversity’’ in Guinea: Nature,nation and an international convention. Oxford Development Studies, 31(4),427–439.

FAO, 2001: Women—Users, Preservers and Managers of Agrobiodiversity. FAO Sus-tainable Dimensions Gender and Development Fact Sheet, Food and Agri-culture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Feyerabend, P., 1987: Farewell to Reason. Verso, London.Four Directions Council, 1996: Forests, Indigenous Peoples and Biodiversity:

Contribution of the Four Directions Council to the Secretariat of the Convention onBiological Diversity, Four Directions Council, Lethbridge.

Funtowicz, S.O. and J.R. Ravetz, 1993: Science for the post-normal age. Fu-tures, 25(7), 739–755.

Gadgil, M., P. Olsson, F. Berkes, and C. Folke, 2003: Exploring the role oflocal knowledge in ecosystem management: Three case studies. In: NavigatingSocial-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change, F. Berkes,J. Colding, and C. Folke (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,UK, pp. 189–209.

Gallopin, G., S. Funtowicz, M. O’Connor, and J. Ravetz, 2001: Science forthe 21st century: From social contract to the scientific core. International SocialScience Journal, 168, 219–229.

Gokhale, Y.M. and M. Gadgil, 2004: Evolving institutional mechanisms forbridging scales and epistemologies—An Indian case study. Paper presented atBridging Scales and Epistemologies: Linking Local Knowledge and Global Science inMulti-Scale Assessments, March. Alexandria, Egypt.

Groffman, P.M. and M.L. Pace, 1998: Synthesis: What kind of a discipline isthis anyhow? In: Successes, Limitations, and Frontiers in Ecosystem Science, M.L.Pace and P.M. Groffman (eds.), Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 473–481.

Gunderson, L. and C.S. Holling, 2002: Panarchy: Understanding Transformationsin Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Guston, D.H., 1999: Stabilizing the boundary between politics and science:The role of the Office of Technology Transfer as a boundary organization.Social Studies of Science, 29(1), 87–112.

PAGE 116

Hanna, S.S., C. Folke and K.-G. Maler, 1996: Property rights and the naturalenvironment. In: Rights to Nature: Ecological, Economic, Cultural, and PoliticalPrinciples of Institutions for the Environment. K.-G. Maler (ed.), Island Press,Washington, DC, pp. 1–10.

Heemskerk, M., K. Wison, and M. Pavao-Zuckerman, 2003: Conceptualmodels as tools for communication across disciplines. Conservation Ecology,7(3), 8. Available at http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss3/art8.

Holland, J. and J. Blackburn (eds.), 1998: Whose Voice? Participatory Research andPolicy Change. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.

Holling, C., 1986: The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: Local surprise andglobal change. In: Sustainable Development of the Biosphere, W.C. Clark andR.E. Munn (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 292–317.

Ingold, T., 2000: Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling andSkill. Routledge, London and New York.

Keeley, J.E., 2001: Influencing policy processes for sustainable livelihoods:Strategies for change. Lessons for Change in Policy and Organizations 2.Institute for Policy Studies, Brighton.

Lawrence, A. and M. Elphick (eds.), 2002: Policy Implications of ParticipatoryBiodiversity Assessment. Summary report, European Tropical Forest ResearchNetwork International Seminar for Policy-Makers and Implementers, May2003, Department for International Development, London.

McCay, B. and J.M. Acheson (eds.), 1987: The Question of the Commons: TheCulture and Ecology of Communal Resources. University of Arizona Press, Tuc-son, AZ.

MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2003: Ecosystems and HumanWell-Being: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC, 245pp.

Milton, K., 1996: Environmentalism and Cultural Theory: Exploring the Role ofAnthropology in Environmental Discourse. Routledge, New York.

Moller, H., F. Berkes, P. O’Brian Lyver, and M. Kislalioglu, 2004: Combiningscience and traditional ecological knowledge: Monitoring populations for co-management. Ecology and Society, 9(3), 2.

Mosse, D., 1998: Process-oriented approaches to development practice and so-cial research. In: Development as Process: Concepts and Methods for Working withComplexity, D. Mosse, J. Farrington, and A. Rew (eds.), Routledge, London,pp. 3–30.

Munda, G., 2000: Conceptualising and Responding to Complexity. EnvironmentalValuation in Europe Policy Research Brief 2, Cambridge Research for theEnvironment, Cambridge, UK.

Nadasny, P., 1999: The politics of TEK: Power and the ‘‘integration’’ ofknowledge. Arctic Anthropology, 36(1/2), pp. 1–18.

Narayan, D., R. Chambers, M. Kaul Shah, and P. Petesch, 2000: Voices of thePoor. Crying out for Change. Oxford University Press, New York, 314 pp.

Olsson, P., C. Folke, and T. Hahn, 2004: Social-ecological transformations forecosystem management: The development of adaptive co-management ofwetland landscapes in southern Sweden. Ecology and Society, 9(4), 2. Availableat www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss4/art2.

Ostrom, E., R. Gardner, and J. Walker, 1994: Rules, Games, and Common-PoolResources. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.

Oviedo, G., L. Maffi, and P.B. Larsen, 2000: Indigenous and Traditional Peoples ofthe World and Ecoregion Conservation: An Integrated Approach to Conserving theWorld’s Biological and Cultural Diversity. World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland,Switzerland.

Pahl-Wostl, C., 2003: Polycentric integrated assessment. In: Scaling Issues inIntegrated Assessment, J. Rotmans and D.S. Rothman (eds.), Swets & Zeit-linger, Lisse, the Netherlands, pp. 237–261.

Pereira, H.M., T. Domingos, and L. Vicente, 2005: Assessing ecosystem ser-vices at different scales in the Portugal MEA (unpublished manuscript).

Peterson, G.D., G.S. Cumming, and S.R. Carpenter, 2003: Scenario planning:A tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conservation Biology, 17(2),358–366.

Pritchard, J.L. and S.E. Sanderson, 2002: The dynamics of political discoursein seeking sustainability. In Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Humanand Natural Systems, L.H. Gunderson and C. Holling (eds.), Island Press,Washington, DC, pp. 147–169.

Popper, K.R. [1945] 1950: The sociology of knowledge. In: The Open Societyand Its Enemies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 211–233.

Reid, W., 2004: Bridging scales and epistemologies in the Millennium Ecosys-tem Assessment. Paper presented at Bridging Scales and Epistemologies: LinkingLocal Knowledge and Global Science in Multi-Scale Assessments, March. Alexan-dria, Egypt.

Rocheleau, D., B. Thomas-Slayer, and E. Wangari (eds.), 1996: Feminist Politi-cal Ecology: Global Issues and Local Experiences. Routledge, New York.

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:45 PS


Satterthwaite, A., 1996: Public Voices and Wilderness in Environmental Assessment:A Philosophical Examination of Resource Policy Decisions. Ph.D. Dissertation,York University, UK.

Schoonmaker Freudenberger, K., 1998: The use of RRA to inform policy:tenure issues in Madagascar and Guinea. In: Whose Voice? Participatory Researchand Policy Change, J. Holland and J. Blackburn (eds.), Intermediate Technol-ogy Publications, London, pp. 67–79.

Scoones, I., 1999: New ecology and the social sciences: What prospects for afruitful engagement? Annual Review Anthropology, 28, 479–507.

Scott, J.C., 1998: Seeing Like a State. Yale University Press, New Haven andLondon.

Singhal, R., 2000: A model for integrating indigenous and scientific forestmanagement: Potentials and limitations for adaptive learning. In: Forestry, For-est Users and Research: New Ways of Learning, A. Lawrence (ed.), EuropeanTropical Forest Research Network Publication Series 1, Waginengen, theNetherlands, pp. 133–140.

Smith, L.T., 1999: Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples,Zed Books, St. Martin’s Press, London and New York.

Steward, J., 1955: The concept and method of cultural ecology. In: Theory ofCulture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution, University of IllinoisPress, Urbana, pp. 30–42.

Steward, J., 1955: The Concept and Method of Cultural Ecology—Theory of Culture.University of Illinois Press.

Stone, D., S. Maxwell, and M. Keating, 2001: Bridging Research and Policy. Paperpresented at Bridging Research and Policy Conference. Department for Interna-tional Development, Warwick University.

Sustainable Livelihoods in Southern Africa Team, 2003: Decentralizationsin Southern Africa. Program for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of theWestern Cape, Cape Town.

PAGE 117

Tomich, T.P., J.C. Alegre, V. Areskoug, A. Cattaneo, J. Cornelius, et al., 2004:The challenges of integration: Report of an on-line consultation among re-searchers of the Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn (ASB) Programme. Paperpresented at Bridging Scales and Epistemologies: Linking Local Knowledge andGlobal Science in Multi-Scale Assessments, March. Alexandria, Egypt. Availableat http://www.asb.cgiar.org/PDFwebdocs/Tomich_etal_2004_TheChallengeofIntegration_2.2.pdf.

Turner, N.J., 2004: Plants of Haida Gwaii. Sono Nis Press, Winlaw, BritishColumbia.

van Asselt Marjolein, B.A. and N. Rijkens-Klomp, 2002: A look in the mir-ror: Reflection on participation in integrated assessment from a methodologi-cal perspective. Global Environmental Change, 12, 167–184.

Warren, D.M., L.J. Slikkerveer, and D. Brokensha (eds.), 1995: The CulturalDimension of Development: Indigenous Knowledge Systems. Intermediate Tech-nology Publications, London.

Wilbanks, T.J., 2003: Geographic scaling issues in integrated assessments ofclimate change. In: Scaling in Integrated Assessment, J. Rotmans and D.R.Rothman (eds.), Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, the Netherlands, pp. 5–34.

Woodley, E., 2005: Local and indigenous ecological knowledge as an emergentproperty at a complex system: A case study in the Solomon Islands. In: SourceBook on Participatory Research and Development, CIP-UPWARD, IDRC, andIFAD (in press).

Young, O.R., 2002: Institutional interplay: The environmental consequencesof cross-scale linkages. Chapter 8 in E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, P.C.Stern, S. Stonich, and E.U. Weber (eds. ), The Drama of the Commons. Na-tional Academy Press, Washington, DC.

................. 11474$ $CH5 10-17-05 15:43:46 PS

using multiple knowledge systems: benefits and challenges - unep

Documents