Document(s) 8 of 19

Communities all over the world have developed their own knowledge and practices for observing, measuring, and predicting environmental quality and change, which are embedded in their indigenous languages and cultural beliefs. There is little doubt that people at the "grassroots" have knowledge of their environment that transcends conventional social, economic and biological indicators.

However, the vocabulary of "environment" has seemed alien to most indigenous languages in Uganda. Consequently, local languages have remained outside the conventional understanding of the environment. This understanding thus fails to transcend social, economic, and biological barriers to reach a point of understanding the grassroots wisdom has already reached. This paper attempts to trace, very briefly, the limitations of the conventional wisdom about the environment, by means of examples from indigenous languages to interpret the meaning of environment indicators.

Knowledge Systems in Conflict

The knowledge of the people at the "grassroots" has tended to be presented by outside observers. But these observers represent their own professions and disciplines. None of these professionals are people from the grassroots, and therefore grassroots knowledge is interpreted as "other," and by insinuation, understood to be "primitive" or "unscientific." Professional knowledge is therefore said to have the task of "educating" and "modernizing" local people. What can we learn from this standoff? Is professional knowledge wrong and grassroots knowledge correct? Or is it the other way round? Neither seems likely. What can best be said is that there is a clash in worldview or epistemology between the two. This conflict is mainly produced in the already contrasting sociocultural (including linguistic), political and economic settings. Scientists can not read what the "skies" say; but neither can indigenous knowledge explain everything. When it is considered by scientists, local knowledge is removed from the web of meaning and influence from which it arises, and there is an attempt to fit it into the framework of Western scientific rationality. In this attempt, significant errors in interpretation and application have arisen.

Useful communication can be achieved if we avoid looking at a problem solely in scientific terms. This means that scientists must stop looking at the problem through the scientific prism only and learn from the "non-scientific" sources. In turn, people at the grassroots can learn from the scientists. In such a situation, language becomes a major instrument for transmitting knowledge. Without a language which is clearly understood by the grassroots peoples, we are risking one of our most valuable resources — original solutions derived from local knowledge. Because local knowledge comes from an oral culture, and remains codified in rituals, ceremonies, and even metaphor, useful practices become highly ritualized. Given this character of grassroots expression, its potential becomes lost because of inadequate translation and interpretation.

Poor translation of scientific knowledge into the grassroots languages, and vice versa, creates, in many instances, an "artificial knowledge conflict." In this conflict, scientific knowledge prevails and dominates because it forms its view from research experience conditioned by a particular set of sociocultural interests and value systems supported by the world's most powerful political, social, cultural, and economic structures. Faced with this knowledge backed by power, grassroots knowledge resorts to defiance and resistance. In expressing this opposition, grassroots knowledge seems to be incompatible with the scientific.

The Importance of Language to Communication

The concept of the "environment" is fairly wide. So is the concept of "desertification." But how these concepts are understood by the grassroots people is doubtless quite limited. I demonstrate this by means of one indigenous Ugandan language, Runyankore. The commonest translation of the word "environment" is obutuura bwensi. The literal translation of this term is "stability of nature." So this translation immediately restricts the idea of "environment" to nature, specifically to flora and fauna. Of course, we know that the "environment" is not restricted only to these narrow meanings. Let us consider "desertification" next. We know that desertification leads to a desert. A common translation of the word "desert" in Runyankore is eihamba: but in Runyankore, that word refers to a "bushy place without inhabitants."

Let us carry this example a little bit further. The main socioeconomic activity of the Banyankore people is cattle rearing, which is strongly rooted in their culture. In recent years, there has been a remarkable increase in exotic breeds of cattle such as Fresian. Crop-based farming is widely practiced, with emphasis on bananas and plantains. Coffee and other cash crops are also grown. Human population is on the increase, along with increased land use, which lead to land degradation and social conflicts over land availability and accessibility.

Environmental problems have developed. These include, among others, deforestation due to a lack of fuelwood, and depletion of natural forests and bush. At the same time, water problems are exacerbated, especially for the cattle owners; there is a reduction in available forage because of soil fertility loss and increased erosion. All these aspects of the problem, we have no doubt, relate or constitute part of "the environment." How does this worsening situation relate to the definition of environment in Runyankore? In the work of Ibikunle-Johnson (1989) it was found that 45% of the respondents defined environment as ebintu ebitwehingurize (things that surround us), considering it a more appropriate Runyankore word than obutuura bwensi. The words do not necessarily convey the same concept. The use of the term ebintu ebitwehingurize could be used in discussions which moved away from simply talking about protecting the environment to monitoring and evaluating it. In this case, the Banyankore people noticed and explained changes in the environment, which can, in fact, be summarized as indicators including:

• changes in rainfall patterns;
• use of modern textiles instead of animal skins;
• reduction in vegetation;
• drying up of water sources;
• loss of forest cover;
• emergence of banana weevils and other crop pests and diseases;
• changes in the pattern of politics;
• loss of soil fertility;
• drying up of swamps;
• soil erosion; and
• loss of soil fertility.

We can, with a fair amount of confidence, conclude that the above changes reported as environmental indicators are a near-comprehensive translation. The two words used do not define the "environment" in the same way. Yet it is obvious that the term ebintu ebitwehingurize captures the "environment" concept. We also realize that this word captures all the above indicators. But this word is reported to be used by only a narrow section of the community (i.e., 45%).

Some Conclusions

This perception can exist alongside very modern and technologically based attempts to address environmental problems in Ruyanakore. It can include renouncing swamp reclamation, afforestation and tree planting, road construction and reconstruction, building of new schools and renovation of others, stopping soil erosion, construction and protection of spring wells as sources of safe water, construction of pit latrines, mass media programs on sanitation and good feeding, better agricultural practices, etc. The community understands very well that some types of human intervention have a negative effect on their environment.

On the translation of scientific concepts, it is fair to say that a scientific explanation without a clear lingual-cultural interpretation into the local people's language can result in a confusion of the causes, the indicators (symptoms), and the solutions of the topic being discussed.

Each community, with its history, culture, and environmental realities generally dictates the nature and extent of available knowledge and its dissemination. This reality calls for research into the various linguistic cultures of communities for a comprehensive understanding of the problems afflicting their societies. We are convinced that communities become more environmentally conscious through full dissemination of knowledge. No such dissemination of knowledge can take place except through their own day-to-day language.

Document(s) 8 of 19