Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide a community perspective on partnerships with the goal of researching, designing, developing and commercializing non‐timber forest products (NTFPs) based on indigenous knowledge and resources from Pikangikum First Nation, northwestern Ontario, Canada.

Framed by the Whitefeather Forest Research Cooperative agreement, a collaborative and ethnographic research design was adopted with the Whitefeather Forest Management Corporation and the Whitefeather Forest Elders Steering Group in Pikangikum First Nation. Over the period of two years, initial research planning meetings were held with community representatives, fieldwork and interviews with community Elders and leaders were conducted, and three community workshops were held.

Community Elders and leaders articulated a cautious interest in developing ethical, collaborative partnerships that support the Whitefeather Forest Initiative and the community's social, cultural, economic and environmental goals. Developing NTFPs through partnerships is a procedural issue that requires giving Elders a primary role in advising and guiding partnerships at all stages of NTFP planning, research and development. Partners would be expected to build respectful and diligent partnerships that interface knowledge systems, maintain good relations, and generate mutually defined benefits.

This community‐specific approach provides insight for Aboriginal groups, governments, universities, and corporations seeking to develop access and benefit sharing agreements, policies, or protocols in light of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol.

This paper offers perspectives, principles, and community member narratives from a Canadian indigenous community, Pikangikum First Nation. These perspectives describe how this community envisions potential research, development and commercialization of NTFPs through joint and mutually beneficial partnerships.

The purpose of this study is to assess the application of knowledge management (KM) models in managing and integrating indigenous and exogenous knowledge for improved farming activities in Tanzania, by examining the management of indigenous knowledge (IK), access and use of exogenous knowledge, the relevance of policies, legal framework, information and communication technologies (ICTs), and culture in KM practices in the communities.

Semi‐structured interviews were used to collect qualitative and quantitative data from 181 farmers in six districts of Tanzania. Four IK policy makers were also interviewed.

The study demonstrated that western‐based KM models should be applied cautiously in a developing world context. Both indigenous and exogenous knowledge was acquired and shared in different contexts. IK was shared within a local, small and spontaneous network, while exogenous knowledge was shared in a wide context, where formal sources of knowledge focused on disseminating exogenous knowledge more than IK. Policies, legal framework, ICTs and culture determined access to knowledge in the communities. The study thus developed a KM model that would be applicable in the social context of developing countries.

The study necessitates testing the developed model against existing KM models, in a specific context such as local communities of the developing world, to determine whether it is better at explaining the link between KM principles and KM processes.

The proposed KM model provides a deep understanding of the management and integration of agricultural indigenous and exogenous knowledge in the rural areas of developing countries. Previous KM models were developed in the context of an organizational environment, and thus failed to address the needs of rural communities. The proposed model thus advances the theory of KM in developing countries, and provides linkages between KM processes and KM principles.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the interface between the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to determine measures available to the global community to resolve the conflict between them, in order to prevent the rapid loss of biodiversity despite the diverse interests of nations.

Within the framework of sustainability, this paper adopts a socio‐legal approach by undertaking a content analysis of the relevant treaties and juristic writings that sheds light on the existing matrix of interaction between the two legal instruments.

The findings reveal that there is an urgent need to review all the instruments, particularly in the area of trade, intellectual property and conservation of biodiversity that causally influence the people's freedoms and capabilities in the said areas. To overcome the range of these surmountable barriers, a comprehensive approach to development is required, i.e. an all‐encompassing functional relation amalgamating distinct development concerns in relevant spheres, especially in economic matters.

The paper explores the changes that need to be incorporated in the TRIPS and CBD in order to develop an appropriate normative framework with regards to property in genetic material.

The research provides amicable solutions that can be explored particularly by the providers of genetic resources, in order to overcome the monumental challenges during the joint implementation of TRIPS and the CBD.

The comprehensive review undertaken in this paper enables the stakeholders to explore measures that enable sustainable development without jeopardizing Earth's biodiversity.

IUCN ‐ The World Conservation Union defines a protected area as an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means. The Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) describes a protected area as a geographically defined area, which is designated or regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation objective. Protected areas‐national parks, wildlife reserves, wilderness areas, etc. ‐ are the cornerstones of national and international conservation strategies. They act as refuges for species and help maintain critical ecological processes and ecosystem services that intensely managed landscapes and seascapes cannot provide. These places provide space for natural evolution and future ecological restoration. In recent years there has been growing recognition of the benefits that protected areas provide for people: genetic resources for pharmaceuticals and agriculture, traditional medicines; recreational opportunities and ecotourism revenues; sustainable sources of goods such as non‐timber forest products; and refuge for traditional and vulnerable human societies (Dudley et al. 2005). A wide range of management objectives, approaches and types of governance are used within protected areas in different countries. In terms of management objectives, these range from strict protection and exclusion of humans to broad‐scale approaches that include cultural landscapes such as farms and managed forests. IUCN‐The World Conservation Union subdivides protected areas into six categories based on management objectives: Ia: strict nature reserve/wilderness protection area; Ib: wilderness area; II:national park; III:natural monument; IV:habitat/species management area; V:protected landscape/seascape; and VI:managed resource protected area. In terms of governance types, protected areas may be managed directly by a government, co‐managed with other actors such as nongovernmental organizations, or even declared and managed collectively by indigenous peoples and local communities or by the relevant individual or corporate landowner. Today, there are more than 100,000 designated protected areas in the World Database on Protected Areas covering around 11.4 per cent of Earth’s land surface, along with more than 1,300 marine protected areas covering less than 0.5 per cent of the oceans (Dudley et all. 2005).

Research projects involving traditional knowledge are finding new ways of dealing with intellectual property rights and commercialisation. Influenced by calls for fair and equitable protocols involving access and benefit sharing regimes, researchers are developing new standards of practice. Here this paper aims to explore the process by which the CIHR Team in Aboriginal Antidiabetic Medicine (TAAM) came to address these issues within the scope of participatory action research.

A case study method is applied in order to highlight key events and topics. The legally binding research agreement developed for this project is used to illustrate examples of how the needs of First Nations stakeholders and of researchers are met.

The paper finds that strong research partnerships are characterized by accountability, adaptability, transparency, good and frequent communication and ultimately, trust. Researchers should be prepared to take a more “human” approach in their studies as the establishment of personal relationships are as important as the research itself. Proposals should include both monetary and intangible outcomes where possible, which reflect aboriginal culture and decision.

This paper can help others to understand the needs of aboriginal peoples with regard to research. It also provides links to protocols and the legal research agreement used by TAAM that can serve as an adaptable template for future work.

Publicising the research agreement and experiences herein is meant to contribute to a body of knowledge that will one day lead to new research norms when dealing with aboriginal peoples and traditional knowledge.

The purpose of this paper is to show‐case how modern Knowledge Management Models, specifically that of Earl, can be applied to manage Indigenous Knowledge (IK).

The paper is largely based on the review of both print and electronic resources.

Despite IK being tacit and marginalized it can indeed be managed by use of modern models just like modern knowledge.

Validation poses a challenge and the future of IK will also be challenged unless stringent solutions are unveiled.

The paper suggests a number of ways in which IK can be managed using the contemporary KM models with specific attention to Earl's KM Taxonomy.

The paper shows how IK, a tacit knowledge, can go through the various KM processes of creation/production, storage, processing/codification, transfer and utilization successfully.