INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS IN AFRICA: INSIGHTS FOR MODERN MANAGEMENT PRACTICE

Roselyne N. Okech, PhDMemorial University of Newfoundland, Canada

Alexandru Nedelea, PhDStefan Cel Mare University of Suceava, Romania

Babu P George, PhDUniversity of Southern Mississippi, USA

ABSTRACT

The lifetime’s accumulation of facts, events, procedures and so on, stored in our memories, enable us to exist in this world.

Knowledge management is emerging as the new discipline that provides the mechanisms for systematically managing the

knowledge that evolves with the enterprise. While technology is not the most important aspect of knowledge management, it

does play a crucial role in facilitating communication and collaboration among knowledge workers in an organization.

Indigenous knowledge is a profound, detailed and shared beliefs and rules with regards to the physical resource, social norms,

health, ecosystem, culture, and livelihood of the people who interact with the environment both in rural and urban settings.

This paper seeks to address the role of indigenous knowledge in Africa and some lessons for knowledge management

initiatives as well as using knowledge as a basis for sustainable practice.

Keywords: Indigenous knowledge, knowledge management, intellectual property rights, disaster mitigation, sustainable development, Africa.

INTRODUCTION

Indigenous knowledge in the South African context is understood as productions consisting of characteristic elements of the traditional artistic heritage developed and maintained by a community in the country or by individuals reflecting the traditional artistic expectations of such a community.

(South African Government, 1997: 10-11)

A large part of the rural communities of the world still rely on traditional local knowledge passed on by past generations to be

able to cope with their everyday life. Even up to the present time, indigenous knowledge has provided basic knowledge in

agriculture and forestry, human and veterinary medicine, natural resource management, nutrition and other activities

(Agarwal, 1999; Emeagwali, 2003; Warren, 1991). Indigenous knowledge is entrenched in community practices and is culture

specific and complex relations and differentiated communication networks are used as a means of transmitting local

knowledge. Access to knowledge depends on the social control of communication channels and the local power structure.

Different rural groups utilise their own modes of knowledge, depending on age, sex, religion and ethnic or class affiliation

(Appleton, 1995; Emeagwali, 2003; Fernandez, 1992).

Indigenous knowledge systems have long been undervalued, however an increasing amount of research on indigenous

knowledge systems is now coming to the fore but in these studies the role of gender is often neglected. Numerous authors

(Agarwal, 1999; Appleton, 1995; Emeagwali, 2003; Nakashima and Roue, 2002; Warren, 1991) have argued that indigenous

knowledge and gender are inextricably bound up with each other. They have also maintained that if indigenous knowledge

systems are capable of forming a basis for sustainable development, their capacity to innovate on the basis of gendered-

knowledge-generating processes must be recognised and respected. As noted before, indigenous knowledge is not only the

most important knowledge system for many rural people, but also an essential component in sustainable development.

Article 8(j) of the Convention of Biological Diversity (UN, 1992: 12) has contributed to ensuring that indigenous knowledge be

part of the sustainable development and biodiversity conservation discourse by requiring signatories to: “respect, preserve

and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional life-styles

relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity”.

WHAT IS INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE?

The challenge of understanding indigenous knowledge begins with the perplexing task of deciding how it should be named

(Nakashima and Roué, 2002; World Bank, 1998). There is no general consensus since there is recognition that existing terms

are for one reason or another unsatisfactory. The following are examples of some of the terms used:

Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK): This term was coined in the 1980s intended to highlight communities’

knowledge of the natural environment, but there is a challenge in thinking of ‘traditional’ knowledge as fixed to the

past and not subject to change as cultural views and activities change. However, it is not enough to confine the sets

of knowledge possessed by the communities to the ‘ecological’ view as they encompass more than one scientific

discipline and empirical knowledge, but also practices and know-how, value systems, ways of life and worldviews

(Nakashima and Roué, 2002).

Indigenous Knowledge: This term poses a challenge in relation to defining who an indigenous person is. For

example, Emeagwali (2003) indicates that although it helps to identify American and Australian aborigines, it

doesn’t apply as neatly to Africa and Asia where the majority of the people are natives and it is therefore difficult to

differentiate between one group and the other.

Local Knowledge and Farmers’ knowledge: In several African countries, the label indigenous (or ‘Bantu’ in the

case of apartheid South Africa) has retained a strongly negative connotation due to its past history of use by colonial

oppressors. Therefore, the terms farmers’ knowledge and local knowledge are sometimes the preferred terms of use

(Ortiz, 1999; Warren, 1991). The term local knowledge has the additional advantage of not excluding non-

indigenous farmers, fishers, health practitioners and others whose extensive knowledge of the natural environment

is also a product of resource-based livelihoods extending across many generations. Its major weakness is a lack of

specificity, as most knowledge can be labelled local (Ellen and Harris, 1996; Emeagwali, 2003; World Bank, 1998).

Odora-Hoppers and Makhale-Mahlangu (1998) defines Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) as the combination of knowledge

systems encompassing technology, social, economic, philosophical learning/educational, and legal and governance systems. It

is knowledge relating to the technological, social, institutional, scientific and development including those used in the

liberation struggles (Odora Hoppers and Makhale-Mahlangu, 1998). Indigenous Knowledge (IK) is described by Warren

(1991) as the local knowledge that is unique to a given culture or society. It is distinct from the international knowledge

system generated by universities, research institutions and private firms. It is said to form the basis for local-level decision-

making in agriculture, health care, food preparation, education, natural resource management, and a host of other activities in

rural communities. According to various literatures (Appleton, 1995; Ellen and Harris, 1996; Fernandez, 1992; Pidatala and

Khan, 2003; Prakash, 2003; Warren, 1989, World Bank, 1998), there are special features of indigenous knowledge that

distinguishes it broadly from other knowledge, viz:

Local: is rooted in a particular community and situated within broader cultural traditions and is a set of experiences

generated by people living in those communities. Separating the technical from the non-technical, the rational from

the non-rational could be problematic. Therefore, when transferred to other places, there is a potential risk of

dislocating indigenous knowledge.

Tacit: as knowledge that is not easy to codify.

1

1

Transmitted orally: or through imitation and demonstration. Codifying it may lead to the loss of some of its

properties.

Experiential rather than theoretical knowledge: experience and trial and error, tested in the rigorous laboratory

of survival of local communities constantly reinforce IK.

Learned through repetition: which is a defining characteristic of tradition even when new knowledge is added.

Repetition aids in the retention and reinforcement of IK.

Constantly changing: being produced as well as reproduced, discovered as well as lost; though it is often perceived

by external observers as being somewhat static.

Shared to a much greater degree than other forms of knowledge: this is why it is sometimes called ‘people’s

science’.

The International Council for Science (ICSU, 2002) study group defines traditional knowledge as a cumulative body of

knowledge, know-how, practices and representations maintained and developed by people with extended histories of

interaction with the natural environment. These sophisticated sets of understandings, interpretations and meanings are part

and parcel of a cultural complex that encompasses language, naming and classification systems, resource use practices, ritual,

spirituality and worldview (ICSU, 2002). This body of knowledge is distinct from the modern or ‘western’ knowledge and it is

easy for people to attempt to 'blend' or 'integrate' local knowledge into existing scientific procedures assuming that rural

people's knowledge represents an easily definable 'body' or 'stock' of knowledge ready for extraction and incorporation (ICSU,

2002; Laird and ten Kate, 2002; Pidatala and Khan, 2003; Prakash, 2003). However, it has been pointed out that rural people's

knowledge, like scientific knowledge, is always fragmentary, partial and provisional in nature, it is never fully unified or

integrated in terms of an underlying cultural logic or system of classification (Pidatala and Khan, 2003; Van Vlaenderen, 2000).

Moreover, knowledge is embedded in and emerges out of a multidimensional universe in whose conceptions of the world

include pathways between natural and societal realms and whose spirituality infuses everyday objects and everyday acts

(Laird and Kate, 2002; Ortiz, 1999; Shiva, 1993; Swift, 1979). Mundy and Compton (1999) rightly point out the importance of

understanding indigenous communication systems because they:

Have value in their own right (this is important since the erosion of indigenous communication systems by

exogenous education endangers the survival of much indigenous knowledge).

Exogenous channels have limited range (this is particularly relevant with regard to females who are often neglected

in terms of formal educational systems and other information as well as learning opportunities).

Indigenous channels have high credibility because of their familiarity and are controlled locally (in terms of women,

this is important for planning and development intervention).

Indigenous channels are important conduits of change. Appleton (1995), Wildschut and Hulbert (1998) and World

Bank (1995) have shown that informal interpersonal contacts and networks among women are critical for sharing

information and empowerment.

Development programmes can use indigenous communication for both information collection and dissemination

(this implies developing relevant gender sensitive approaches and methodologies).

Indigenous channels offer opportunities for participation of local people, especially those who tend to be

marginalised like women.

Therefore, whereas scientific practice generally excludes the humanistic perspective, traditional understanding assumes a

holistic view including language, culture, practice, spirituality, mythology, customs, and even the social organisation of the

local communities. Indigenous people rarely have formal written records of their knowledge and this is one of the reasons why

the western based knowledge tends to undermine it (Ariga, 1997; Van Vlaenderen, 2000; Warren, 1993).

KNOWLEDGE AS A BASIS FOR SUSTAINABLE PRACTICE

2

2

Mathias-Mundy (1993) argues that the recognition and reinforcement of indigenous knowledge systems can form the basis for

an alternative development model. It has been noted that these systems have the capacity to integrate multiple disciplines thus

creating a synergism that is beginning to demonstrate higher levels of efficiency, effectiveness, adaptability and sustainability

than many of the conventional technology systems (Mathias-Mundy, 1993; Mies and Shiva, 1993). An increasing number of

scientists and policy-makers are calling for the integration of indigenous and science-based knowledge in the wake of the

potential contribution of indigenous knowledge to key items on the global agenda which is gaining wider recognition (Barber

et al, 2002; Gray, 1995; Ortiz, 1999). However, there is a concern that this recognition is merely nothing more than a façade

and that the scientific and the development communities view indigenous knowledge first and foremost as a resource to be

appropriated and exploited.

Since the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, and in particular the coming into force of the Convention on

Biological Diversity, increasing attention has been drawn to the contributions that indigenous knowledge can make to global

biodiversity conservation objectives (UN, 1992). It is noted that this emerging role for indigenous knowledge has flowed quite

naturally from the recognition that most remaining regions of the world that are biodiversity rich are also homelands for

traditional and indigenous people (Ariga, 1997; Wynberg, 2002). The industrialisation and modernisation process has in its

wake left countries with virtually no biodiversity and this is in sharp contrast with the countries home to indigenous people

whose persistence of traditional ways of life has gone hand in hand with the maintenance of local ecological systems and the

conservation, and even enhancement, of biodiversity (Laird and Wynberg, 2002; UNDP, 1997; UN, 1995a).

Environmental knowledge had been central to human survival throughout history. It was virtually impossible to survive in

hunting and gathering societies without a good knowledge of forest and wildlife - plant and animal species, their growth

environments and habitats, growth cycles, behaviour of animals in relation to their environment, specific characteristics of

plant and animal species and their uses (Clarke, 1997, Erskine, 1992). Similarly, farming societies depended upon a keen

understanding of the local natural environment and ecological processes leading to the regeneration of environmental

resources, for example, soil fertility and water. By interacting with their immediate environment over centuries, local people

have gained an enormous volume of knowledge about their environment. Their knowledge involves not only environmental

resources available within the locality but also how to manage these resources sustainably (Ariga, 1997; Moser, 1993; Snyder

and Tadesse, 1995).

It has been argued that the indigenous people of the world possess an immense knowledge of their environments, based on

centuries of living close to nature (Clarke, 1997; Laird and Wynberg, 2002). By deriving their livelihoods from the richness and

variety of complex ecosystems, they have an understanding of the properties of plants and animals, the functioning of

ecosystems and the techniques for using and managing them that is particular and often detailed. In rural communities in

developing countries, locally occurring species are relied on for many - sometimes all - foods, medicines, fuel, building

materials and other products. Equally, people's knowledge and perceptions of the environment, and their relationships with it,

are often important elements of cultural identity (Moser, 1993; Shiva, 1993; Whitehead, 2003). There is an almost universal

acknowledgement that most indigenous people utilise traditional songs, stories, legends, dreams, methods, and practices as a

means of transmitting specific elements of indigenous knowledge. Sometimes it is preserved in the form of memories, ritual,

initiation rites, ceremonies, or dance that is entrusted to the following generation through story telling and participation by

the younger ones in the activities. Sometimes it is preserved in artefacts handed from father to son, or mother to daughter.

In indigenous knowledge systems, there is usually no real separation between secular and sacred knowledge and practice -

they are one and the same (Emeagwali, 2003; Laird and ten Kate, 2002; UNDP, 2002). It should also be noted as well that

different segments of a community will hold different levels of knowledge, this may be delineated according to age, lineage,

gender and in some cases depending on the position a person holds within the community, for example, an elder, a priest or

herbalist.

Dommen (1988 quoted in Brouwers 1993: 5) outlines the following characteristics of African rural communities:

3

3

an ability to work with the environment rather than attempting to override it;

a deliberate utilisation of diversity of micro-environments;

the purposeful selection throughout the production period of crops planted and cultivation practices used and the

integration of livestock into the system as a means of maintaining soil fertility; and

the deliberate staggering of outputs in space and time.

In this scenario, rural peoples’ knowledge is an integration of complex livelihood systems that will ensure their survival, be it a

farming system that utilises various land-use functions like production, protection, conservation and maintenance with the use

of a variety of biological components in order to conserve the natural resource base whilst increasing productivity.

ENGENDERING INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS

It has been argued that women, in particular rural women, not only play a key role in the maintenance of agro-ecosystems and

livelihood security but are also custodians of a unique knowledge about biodiversity management and uses (Shiva, 1993;

Whitehead, 2003). The knowledge and practices that they engage in is a cornerstone for the development of ecologically sound

consumption and production patterns as well as for poverty alleviation alternatives, especially in the developing countries

where poverty is rampant and has a ‘feminine’ face (Flintan, 2003; Whitehead, 2003).

A variety of international organisations dealing with environmental and indigenous systems have recognised the important

role played by women as custodians of traditional knowledge:

Chapter 24 of Agenda 21 takes into account the contribution that women make to sustainable development and

makes a case for the protection and promotion of “the traditional methods and the knowledge of indigenous people

and their communities, emphasising the particular role of women, relevant to the conservation of biological

diversity and the sustainable use of biological resources” (UNIFEM-UNCED, 1995).

The role of women is recognised by the Convention on Biological Diversity in the conservation and sustainable use

of biological diversity and the need for the full participation of women in policy making and the implementation of

conservation strategies (UN, 1992).

The Final Decisions and Platform for Action of the Beijing Conference assert the need to ensure the participation of

indigenous women in environmental decision-making; guaranteeing the effective protection and use of indigenous

women’s knowledge and technologies related to biodiversity; safeguarding the intellectual property rights of

indigenous women; and promoting and sponsoring research on the role, knowledge and experience of indigenous

women in food-gathering and production, soil conservation, irrigation, land use planning and other environmental

tasks (UN, 1995b).

Appleton (1993b) argues that indigenous knowledge and skills held by women often differ from those held by men. Also, the

kinds of relationships that exist between these two sets of innovators will affect hierarchies of access, use, and control,

resulting in different perceptions and priorities for the innovation and use of technology by women and men. Since gender is a

cultural construct related to the behaviour learned by men and women, it therefore stands to reason that it will affect what

they do and how they do it within a specific social group.

Gender differentiation comes about as a result of the specific experiences, knowledge and skills which women and men

develop as they carry out the productive and reproductive responsibilities assigned to them (Pearson, 1992; Shiva, 1993). This

means that both women's and men's creation, adaptation and use of knowledge (both modern and indigenous) and technology

are shaped by the economic, social, cultural, political and geographical contexts in which the two sexes live, but which each

gender experiences in a different way (Appleton, 1993b). This is supported by studies undertaken especially in rural areas

where women are shown to have different knowledge from that of men, for example, women will know more about home

gardens, chicken- breeding and men will know more about livestock management.

4

4

Norem et al (1989) identifies four ways that reflect gender differences in knowledge systems. They state that women and men

may have:

a different knowledge of similar things;

a different knowledge of different things;

different ways of organising knowledge; and

different ways of preserving and transferring knowledge.

These differences are important to take note of when designing a project or introducing interventions to community

development.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (IPRs) AND INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE

There are currently few provisions for the protection of traditional or local knowledge systems from being exploited by those

wanting to make profits. While biodiversity managers or development practitioners are still grappling with defining a role for

indigenous knowledge, others have already been taking advantage of its usefulness. Bio-prospecting which is defined as the

quest for natural products to be exploited for commercial gain (Laird, 2002), is explicitly targeting traditional knowledge

holders. This is because they have acknowledged that the accumulated knowledge and traditional practices of indigenous

communities are a powerful resource that can greatly facilitate the task of identifying useful new varieties of domestic plants

or animals, isolating novel biological components, or developing innovative technologies and techniques. This exploitation of

indigenous knowledge has been termed bio-piracy (Gregorie and Lebner, 2002; Quiroz, 1994; Williams, 2003). The

pharmaceutical, agricultural and biotechnological industries have been particularly at the forefront of acquiring this

knowledge, however, this has not automatically led to giving credit to the communities and has been characterised as well in

the lack of sharing benefits (Dutfield, 2002; Economic Commission for Africa, 2002; Laird and ten Kate, 2002; Tobin, 2002).

The patenting of domestic plant varieties, traditional medical products and other biological resources whose identification and

use are embedded in traditional knowledge has been a source of grave concern for developing countries and indigenous

communities who are marginalised in the process (Posey and Dutfield, 1996). The patent process produces patent violators

when exclusive rights to exploit for commercial gain are given to a foreign company or individual whose purported ‘invention’

is based on indigenous or traditional knowledge. These arrangements are not geared for safeguarding the communally owned

traditional knowledge whose intention is not for commercial profits but to be custodians for future generations. Besides

financial loss for these communities, this also strengthens and spreads the Western paradigm of nature and science, by

presenting knowledge appropriated from the indigenous communities as the cutting edge of a modern technology ( Gregorie

and Lebner, 2002).

The World Trade Organisation under the agreement on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) have

undertaken actions that will help counteract the granting of patents that is detrimental to indigenous peoples. However, critics

argue that there is no distinct plan in this agreement aimed at protecting indigenous knowledge although it is a forum set to

dismiss inappropriate patents (Dutfield, 2002; Gregorie and Lebner, 2002; Laird, 2002; World Bank, 1998). As an antidote, the

World Intellectual Property Rights Organisation (WIPO), has formed a commission on genetic resources, traditional

knowledge and folklore, whose mandate includes the investigation of innovative measures to accommodate the exceptional

characteristics of indigenous knowledge systems.

This will go a long way in accommodating traditional knowledge that is marginalised by the current intellectual property

rights (IPRs) that are specifically designed to protect individuals whose ‘inventions’ require safeguarding in view of their

potential commercial value that is in direct opposition to indigenous knowledge that is collectively owned and has been

around for several generations (Laird, 2002; Posey, 1996; Williams, 2003; World Bank, 1998). It should be noted that not only

has indigenous knowledge been ignored, also gender has not been taken into consideration in the designing, planning and

implementation of IPRs. This is a serious omission, as women possess much of the indigenous knowledge as they are the

primary harvesters of medicinal plants, seed stocks and small game, are keepers of the knowledge about significant spheres of

5

5

biodiversity and, as such, they are able to identify the environmental indicators of ecological health in those spheres (Shiva,

1993; World Bank, 1998).

INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE IN NATURAL DISASTER REDUCTION

In Africa, local communities had well-developed traditional indigenous knowledge systems for environmental management

and coping strategies, making them more resilient to environmental change. This knowledge had, and still has, a high degree of

acceptability amongst the majority of populations in which it has been preserved. These communities can easily identify with

this knowledge and it facilitates their understanding of certain modern scientific concepts for environmental management

including disaster prevention, preparedness, response and mitigation. Indigenous knowledge is a precious national resource

that can facilitate the process of disaster prevention, preparedness and response in cost-effective, participatory and

sustainable ways. Hence a blend of approaches and methods from science and technology and from traditional knowledge

opens avenues towards better disaster prevention, preparedness, response and mitigation. Globally, there is increasing

acknowledgement of the relevance of indigenous knowledge as an invaluable and underused knowledge reservoir, which

presents developing countries, particularly Africa, with a powerful asset in environmental conservation and natural disaster

management.

Specifically, from time immemorial, natural disaster management in Africa has been deeply rooted in local communities which

apply and use indigenous knowledge to master and monitor climate and other natural systems and establish early warning

indicators for their own benefit and future generations. In the traditional African worldview, environmental resources (land,

water, animals and plants) are not just production factors with economic significance but also have their place within the

sanctity of nature. Certain places have a special spiritual significance and are used as locations for rituals and sacrifices, for

example, sacred grooves, shrines, mountains and rivers. These locations are quite often patches of high biodiversity which are

well conserved and protected by the community.

For the traditional people of Northern Ghana, gods, spirits, shrines, ritual crops and animals, food items and cash crops are all

inter-related. Indigenous knowledge is therefore an essential element in the development process and the livelihoods of many

local communities. A major challenge that African countries continue to face is how to reconcile indigenous knowledge and

modern science without substituting each other, respecting the two sets of values, and building on their respective strengths.

Recent studies in Kenya on the application and use of traditional knowledge in environmental conservation and natural

disaster management cited examples of areas where such knowledge is still prevalent and harnessed. Regarding land-use

conservation, shifting cultivation was a traditional practice in which land was never over used or repeatedly cultivated season

after season and year after year.

Land was left to rest and covered again with plants and leaves to enable it to accumulate vegetable manure. Mixed crop

cultivation practice enables leguminous crops to restore nitrogen in the soil for other food plants. Knowledge of when to

expect long or short rainy seasons enables the farmers to plan appropriately which crop is suited for a particular season.

Traditional indigenous knowledge terminologies of types of soil and their reaction to water enables the people to use each

type of soil appropriately by planting the correct crops.

As for coping with changes in the weather, traditional indigenous knowledge of storm routes and wind patterns enables

people to design their disaster management long in advance by constructing types of shelter, wind break structures, walls, and

homestead fences appropriately. A hydrological disaster is obviously unmanageable when it starts. Similarly, knowledge of

local rain corridors enables them to prepare for storms. Knowing the colour of clouds that may carry hailstones enables people

to run for cover. Knowing that prolonged drought is followed by storm, thunder and lightening during the first few rains

enables people to prepare or expect a disaster. A change in birds’ cries or the onset of their mating period indicates a change of

season.

6

6

Similar application and use of indigenous knowledge for disaster management is also prevalent in Swaziland. Floods can be

predicted from the height of birds’ nests near rivers. Moth numbers can predict drought. The position of the sun and the cry of

a specific bird on trees near rivers may predict onset of the rainy season for farming.The presence of certain plant species (for

example, Ascolepis capensis) indicates a low water table. These examples underscore the importance of harnessing indigenous

knowledge not only as a precious national resource but also as a vital element in environmental conservation and natural

disaster prevention, preparedness and response. However, despite the prevalent application and use of indigenous knowledge

by local communities, it has not been harnessed to fit into the current scientific framework for environmental conservation

and natural disaster management in Africa.

As a result, there is a general lack of information and understanding of the need to integrate or mainstream indigenous

knowledge into scientific knowledge systems for sustainable development in the continent. To achieve this integration would

require a blend of approaches and methods from science and technology and from indigenous knowledge. Recently UNEP

initiated a project in Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa and Swaziland to harness and promote the use of indigenous knowledge in

environmental conservation and natural disaster management through training and access to and exchange of information.

The information collected and analyzed through the project is expected to enhance understanding of the need to integrate

indigenous knowledge in development processes for poverty and disaster risk reduction as well as in fostering involvement of

all constituents including the local communities. The project should be seen as part of a new interest in traditional African

knowledge systems which are still prevalent despite the numerous interruptions by development interventionists. It is hoped

that the project will be replicated in more countries in Africa and other regions of the world.

SUSTAINABLE NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: VALUE & POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION OF IKS

Several studies assert that the strengths of IKS in natural resources management are based among others in the existence of

strong traditions, culture, beliefs and values of the local people as well as their tremendous respect, appreciation and

understanding of the natural resources and the environment (Appleton, 1993a; 1993bFernandez, 1994; Posey, 1999; Shiva,

1993). It is also said to rely upon the existence of practical and strong traditional institutions for resources management and

the enforcement of rules and regulations through different means, this includes acknowledging gender and age as distinctive

issues that need to be taken notice of since in many areas activities including food-gathering and production, soil conservation,

irrigation, land use planning and other environmental tasks are defined as either those done by males or females (Emery,

1997; Flintan, 2003; Mishra, 1994; Simpson, 1994). It has been argued that IKS enhances the conservation, management, and

use of natural resources such as vegetation, soil, land, wildlife, fishery, livestock, and others. Studies have shown that

communities are still relying on IKS for soil fertility as it has been proven that use of chemicals affect the harvest and the

quality of soil (Agarwal, 1995; Ariga, 1997).

Food Security

Food Security is one of the major issues that governments grapple with as food insecurity costs affect all levels of social and

economic life (Conelly and Chaiken, 2000). For example, at the household level, food insecurity leads to disproportionately

high health and medical costs, high funeral expenses and low labour productivity. It has been documented that within the

household, food insecurity often affects the more vulnerable members of the family, which are children and women (Breth,

1997; Charmes, 2000; Department of Agriculture, 2002; Saad, 1999). Since women are often the preservers of biodiversity and

usually have specialised knowledge of traditional plants, livestock production and other available resources for nutrition and

health, their role in food security is much more broader (Bryceson, 1995; Gladwin and Thomson, 1998; Rodda, 1991; Saad,

1999). Other components worthy of note include the use of integrated pest management based upon local knowledge.

7

7

Pidatala and Khan (2003) found that in India women appear to play a major part in the use of indigenous knowledge in animal

husbandry as they are responsible for collecting fodder for cattle, milk them as well as well as gather, dry and use cow dung for

energy purposes. They also play a vital role in post-harvest operations and storage of grains. The World Bank (2001) findings

from other African countries also confirm this vital role played by women, for example, in Zimbabwe, IKS is a key element in

assuring food security to the local people. Traditional practices based on local knowledge (for example, use of indigenous

knowledge for pest management, harvesting and grain storage), have a significant value and are applied in crop production

and distribution as well as in cattle production (reproduction, calving, disease control and grazing of livestock) (Emeagwali,

2003). In Lesotho as well as other parts of rural South Africa, the production of sorghum which plays an important role in the

social, cultural political and economic arenas is very rich in IKS, especially in the preservation of seeds, soil preparation and

fertilisation, minimising the impact of climatic hazards, pest control and harvesting and storage, among others (Department of

Agriculture, 2002; World Bank, 2001).

In South Africa, about 35% of the total population, or 14.3 million South Africans are vulnerable to food insecurity. Among

these, women, children and the elderly are particularly more vulnerable (Statistics South Africa, 2000). To this end the South

African Government has developed an Integrated Food Security Strategy (IFSS) whose vision is in line with the definition of

food security by the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) which is to attain universal physical,

social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food by all South African at all times to meet their dietary and food

preferences for an active and healthy life (Department of Agriculture, 2002).

CONCLUSION

Indigenous knowledge is not only the most important knowledge system for many rural people but it is also an essential

component in sustainable rural development. Internationally, the existence of indigenous knowledge has been acknowledged

in conventions like the Brundtland Commission (WCED, 1987), the Biodiversity Convention, Agenda 21 and the Rio

Declaration and the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). To this end policy-makers and development

practitioners can utilise this to their advantage in developing communities as they have international support. It is important

to note that indigenous knowledge is constantly evolving, therefore its development will be determined by its ability of

adapting and interacting with new types of information. Empowerment of local communities can be readily achieved by the

integration of indigenous knowledge in the development process. This will ensure a cost effective and efficient course of action

since indigenous knowledge is a locally owned and managed resource and could be the easiest means of reaching the poor

since this is usually the only asset they control, and certainly one with which they are very familiar.

REFERENCES

Agarwal, B. (1992) "Gender Relations and Food Security: Coping with Seasonality, Drought and Famine in South Asia,” in: Beneria, L. and Feldman, S. (eds) Unequal Burden, Economic Crises, Persistent Poverty, and Women’s Work Routledge: Boulder, Colorado.

Agrawal, A. (1999) “Ethnoscience, ‘TEK’ and Conservation: On Power and Indigenous Knowledge,” in: Posey, D. A. (ed) Cultural and SpiritualValues of Biodiversity, UNEP: Kenya.

Appleton, H. (1993a) “Gender, Technology and Innovation,” Appropriate Technology 20(2): 6-8.

Appleton (1993b) “Women, Science and Technology: Looking Ahead,” Appropriate Technology 20(2): 9-10.

Appleton (1995) Do It Herself, Women and Technical Innovation. Intermediate Technology Publications: London.

Ariga, E.S. (1997) “Availability and Role of Multipurpose Trees and Shrubs in Sustainable Agriculture in Kenya,” Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 10 (2/3): 25-36.

8

8

Barber, C.V., Glowka, L., and La Viña, G.M. (2002) “Developing and Implementing National Measures for Genetic Resources Access Regulation and Benefit-sharing,” in: Laird, S.A. (ed.) Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge: Equitable partnerships in Practice. Earthscan: London.

Bryceson, D.F. (1995) “African Women Hoe Cultivators: Speculative Origins and Current enigmas” pp 3-22 in Bryceson, D.F. (ed.) (1995) Women Wielding the HoeOxford: Berg Publishers.

Brouwers, J.H.A.M. (1993) Rural People's Response to Soil Fertility Decline: The Adja Case (Benin). Wageningen Agricultural University: The Netherlands.

Breth, S. A. (1997) “Proceedings of the Workshop: Women, Agricultural Intensification and Household Food Security,” Sasakawa Centre, University of Cape Coast, Ghana 25-28 June.

Charmes, J. (2000) African Women in Food Processing: A Major, but still Underestimated Sector of their Contribution to the National Economy. International Development Research Centre (IDRC).

Clarke, G. (1997) Survival and Accumulation by West African Women. Westview Press: Colorado.

Conelly, T.W. and Chaiken, M.S. (2000) “Intensive Farming, Agro-Diversity, and Food Security Under Conditions of Extreme Population Pressure in Western Kenya,” Paper Presented for Journal of Southern African Studies 6th Anniversary Conference.

Department of Agriculture (2002) The Integrated Food Security Strategy for South Africa. Pretoria.

Dutfield, G. (2002) “Indigenous Peoples’ Declarations and Statements on Equitable Research Relationships,” in: Laird, S. (ed) Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge: Equitable Partnerships in Practice. Earthscan Publications Ltd: London.

Economic Commission for Africa. (2002) Harnessing Technologies Sustainable Development. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Ellen, R. and Harris, H. (1996) “Concepts of Indigenous Environmental Knowledge in Scientific and Development Studies Literature - A Critical Assessment,” draft paper East-West Environmental Linkages Network Workshop 3, Canterbury.

Emeagwali, G. (2003) "African Indigenous Knowledge Systems (AIK): Implications for the Curriculum," in: Toyin Falola (ed) Ghana in Africa and the World: Essays in Honor of Adu Boahen. Africa World Press: New Jersey.

Emery (1997) Guidelines for Environmental Assessments and Traditional Knowledge. CIDA: Ottawa, Canada.

Erskine, J.M. (1992) “Integrated Development: An Appropriate Means of Eliminating Poverty and Conserving the Environment in Less Developed Rural Areas,” Paper Presented at the EPPIC’ 92 Conference on Poverty and Alleviation.

Fernández, M.E. (1992) “The Social Organisation of Production in Community-based Agro-pastoralism in the Andes,” in: C.M. McCorkle (ed) Plants, animals and people: Agropastoral Systems Research. Westview: Boulder.

Fernández, M.E. (1994) “Gender and Indigenous Knowledge,” IK Monitor 2 (3): 5-7.

Flintan, F. (2003) “Women, Gender and ICDPs in Africa: Lessons Learnt and Experiences Shared - ‘Engendering’ Eden, Volume II,” IIED Wildlife and Development Series (17) IIED: London.

Gladwin, C. H. and Thomson, A.M. (1998) Food or Cash Crop: Which is the Key Factor to Food Security? Haworth: New York.

Gray, A. (1995) “The impact of Biodiversity Conservation on Indigenous Peoples,” in: Shiva, V. et al. (eds) Biodiversity: Social and Ecological Perspectives. Zed Books: London.

Gregorie, H. and Lebner, A. (2002). Re-evaluating Relevance: Intellectual Property Rights and Women’s Traditional Environmental Knowledge. Position paper for the CSD NGO Women’s Caucus.

International Council for Science (ICSU) (2002) Science, Traditional Knowledge and Sustainable Development. ICSU Series on Science for Sustainable Development 4 .

Kamara, J. Indigenous Knowledge in Natural Disaster Reduction. www.environmenttimes.net/article/cfm. Accessed 23/8/2006

Laird, S.A. (2002) “Introduction: Equitable Partnerships in Practice,” in Laird, S.A. (ed.) Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge: Equitable partnerships in Practice. Earthscan: London.

Laird, S. and Kate, K. (2002) “Biodiversity Prospecting: The Commercial Use of Genetic Resources and Best Practice in Benefit-sharing,” in: Laird, S.A. (ed.) Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge: Equitable Partnerships in Practice. Earthscan: London.

9

9

Laird, S and Wynberg, R. (2002) “Institutional Policies for Biodiversity Research,” in: Laird, S.A. (ed.) Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge: Equitable Partnerships in Practice. Earthscan: London.

Mathias-Mundy, E. (1993) “Abstracts of Papers: Indigenous Knowledge and Development,” Monitor 1(2): 21.

Mies, M. and Shiva, V. (1993) Ecofeminism. Zed Books: USA.

Mishra, S. (1994) "Women's Indigenous Knowledge of Forest Management in Orissa," Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 2(3): 3-5.

Moser, C.O.N. (1993) Gender, Planning and Development: Theory, Practice and Training Routledge: London and New York.

Mundy, P. and Compton. J.L. (1999). “Indigenous Communication and Indigenous Knowledge,” in: Warren D. M.; Slikkerveer L. J. and Brokensha D. (eds) The Cultural Dimension of Development: Indigenous Knowledge Systems. Intermediate Technology Publications: London, UK.

Nakashima, D. and Rou´e, M (2002) “Indigenous Knowledge, Peoples and Sustainable Practice,” Social and Economic Dimensions of Global Environmental Change 5: 314–324.

Norem, R.H., R. Yoder and Y. Martin (1989) “Indigenous Agricultural Knowledge and Gender Issues in Third World Agricultural Development,” in: Warren, D.M.; Slikkerveer, L.J. and Titilola, S.O. (eds) Indigenous Knowledge Systems: Implications for Agriculture and International Development Studies in Technology and Social Change Programme No. 11. Iowa State University Research Foundation: Ames, Iowa.

Odora Hoppers C. and Makhale-Mahlangu P. (1998) A Comparative Study of theDevelopment, Integration and Protection of Indigenous Knowledge Systems in theThird World. Pretoria: HSRC.

Ortiz, O. (1999) “Understanding Interactions between Indigenous Knowledge and Scientific Information” Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 7(3) Nuffic-CIRAN.

Pearson, R. (1992) “The Role of Women in African Rural Development,” in Poverty and Development Dialogue 9 (2): 89-101.

Pidatala, K. and Khan, A. R.. (2003) “Women and Indigenous Knowledge: A South-South Perspective,” IK Notes 63 World Bank. http://www.worldbank.org/afr/ik (accessed on 16/6/2004)

Posey, D. A. and Dutfield, G. (1996) Beyond Intellectual Property: Toward Traditional Resource Rights for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. IDRC: Canada.

Posey, D. (1996) Traditional Resource Rights - International Instruments for Protection and Compensation for Indigenous peoples and Local Communities. IUCN: Switzerland.

Posey, D. (ed) (1999) The Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity UNEP: Nairobi.

Prakash, S., (2003) “Nurturing Traditional Knowledge Systems for Development,” IK Notes 61 World Bank.http://www.worldbank.org/afr/ik (accessed on 23/6/2004)

Quiroz, C. (1994) “Biodiversity, Indigenous Knowledge, Gender and Intellectual Property Rights,” IK Monitor 2(3): 12-15.

Rodda, A. (1991) Women and the Environment. Zed Books: London

Saad, M. B. (1999) “Food Security for the Food-Insecure: New Challenges and RenewedCommitments,” CSD NGO Women's Caucus Position Paper for CSD-8, 2000.

Shiva, V. (1993) “Women’s Indigenous Knowledge and Biodiversity Conservation,” in: Mies, M. and Shiva, V. (eds.) Ecofeminism. Zed Books: USA.

Simpson, B.M. (1994) “Gender and the Social Differentiation of Local Knowledge,” IK Monitor 2(3) Nuffic-CIRAN.Snyder, M.C. and Tadesse, M. (1995) African Women and Development – A History. Witwatersrand University Press: Johannesburg.

South African Government (1997) White Paper on Indigenous Knowledge Systems Government Gazette, Pretoria.

Stats SA (Statistics South Africa) (2000) Measuring Poverty in South Africa. Statistics South Africa, Pretoria.

Swift, J. (1979) “Notes on Traditional Knowledge, Modern Knowledge and Rural Development,” IDS Bulletin 10 (2): 44-61.

10

10

Tobin, B. (2002) “Biodiversity Prospecting Contracts: The Search for Equitable Agreements,” in: Laird, S. (ed) Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge: Equitable Partnerships in Practice. Earthscan Publications Ltd: London.

United Nations (1992) Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992.

United Nations (1995a) The World’s Women: Trends and Statistics. UN: New York.

United Nations (1995b) Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. Beijing: Fourth World Conference on Women: Action for Equality, Development and Peace

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (1997) Energy After Rio: Prospects and Challenges UNDP: New York.

UNIFEM-UNCED. 1995. Agenda 21: An Easy Reference to the Specific Recommendations on Women. UN: New York.

Van Vlaenderen, H. (2000) “Problem Solving: A Local Perspective,” IK Monitor (8-1) Nuffic-CIRAN.

Warren, D.M. (1989) “The Impact of Nineteenth Century Social Science in Establishing Negative Values and Attitudes toward Indigenous Knowledge Systems,” in: Warren, D.M.; Slikkerveer, L.J. and Titilola, S.O. (eds) Indigenous Knowledge Systems: Implications for Agriculture and International Development Studies in Technology and Social Change Programme No. 11. Iowa State University Research Foundation: Ames, Iowa.

Warren, D.M. (1991) “Using Indigenous Knowledge in Agriculture Development,” World Bank Discussion Paper 127 World Bank: Washington D.C.

Warren, D.M. (1993) “Using IK for Agriculture and Rural Development: Current Issues and Studies,” Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor. IK Monitor Articles (1-1).

WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) “Our Common Future,” Brundtland Commission report

Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.

Whitehead, A. (2003) “Failing Women, Sustaining Poverty: Gender in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers,” Report for the UK Gender and Development Network: London.

Wildschut, A. and Hulbert, S. (1998) A Seed Not Sown: Prospects for Agrarian Reform in South Africa Interfund: Johannesburg.

Williams, M. (2003) Gender Mainstreaming in the Multilateral Trading System: A Handbook for Policy-makers and other Stakeholders The Commonwealth Secretariat: UK.

World Bank (1995) Key Indicators of Poverty in South Africa. An Analysis of the Reconstruction and Development Programme. Southern African Labour and Development Research Unit (SALDRU) South Africa: University of Cape Town.

World Bank (1998) Indigenous Knowledge for Development: A Framework for Action. World Bank: Washington, D.C.

World Bank (2001) Engendering Development Through Gender Equality in Rights, Resources and Voice World Bank Policy Research Report, Oxford University Press: New York.

Wynberg, R. (2002) “Institutional Responses to Benefit-sharing in South Africa: A Case Study,” in Laird, S.A. (ed.) Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge: Equitable Partnerships in Practice Earthscan: London.

11

11