Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies International Workshop on Indigenous Knowledge and Disaster Risk Reduction: From Practice to Policy [Summary Report] September 2008 Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies
International Workshop on Indigenous Knowledge and Disaster Risk Reduction: From Practice to Policy Summary Report Organized by Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies In collaboration with The Organization for Promotion of International Relation (OPIR), Kyoto University National Research Institute of Earth Sciences and Disaster Prevention (NIED) SEEDS India and SEEDS Asia Supported by Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS) United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN ISDR) through European Union Funding UNESCO Bangkok Regional Office Date: 22-25 July 2008 Venue: Shiran Kaikan,, Kyoto, Japan 2
Table of Contents: Executive Summary...3 Acronyms 5 Workshop Background...6 Workshop Purpose and Objectives.7 Workshop Proceedings Annexes Session 1: Outline and Overview... 8 Session 2: Thematic Focus on IK...9 Session 3: Group Discussion..11 One-Day Field Trip 12 Session 4: Group Presentations. 12 Group 1: Mountain Ecosystems.12 Group 2: Coastal Zones..13 Group 3: River Basin Management...15 Group 4: Water Management.17 Group 5: Housing...18 Group 6: Policy and Decision Making...19 Session 5: Future Directions.. 21 Annex I: List of Participants...24 Annex II: Policy Document...25 Annex II: Welcome statements...26 3
Executive Summary The International Workshop on Indigenous Knowledge and Disaster Risk Reduction: From Practice to Policy was held in Kyoto, Japan from 22-25 July, 2008. The workshop was organized by Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies (GSGES), in collaboration with several key regional partners including OPIR, NIED, SEEDS India and SEEDS Asia. It was also supported by JSPS, UN/ISDR and UNESCO Bangkok Regional Office. A total of approximately 61 people attended and participated in the conference over the course of three days. Participants included researchers, practitioners and policy makers from various UN agencies, universities and several regional and international organizations. Fifteen countries were represented, including Australia, Brazil, Bangladesh, China, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Japan, Madagascar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, USA, and Vietnam. The objectives of the meeting were: To discuss the transferability issues of indigenous knowledge (IK) in Disaster Risk Reduction what to transfer, who transfers, whom to transfer to and how to transfer To discuss the policy implications of IK to link practice and policy and enhance the use of IK in decision making To identify future directions in research and implementation The conference was comprised of five sessions and a field trip, all held over three consecutive days. The first session provided an introduction to the workshop, outlining its key objectives and describing the existing collaboration between several organizations on the topic of IK for disaster risk reduction. Session two examined, in more detail, five thematic groups related to IK and disaster risk reduction including: mountain ecosystems, coastal zones, river basin management, water management and housing. The third session consisted of small group discussions focused around these thematic areas. All participants were divided into six groups, each representing one thematic area, as well as a group working on policy and decision making. The goal of this session was to develop an understanding of the basic principles of each type of IK and to determine the transferable elements associated with the given thematic focus. It also aimed to develop policy recommendations for each thematic area. This session was divided between the end of the first day and the beginning of the third day. During the second day, participants went on a one-day field trip to Noubi Plain, Gifu Prefecture. The participants visited several sites which provided examples of Japanese IK used for flood mitigation. On the third day, the morning was spent completing the small group discussions. Session four followed, where each group presented their conclusions to the entire workshop body. Each presentation was followed by a conversation which highlighted key considerations and challenges for the given type of IK. Finally, in session five participants discussed the future directions of IK and DRR. A representative of the policy and decision making group led the discussion, presenting an outline of a proposed policy document. 4
Workshop participants were then encouraged to make comments on the policy document outline, which will be incorporated into the finalized version. The agreed goal was to complete the policy document during the fall of 2008 with the aim of presenting the document at the Asian Ministerial Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (AMCDRR) held in Kuala Lampur in December, 2008. The document encourages greater consideration of IK among DRR practitioners and policy makers. Several other activities relating to documentation and dissemination of information on IK and DRR will help to continue the work done at this workshop. Some projects have already begun, such as the DRH documentation of TIK and DRR produced by MEXT and NIED, and the ADRC and SAARC regional center documentation on IK practices. In addition, other activities are planned for the coming months. For example, a workshop is scheduled for November, 2008, in collaboration with the Education Task Force, which will present the conclusions of this workshop and discuss practical policy solutions for considering IK in the education sector. In addition, a book entitled IK and Disaster Risk Reduction: From Practice to Policy, which will build off of several discussions during this July workshop, is planned to be published in the beginning of 2009. Along with these follow-up activities, this workshop was considered the first step in the development of a core group of practitioners and researchers whose work focuses on IK and DRR. The gathering allowed participants to create networks and enhance collaboration with the aim of conducting pilot research and implementation relating to IK and DRR. 5
Acronyms ADRC Asia Disaster Reduction Center DIPECHO Disaster Preparedness European Commission Humanitarian Organization DRH Disaster Reduction Hyperbase DRR Disaster risk reduction ICIMOD International Center for Integrated Mountain Development IH Indigenous Housing IK Indigenous Knowledge JSPS Japan Society for Promotion of Science LINKS UNESCO Programme on Local and Indigenous Knowledge Systems NIDM National Institute of Disaster Management NIED National Research Institute of Earth Science and Disaster Prevention OPIR The Organization for Promotion of International Relations RBM River Base Management SAARC South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation TIK Transferable Indigenous Knowledge UN/ISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction 6
Workshop Background Indigenous knowledge (IK) has developed in communities over the years to cope with natural events and changes in the environment. In most cases, IK is closely linked to the lifestyle and livelihood of people, especially in rural areas where human interaction with nature is more prominent. The relationship between IK and disasters has developed more interest in recent years. Due to the massive size of the Indian Ocean Tsunami, the experiences of communities such as the Simeuleans and the Moken, who both relied on IK for survival, received enormous international attention. Their stories continue to be disseminated and celebrated through UN publications, newspaper articles and television news programs. This has initiated some discussion on the possibility of improving disaster risk reduction (DRR) education and incorporating IK into early warning systems and DRR. Specifically, the UN has triggered this consideration in several of its publications. For example, Priority 3 of the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 which focuses on education and knowledge, considers IK as a means of building a culture of safety and resilience. It designates one of its key activities to the importance of information management and exchange, and highlights the use of relevant traditional and indigenous knowledge and cultural heritage to be shared with and adapted to different target audiences. Further, as is stated in the UN publication on Lessons For a Safer Future: Drawing on the experience of the Indian Ocean Tsunami Disaster: It is important to incorporate traditional wisdom and local knowledge into future disaster risk reduction strategies and to ensure that such knowledge continues to be communicated through generations and to migrants and new comers to the affected areas. In addition, the World Conference on Science Framework for Action, held in Budapest 26 June - 1 July, 1999, emphasized the need for governments to support collaboration between traditional knowledge holders and scientists as a means of exploring the relationships between the different knowledge systems and foster mutually beneficial linkages. In the Asia-Pacific region, the consideration of IK to inform and improve disaster risk reduction has accelerated in recent years, marked by the work of several organizations. UNESCO has performed substantial work relating to IK through their cross-cutting programme entitled Local and Indigenous Knowledge Systems (LINKS). Their Andaman Pilot Project aims to preserve IK of the Moken people living in the Surin Islands off the coast of Thailand and Myanmar, focusing on incorporating that knowledge into natural resource management and disaster risk reduction policies. UN/ISDR, in collaboration with, recently completed a publication compiling cases from the region where IK was used to survive, cope or reduce risk from natural disasters. The publication is entitled IK for Disaster Risk Reduction: Good Practices and Lessons Learned from Experiences in the Asia-Pacific Region. ICIMOD conducted a 15-month study (April 2006-June 2007) entitled Living with risk sharing knowledge on disaster preparedness in the Himalayan region, supported by DIPECHO. Three publications on 7
IK for disaster risk reduction followed from this study. The SAARC regional center, in collaboration with ADRC, has begun an initiative which will collect valuable IK practices in the South Asian region. Finally, many NGOs throughout the region have been working to explore and document IK in an effort to better encourage the integration of this knowledge into disaster risk reduction policies. Despite the growing efforts and enormous achievements relating to IK and DRR, there has been a further demand for more synergy between organizations and researchers working on the topic, as well as a greater effort to link practice to policy. The International Workshop on IK and Disaster Risk Reduction: From Practice to Policy aimed to establish this link. The workshop discussed two key issues pertaining to the further utilization of IK in disaster risk reduction: first, the transferability of IK to a changing life style and environmental context; second, the use of IK for decision making of local government. The workshop brought together valuable experts from the region, including practitioners, researchers and policy makers, to discuss these important issues, establish a core group focused on IK and disaster risk reduction, and to develop key policy recommendations for further using IK to inform and improve disaster risk reduction. Workshop Purpose and Objectives The purpose of the workshop was to examine the value of IK for disaster risk reduction (DRR) and establish the link between existing indigenous practices and future disaster reduction related policy. The workshop brought together practitioners, researchers and policy makers from fifteen different countries to pursue the following three objectives: 1. The discussion of transferability issues of IK in disaster risk reduction what to transfer, who transfers, whom to transfer to and how to transfer 2. The discussion of policy implications of IK to link practice and policy and enhance the use of IK in decision making 3. The identification of future directions in research and implementation related to IK and DRR In addition to these objectives, several concrete outcomes were discussed. First, the development of a formal core group of practitioners and researchers focused on IK and DRR. Second, the creation of a policy document which represents the discussions and conclusions made during the three day workshop, which will ultimately be shared with the broader DRR community. 8
Workshop Proceedings Day 1 - Session 1: Outline and Objectives The first session provided an introduction to the goal and objectives of the workshop as well as an overview of the existing cooperation between different organizations under the umbrella of indigenous knowledge (IK) and disaster risk reduction (DRR). The session began with welcome addresses from representatives of the Workshop Secretariat,. First, Masashi Kamon, Dean of the Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies (GSGES) at, expressed his pleasure and honor to welcome participants to the workshop. He described the importance of IK to understanding community activities, a focus of GSGES multi-disciplinary, field-based approach. Second, Toshio Yokoyama, Vice President of, articulated his respect and thanks to collaborators and supporters of the workshop who have created a space for specialists interested in applying certain IK to help bridge various disciplines and cultures, and help to attain a more sustainable coexistence with the ever powerful non-humans surrounding us. Following the Secretariat s remarks, Yuki Matsuoka, Programme Officer for UN/ISDR Hyogo Office, delivered a message from UN/ISDR Director Sálvano Briceño. The message highlighted the importance of IK and DRR in fulfilling the Hyogo Framework for Action. It also encouraged practitioners and policy makers to consider and integrate the knowledge held by communities in future disaster reduction work. After the self-introduction of all participants, three additional presentations were made which introduced the topic of IK and DRR and the various initiatives already taking place in the Asia-Pacific region. First, Rajib Shaw, Associate Professor at s GSGES, provided an overview of IK and DRR, its evolution and the key objectives and structure of the threeday workshop. He reiterated the importance of the workshop to identify and extract the key principles behind IK, which can then be transferred and applied to other communities. After defining key terms and concepts relating to IK and DRR, Professor Shaw reviewed the evolution of Transferable IK (TIK) in the context of the Disaster Reduction Hyperbase (DRH). This allowed participants to view the current conference as part of a progression, beginning first with the development of the TIK concept in an Idea workshop in February 2007, following by an Action Workshop in February 2008 to plan future activities, and finally this Policy Workshop to develop concrete policy recommendations. In the second presentation, Dr. Hiroyuki Kameda of NIED explained the Disaster Reduction Hyperbase (DRH) in detail, describing the web-based database as a means of disseminating information on DRR to help disaster reduction policy in Asian countries. 9
After describing the history of the project and its different phases, he explained the technical aspects of the DRH and encouraged all participants to contribute to the database and to join in the ongoing discussions. Finally, Derek Elias of UNESCO Bangkok gave a presentation on UNESCO s role in driving dialogue between countries on certain research initiatives relating to IK. He described the work of LINKS, a UNESCO program focused on bringing together traditional knowledge holders and scientists, resource managers and decision makers in an effort to promote equity in biodiversity governance and enhance dynamism of IK within local communities. He described one project which worked with the Moken people of the Surin Islands both during and after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. His example highlighted the importance of considering IK in decision-making and reconstruction efforts. He also emphasized the need to explore ways to encourage the transfer of IK and its relationship to formal education systems and existing curricula. The first session outlined the key objectives, definitions and existing work relating to the workshop topic. It provided a solid foundation from which to further explore issues relating to IK for DRR, which were reviewed in session two. Session 2: Thematic Focus The second session focused on five thematic areas which were developed during the Action workshop in Delhi, February 2008. These five areas, including mountain ecosystems, coastal zones, river basin management, water management and housing, each represent a type of IK which can be explored in isolation. This session included six presentations, an introduction and one on each theme. These presentations outlined examples of IK and then provided a brief analysis on its sustainability and transferability. Overall, the session aimed to provide a basis from which to approach the following group discussions which were divided based on these five themes. The first presentation, by Anshu Sharma of SEEDS outlined the five thematic groups, as well as a sixth group relating to policy and decision making. The areas were set in the context of sustainable development, arguing that there is a need to consider the changing environment and the existing technologies in each thematic area. He encouraged the use of appropriate technologies to make the knowledge viable in the modern context. Brief examples were provided for each thematic area, as well as issues to consider in the sixth group on policy and decision making. The following presentations each provided an example and some analysis on IK in each of the five thematic areas. First, Julie Dekens from ICIMOD presented on the mountain ecosystem and IK. She emphasized that mountain ecosystems are diverse and dynamic environments intertwined with other ecosystems. They are becoming increasingly disaster prone in the 20 th century due to population increases and increased development. Following this introduction, Dekens examined five examples of local and traditional knowledge in mountain ecosystems, including landscape interpretation, house construction and location, slope farming, glacier grafting and vertical transhumance. She 10
explained the strengths and weaknesses of each knowledge type and briefly analyzed their transferability. Overall, she highlighted several important challenges to keep in mind when exploring transferable IK. The value of IK is affected by changing environments due to climate change or development. Much IK is being lost since it is held solely by elders or men who are migrating away from the locality. Much of this knowledge is site specific and cannot be replicated in other contexts. Many of the traditional strategies are less valuable for regional hazards, such as earthquakes, droughts and epidemics, which produce widespread and lagged interactive and cascading effects. Dekens concluded by listing several criteria which allow for transferability, such as simplicity, need-based or demand driven, flexible, affordable, and in tune with sociocultural, political and environmental contexts. The second presentation on coastal zones was given by Jennifer Baumwoll, a consultant from the United States. She examined the experience of the Simeulue community in Indonesia during the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Two key lessons were extracted from the event. First, an ecological understanding and knowledge about ones local environment can reduce vulnerability to natural disasters. Relating to coastal communities, such knowledge includes an understanding of the nature of sea/water, tides, color of water, surrounding geography (mangroves and coral reefs), and livelihood knowledge relating to fishing and farming. Second, the Simeuleans grassroots approach to disseminating their disaster-related knowledge shows the importance of personalizing and embedding knowledge in cultural traditions and daily life, respected aspects of the existing culture. The impact of close-knit communities and their isolation from the mainland help to develop unique cultural traditions which are valuable to understand and utilize for disaster risk reduction. The third presentation on river basin management, given by Yukiko Takeuchi of Kyoto University, examined traditional flood mitigation technology of Japan s Gifu prefecture. Three technologies were explained: ring dikes used to prevent flooding; structures used to control erosion; and the Mizuya, or elevated house construction, used to reduce flood damage. Takeuchi explained that all three techniques are still used today, some modified using modern materials. All three examples have transferable principles which can be used in other flood prone countries. This was further discussed in the field trip on day two which allowed participants to visit each of these examples. Fourth, Rekha Nianthi, professor at the University of Peradeniya in Sri Lanka, presented an example of indigenous water management in Sri Lanka. She examined two types of traditional cascade systems, or tank systems, used for water management and agricultural practices in dry zones of Sri Lanka. These cascade systems are a successful way to store, control, and utilize the minimal water resources in these areas. Professor Nianthi explained that these systems are still widely used in Sri Lanka and can be adapted to be used in several other drought-prone countries as well. 11
Finally, Amir Ali Khan of NIDM presented on housing and IK. He first described the importance of disaster-safe housing and the challenges to producing it. These challenges include: the limited knowledge of disaster-safe practices among communities; the influence of modern material usage without professional knowledge; and the inability of local people to afford disaster-safe houses. Specific examples of earthquake safe houses were shown from Kashmir, northeast India, Uttarakhand, and Katch. Ali Khan concluded that a multi-hazard approach must be to taken for housing, utilizing the post-disaster phase for improving existing housing practices. He also encouraged the need for research and development to improve performance further, proper documentation of all techniques, and education in communities about the importance of local traditional approaches for disaster-safe construction practices. A discussion on housing practices followed, emphasizing the importance of community control over their natural resources in order to allow inhabitants to adapt to changing environments. It was agreed that housing should be seen as a process rather than a product, where indigenous people build together and the knowledge develops into the house itself. Some participants emphasized the need for a national standard or building code, which would take into account IK for housing construction. However, the point was raised that building codes are up to the local authorities, and therefore it may be a challenge to incorporate IK into housing construction in many vulnerable areas. Session 3: Group Discussions Session three provided a forum to discuss in more detail each thematic area of IK. All participants were divided into six groups, each focusing on one thematic area (including policy and decision making). Several general questions were posed for each group to discuss: What are the basic principles for the particular type of IK? What are the transferable elements of IK to cope with the changing life style? How is the changing climate impacting the IK and what are the possible adaptation measures? How can IK for the particular aspect be linked to decision making in the local government? The objective of the group discussions was to explore these four questions, coming up with several concrete recommendations. Each group was then asked to present their findings and discussions to all workshop participants during Session four. Several of the groups reported that the discussions were a bit difficult to organize from the start. Many groups began by taking a step back and defining key terms. Others tried to focus their discussion in on their specific thematic area, but found general conclusions on IK easier to develop. Overall, group members were able to discuss with colleagues who had focused their work on similar types of IK, which made for interesting discussions and networking opportunities. 12
Day 2 - Field Trip Participants met for the one-day field trip on the morning on the second day. They took a bus close to Ogaki city in the Gifu prefecture, where they met with their technical guides from IDEA Consultants. The group visited five sites over the course of the day. The first two were examples of Mizuya or raised houses which acted as safe places during floods. Between these two visits participants also stopped at a shrine set atop a hill, used as an evacuation point for inhabitants during floods. After lunch, the group visited the museum Waju no Sato at Nagashima. After attending a short lecture on the history and geography of Nagashima, participants walked through the museum which provided information on the region and traditional objects belonging to those living in the prefecture. Finally, the group visited two sites along the Nagara river where they were able to see examples of structures used to control river bed erosion. Examples included the Dashi Type or Outthrust type, and Hijiro-Ushi or Ox Type. Overall, the field trip allowed participants to see successful examples of Japanese IK relating to flood mitigation in the Gifu prefecture. Several of the examples exhibited ways that modern technology can be used to strengthen IK. The group was able to use their common experience of visiting these sites during discussions which followed on day three of the workshop. Day 3 Session 3: Group discussions (continued) The group discussions, which were begun on day one, were completed in the morning of day three. Groups aimed to bring together their conversations into concrete conclusions which they then presented in the following session. Session 4: Group Presentations Each group was given the opportunity to present their conclusions to the entire plenary in session four. The presentations were followed by questions and comments, allowing for further discussion on each thematic area with all workshop participants. Group 1: Mountain Ecosystem The first group presented their general discussion, explaining that no main conclusions had been made during session three due to the difficulty of the exercise. They began by listing some unique characteristics of mountain ecosystems: the varied environment at different altitudes, the high number of natural hazards faced (flash floods, landslides and avalanches), and the need for people to protect their livelihoods through coping mechanisms for natural resource use. They then highlighted some environmental changes, a determining factor in IK transferability, which included immigration, children leaving villages to get better education, and the increase of development projects in mountain areas. The group then presented an equation for the transferability of IK: Transferability = (usability or adaptability) x (environment) Here, two factors are taken into account: the adaptation to the given landscape as well as the change in environment (demographic change, for example). If the point is reached 13
where the community can no longer cope with the rapidly changing environment, external influence is needed. Discussion The discussion which followed the presentation of Group 1 focused on two issues. First, with regards to their transferability equation, it was decided that environment can be read in multiple ways: enabling environment, social environment, physical environment, etc. In addition, the concept of rationality was added to usability/adaptability, such that the people s perception was seen in contrast to the surrounding environmental elements. When these two factors are interlinked and remain positive, there can be transferability. The second issue discussed was external intervention and when it is needed. It was agreed that external influence can help prevent negative consequences of natural disasters; however, any external intervention must be done in cooperation with the community, using a participatory approach. A following discussion examined who holds the decision making power. One participant explained that in the past, decision making was always with the people. Today, it is often with governments and NGOs. IK is valuable and can be transferred if the decision making power stays with the people. Group 2: Coastal Zones The second group organized the progression of their discussion into six main categories. First, they listed several specific cases of IK in coastal zones which could be transferred. From there, they extracted key characteristics and principles from these examples which applied to all cases. These characteristics of coastal zone IK included the following: Relates to the water/ocean, its behavior as well as wind/weather conditions Characteristic of social system, generally smaller, close-knit communities Use of local materials (sand, thatch) Involvement of ecological elements (mangroves, coral reefs, rocky shores) Disseminated in small family groupings Closely related to fishing and farming practices livelihood of inhabitants Third, the group presented transferable elements of these characteristics which affect the changing lifestyle of coastal communities. Four elements were explained as important for reducing risk in coastal areas and transferable to most coastal communities: 1. Maintain coastal defenses through mangrove protection and coral reef protection, using designated protected areas for mangroves, sea grass beds, fishing areas, etc. 2. Promote the research and use of medicinal properties of resources for coping mechanisms 3. The simplicity of the knowledge, making practices cheap and available locally 4. More specifically, thatch house construction is a valuable technique which could be used in other coastal areas Next, several general policy recommendations were presented relating to two categories: education and DRR. Under education, the group recommended to: Encourage the respect and consideration of indigenous knowledge as valid knowledge, taught in formal settings 14
Teach communities to protect coastal ecosystems and to understand their benefits; This can begin by restricting damaging coral reef practices and the cutting of wood from mangroves Educate about early warning systems, how to recognize and respond; Organize community on where and how to evacuate and be prepared Develop exchange programs, sharing of information between local indigenous communities and local immigrant communities, between communities who have experienced a disaster and those who have not, between different coastal communities and different generations within local communities With regards to policy recommendations relating to DRR, the group emphasized: The need for genuine consultation with indigenous communities regarding DRR and development projects by DRR practitioners and policy makers. The support of chiefs and IK holders as those with power over policy related to DRR The conservation and reliance on existing local social institutions. The consideration of development impacts informed by IK The continuation of incorporating IK into non-traditional, contemporary DRR approaches/mechanisms Building from the general policy recommendations, specific implementation-oriented recommendations were made relating particularly to coastal communities. These included: the incorporation of indigenous communication systems (sounds, flags, etc.) into early warning dissemination; the incorporation of IK into technological systems such as early warning systems and Potential Fishery Zone information being derived from Remote Sensing Data (if scientific information is not available, moving seamlessly between scientific and indigenous knowledges); recognizing and developing safe places during disasters; and creating protection buffers (at least 100m) of mangroves. Finally, the group highlighted many challenges facing coastal zone communities and their IK. These challenges are listed below: Many of the issues relating to pollution, resource management, etc. filters down to the coastal areas Development often comes directly to the coastal areas via ports There is often no access to other geographical elements (hills to run to) either due to absence of these formations or no ownership rights Globalization and modernization of fisheries changes IK It is sometimes difficult to interpret modern sources of knowledge in relation to IK and understandings It is necessary to determine the best ways to disseminate early warning information to communities and increase their awareness Disasters and climate change are impacting coastal ecosystems, such as destroying coral reefs. Changes in technology are making traditional knowledge less significant Increasing populations are upseting natural balances There is difficulty transferring knowledge to different topographies even among coastal communities It is difficult to learn and access knowledge from highly isolated communities 15
Discussion Following the presentation on coastal zone IK, the workshop participants began a discussion relating first to the duties of government and second to the relationship between IK and modern technology. First, a discussion emerged about the responsibility of local government versus national government. One participant asked how to overcome the challenge of government not wanting to use IK because of the lack of scientific justification. The group decided that a method of validation is needed, where the exchange of information and experience is heavily considered. This brought the discussion to the second topic, where the group further examined the difference between indigenous and scientific knowledge and the challenge of integrating the two. The validation of IK is important to promote this integration. The knowledge must be translated to be understood by both the government and local people. Work must be done to validate the IK by explaining it in a contemporary way. The difference between the communication techniques of traditional indigenous communities and the scientific community was discussed, emphasizing the need for the two groups to develop a way to communicate. It was also emphasized that indigenous communities need to be given the opportunity to speak. Group 3: River Basin Management The third presentation began by examining factors of IK. The group presented two models. One shows the generators of IK, and the other shows the principles of IK in river basin management. Generators of IK Climate regime and geo morphology Globalization Indigenous Knowledge Experience of particular type of disaster Socio economic context Cultural context 16
Principles of IK for river basin management (RBM) RBM is affected by three phenomena which cause a number of strategies Living and coping with(out) WATER Inundation Erosion Drought Strategies Higher ground Floating Plinth Safer Houses Early Warning Protection of Livelihoods Food storage Plinth Raising Following this discussion, the group tackled the question of how to transfer IK. First key elements were identified which belong to IK, including housing, food, environment, health, livelihood and land use. The transferability of this knowledge depends on the commonalities of certain IK generators between those creating the IK and those looking to use this knowledge. If the two groups face similar risks and have similar contexts (see IK generators) then the knowledge is more likely to transfer. The group continued to discuss the impact of a changing climate on IK and its transferability. Both modernization and climate change have and will contribute to many shifts in the environment which will effect IK related to RBM. Examples of these changes include increasing rainfall, higher temperatures, globalization and consumerism, seasonal fluctuations, salinity changes, flash floods, CO 2 emissions, industrialization, and increased information technology. Therefore, communities will have to adapt from worse conditions in the future, beginning at a different starting point. Finally, the group examined how to move forward in DRR policy. They emphasized two different stakeholders, those of IK (individual, community, civil society, CBOs and local government), and those of scientific knowledge (scientists, researchers, technicians, government, institutions and external agencies). These two groups of stakeholders will need to work together in order to incorporate both types of knowledge into DRR policy. A dialogue is needed between the two in order to determine the best strategies. Discussion In the discussion that followed the presentation on RBM some participants criticized the strong distinction made between IK and scientific knowledge. They argued that the two 17
concepts should be better harmonized. In addition, a community as a whole does not always hold the IK, sometimes there are specific groups or rural experts which are the only holders of this knowledge. These people must be identified in order to manage disasters. Further, participants discussed the challenges of transferability, including the affordability of transferring the knowledge or practice and the consideration of the context of both communities (those holding the knowledge and those adopting it). It was concluded that often NGOs do not do a thorough assessment of the existing situation to determine the current context and the existing resources which can be used. Another challenge highlighted is the speed at which knowledge is adapted to other communities. Sustainability becomes a problem if technology is rushed somewhere, which has happened in the past. Group 4: Water Resource Management The presentation on water resource management focused on four primary questions. First, they outlined the basic principles of IK relating to water resource management. These include: 1. Diversity: fulfilling the needs of local people/adapted to local culture, climate, environment, geography, etc. 2. Equality: common property, resource sharing, interest balancing 3. Environmentally friendly: multiple purpose, reuse, conservation 4. Economically sustainable: local materials, no need of extra energy for water transferring (use of gravity) Next, the group outlined three transferable elements of IK for water resource management: Technology (or specific practices which could be transferred) such as evaporation control by using underground canal, water storage by tank system, water transfer by gravity and traditional weather forecasting; Elements of management, such as community rule, community-based decision-making, and collaboration with local government; And Elements related to methods of transfer, including the use of songs, stories, poems, festivals, beliefs and proverbs to transfer IK relating to water resource management. Third, the group addressed two impacts of IK from a changing environment: impacts to water resources, which includes a general difference between water demand and available water resources (like water scarcity) as well as increasing extreme events; and impacts to IK question whether IK is still applicable and whether it is evolving with the changing environment. In addition, the group delineated the need for adaptation in several different areas: technology, management, crop and livelihood diversity and self-checking or an enhancement of social capital. Finally, the last question tackled by group four was how to link can IK and the decision making of the local government. Two suggestions were made. One related to management and regulation, emphasizing the need for community-based decision making as well as hierarchical management among different levels and between governments. 18
The second suggestion related to the conservation and promotion of IK, highlighting documentation, dissemination, education and awareness. The group also outlined several challenges in the future, such as the increase of more extreme events and large scale disasters, the decreasing of water resources and the change of spatial climate patterns. There was an emphasis on the need for local solutions to these global changes. Discussion The plenary discussion centered on the importance of water management. One participant explained the unique opportunity water management provides for promoting the transfer of IK, since climate change forces many communities to experience a changing water situation by either increasing or decreasing the typical amount of their resources. Therefore, the communities which have developed IK regarding how to handle excess or scarcity of water can help those communities who are newly experiencing similar conditions of excess or scarcity. An important issue was brought up about the commercialization of water. Recently, there has been an intervention of the private sector into water management. The participants agreed that water should not be privatized since it poses an additional danger of either losing or not utilizing valuable IK relating to water management, since IK is usually public belonging to the people. There must be an effort made to get the private and community groups together, though a private intrusion on IK can be dangerous. Another important issue raised was the relevance of IK on water resource management to the urban sector. Which IK principles can be applied to the urban sector? Several people gave examples from India, Sri Lanka, Maldives and China of how indigenous practices could be used in an urban environment. Examples included indigenous practices for collecting rain water, using groundwater/wells, and decreasing sediment in the water. It was decided that many of these techniques could be adapted to urban contexts, and possibly improved with modern technology. Group 5: Housing Group 5 began by defining indigenous housing (IH) as vernacular housing, traditional housing and local housing. There were also several specific features of IH listed: including local materials, locally available technology and artisans, evolved over time, and influenced by local conditions such as culture and climate. Then, the influences on housing were described. Influences can be local, including local resources, culture, the community s lifestyle and existing skill/technologies, as well as external, perhaps relating to the economy. The group explained that housing does not stand alone. With regards to transferability, its holistic property may make it difficult to transfer from place to place, and even from generation to generation, given the changing environments, the impacts of modernity and the way people live in their house over time. The housing group continued by presenting several reasons for discussing and studying IH. The work is done with an objective of reusing existing local wisdom in order to reduce community vulnerability which may be increased with changing conditions. It provides an opportunity to learn from indigenous communities with an insight into the 19
transferability to IK. It helps promote sustainable development, especially with the integration of indigenous and modern technologies. It also allows for successful transition into modern societies. Finally, this knowledge is part of a cultural identity which should be preserved and celebrated. The group went on to discuss the issues associated with transferring indigenous housing knowledge. Since modern housing has a high status in many communities there is no respect for the traditional life styles. In addition, indigenous artisanship to carry out these IH techniques is fading. In many cases, a traditional form is being transferred, but it is either incompatible with the materials and technologies used or it is not applied in the correct way (such as applying the wrong orientation or location). The group also noted that the impacts of climate change are making it even more difficult to transfer and reduce community vulnerability. The group concluded with several policy suggestions. There is a need for an increase in research and development as well as training and education relating to IH. Local tourism should be encourages, which could help develop an interest in IH and generate good employment for local artisans who hold indigenous techniques. There is a need for increased awareness about this knowledge and its value. Local resource management and decentralization of many of these processes should be improved in order to support the cultural identity of IH and utilize the indigenous techniques. Discussion The discussions that followed first examined the need for research and development focused on adapting IH practices to the modern context. It was emphasized that there is a need to make indigenous techniques more feasible, preserve them, and make them more attractive in the modern context. Reviving indigenous practices is not always possible in some contexts, and some technologies are not always safe. It is important not to romanticize this knowledge. Finally, there should be an effort to preserve IH techniques; however it must not be lost that the context is constantly changing. New techniques must also evolve which take into account climate change impacts as well as modern technologies. The focus should be on extracting elements of principles from IH which can be transferred. Group 6: Policy and Decision Making The final presentation aimed to connect the points discussed in all of the thematic issues. Seven main issues emerged as cross-sectors to work on IK and DRR. The following outline these seven points. 1. Resource Group: The work done at this workshop must be brought together and moved forward. The group recommended setting up and linking various community resource groups which aim to develop contextual guidelines based on IK for disaster prone areas. 2. Documentation and Research: There is a need for cataloguing and documenting IK in DRR. The depth and level of documentation was debated, however it was agree that 20
validation must happen through the communities as well as science. This can be done through action research and demonstration that this knowledge works (grounded in the fact that it has been sustainable and successful). Improvement and adaptation of this knowledge must be enabled. 3. Education: IK in DRR policy can be promoted by entering the dialogue through education. This can be done by using databases of IK for curriculum creation, usually analytical. Then, based on solid evidence of success, the knowledge can be converted and transferred through the education system. IK education must be promoted and mainstreamed in disaster, environment and development education. 4. Policy Advocacy: Those supporting and recognizing the values of IK must engage in a policy discussion. One specific way to move forward is to organize a side event at the Asia Ministerial Conference in Kuala Lampur, December 2009. 5. Enabling environment: There is a need to create an environment which cuts across technology and legislation. This must be included in codes and guidelines. A community infrastructure can be established to promote it. This can be done by developing a knowledge base, community infrastructure (village knowledge centre, school club etc.), and agents of change (school teacher, volunteer etc.). 6. Change Agents: Agents for change must be identified at both the policy level (the right ministers) and the community level (the right leaders). 7. Special focus areas: Several specific focus areas can help to guide discussion, advocacy and policy. These can include gender, urban risk, climate change adaptation and food security. The policy and decision-making group concluded that there is a need for a policy document which comes from the discussions and outcomes of this workshop as well as an institutional arrangement which continues this work and sustains itself. A methodology must be developed which introduce specific tools which can be used to fulfill its objectives. This was to be the focus of the final session. Discussion It was discussed to have an educational task force meeting in Bangkok to talk about the future policy implications of IK and DRR. Before continuing on to the final session, a short discussion began around the concept of IK and its transferability. It was agreed that the true validation of IK will come from the communities. However, it was unclear whether validation meant scientific validation. Some argued that IK is highly scientific, where the context is the ecosystem and the knowledge is the technology that can be transferred. Others saw the knowledge as something more holistic made up of a visible component, the technology, but also an invisible component. Is this invisible component transferable as well? It was agreed that a holistic perspective of IK is best, since it is linked to many aspects of the community; however, the entire knowledge does not have to be transferred. Bringing the discussion back to the first presentation on IK, one participant highlighted that when the transferability of IK is discussed, it does not refer to using the entire IK in a new context. Instead, it aims to unveil new principles extracted from the IK which can be applied to different contexts. 21
Session 5: Future Directions The focus of the final session was to provide closure on the discussions of the workshop and develop how and what can be brought forward into future work on the topic. The question was posed: What is the message or document to carry forward from this workshop? A drafted outline of a policy document was presented to the participants for discussion. The outline consisted of a main message and a proposed structure for the document, organized into six sections reflecting different discussions and objectives of the workshop. (The complete Policy Document outline can be found in the Appendix) Main Message The following message was presented: There is compelling evidence for the Asia-Pacific region to recognize and strengthen its wealth of IK for providing local solutions to global problems of increasing disasters and climate change impacts This message emphasizes the stresses faced by the Asia-Pacific region due to the fact that it experiences a disproportionately high number of the world s natural disasters. Nonetheless, given the need to reduce disaster risk in the region there are a large number of resources found in the IK for DRR. This wealth of knowledge must be recognized and strengthened in order to develop local solutions to these global challenges. This message focuses on two sectors: disasters and climate change. Structure The structure of the document begins with a preamble, outlining its objective: from practice to policy. The focus is not on the practices themselves, but rather on how to apply principles of these practices to policy. The document follows by briefly reviewing the context of IK for DRR, emphasizing the evolving recognition of the value of IK for DRR and the compelling evidence for its importance. It then lists several entry points by which discussions on how to incorporate IK into DRR policy can be approached: climate change and food security, gender, urban risk reduction and rural development. Fourth, the document presents the five thematic areas discussed in this workshop. The fifth section discusses specific tools which can be used to continue working to impact policy on IK for DRR issues. These tools include education, advocacy, research, document and implementation as well as an institutional framework. It was agreed that there is no need to create new institutions, but instead existing institutions should be used at a number of different levels: community, national and regional platforms, international organizations, etc. Finally, the last section describes the action agenda outlining what to do next and how to accomplish this, making the link to national and regional platforms. Discussion Following the explanation of the policy document outline, the chairman opened the floor to questions and suggestions on the proposed structure. Many issues were brought up which related specifically to the policy document, its structure and its focus. The following issues, questions and comments were raised: 22