Review of concepts related to the protection of traditional knowledge in international law (circa... more Review of concepts related to the protection of traditional knowledge in international law (circa 2005).Identifies five doctrines that collectively act as "ethnocidal ratchets" that have systematically eroded Indigenous Peoples rights to maintain, control, protect and develop their traditional knowledge" 1. Doctrine of Supercedence: The extinguishment of earlier legal regimes by following regimes; 2. Doc-trine of Diminishment by Time; 3. Doctrine of Diminishment by Corruption; 4. Doctrine of Secular Gov-ernance; 5. Doctrine of the Cultural Commons. A critical element to overcome these ratcheting effects is the extraterritorial recognition of the force of customary law in setting legal standards for access, use by third parties, and continuing obligations by non-indigenous persons to respect these.
The advantages and limitations of registers Note by the Executive Secretary 1. The Executive Secr... more The advantages and limitations of registers Note by the Executive Secretary 1. The Executive Secretary is circulating herewith, for the information of participants in the fourth meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended International Working Group on Article 8(j) and Related Provisions, the Phase One – Revised – Composite report on the status and trends concerning the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity-assessment of the success of measures and initiatives to support the retention and use of traditional knowledge, including the advantages and limitations of registers as a measure to protect traditional knowledge, innovations and practices (UNEP/CBD/WG8J/4/INF/9). 2. The report is being circulated in the form and language in which it was received by the Secretariat.
... MUL-LOIDES MARTINICUS (MULLIDAE) AND A POSSIBLE AGGRESSIVE MIMIC, THE SNAPPER OCYURUS CHRYSUR... more ... MUL-LOIDES MARTINICUS (MULLIDAE) AND A POSSIBLE AGGRESSIVE MIMIC, THE SNAPPER OCYURUS CHRYSURUS (LUTJAN-IDAE).-Interspecific feeding associations have been reported for a wide variety of vertebrates (eg, Cody, 1971; Morse, 1977; Strand, 1988). ...
This is a brief brochure of the Guidelines for Considering Traditional Knowledges in Climate Chan... more This is a brief brochure of the Guidelines for Considering Traditional Knowledges in Climate Change Initiatives. The Guidelines are intended to be an informational resource for Indigenous peoples, agencies, and organizations across the United States interested in understanding traditional knowledges in the context of climate change.
The Guidelines do not advocate the sharing of Traditional Knowledges. They support respect for the sovereignty of Tribes and safeguards through free, prior and informed consent with careful consideration of risks and opportunities. The right not to share is affirmed. Federal rules and processes should ensure that funded projects do not require sharing traditional knowledges outside of Tribes. The authors, the Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup (CTKW) does not collect traditional knowledges. The Third National Climate Assessment issued in May 2014 contained a chapter dedicated to the impact of climate change on tribal peoples. In light of the increasing recognition of the significance of traditional knowledges (TKs) in relation to climate change, a self-organized, informal group of indigenous persons, staff of indigenous governments and organizations, and experts with experience working with issues concerning traditional knowledges. The CTKW felt compelled to develop a framework to increase understanding of issues relating to access and protection of TKs in climate initiatives and interactions between holders of TKs and non-tribal partners.
Ethical questions in ethnobiology and other fields that engage communities or draw on community k... more Ethical questions in ethnobiology and other fields that engage communities or draw on community knowledge as the focus of study are some of the most difficult and intractable considerations researchers may face in their careers. Difficulties can arise from several directions, such as differing principles and values, conflicting obligations, insufficient understandings, unmet expectations, and the general complexity of working in real-world situations. Dominating all of these considerations is that, like anthropology, in ethnobiology “the subject of study stares back”. A well-known context for raising ethical issues in ethnobiology is the practice of bioprospecting based on traditional knowledge1 of Indigenous and local peoples.2 Over the last couple of decades, traditional knowledge related to biological diversity and genetic resources has been sought after by government, academic and industrial researchers to identify leads for the development of new drugs, healthcare products, health foods, and other useful consumer goods. Particularly when commercial exploitation is involved, bioprospecting and other acts of taking and using traditional knowledge beyond the cultural context where it originated have become increasingly complex and contested on both ethical and legal grounds. A spectrum of views exists. At the extremes, proponents (largely within academe, government, and the private sector) argue that scientific validation and exploitation of traditional knowledge related to biodiversity and genetic resources will bring prestige and economic opportunities to Indigenous and local communities and/or national governments of “developing” countries, offer new products and other advancements to wider society, and create incentives for the conservation of disappearing ecosystems. Opponents argue that knowledge and resources are being “stolen” from Indigenous and local communities (i.e., biopiracy), eroding their cultures and the ecosystems upon which they depend, interfering with cultural responsibilities (e.g., to past and future generations), and undermining Indigenous rights to traditional resources, intellectual property, and biocultural heritage (Bannister and Solomon 2009a). As will be discussed later in this chapter, the complex of ethical, legal, political, and ecological issues revolving around the use, misuse, and commodification of traditional knowledge was and continues to be a key catalyst in the development of ethical guidance for ethnobiologists worldwide. This chapter first provides historical background on applied ethics and describes the emergence of ethical standards within the field of ethnobiology. It then focuses on the current international policy context for ethical and related legal issues raised and perpetuated by biocultural research in ethnobiology. It concludes with a summary of contemporary issues and suggestions that today’s ethnobiologists and others working in a biocultural context arguably have an ethical obligation to become informed about and consider carefully in negotiating the many potential dilemmas and sensitivities of working with traditional knowledge and associated living cultural heritage.
Indigenous peoples are rich in traditional knowledge inherited from the wisdom of tribal ancestor... more Indigenous peoples are rich in traditional knowledge inherited from the wisdom of tribal ancestors. This knowledge has guided them through many difficult episodes in the past when the Earth has brought forth natural catastrophes. The pulse of life that has sustained tribal cultures has ebbed and flowed. Indigenous peoples developed extensive networks of alliances and trade that helped them to survive environmental changes and upheavals. Many tribes moved with the changes of the waters and lands. The great encounter of Native peoples and settlers in the Pacific Northwest brought great changes to all sides, and to the environment. Much of the law relating to water and the environment was brought to this continent through European settlers, who saw these lands primarily through the lens of English common law and sensibilities. One hallmark of this worldview was that the world was seen primarily as static and unchanging; that while change might come and go, it cycled around a relatively fixed state. When the new United States signed treaties with the Indian tribes, the common phrase “as long as the rivers run” was used to describe the permanent relationship between the new society and the first inhabitants. By this, it was understood by all that the resources and the land base could forever be assumed to exist in a relatively fixed state and provide abundant and sufficient resources for all. Standing at the beginning of a new millennium, we now see that this worldview was overly optimistic. In 1992, over fifteen hundred world scientists, including a large number of Nobel Laureates, issued the “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity,” which began: "Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about." One of the gravest threats that face humanity as a whole, and indigenous nations as culturally distinct peoples, is global climate change. Climate change presents significant challenges to indigenous peoples, and is expected to put Native peoples’ communities and cultural survival at risk. Indigenous Some of the threats come from direct exposure to the impacts of climate change, such as extreme temperatures, floods, fires, droughts, and storms. Other threats are more indirect, including the effects of climate change on spreading diseases, significant cultural resources, and the transmission of traditional knowledge. The involvement of indigenous peoples in climate change issues can be divided into three rough categories - indigenous peoples as observers of climate change; indigenous peoples as victims of both climate change and the actions taken to stop it (mitigation) and to respond to change that cannot be avoided (adaptation); and indigenous peoples as mitigators of and adapters to climate change. Some of the earliest reporting on the relationship of indigenous peoples to climate change emphasized their role as “canaries in the mineshaft,” referring to an old practice of coal miners to use canaries to detect the buildup of dangerous gases, such as carbon monoxide and methane. Indigenous peoples, because they live closely related to the land and its cycles and patterns,can provide an early warning system for climate change. Social and environmental justice and human rights issues are involved with both climate change mitigation and adaptation. Most concerns have addressed mitigation measures to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the use of fossil fuels through fuel efficiency, alternative energy sources, and clean technologies. Mitigation also includes measures to sequester (store) greenhouse gases by conserving existing natural forests or planting new ones. One of these mitigation measures is the use of biofuels to replace fossil fuels, resulting in the expansion of agricultural areas. Biofuel crops, such as soybeans and corn, can cause the expansion of large-scale agriculture into or adjacent to indigenous territories and cause the loss of natural areas, the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and an increase in the runoff of agricultural pollutants into the environment. The introduction of biofuel crops can also compete for water that could be used for traditional crops and increase the price of foods, particularly subsistence staples such as corn. There is also evidence that, in some cases, biofuel crops do not actually achieve their goal of reducing fossil fuel emissions. Techniques known as life cycle or footprint assessments not only account for the relative carbon emissions from the use of fossil fuels and biofuels themselves, but also analyze the fossil fuels used in biofuels’ production, transportation, use, and disposal in the environment. In some circumstances, these analyses demonstrate that some kinds of biofuel production may result in carbon emissions that are as high as or higher than some kinds of fossil fuels (Fargione et al. 2008). Other major mitigation measures for climate change focus on sequestration of carbon to decrease or prevent the release of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas, either through the planting of trees (carbon plantations) or by preventing deforestation. One major initiative, United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD+), seeks to increase carbon sequestration and to conserve forest ecosystems in developing tropical countries. There are some significant issues involved in this program related to the land rights and territorial integrity of indigenous communities. This chapter will concentrate on the effects of climate change on tribal natural resources in the Pacific Northwest and on adaptation to those effects, after focusing on the effects of climate change on tribal natural resources in the Pacific Northwest. Indigenous peoples are not just victims of climate change, but are now empowering themselves to take the necessary steps to sustain their cultures in a dynamically changing world.
This paper reviews international law and policy regarding the rights of indigenous peoples and lo... more This paper reviews international law and policy regarding the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities that are defining the role of traditional and indigenous knowledge in the management and conservation of biodiversity. The most influential forums occur within the United Nations system, particularly the Working Group on Indigenous Populations and the Convention on Biological Diversity. We discuss the "soft-law" context of declarations, regional agreements, ethical guidelines, research protocols, and policy frameworks, which reinforce indigenous entitlements. The elaboration of these rights will increasingly impinge upon scientific research by regulating access to the knowledge and resources of indigenous and local communities, and by requiring that policy and management be made with their full participation. Scientists should respond by following these developments, institutionalizing this participation at all levels of scientific activity, and respecting the value of indigenous knowledge.
The value of traditional knowledge in resource management has been growing in the last two decade... more The value of traditional knowledge in resource management has been growing in the last two decades. The elder appreciates the presence of the anthropologist who is interested in learning the customs and helping with cultural revitalization. There are undoubted benefits from this turn towards recognizing the value of traditional knowledge, and has brought many new benefits and opportunities to tribes. But there are also some troubling issues in the rapid expansion of interest in and use of traditional knowledge systems.
Since its emergence in the 17th Century, and up until and beyond World War II, international law ... more Since its emergence in the 17th Century, and up until and beyond World War II, international law defined a “people” as the aggregate of the population of a state. Further, the simultaneously evolving human rights system came to focus on the rights of the individual, vis-à-vis the state. This state-individual dichotomy remained essentially unchallenged into the 1970s, resulting in international law having little room for Indigenous Peoples and their collective rights. But the last 25 years or so have seen a paradigm shift in international law, predominantly occurring within the Indigenous Peoples‟ rights discourse. When the UN started to seriously address indigenous issues in the late 1970s, international law‟s traditional definition of a “people” in terms of citizenship was quickly contested. The UN and its member states soon acknowledged that Indigenous Peoples should be allowed to maintain, reinforce and develop the distinct societal structures they had managed to preserve despite colonisation. International law on Indigenous Peoples hence came to hold that the people as such could be bearer of rights, thereby legally and conceptually distinguishing Indigenous Peoples from minorities. The World Community has since then, gradually clarified what these rights encompass in more detail, and in the process also specifying where on the world‟s political and legal map, Indigenous Peoples belong. In particular, the adoption of United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DECRIPS) by the UN General Assembly in 2007, has helped to clarify the content and scope of several Indigenous rights relevant to the International Regime on Access and Benefit Sharing. The DECRIPS confirmed that Indigenous Peoples –do constitute “peoples” – and thus as “peoples” have the right to self-determination. Importantly, the right to self-determination that Indigenous Peoples enjoy is not a sui generis right but the general right to self-determination, applicable to all peoples. The right to self-determination encompasses a right of Indigenous Peoples to autonomy in their internal affairs, which in turn envelopes the right to determine over their genetic resources (GR) and traditional knowledge, innovations and practices (TK). The International Regime (IR) must be mindful of Indigenous Peoples‟ status as legal subjects under international law, but need not define who constitute an Indigenous People. The IR must rely on a general understanding until the relevant UN human rights forum has agreed on a formal definition. Indigenous Peoples‟ status as legal subjects under international law has not only resulted in them enjoying the overarching right to self-determination. Recent developments in international law have also affirmed that Indigenous Peoples have rights specifically to GR and TK. The right to benefit from one‟s creativity has evolved from being merely an individual right to embrace also the rights of Indigenous Peoples as collectives, pursuant to which Indigenous Peoples have the right to own and control TK they have created. They also have right to redress for TK already taken without their free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). In the same vein, both the general right to property, understood in the light of the right to non-discrimination, and international legal sources particularly addressing Indigenous rights, confirm that Indigenous Peoples have the right to own and control natural resources on their territory. Nothing in international law indicates that the general right to natural resources should not include GR. Notably, also in such instances when the state retains ownership rights to GR, the Indigenous People must still be regarded as having rights to the GR, inasmuch as the Indigenous People has traditionally used the GR. However, when a GR originates from an Indigenous People‟s territory, but the people have not actively used the GR, the Indigenous People might only have a right to share in the profits from the utilization of the GR. Recognition of Indigenous Peoples‟ rights to TK and GR must also lead to acknowledgement of Indigenous Peoples‟ customary laws pertaining to GR and TK. This follows from international law, but also from the very nature of TK. TK protection must recognize TK‟s constantly evolving character within a defined collective, a people. Hence, TK protection cannot be confined to a particular moment in time and must not regulate in detail regarding who within a particular group may hold what rights to what aspects of TK. That would freeze the TK in time and result in the TK being absorbed into domestic legislation rather than being governed by the cultural and legal context from which it springs. In conclusion, Indigenous Peoples‟ rights to GR, TK and customary laws do not conflict with the principle of states‟ sovereign rights over natural resources. Indigenous Peoples‟ rights can, and should, be recognized side-by-side with states‟ sovereign rights.
Ethical questions in ethnobiology and other fields that engage communities or draw on community k... more Ethical questions in ethnobiology and other fields that engage communities or draw on community knowledge as the focus of study are some of the most difficult and intractable considerations researchers may face in their careers. Difficulties can arise from several directions, such as differing principles and values, conflicting obligations, insufficient understandings, unmet expectations, and the general complexity of working in real-world situations. Dominating all of these considerations is that, like anthropology, in ethnobiology “the subject of study stares back”. A well-known context for raising ethical issues in ethnobiology is the practice of bioprospecting based on traditional knowledge1 of Indigenous and local peoples.2 Over the last couple of decades, traditional knowledge related to biological diversity and genetic resources has been sought after by government, academic and industrial researchers to identify leads for the development of new drugs, healthcare products, health foods, and other useful consumer goods. Particularly when commercial exploitation is involved, bioprospecting and other acts of taking and using traditional knowledge beyond the cultural context where it originated have become increasingly complex and contested on both ethical and legal grounds. A spectrum of views exists. At the extremes, proponents (largely within academe, government, and the private sector) argue that scientific validation and exploitation of traditional knowledge related to biodiversity and genetic resources will bring prestige and economic opportunities to Indigenous and local communities and/or national governments of “developing” countries, offer new products and other advancements to wider society, and create incentives for the conservation of disappearing ecosystems. Opponents argue that knowledge and resources are being “stolen” from Indigenous and local communities (i.e., biopiracy), eroding their cultures and the ecosystems upon which they depend, interfering with cultural responsibilities (e.g., to past and future generations), and undermining Indigenous rights to traditional resources, intellectual property, and biocultural heritage (Bannister and Solomon 2009a). As will be discussed later in this chapter, the complex of ethical, legal, political, and ecological issues revolving around the use, misuse, and commodification of traditional knowledge was and continues to be a key catalyst in the development of ethical guidance for ethnobiologists worldwide. This chapter first provides historical background on applied ethics and describes the emergence of ethical standards within the field of ethnobiology. It then focuses on the current international policy context for ethical and related legal issues raised and perpetuated by biocultural research in ethnobiology. It concludes with a summary of contemporary issues and suggestions that today’s ethnobiologists and others working in a biocultural context arguably have an ethical obligation to become informed about and consider carefully in negotiating the many potential dilemmas and sensitivities of working with traditional knowledge and associated living cultural heritage.
Traditional knowledge is increasingly recognized as valuable for adaptation to climate change, br... more Traditional knowledge is increasingly recognized as valuable for adaptation to climate change, bringing scientists and indigenous peoples together to collaborate and exchange knowledge. These partnerships can benefit both researchers and indigenous peoples through mutual learning and mutual knowledge generation. Despite these benefits, most descriptions focus on the social contexts of exchange. The implications of the multiple cultural, legal, risk-benefit and governance contexts of knowledge exchange have been less recognized. The failure to consider these contexts of knowledge exchange can result in the promotion of benefits while failing to adequately address adverse consequences. The purpose of this article is to promote awareness of these issues to encourage their wider incorporation into research, policy, measures to implement free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) and the development of equitable adaptation partnerships between indigenous peoples and researchers.
The evolutionary stability of simultaneous hermaphroditism depends in part on the existence of co... more The evolutionary stability of simultaneous hermaphroditism depends in part on the existence of constraints on the potential for male mating success. In the seabasses (Serranidae), several species of simultaneous hermaphrodites divide each day's clutch of eggs into parcels that are spawned sequentially and alternately with a partner. This behavior is thought to be one source of constraint on male mating success. A possible related source is the pattern of egg production. A study was therefore performed on the chalk bass,Serranus tortugarum, to examine this pattern. The results indicate that eggs are readied for spawning gradually over the course of the daily spawning period. The pattern of egg production acts jointly with spawning behavior in constraining male mating success. This pattern may be a pre-existing state to which the mating system has been adjusted, or it may have co-evolved with the mating system.
Review of concepts related to the protection of traditional knowledge in international law (circa... more Review of concepts related to the protection of traditional knowledge in international law (circa 2005).Identifies five doctrines that collectively act as "ethnocidal ratchets" that have systematically eroded Indigenous Peoples rights to maintain, control, protect and develop their traditional knowledge" 1. Doctrine of Supercedence: The extinguishment of earlier legal regimes by following regimes; 2. Doc-trine of Diminishment by Time; 3. Doctrine of Diminishment by Corruption; 4. Doctrine of Secular Gov-ernance; 5. Doctrine of the Cultural Commons. A critical element to overcome these ratcheting effects is the extraterritorial recognition of the force of customary law in setting legal standards for access, use by third parties, and continuing obligations by non-indigenous persons to respect these.
The advantages and limitations of registers Note by the Executive Secretary 1. The Executive Secr... more The advantages and limitations of registers Note by the Executive Secretary 1. The Executive Secretary is circulating herewith, for the information of participants in the fourth meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended International Working Group on Article 8(j) and Related Provisions, the Phase One – Revised – Composite report on the status and trends concerning the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity-assessment of the success of measures and initiatives to support the retention and use of traditional knowledge, including the advantages and limitations of registers as a measure to protect traditional knowledge, innovations and practices (UNEP/CBD/WG8J/4/INF/9). 2. The report is being circulated in the form and language in which it was received by the Secretariat.
... MUL-LOIDES MARTINICUS (MULLIDAE) AND A POSSIBLE AGGRESSIVE MIMIC, THE SNAPPER OCYURUS CHRYSUR... more ... MUL-LOIDES MARTINICUS (MULLIDAE) AND A POSSIBLE AGGRESSIVE MIMIC, THE SNAPPER OCYURUS CHRYSURUS (LUTJAN-IDAE).-Interspecific feeding associations have been reported for a wide variety of vertebrates (eg, Cody, 1971; Morse, 1977; Strand, 1988). ...
This is a brief brochure of the Guidelines for Considering Traditional Knowledges in Climate Chan... more This is a brief brochure of the Guidelines for Considering Traditional Knowledges in Climate Change Initiatives. The Guidelines are intended to be an informational resource for Indigenous peoples, agencies, and organizations across the United States interested in understanding traditional knowledges in the context of climate change.
The Guidelines do not advocate the sharing of Traditional Knowledges. They support respect for the sovereignty of Tribes and safeguards through free, prior and informed consent with careful consideration of risks and opportunities. The right not to share is affirmed. Federal rules and processes should ensure that funded projects do not require sharing traditional knowledges outside of Tribes. The authors, the Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup (CTKW) does not collect traditional knowledges. The Third National Climate Assessment issued in May 2014 contained a chapter dedicated to the impact of climate change on tribal peoples. In light of the increasing recognition of the significance of traditional knowledges (TKs) in relation to climate change, a self-organized, informal group of indigenous persons, staff of indigenous governments and organizations, and experts with experience working with issues concerning traditional knowledges. The CTKW felt compelled to develop a framework to increase understanding of issues relating to access and protection of TKs in climate initiatives and interactions between holders of TKs and non-tribal partners.
Ethical questions in ethnobiology and other fields that engage communities or draw on community k... more Ethical questions in ethnobiology and other fields that engage communities or draw on community knowledge as the focus of study are some of the most difficult and intractable considerations researchers may face in their careers. Difficulties can arise from several directions, such as differing principles and values, conflicting obligations, insufficient understandings, unmet expectations, and the general complexity of working in real-world situations. Dominating all of these considerations is that, like anthropology, in ethnobiology “the subject of study stares back”. A well-known context for raising ethical issues in ethnobiology is the practice of bioprospecting based on traditional knowledge1 of Indigenous and local peoples.2 Over the last couple of decades, traditional knowledge related to biological diversity and genetic resources has been sought after by government, academic and industrial researchers to identify leads for the development of new drugs, healthcare products, health foods, and other useful consumer goods. Particularly when commercial exploitation is involved, bioprospecting and other acts of taking and using traditional knowledge beyond the cultural context where it originated have become increasingly complex and contested on both ethical and legal grounds. A spectrum of views exists. At the extremes, proponents (largely within academe, government, and the private sector) argue that scientific validation and exploitation of traditional knowledge related to biodiversity and genetic resources will bring prestige and economic opportunities to Indigenous and local communities and/or national governments of “developing” countries, offer new products and other advancements to wider society, and create incentives for the conservation of disappearing ecosystems. Opponents argue that knowledge and resources are being “stolen” from Indigenous and local communities (i.e., biopiracy), eroding their cultures and the ecosystems upon which they depend, interfering with cultural responsibilities (e.g., to past and future generations), and undermining Indigenous rights to traditional resources, intellectual property, and biocultural heritage (Bannister and Solomon 2009a). As will be discussed later in this chapter, the complex of ethical, legal, political, and ecological issues revolving around the use, misuse, and commodification of traditional knowledge was and continues to be a key catalyst in the development of ethical guidance for ethnobiologists worldwide. This chapter first provides historical background on applied ethics and describes the emergence of ethical standards within the field of ethnobiology. It then focuses on the current international policy context for ethical and related legal issues raised and perpetuated by biocultural research in ethnobiology. It concludes with a summary of contemporary issues and suggestions that today’s ethnobiologists and others working in a biocultural context arguably have an ethical obligation to become informed about and consider carefully in negotiating the many potential dilemmas and sensitivities of working with traditional knowledge and associated living cultural heritage.
Indigenous peoples are rich in traditional knowledge inherited from the wisdom of tribal ancestor... more Indigenous peoples are rich in traditional knowledge inherited from the wisdom of tribal ancestors. This knowledge has guided them through many difficult episodes in the past when the Earth has brought forth natural catastrophes. The pulse of life that has sustained tribal cultures has ebbed and flowed. Indigenous peoples developed extensive networks of alliances and trade that helped them to survive environmental changes and upheavals. Many tribes moved with the changes of the waters and lands. The great encounter of Native peoples and settlers in the Pacific Northwest brought great changes to all sides, and to the environment. Much of the law relating to water and the environment was brought to this continent through European settlers, who saw these lands primarily through the lens of English common law and sensibilities. One hallmark of this worldview was that the world was seen primarily as static and unchanging; that while change might come and go, it cycled around a relatively fixed state. When the new United States signed treaties with the Indian tribes, the common phrase “as long as the rivers run” was used to describe the permanent relationship between the new society and the first inhabitants. By this, it was understood by all that the resources and the land base could forever be assumed to exist in a relatively fixed state and provide abundant and sufficient resources for all. Standing at the beginning of a new millennium, we now see that this worldview was overly optimistic. In 1992, over fifteen hundred world scientists, including a large number of Nobel Laureates, issued the “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity,” which began: "Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about." One of the gravest threats that face humanity as a whole, and indigenous nations as culturally distinct peoples, is global climate change. Climate change presents significant challenges to indigenous peoples, and is expected to put Native peoples’ communities and cultural survival at risk. Indigenous Some of the threats come from direct exposure to the impacts of climate change, such as extreme temperatures, floods, fires, droughts, and storms. Other threats are more indirect, including the effects of climate change on spreading diseases, significant cultural resources, and the transmission of traditional knowledge. The involvement of indigenous peoples in climate change issues can be divided into three rough categories - indigenous peoples as observers of climate change; indigenous peoples as victims of both climate change and the actions taken to stop it (mitigation) and to respond to change that cannot be avoided (adaptation); and indigenous peoples as mitigators of and adapters to climate change. Some of the earliest reporting on the relationship of indigenous peoples to climate change emphasized their role as “canaries in the mineshaft,” referring to an old practice of coal miners to use canaries to detect the buildup of dangerous gases, such as carbon monoxide and methane. Indigenous peoples, because they live closely related to the land and its cycles and patterns,can provide an early warning system for climate change. Social and environmental justice and human rights issues are involved with both climate change mitigation and adaptation. Most concerns have addressed mitigation measures to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the use of fossil fuels through fuel efficiency, alternative energy sources, and clean technologies. Mitigation also includes measures to sequester (store) greenhouse gases by conserving existing natural forests or planting new ones. One of these mitigation measures is the use of biofuels to replace fossil fuels, resulting in the expansion of agricultural areas. Biofuel crops, such as soybeans and corn, can cause the expansion of large-scale agriculture into or adjacent to indigenous territories and cause the loss of natural areas, the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and an increase in the runoff of agricultural pollutants into the environment. The introduction of biofuel crops can also compete for water that could be used for traditional crops and increase the price of foods, particularly subsistence staples such as corn. There is also evidence that, in some cases, biofuel crops do not actually achieve their goal of reducing fossil fuel emissions. Techniques known as life cycle or footprint assessments not only account for the relative carbon emissions from the use of fossil fuels and biofuels themselves, but also analyze the fossil fuels used in biofuels’ production, transportation, use, and disposal in the environment. In some circumstances, these analyses demonstrate that some kinds of biofuel production may result in carbon emissions that are as high as or higher than some kinds of fossil fuels (Fargione et al. 2008). Other major mitigation measures for climate change focus on sequestration of carbon to decrease or prevent the release of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas, either through the planting of trees (carbon plantations) or by preventing deforestation. One major initiative, United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD+), seeks to increase carbon sequestration and to conserve forest ecosystems in developing tropical countries. There are some significant issues involved in this program related to the land rights and territorial integrity of indigenous communities. This chapter will concentrate on the effects of climate change on tribal natural resources in the Pacific Northwest and on adaptation to those effects, after focusing on the effects of climate change on tribal natural resources in the Pacific Northwest. Indigenous peoples are not just victims of climate change, but are now empowering themselves to take the necessary steps to sustain their cultures in a dynamically changing world.
This paper reviews international law and policy regarding the rights of indigenous peoples and lo... more This paper reviews international law and policy regarding the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities that are defining the role of traditional and indigenous knowledge in the management and conservation of biodiversity. The most influential forums occur within the United Nations system, particularly the Working Group on Indigenous Populations and the Convention on Biological Diversity. We discuss the "soft-law" context of declarations, regional agreements, ethical guidelines, research protocols, and policy frameworks, which reinforce indigenous entitlements. The elaboration of these rights will increasingly impinge upon scientific research by regulating access to the knowledge and resources of indigenous and local communities, and by requiring that policy and management be made with their full participation. Scientists should respond by following these developments, institutionalizing this participation at all levels of scientific activity, and respecting the value of indigenous knowledge.
The value of traditional knowledge in resource management has been growing in the last two decade... more The value of traditional knowledge in resource management has been growing in the last two decades. The elder appreciates the presence of the anthropologist who is interested in learning the customs and helping with cultural revitalization. There are undoubted benefits from this turn towards recognizing the value of traditional knowledge, and has brought many new benefits and opportunities to tribes. But there are also some troubling issues in the rapid expansion of interest in and use of traditional knowledge systems.
Since its emergence in the 17th Century, and up until and beyond World War II, international law ... more Since its emergence in the 17th Century, and up until and beyond World War II, international law defined a “people” as the aggregate of the population of a state. Further, the simultaneously evolving human rights system came to focus on the rights of the individual, vis-à-vis the state. This state-individual dichotomy remained essentially unchallenged into the 1970s, resulting in international law having little room for Indigenous Peoples and their collective rights. But the last 25 years or so have seen a paradigm shift in international law, predominantly occurring within the Indigenous Peoples‟ rights discourse. When the UN started to seriously address indigenous issues in the late 1970s, international law‟s traditional definition of a “people” in terms of citizenship was quickly contested. The UN and its member states soon acknowledged that Indigenous Peoples should be allowed to maintain, reinforce and develop the distinct societal structures they had managed to preserve despite colonisation. International law on Indigenous Peoples hence came to hold that the people as such could be bearer of rights, thereby legally and conceptually distinguishing Indigenous Peoples from minorities. The World Community has since then, gradually clarified what these rights encompass in more detail, and in the process also specifying where on the world‟s political and legal map, Indigenous Peoples belong. In particular, the adoption of United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DECRIPS) by the UN General Assembly in 2007, has helped to clarify the content and scope of several Indigenous rights relevant to the International Regime on Access and Benefit Sharing. The DECRIPS confirmed that Indigenous Peoples –do constitute “peoples” – and thus as “peoples” have the right to self-determination. Importantly, the right to self-determination that Indigenous Peoples enjoy is not a sui generis right but the general right to self-determination, applicable to all peoples. The right to self-determination encompasses a right of Indigenous Peoples to autonomy in their internal affairs, which in turn envelopes the right to determine over their genetic resources (GR) and traditional knowledge, innovations and practices (TK). The International Regime (IR) must be mindful of Indigenous Peoples‟ status as legal subjects under international law, but need not define who constitute an Indigenous People. The IR must rely on a general understanding until the relevant UN human rights forum has agreed on a formal definition. Indigenous Peoples‟ status as legal subjects under international law has not only resulted in them enjoying the overarching right to self-determination. Recent developments in international law have also affirmed that Indigenous Peoples have rights specifically to GR and TK. The right to benefit from one‟s creativity has evolved from being merely an individual right to embrace also the rights of Indigenous Peoples as collectives, pursuant to which Indigenous Peoples have the right to own and control TK they have created. They also have right to redress for TK already taken without their free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). In the same vein, both the general right to property, understood in the light of the right to non-discrimination, and international legal sources particularly addressing Indigenous rights, confirm that Indigenous Peoples have the right to own and control natural resources on their territory. Nothing in international law indicates that the general right to natural resources should not include GR. Notably, also in such instances when the state retains ownership rights to GR, the Indigenous People must still be regarded as having rights to the GR, inasmuch as the Indigenous People has traditionally used the GR. However, when a GR originates from an Indigenous People‟s territory, but the people have not actively used the GR, the Indigenous People might only have a right to share in the profits from the utilization of the GR. Recognition of Indigenous Peoples‟ rights to TK and GR must also lead to acknowledgement of Indigenous Peoples‟ customary laws pertaining to GR and TK. This follows from international law, but also from the very nature of TK. TK protection must recognize TK‟s constantly evolving character within a defined collective, a people. Hence, TK protection cannot be confined to a particular moment in time and must not regulate in detail regarding who within a particular group may hold what rights to what aspects of TK. That would freeze the TK in time and result in the TK being absorbed into domestic legislation rather than being governed by the cultural and legal context from which it springs. In conclusion, Indigenous Peoples‟ rights to GR, TK and customary laws do not conflict with the principle of states‟ sovereign rights over natural resources. Indigenous Peoples‟ rights can, and should, be recognized side-by-side with states‟ sovereign rights.
Ethical questions in ethnobiology and other fields that engage communities or draw on community k... more Ethical questions in ethnobiology and other fields that engage communities or draw on community knowledge as the focus of study are some of the most difficult and intractable considerations researchers may face in their careers. Difficulties can arise from several directions, such as differing principles and values, conflicting obligations, insufficient understandings, unmet expectations, and the general complexity of working in real-world situations. Dominating all of these considerations is that, like anthropology, in ethnobiology “the subject of study stares back”. A well-known context for raising ethical issues in ethnobiology is the practice of bioprospecting based on traditional knowledge1 of Indigenous and local peoples.2 Over the last couple of decades, traditional knowledge related to biological diversity and genetic resources has been sought after by government, academic and industrial researchers to identify leads for the development of new drugs, healthcare products, health foods, and other useful consumer goods. Particularly when commercial exploitation is involved, bioprospecting and other acts of taking and using traditional knowledge beyond the cultural context where it originated have become increasingly complex and contested on both ethical and legal grounds. A spectrum of views exists. At the extremes, proponents (largely within academe, government, and the private sector) argue that scientific validation and exploitation of traditional knowledge related to biodiversity and genetic resources will bring prestige and economic opportunities to Indigenous and local communities and/or national governments of “developing” countries, offer new products and other advancements to wider society, and create incentives for the conservation of disappearing ecosystems. Opponents argue that knowledge and resources are being “stolen” from Indigenous and local communities (i.e., biopiracy), eroding their cultures and the ecosystems upon which they depend, interfering with cultural responsibilities (e.g., to past and future generations), and undermining Indigenous rights to traditional resources, intellectual property, and biocultural heritage (Bannister and Solomon 2009a). As will be discussed later in this chapter, the complex of ethical, legal, political, and ecological issues revolving around the use, misuse, and commodification of traditional knowledge was and continues to be a key catalyst in the development of ethical guidance for ethnobiologists worldwide. This chapter first provides historical background on applied ethics and describes the emergence of ethical standards within the field of ethnobiology. It then focuses on the current international policy context for ethical and related legal issues raised and perpetuated by biocultural research in ethnobiology. It concludes with a summary of contemporary issues and suggestions that today’s ethnobiologists and others working in a biocultural context arguably have an ethical obligation to become informed about and consider carefully in negotiating the many potential dilemmas and sensitivities of working with traditional knowledge and associated living cultural heritage.
Traditional knowledge is increasingly recognized as valuable for adaptation to climate change, br... more Traditional knowledge is increasingly recognized as valuable for adaptation to climate change, bringing scientists and indigenous peoples together to collaborate and exchange knowledge. These partnerships can benefit both researchers and indigenous peoples through mutual learning and mutual knowledge generation. Despite these benefits, most descriptions focus on the social contexts of exchange. The implications of the multiple cultural, legal, risk-benefit and governance contexts of knowledge exchange have been less recognized. The failure to consider these contexts of knowledge exchange can result in the promotion of benefits while failing to adequately address adverse consequences. The purpose of this article is to promote awareness of these issues to encourage their wider incorporation into research, policy, measures to implement free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) and the development of equitable adaptation partnerships between indigenous peoples and researchers.
The evolutionary stability of simultaneous hermaphroditism depends in part on the existence of co... more The evolutionary stability of simultaneous hermaphroditism depends in part on the existence of constraints on the potential for male mating success. In the seabasses (Serranidae), several species of simultaneous hermaphrodites divide each day's clutch of eggs into parcels that are spawned sequentially and alternately with a partner. This behavior is thought to be one source of constraint on male mating success. A possible related source is the pattern of egg production. A study was therefore performed on the chalk bass,Serranus tortugarum, to examine this pattern. The results indicate that eggs are readied for spawning gradually over the course of the daily spawning period. The pattern of egg production acts jointly with spawning behavior in constraining male mating success. This pattern may be a pre-existing state to which the mating system has been adjusted, or it may have co-evolved with the mating system.
Uploads
Papers
A critical element to overcome these ratcheting effects is the extraterritorial recognition of the force of customary law in setting legal standards for access, use by third parties, and continuing obligations by non-indigenous persons to respect these.
The Guidelines do not advocate the sharing of Traditional Knowledges. They support respect for the sovereignty of Tribes and safeguards through free, prior and informed consent with careful consideration of risks and opportunities. The right not to share is affirmed. Federal rules and processes should ensure that funded projects do not require sharing traditional knowledges outside of Tribes. The authors, the Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup (CTKW) does not collect traditional knowledges. The Third National Climate Assessment issued in May 2014 contained a chapter dedicated to the impact of climate change on tribal peoples. In light of the increasing recognition of the significance of traditional knowledges (TKs) in relation to climate change, a self-organized, informal group of indigenous persons, staff of indigenous governments and organizations, and experts with experience working with issues concerning traditional knowledges. The CTKW felt compelled to develop a framework to increase understanding of issues relating to access and protection of TKs in climate initiatives and interactions between holders of TKs and non-tribal partners.
The great encounter of Native peoples and settlers in the Pacific Northwest brought great changes to all sides, and to the environment. Much of the law relating to water and the environment was brought to this continent through European settlers, who saw these lands primarily through the lens of English common law and sensibilities. One hallmark of this worldview was that the world was seen primarily as static and unchanging; that while change might come and go, it cycled around a relatively fixed state. When the new United States signed treaties with the Indian tribes, the common phrase “as long as the rivers run” was used to describe the permanent relationship between the new society and the first inhabitants. By this, it was understood by all that the resources and the land base could forever be assumed to exist in a relatively fixed state and provide abundant and sufficient resources for all.
Standing at the beginning of a new millennium, we now see that this worldview was overly optimistic. In 1992, over fifteen hundred world scientists, including a large number of Nobel Laureates, issued the “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity,” which began:
"Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about."
One of the gravest threats that face humanity as a whole, and indigenous nations as culturally distinct peoples, is global climate change. Climate change presents significant challenges to indigenous peoples, and is expected to put Native peoples’ communities and cultural survival at risk. Indigenous Some of the threats come from direct exposure to the impacts of climate change, such as extreme temperatures, floods, fires, droughts, and storms. Other threats are more indirect, including the effects of climate change on spreading diseases, significant cultural resources, and the transmission of traditional knowledge.
The involvement of indigenous peoples in climate change issues can be divided into three rough categories - indigenous peoples as observers of climate change; indigenous peoples as victims of both climate change and the actions taken to stop it (mitigation) and to respond to change that cannot be avoided (adaptation); and indigenous peoples as mitigators of and adapters to climate change.
Some of the earliest reporting on the relationship of indigenous peoples to climate change emphasized their role as “canaries in the mineshaft,” referring to an old practice of coal miners to use canaries to detect the buildup of dangerous gases, such as carbon monoxide and methane. Indigenous peoples, because they live closely related to the land and its cycles and patterns,can provide an early warning system for climate change. Social and environmental justice and human rights issues are involved with both climate change mitigation and adaptation. Most concerns have addressed mitigation measures to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the use of fossil fuels through fuel efficiency, alternative energy sources, and clean technologies. Mitigation also includes measures to sequester (store) greenhouse gases by conserving existing natural forests or planting new ones.
One of these mitigation measures is the use of biofuels to replace fossil fuels, resulting in the expansion of agricultural areas. Biofuel crops, such as soybeans and corn, can cause the expansion of large-scale agriculture into or adjacent to indigenous territories and cause the loss of natural areas, the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and an increase in the runoff of agricultural pollutants into the environment. The introduction of biofuel crops can also compete for water that could be used for traditional crops and increase the price of foods, particularly subsistence staples such as corn. There is also evidence that, in some cases, biofuel crops do not actually achieve their goal of reducing fossil fuel emissions. Techniques known as life cycle or footprint assessments not only account for the relative carbon emissions from the use of fossil fuels and biofuels themselves, but also analyze the fossil fuels used in biofuels’ production, transportation, use, and disposal in the environment. In some circumstances, these analyses demonstrate that some kinds of biofuel production may result in carbon emissions that are as high as or higher than some kinds of fossil fuels (Fargione et al. 2008).
Other major mitigation measures for climate change focus on sequestration of carbon to decrease or prevent the release of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas, either through the planting of trees (carbon plantations) or by preventing deforestation. One major initiative, United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD+), seeks to increase carbon sequestration and to conserve forest ecosystems in developing tropical countries. There are some significant issues involved in this program related to the land rights and territorial integrity of indigenous communities.
This chapter will concentrate on the effects of climate change on tribal natural resources in the Pacific Northwest and on adaptation to those effects, after focusing on the effects of climate change on tribal natural resources in the Pacific Northwest. Indigenous peoples are not just victims of climate change, but are now empowering themselves to take the necessary steps to sustain their cultures in a dynamically changing world.
Indigenous Peoples‟ status as legal subjects under international law has not only resulted in them enjoying the overarching right to self-determination. Recent developments in international law have also affirmed that Indigenous Peoples have rights specifically to GR and TK. The right to benefit from one‟s creativity has evolved from being merely an individual right to embrace also the rights of Indigenous Peoples as collectives, pursuant to which Indigenous Peoples have the right to own and control TK they have created. They also have right to redress for TK already taken without their free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). In the same vein, both the general right to property, understood in the light of the right to non-discrimination, and international legal sources particularly addressing Indigenous rights, confirm that Indigenous Peoples have the right to own and control natural resources on their territory. Nothing in international law indicates that the general right to natural resources should not include GR. Notably, also in such instances when the state retains ownership rights to GR, the Indigenous People must still be regarded as having rights to the GR, inasmuch as the Indigenous People has traditionally used the GR. However, when a GR originates from an Indigenous People‟s territory, but the people have not actively used the GR, the Indigenous People might only have a right to share in the profits from the utilization of the GR. Recognition of Indigenous Peoples‟ rights to TK and GR must also lead to acknowledgement of Indigenous Peoples‟ customary laws pertaining to GR and TK. This follows from international law, but also from the very nature of TK. TK protection must recognize TK‟s constantly evolving character within a defined collective, a people. Hence, TK protection cannot be confined to a particular moment in time and must not regulate in detail regarding who within a particular group may hold what rights to what aspects of TK. That would freeze the TK in time and result in the TK being absorbed into domestic legislation rather than being governed by the cultural and legal context from which it springs. In conclusion, Indigenous Peoples‟ rights to GR, TK and customary laws do not conflict with the principle of states‟ sovereign rights over natural resources. Indigenous Peoples‟ rights can, and should, be recognized side-by-side with states‟ sovereign rights.
A well-known context for raising ethical issues in ethnobiology is the practice of bioprospecting based on traditional knowledge1 of Indigenous and local peoples.2 Over the last couple of decades, traditional knowledge related to biological diversity and genetic resources has been sought after by government, academic and industrial researchers to identify leads for the development of new drugs, healthcare products, health foods, and other useful consumer goods. Particularly when commercial exploitation is involved, bioprospecting and other acts of taking and using traditional knowledge beyond the cultural context where it originated have become increasingly complex and contested on both ethical and legal grounds. A spectrum of views exists. At the extremes, proponents (largely within academe, government, and the private sector) argue that scientific validation and exploitation of traditional knowledge related to biodiversity and genetic resources will bring prestige and economic opportunities to Indigenous and local communities and/or national governments of “developing” countries, offer new products and other advancements to wider society, and create incentives for the conservation of disappearing ecosystems. Opponents argue that knowledge and resources are being “stolen” from Indigenous and local communities (i.e., biopiracy), eroding their cultures and the ecosystems upon which they depend, interfering with cultural responsibilities (e.g., to past and future generations), and undermining Indigenous rights to traditional resources, intellectual property, and biocultural heritage (Bannister and Solomon 2009a). As will be discussed later in this chapter, the complex of ethical, legal, political, and ecological issues revolving around the use, misuse, and commodification of traditional knowledge was and continues to be a key catalyst in the development of ethical guidance for ethnobiologists worldwide.
This chapter first provides historical background on applied ethics and describes the emergence of ethical standards within the field of ethnobiology. It then focuses on the current international policy context for ethical and related legal issues raised and perpetuated by biocultural research in ethnobiology. It concludes with a summary of contemporary issues and suggestions that today’s ethnobiologists and others working in a biocultural context arguably have an ethical obligation to become informed about and consider carefully in negotiating the many potential dilemmas and sensitivities of working with traditional knowledge and associated living cultural heritage.
A critical element to overcome these ratcheting effects is the extraterritorial recognition of the force of customary law in setting legal standards for access, use by third parties, and continuing obligations by non-indigenous persons to respect these.
The Guidelines do not advocate the sharing of Traditional Knowledges. They support respect for the sovereignty of Tribes and safeguards through free, prior and informed consent with careful consideration of risks and opportunities. The right not to share is affirmed. Federal rules and processes should ensure that funded projects do not require sharing traditional knowledges outside of Tribes. The authors, the Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup (CTKW) does not collect traditional knowledges. The Third National Climate Assessment issued in May 2014 contained a chapter dedicated to the impact of climate change on tribal peoples. In light of the increasing recognition of the significance of traditional knowledges (TKs) in relation to climate change, a self-organized, informal group of indigenous persons, staff of indigenous governments and organizations, and experts with experience working with issues concerning traditional knowledges. The CTKW felt compelled to develop a framework to increase understanding of issues relating to access and protection of TKs in climate initiatives and interactions between holders of TKs and non-tribal partners.
The great encounter of Native peoples and settlers in the Pacific Northwest brought great changes to all sides, and to the environment. Much of the law relating to water and the environment was brought to this continent through European settlers, who saw these lands primarily through the lens of English common law and sensibilities. One hallmark of this worldview was that the world was seen primarily as static and unchanging; that while change might come and go, it cycled around a relatively fixed state. When the new United States signed treaties with the Indian tribes, the common phrase “as long as the rivers run” was used to describe the permanent relationship between the new society and the first inhabitants. By this, it was understood by all that the resources and the land base could forever be assumed to exist in a relatively fixed state and provide abundant and sufficient resources for all.
Standing at the beginning of a new millennium, we now see that this worldview was overly optimistic. In 1992, over fifteen hundred world scientists, including a large number of Nobel Laureates, issued the “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity,” which began:
"Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about."
One of the gravest threats that face humanity as a whole, and indigenous nations as culturally distinct peoples, is global climate change. Climate change presents significant challenges to indigenous peoples, and is expected to put Native peoples’ communities and cultural survival at risk. Indigenous Some of the threats come from direct exposure to the impacts of climate change, such as extreme temperatures, floods, fires, droughts, and storms. Other threats are more indirect, including the effects of climate change on spreading diseases, significant cultural resources, and the transmission of traditional knowledge.
The involvement of indigenous peoples in climate change issues can be divided into three rough categories - indigenous peoples as observers of climate change; indigenous peoples as victims of both climate change and the actions taken to stop it (mitigation) and to respond to change that cannot be avoided (adaptation); and indigenous peoples as mitigators of and adapters to climate change.
Some of the earliest reporting on the relationship of indigenous peoples to climate change emphasized their role as “canaries in the mineshaft,” referring to an old practice of coal miners to use canaries to detect the buildup of dangerous gases, such as carbon monoxide and methane. Indigenous peoples, because they live closely related to the land and its cycles and patterns,can provide an early warning system for climate change. Social and environmental justice and human rights issues are involved with both climate change mitigation and adaptation. Most concerns have addressed mitigation measures to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the use of fossil fuels through fuel efficiency, alternative energy sources, and clean technologies. Mitigation also includes measures to sequester (store) greenhouse gases by conserving existing natural forests or planting new ones.
One of these mitigation measures is the use of biofuels to replace fossil fuels, resulting in the expansion of agricultural areas. Biofuel crops, such as soybeans and corn, can cause the expansion of large-scale agriculture into or adjacent to indigenous territories and cause the loss of natural areas, the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and an increase in the runoff of agricultural pollutants into the environment. The introduction of biofuel crops can also compete for water that could be used for traditional crops and increase the price of foods, particularly subsistence staples such as corn. There is also evidence that, in some cases, biofuel crops do not actually achieve their goal of reducing fossil fuel emissions. Techniques known as life cycle or footprint assessments not only account for the relative carbon emissions from the use of fossil fuels and biofuels themselves, but also analyze the fossil fuels used in biofuels’ production, transportation, use, and disposal in the environment. In some circumstances, these analyses demonstrate that some kinds of biofuel production may result in carbon emissions that are as high as or higher than some kinds of fossil fuels (Fargione et al. 2008).
Other major mitigation measures for climate change focus on sequestration of carbon to decrease or prevent the release of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas, either through the planting of trees (carbon plantations) or by preventing deforestation. One major initiative, United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD+), seeks to increase carbon sequestration and to conserve forest ecosystems in developing tropical countries. There are some significant issues involved in this program related to the land rights and territorial integrity of indigenous communities.
This chapter will concentrate on the effects of climate change on tribal natural resources in the Pacific Northwest and on adaptation to those effects, after focusing on the effects of climate change on tribal natural resources in the Pacific Northwest. Indigenous peoples are not just victims of climate change, but are now empowering themselves to take the necessary steps to sustain their cultures in a dynamically changing world.
Indigenous Peoples‟ status as legal subjects under international law has not only resulted in them enjoying the overarching right to self-determination. Recent developments in international law have also affirmed that Indigenous Peoples have rights specifically to GR and TK. The right to benefit from one‟s creativity has evolved from being merely an individual right to embrace also the rights of Indigenous Peoples as collectives, pursuant to which Indigenous Peoples have the right to own and control TK they have created. They also have right to redress for TK already taken without their free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). In the same vein, both the general right to property, understood in the light of the right to non-discrimination, and international legal sources particularly addressing Indigenous rights, confirm that Indigenous Peoples have the right to own and control natural resources on their territory. Nothing in international law indicates that the general right to natural resources should not include GR. Notably, also in such instances when the state retains ownership rights to GR, the Indigenous People must still be regarded as having rights to the GR, inasmuch as the Indigenous People has traditionally used the GR. However, when a GR originates from an Indigenous People‟s territory, but the people have not actively used the GR, the Indigenous People might only have a right to share in the profits from the utilization of the GR. Recognition of Indigenous Peoples‟ rights to TK and GR must also lead to acknowledgement of Indigenous Peoples‟ customary laws pertaining to GR and TK. This follows from international law, but also from the very nature of TK. TK protection must recognize TK‟s constantly evolving character within a defined collective, a people. Hence, TK protection cannot be confined to a particular moment in time and must not regulate in detail regarding who within a particular group may hold what rights to what aspects of TK. That would freeze the TK in time and result in the TK being absorbed into domestic legislation rather than being governed by the cultural and legal context from which it springs. In conclusion, Indigenous Peoples‟ rights to GR, TK and customary laws do not conflict with the principle of states‟ sovereign rights over natural resources. Indigenous Peoples‟ rights can, and should, be recognized side-by-side with states‟ sovereign rights.
A well-known context for raising ethical issues in ethnobiology is the practice of bioprospecting based on traditional knowledge1 of Indigenous and local peoples.2 Over the last couple of decades, traditional knowledge related to biological diversity and genetic resources has been sought after by government, academic and industrial researchers to identify leads for the development of new drugs, healthcare products, health foods, and other useful consumer goods. Particularly when commercial exploitation is involved, bioprospecting and other acts of taking and using traditional knowledge beyond the cultural context where it originated have become increasingly complex and contested on both ethical and legal grounds. A spectrum of views exists. At the extremes, proponents (largely within academe, government, and the private sector) argue that scientific validation and exploitation of traditional knowledge related to biodiversity and genetic resources will bring prestige and economic opportunities to Indigenous and local communities and/or national governments of “developing” countries, offer new products and other advancements to wider society, and create incentives for the conservation of disappearing ecosystems. Opponents argue that knowledge and resources are being “stolen” from Indigenous and local communities (i.e., biopiracy), eroding their cultures and the ecosystems upon which they depend, interfering with cultural responsibilities (e.g., to past and future generations), and undermining Indigenous rights to traditional resources, intellectual property, and biocultural heritage (Bannister and Solomon 2009a). As will be discussed later in this chapter, the complex of ethical, legal, political, and ecological issues revolving around the use, misuse, and commodification of traditional knowledge was and continues to be a key catalyst in the development of ethical guidance for ethnobiologists worldwide.
This chapter first provides historical background on applied ethics and describes the emergence of ethical standards within the field of ethnobiology. It then focuses on the current international policy context for ethical and related legal issues raised and perpetuated by biocultural research in ethnobiology. It concludes with a summary of contemporary issues and suggestions that today’s ethnobiologists and others working in a biocultural context arguably have an ethical obligation to become informed about and consider carefully in negotiating the many potential dilemmas and sensitivities of working with traditional knowledge and associated living cultural heritage.