Document(s) 8 of 12

An “egg of sustainability” metaphor developed by IUCN (1997) — with the yolk representing people and the white representing the ecosystem — captures the essence of sustainable development. The image succinctly expresses the human–ecosystem interrelationships and the need to assess human and ecosystem well-being together — the whole system as well as the parts. A society is thought to be sustainable when both the human condition and the condition of the ecosystem are satisfactory or improving. The system improves only when both the condition of the ecosystem and the human condition improve. One objective of IK research is to improve the well-being of people and their ecosystems and to move toward more sustainable human–ecosystem combinations.

Depending on the scope and the breadth of the research project, multiple PRA tools (see Section 4) will have generated data to answer two fundamental questions — How are the people? How is their ecosystem? — or people–environment data to answer a more specific IK question. The researcher and the community will have an outsider’s and an insider’s picture of the ecosystem components (for example, the land, water, soil, air, biodiversity, and resources) and the human-system components (for example, wealth, livelihood, health, population, and knowledge). The state of each component, how and why it has changed over time, who caused the change, and who benefited or suffered from the change should have been identified. During the data-collection phase, interesting IK systems and technologies will have been identified and observed. Users will have been interviewed. The community, with the assistance of the IK researchers, will have identified its own questions or problems in relation to some aspect of the IK data, as well as, perhaps, some options for solving some specific problems.

“Western science has been slow to develop methods to assess complex systems. . . . analyses have focussed on outputs — milk production, meat production — and neglected the benefits of local breeds, which thrive on minimal inputs.”

Source: IIRR (1996, pp. 122–123)

Despite the recent focus on IK, development projects still appear to make little use of it. In part, this is due to the fact that less attention has been placed on methods for assessing, evaluating, and using IK information.

Sustainable-development assessment criteria

The key to assessment is asking the right questions. Assessment is a process that requires assessment criteria and data interpretation — selecting criteria and relevant indicators, collecting relevant indicator data, and analyzing the data — a process dependant on asking the right questions from the onset. It seems reasonable to assess IK systems and technologies against sustainable development and productivity criteria. But whose criteria and whose interpretation should be used in this assessment?

“A sentimental belief in ‘traditional values’ and a gut feeling that the ‘people know best’ without knowing why and under what circumstances, will be equally unhelpful and damaging to the prospects of rural development in the long run.”

Source: Richards (1980), cited in Wickham (1993, p. 29)

Productivity criteria can serve to illustrate this point. Productivity is defined as the capacity to produce, and yield is the amount produced. The spread of monocultures of high-yielding varieties and fast-growing species in forestry and agriculture has been justified on grounds of increased productivity. However, the corporate sector uses very narrow indicators to define yield and productivity. Productivity and total yield of monocultures are high in terms of one product. High-yield plantations, for instance, pick one tree species for yields of one part of the tree (for example, pulpwood). Productivity may mean one thing for a paper corporation and a different thing for a farmer who needs fodder and green manure. Similarly, plant improvement in agriculture has been based on improving the yield of a desired product. But what is unwanted by agribusinesses may be wanted by the poor.

The productivity and total yield of monocultures are low in the context of diverse outputs and needs. Overall, productivity, total yield, and sustainability are much higher in mixed systems of farming and forestry. A poor farmer may define a productive farm as one that produces crops, fish, chickens, livestock, clothing, shelter, and medicine. According to Shiva (1995a), productivity based on uniformity (monocultures) threatens biodiversity conservation and sustainability and eventually threatens a collapse in yields, because monocultures are ecologically unstable and invite diseases and pests.

Ultimately, the farmer decides what is productive for his or her farm, adopting and rejecting options on the basis of his or her own questions (“How can I survive?”), criteria, and indicators. Unlike the person in the corporate sector, who stresses the question “How can I make more money?,” a farmer may also emphasize production stability. In drought-prone areas, for instance, low-yield varieties that are guaranteed to produce every year reduce risk and may be selected over (or along with) improved varieties that may be more vulnerable to drought.

The productivity example highlights the fact that assessment criteria and the indicators used in evaluation can be international, national, or local; quantitative or qualitative; economic (market or indigenous economy), social, or ecological; and combinations thereof. Mazzucato (1997) argued that if we are to understand the forms of economic organization in other societies, it’s time to look at indigenous economies in terms of indigenous criteria. To date, economic studies have based their analyses on Western economic concepts. Inputs and outputs are largely defined and assessed in terms of material goods and money. Land valuation is still dominated by the Western concept of private property. In general, the more the better concept dominates economic definitions of rational objectives. Mazzucato asserted that it is time to examine whether economic terms, such as benefits, costs, insurance, interest, security, and risk, have the same meaning at a local level. By doing so, researchers would gain a better understanding of why farmers do what they do.

At the international level, there is no consensus on the criteria and indicators for sustainable development. There is agreement on the need to develop country-, region-, and sector-specific indicators and criteria. At the local level, numerous case studies (some presented later in this section) illustrate that the relative importance of criteria and the actual criteria and indicators used vary with each site and each specific technology. This suggests that to understand human behaviour and action, one needs to identify the questions a given action relates to. It also suggests a need to keep criteria and indicators under review and to examine, test, and begin to experiment with different indicators. Furthermore, it is important to ensure that criteria and indicators developed at the national and local levels are not contradictory and that any necessary trade-offs, such as between social and ecological goals, are transparent and clearly stated.

Benfer and Furbee (1996) stated that it is not essential that IK be validated by scientific criteria. They argued that anthropologists validate models of IK through intensive interviews and through observation of those who hold those beliefs. Without denying this, the discussion that follows assumes that good IK assessment and experimentation will tap both the insider’s and the

outsider’s questions and assessments. As Van Crowder (1996) remarked, innovations for sustainable development will reflect the interactions among different actors with complementary contributions to offer.

One way to look at integrating insider and outsider perspectives on assessment is to analyze failures encountered in technology-transfer projects. Four case studies are presented here. The project focus in the first three cases was on ecological factors, reflecting a narrowly defined concept of sustainable development that ignored social considerations. The fourth case, also a failure, highlights some institutional factors of relevance to sustainable development.

Research in the Canadian North has shown that hunters and scientists may apply the same ecological indicators in their evaluation of the local environment (for example, age, sex, health of animal populations). Western science and traditional environmental knowledge diverge mostly in their explanations or interpretations of ecological processes and in their concepts of environmental management.

Source: DCI (1991)

A case study from Thailand

The rate at which farmers adopt soil-conservation practices remains low in Thailand. In this study (Pahlman 1995), most farmers thought that soil erosion was not serious enough to require action. The farmers’ primary concerns were weeds, insect pests, and water shortages. When asked, farmers stated that the decline in soil quality was due to a land shortage, making fallowing and soil regeneration impossible. Farmers’ views were sought on soil-conservation measures. Most farmers regarded the integration of trees, particularly “economic” fruit trees, to be the most effective and suitable measure. Although the majority of farmers were aware that tree crops have beneficial effects on soil quality, soil conservation did not seem to be a major incentive to plant trees. Farmers wanted to grow trees for economic reasons, to suppress weed growth, and to offset the effects of deforestation (for example, dwindling timber and forest food supplies). The study confirmed that if sustainable land use is to be achieved in the upland areas, emphasis must be placed on practices that also meet other needs — notably, food and income. Pahlman concluded that there is no point trying to promote sustainable farming practices on the grounds of conservation alone, when farmers themselves see their problems differently.

A case study from Peru

A case study from Peru (MacMillan 1995) showed that farmers were reluctant to invest in farming alternatives because of the high start-up costs. The author concluded that farmers will invest in alternatives only if economic returns are likely to materialize within 1 year.

A case study from the Philippines

In this case study from the Philippines (Fujisaka et al. 1993), technology transfer failed because a single part of the farmers’ circumstances — heavier soil texture — made the plowing technology too labour intensive and too difficult to operate. The lesson from this study is that efforts should be taken to verify that any technology to be transferred will indeed be compatible with the new environment, even if the receiving farmers are operating under what appears to be the same conditions as those where the technology was successful.

A case study from India

Before government intervention, villagers in this case study from India (Agrawal 1993) drew their water from the local feudal lord’s deep well. Two or three people were employed to draw water and distribute it among the families, and these employees maintained the necessary equipment (rope, barrels, buckets, pulley) and draught animals. Each household paid the employees a fixed amount, based on household water use. All the villagers depended on this well for their drinking water. The government then provided the village with a storage tank to hold piped water from a tube well 6 kilometres away. Now, more than enough free water is available (that is, the storage tank overflows) for 8–10 days of the month; water supply is adequate for 5–6 days; and for about 15 days each month, water supply is insufficient. Why? The government employee in charge of operating the tube well is negligent: he forgets to turn the valve on or off, does not do repair and maintenance work in a timely way, and occasionally sells the diesel fuel that is supposed to be used to run the motor. To remedy this, it was suggested that each house pay a small fee (but far less than what was paid in the old barrels-and-buckets system) to hire someone to watch over the government employee. However, the more affluent villagers are unwilling to pay for this service because they have cisterns — they can store water whenever the supply is abundant and would gain nothing from a regular water supply. The poor, on the other hand, have come to depend on the government employee.

Under the old system, all the villagers depended on the feudal lord’s well and found it to their advantage to ensure that water from the well was distributed equitably. People not paying their share could be prevented from using the water. Although the new system is technically more efficient — providing more water and at a lower per-unit cost — the government implemented it without considering issues of people’s participation and institutional design. In fact, the new arrangements encouraged the breakdown of indigenous participatory institutions; some villagers were worse off under the

new system. Depending on their assets and incomes, some groups of people may receive more benefits from a seemingly equitable intervention than other groups of people: though water was available to all the villagers for free, those with their own personal cisterns gained greater benefits.

One of the most notable lessons from this case is a strong reminder to assess the impact of interventions on local institutions and equity and to adopt the point of view of different groups of people in the village — rather than treating the village as a homogeneous unit.

Summarizing case-study findings

Each case study documenting a failure helps to highlight how insiders assess their well-being. Many case studies similar to those presented above have contributed to our understanding of sustainable-development and technology-transfer issues. Fujisaka et al. (1993), Pahlam (1995), Puffer (1995), Titilola (1995), Wilk (1995), IIRR (1996), and others have showed that innovations that become permanent local knowledge and “working solutions” often have several features in common. An ecologically sound option is more likely to be adopted or, to put it another way, be assessed positively and be sustainable at the local level if it

• Is suitable for the local physical environment;
• Addresses farmer-identified problems and constraints;
• Reduces risk;
• Meets multiple needs;
• Generates income;
• Provides acceptable economic returns;
• Is affordable;
• Uses locally available skills, tools, and materials (spare parts, fuels, or ingredients);
• Saves labour;

To reintroduce animals to some farms in the Philippines, IIRR adapted a traditional livestock-distribution scheme. In the traditional practice, an animal’s off- spring are shared between the animal’s owner and the animal’s caretaker. If a cow produces 10 calves, the owner gets 5 and the caretaker gets 5. The cow is returned to the owner at the end of the production period. Under the IIRR scheme, IIRR grants livestock to a local farmer’s cooperative, which turns them over to cooperative members for caretaking. The caretakers get the second, fourth, and subsequent offspring; the first and third offspring go to the cooperative, which assigns them to other members on the waiting list. Caretakers become owners of the assigned animal after 3–5 years. The modified traditional scheme has worked very well.

Source: IIRR (1996)

• Is efficient (for example, increases yields);
• Is easy to understand;
• Produces visible results within a reasonable amount of time;
• Can be maintained by existing organizations;
• Fits into, minimizes disruption of, or modifies (rather than replacing) existing practices;
• Fits existing systems of ownership, obligation, and authority;
• Affects different groups equitably;
• Is supported by trusted sources (for example, relatives);
• Is culturally appropriate and does not challenge or contradict fundamental cultural beliefs; and
• Takes into consideration local preferences, such as taste and beliefs about nutrition.

Practices that fetch low economic returns may perform social functions or conserve the environment. In other words, assessment of IK must recognize the context in which the technology was developed and is applied and the criteria by which local people assess their own IK. IIRR (1996) suggests that from local people we can find out the following: what they value most in a specific IK; why they chose it; what they see as its strengths and weaknesses; what would happen and who would be most affected if the IK were not available; and what features they look for when they test a technology. “Only if we combine both insider’s and outsider’s assessment, will we be able to identify and better understand the value and usefulness of IK.”

Source: IIRR (1996, p. 123)

Indicators

A significant aspect of the assessment process will be identifying appropriate, pertinent, verifiable, somewhat quantifiable indicators that can be effectively measured against the relevant criteria. In commenting on desertification indicators, Krugmann (1996) noted that indicators tend to occur in a hierarchy, from microindicators to macroindicators, reflecting perspectives, experiences, processes, and actions (questions) at different levels. Indicators can be quantitative or qualitative: quantitative indicators are easier to measure and to aggregate, whereas qualitative indicators are better at capturing the complexity of

changing situations. Indicators can be direct or indirect (erosion gullies versus charcoal price), descriptive (status of the environment), or performance oriented (measured against some benchmark). Indicators also have a time horizon, with some more relevant to the short, medium, or long term. Depending on the type of project, monitoring of some indicators may be needed from the start of the project until long after the project’s completion to allow the full impact of the project to be observed. Indicators can also reflect change or signal change in variables.

Grassroots indicators

Rural communities have local sets of indicators that they use to monitor and evaluate their environmental quality and to predict environmental change. Often, communities attach different values to different indicators; they use the ones they consider more reliable to plan and schedule their production activities and to help them make decisions for their survival strategies. Mwadime (1996) noted that in a Kenyan community, it took a combination of indicators to influence farmers’ planning and decision-making.

Some examples of grassroots indicators are the appearance and behaviour of flora and fauna (in particular, the flowering or sprouting schedule of key plants and the arrival and activity of birds, insects, frogs, and toads), wind patterns or changes in the direction of wind flow, and the position of star groups. Such indicators help the people detect changes in seasonal patterns, predict the rains or the ending of seasons, identify soil fertility, and monitor the state of the environment (Oduol 1996). The behaviour of livestock and wildlife can indicate the nutritional value of the forage plants and the range; milk yields can indicate forage availability and quality. The mating frequency of animals, the texture and colour of dung, or the condition of an animal’s fur can reflect environmental quality (Kipuri 1996).

Grassroots indicators are specific to a given ecological, cultural, social, and economic setting and to gender or age class (Krugmann 1996). The identification of grassroots indicators may entail a lengthy participatory process. The choice of insider and outsider indicators will depend on how clearly the indicators reveal the criteria in question and on whether the data can be obtained. The overall assessment may involve the weighing of hybrid indicators: combined outsider and insider indicators.

A screening form for sustainability

IUCN’s two components — ecosystem and people — can be used to organize a screening form for assessing the sustainability of a system or given technology (Figure 2). This scheme can blend scientific criteria with those identified as important at the local level. It assumes that sustainable IK systems are not only ecologically sound but also attractive enough to be transferable and adoptable at the local level. The form should be completed by both insiders and outsiders, to obtain an overall assessment. IIRR (1996) suggests that some of the techniques used for data collection, for instance, matrix ranking (see Section 4), can also be used by insiders for their assessment.

Scientific and indigenous criteria often have the same name (for example, cost-effectiveness) but differ in how they are measured (they have different indicators). More often, indigenous indicators are qualitative, reflecting a more holistic evaluation and a larger number of considerations. The researcher will have to cope with the different types of indicators.

This screening form should be considered a work in progress. It will need to be adapted and improved for a specific application. Insiders and outsiders will need to select the criteria relevant to their specific evaluation and then select appropriate indicators for each criterion.

This screening-form approach can be used to identify an option’s strengths and weaknesses. Once identified, these strengths and weaknesses can become the specific evaluation criteria for further experimentation and quan-tification. The approach assumes that a full description of the system or technology is available. One should note that a system or technology with only a few low-impact adverse effects is probably more sustainable and transferable than a system or technology with many adverse affects. However, if a system or technology has one significant adverse effect, this can indicate that it is unsustainable.

This screening form is based on the Nunavut Environmental Impact Assessment procedures and the Canadian Environmental Impact Assessment procedures. While I was under contract with the Nunavut Board, one of my major tasks was integrating traditional knowledge into the Nunavut procedures. The screening form, as presented here, was revised for this purpose.

IUCN’s Barometer of Sustainability

The screening form will highlight important issues, and this qualitative assessment may be sufficient to allow insiders and outsiders to make an informed decision about the next action. However, an overall understanding of how all

Figure 2. A screening form for sustainability.

of these criteria and indicators are interacting is important. Each indicator represents a specific issue or criterion, but when many criteria are presented together, they may offer a conflicting and perhaps confusing picture of the sustainability of the IK system or technology being assessed. For instance, the technology may improve the water supply, but the water quality will deteriorate and many of the other criteria may be affected in a positive, neutral, or negative way.

To obtain a clearer understanding of the overall situation when dealing with multiple criteria and indicators, one might use the Barometer of Sustainability that Robert Prescott-Allen developed for IUCN to measure a society’s well-being and progress toward sustainability. The barometer organizes and combines indicators from a wide range of issues or criteria into a two-dimensional index. The y-axis represents a combined index score for human well-being; the x-axis, a combined index score for ecosystem well-being. This two-dimensional index treats people and the environment as equally important. The lower score is read as the overall well-being or sustainability of the system. So, for example, an improvement in the ecosystem well-being at the expense of human well-being is made apparent, and the lower score for human well-being would be the overall index score.

With the barometer, each indicator is associated with its own performance scale using values appropriate to the issue or criterion. Only those indicators with values that can be interpreted as bad or good with respect to well-being can be used. A simple calculation is used to convert each indicator measurement into one of the five sectors of the 100-point scale: good, OK, medium, poor, or bad. All calculations are relatively easy, but the interested reader is advised to contact IUCN for a full documentation of the method.³ The barometer can accommodate any hierarchical arrangement of criteria. (Figure 3 uses the “screening form for sustainability” criteria.)

It does not matter how many levels make up the hierarchy, as long as the subsystems are ecosystem and people. Individual scores for the indicators are combined up the hierarchy, from indicator, to criteria, to category, to sub-system, resulting in an index for people and an index for the ecosystem. The indicators on a particular level are combined — they are averaged when they are equally important, and they are weighted if they vary in importance. A critical indicator can be given a veto function.

The barometer results, along with an analysis of the key issues, will enable participants to draw conclusions about the conditions of people and

³ “An Approach to Assessing Progress toward Sustainability — Tools and Training Series.” IUCN Publication Services Unit, 219C Huntington Road, Cambridge CB 3 ODL, UK. Telephone: +44 1223 277894; fax: +44 1223 277175.

Figure 3. Summing indicators up on the IUCN Barometer of Sustainability hierarchy.

Note: This example shows a few criteria (water supply, quality, and quantity) from the screening form for sustainability (see Figure 2), along with a possible indicator (coliform bacteria).

their ecosystem in relation to the system under study. The barometer can also be used as a communication tool, allowing villagers to discuss where they are on each axis.

Comparative approaches to validation

The assessment of IK systems and technologies for sustainable development can be a very involved exercise, as outlined by the screening-form and barometer processes. Other research projects may have much narrower goals, for instance, a need to validate or experiment with a specific IK technology. The research, for instance, may have one or more of the following objectives:

• To validate the effectiveness of the technology or system (for example, increases in yield);
• To find out whether the technology or system can be adapted for other circumstances (for example, more intensive agriculture); or
• To determine if the efficiency of the technology or system can be improved for local use or transfer.

The simplest form of validation compares the results (yield or other desirable characteristics) of using the technology with the results of not using the technology. On-station and on-farm comparative testing can be used to determine whether it would be more practical and economic to use an indigenous innovation on its own or to combine it with a modern technology (Kakonge 1995). Comparative testing is also frequently used to differentiate between similar indigenous technologies.

When evaluating and comparing the effectiveness of IK systems, one also needs to identify the reasons for a particular practice or belief. For instance, if a farmer builds a stone wall in a particular location, rather than in the location that a scientific observer might predict, it may be that the stone wall would be washed away by heavy rains if placed in the predicted location (IIRR 1996).

An example from India illustrates the comparative procedure. Most Indian farmers put neem leaves in their grain-storage containers so that pests won’t damage the grain. The IK research objectives in this case (Samanta and Prasad 1995) were to study the usefulness of the practice, to document in detail the operations involved, and to disseminate this information to other farmers. Scientists collected information from the farmers through discussions, personal observations, and open-ended questionnaires. Information was collected on the grain-storage process: the quantity of grain kept in the baskets or bins; the quantity of neem leaves used for a particular quantity of grain; the length of time the neem leaves were kept in the baskets; and the total time the grain remained in the containers. The scientists found that the quantity of grain stored in a basket varied from 50 to 100 kilograms. For every 50 kilograms of grain, 200 grams of neem leaves was added, together with a few tender branches. Through controlled trials, scientists reported that the grain stored with neem leaves was not affected by pests for 2–3 months, whereas grain stored without neem leaves was infested.

Puffer (1994) described an indigenous technology from Burkina Faso, where farmers used stone lines, in combination with pits, to curb soil erosion and to increase water infiltration and soil fertility. The sorghum yields in the fields with the IK technology were 40% greater than in fields without the technology.

IK experimentation

The transfer of IK technologies does not necessarily mean that IK is applied in its original form. A blend of local IK, IK from other localities, and Western science or other outside knowledge may yield very good results (for example, applying local pesticides with Western equipment to improve the distribution of a pesticide).

According to Warren and Rajasekaran (1993), the incorporation of IK systems into agricultural development has three components:

1. Participatory on-station agricultural research (scientists and farmers);
2. On-farm farmer-oriented research (scientists, extensionists, and farmers); and
3. Validation of farmer experiments (farmers and extensionists).

The first two components are sequenced, whereas the third is a separate process.

IIRR (1996) identified three components for improving IK:

• Formal research in laboratories and on experimental farms;
• On-farm research managed by scientists; and
• Farmer-managed participatory technology development.

Participatory on-station research

Research-station scientists can conduct research that builds on collected IK, with the participation of farmers who have a tendency to experiment on their own. As an example, farmers in India intercrop a multipurpose tree with some leguminous crops, but the legumes spread too quickly between the trees. The research-station scientists might conduct on-station experiments to evaluate the performance of various legume varieties, selecting legume varieties that are more suitable for intercropping. The successful combinations of tree, and legume varieties could then be used in on-farm farmer-oriented research, for validation under farmers’ field conditions.

On-farm farmer-oriented research

To validate participatory on-station research, researchers (and farmers) can present technological options to selected farmers. Farmers can then choose an option based on their specific problems and resource constraints.

Each option can be compared using the Barometer of Sustainability. Another way to present the options to the farmers would be to use a matrix. The performance of various technological options can be presented against relevant criteria. A number of quantitative measures may now be available from the on-station experimental trials. For instance, let’s say that the various (improved) technological options have slightly different impacts on soil fertility (ecosystem), cash requirements and yield (human needs), local practice (social), and women (equity). The likely advantages and disadvantages of each option can be presented to farmers. Farmers can then select one technology from a menu of (ecologically) sustainable options for testing on their entire farm, and this on-farm research will facilitate an in-depth understanding of the interactions among crops, trees, and livestock. The decision to test certain options must rest with the farmers, not with development workers or scientists.

Validation of farmer experiments

Conducting on-station and on-farm research has two potential limitations. First, bringing the researcher–extensionist–farmer community together is difficult. Second, depending entirely on research stations for innovations is impractical because of the limitations on available human resources. Thus, validation of the farmers’ own experiments is an attractive alternative. Warren and Rajasekaran (1993) advocated using well-trained, research-minded extension personnel to

• Determine the rationale behind the farmers’ experiments (for example, the farmer may be testing varieties for increases in yield or for local adaptation);
• Record the farmers’ experimental methods (for example, some farmers conduct trials by raising local and high-yielding varieties in the same plot; others may use two different plots); and
• Identify the farmers’ evaluation criteria (for example, the criteria may differ from farmer to farmer, or one farmer may have different criteria for different crops).

After the farmers’ experiments have been validated, the extension personnel should conduct local and regional workshops to present the results. The research farmers should be involved as resource persons at these workshops. Farmers may conclude that the technological option(s) should be discarded, transferred, or researched in greater depth. Farmers can be compensated with cash prizes for their contribution to the development of

technologies. Successful technologies can be promoted at other regional and national workshops.

Final comments

The previous sections introduced the topic of IK. The discussion included factors important to developing a research framework, such as research paradigms and issues that have influenced IK research practice. IPR, IUCN’s planning framework, and insights from the social sciences and gender-sensitive and participatory rural research were discussed. Thirty-one techniques for data collection were introduced, followed by several case studies demonstrating a variety of research objectives and the use of some of the collection techniques. This last section dealt with assessing the product of IK research in terms of sustainability and developing IK through validation and experimentation. Appendix 1 provides three sets of formal procedural guidelines for conducting IK research: Inuit research guidelines, the Dene Cultural Institute guidelines, and some general rules and procedures for IK research from IIRR.

Sustainability will depend on improving and maintaining the well-being of people and their ecosystem. At the local level, the people–ecosystem combinations will reflect the development goals and choices of local people. This package of information provides a much needed synthesis of IK research and should convey IK’s pivotal role in sustainable development. I wish you success in your own efforts to work with IK.

Document(s) 8 of 12