Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) is a vital field in environmental management with a growing concern among environmentalists. TEK has a great variety of definitions and extensive nomenclature because of its multi-faceted dimensions. It includes the type of knowledge, the identity of the knowledge holder and the process of acquiring the knowledge (Anderson, 2007; Houde, 2007). However, SER, (2014) defined TEK as the local and all-encompassing knowledge which brings together both the physical and the spiritual into a worldview of cosmovision. This knowledge has been enhanced with the passage of time, and its primary concern is the application of skills and knowledge. Furthermore, it has to do with the careful observations and responses to evolving environmental and socio-economic conditions. The usefulness of TEK can never be overemphasized. However, it is usually articulate as oral forms and lack verified western scientific method and documentation. Berkes, Colding & Folke (2013) termed TEK as an adaptive management which emphasizes on feedback learning. They further added that uncertainty and unpredictability is a part and parcel of every ecosystem and TEK is effective in treating. TEK is of great importance today for many significant aspects. This essay takes a look at the major controversies between the use of traditional ecological knowledge and Western scientific knowledge.
Freeman revealed that non-western people have identified different species accurately for years by a process termed as “folk-taxonomies” and that vital identification has been all encompassing. In addition, TEK is quite comprehensive as revealed by the profound comprehensiveness of the taxonomic system. In the recent past, western science labeled TEK as a descriptive biology. Lately, scientists have realized that TEK is much more than a descriptive biology, and it incorporates an ecological nature. Furthermore, it has been shown that TEK help traditional people to understand and explain how ecosystems, biological communities and so forth function. It also facilitates to evaluate the biological and physical factors which influence the behavior of the biological community and the roles they play (Biró et al.,2014; Martin et al., 2010).
Houde (2007) argues the traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) as comprising six faces. These faces or compartments of TEK include factual observations, management systems, ethics and values, culture and identity, past and current land uses, and cosmology. TEK exerts great influence in these various facets of the ecosystem but most importantly, the management systems of TEK is quite essential. He further added that the resource management system of TEK and its adaptability to the environments are the most widely researched aspect of TEK. This management relates to the making sure that the local natural resources. This includes such as crop patterns, pest management, resource conservation, multiple cropping patterns, and the methods of estimating sustainability of the resources. TEK has to do with the knowledge of animals as well as the relationships existing between them.
Indeed, TEK is a very diverse field, however, Gadgil et al. (2005) pointed out that it has an obvious relationship with the institutionalized and professional sciences. More so, it plays an imperative role in boosting the new ways of environmental resources management. In addition, they stated that two factors have developed effectively and sustainably in motivating the development of local knowledge in management. Firstly, TEK effectively complement the general knowledge which comes from professional sciences. This would be most vital when it is site specific, and it involves empirical aspect of the knowledge often achieved via experiments and local observations. This dimension will be much more effective if the various levels of governance in a given setting work together in such a wonderful manner and have closely related systems of values. Secondly, the traditional ecological knowledge of citizens come from validated experiments mixed with belief. Professional scientists consider this kind of knowledge as being skeptical. This facet is mostly predominant in divided societies like Canada and India. In such societies, professional scientific knowledge does not agree with the views of the local and subordinate classes of people (Chapman, 2007).
But the question remains; how is traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) related to modern or western scientific knowledge? Even though TEK is a rising method. Lertzman (2010) explained that its human dimensions are less understood. Thus, he further explained that the role of social science is quite essential in understanding how traditional ecological knowledge functions and also effectively relate it with Western knowledge.
The similarities and differences of TEK to western science can be approached in various facets including methodological, philosophical and social (Elisabeth, 2014). This is quite difficult to reconcile and bring together TEK and western science because socio-economic, philosophical, institutional and political barriers exist between the two owing to the effects of colonialism. One can easily understand why traditional ecological knowledge is such a diverse field; this is simply because of immense diversity of ecology. One essential feature that characterizes TEK and distinguishes it from western knowledge is its experimental and community-specific nature. Such experience develops over time and becomes better enhanced via cultural immersion.
As explained by Lertzman (2010), both can be referred to as different orderings of reality. This brings to the limelight the obvious differences that exist between them because they shade light into different aspects of understanding and portray varying values of the ecosystem. As a matter of fact, by studying the two, one can have two different viewpoints regarding the ecosystem that have an interconnecting cord between them. In addition, it is imperative to consider that the similarities existing between the two concepts can be better understood if one develops an in-depth understanding of their differences.
One of the prime similarities between the two that knowledge is based on observations and experiments. However, irrespective of this shared feature, both aspects of knowledge make different assumptions on the nature of the ecosystem and the universe in general. Western science can be defined as a field of study which incorporates concepts that can be addressed with respect to space and time. However, it does not consider any other factor or parameters that exist outside this framework (Lertzman, 2010; Chapman, 2007). On the other hand, traditional ecological knowledge also deals with the realm of observations and experiments but unlike the western sciences, it accounts for issues that exist outside the framework of space and time. This makes it much more encompassing. Hence, it can effectively address issues that would be seen as esoteric to western sciences. However, this is very vital to note that TEK is not esoteric. A clear deduction can be drawn from the above-stated facts as TEK lies outside the boundaries of sciences. This further explains the reason of difficulties in identifying the features that characterize it because it cannot be really explained in toto by scientific knowledge. The experiments and observations are integral and vital aspects of TEK that cannot be overstated. Contrarily it stands that empiricism accounts for only a fractional part of the knowledge. The other aspect of the knowledge can be explained by its spiritual compartment and otherwise. This makes TEK look vague and indeed difficult to explain (Lertzman, 2010; Chapman, 2007).
It stands to reason that even though traditional ecological knowledge and western knowledge involves different methods of acquisition, they provide similar conclusion. To generate TEK, spiritual methods such as fasting, cleansing, dreaming, praying, purifying, dancing, isolation, ceremony, ritual and the likes may be involved. The tenets of traditional ecological knowledge include: it is seen as very spiritual and stream from the fact that the creator created all things one. The fundamental principle that all things are interconnected and related is essential for TEK; the researcher of TEK must be objective. The recipient is a vital aspect of the system (Lertzman, 2010; Chapman, 2007).
The outlook of traditional ecological knowledge is seen as holistic, but its name is adaptive. It is solely based on the feedback mechanism (Berkes, Colding & Folke, 2013) and because it has stayed the test of time. In addition, it has been tested by trial and errors and found to be very accurate and effective. Conditions taking place at a given ecology over time can have a great impact on traditional ecological knowledge. Rather than being adaptive, some traditional ecological knowledge can be maladaptive and may even pose some harm to the ecology. It is, therefore, important to identify the adaptive traditional ecological knowledge and distinguish them from the maladaptive ones (Berkes et al., 2013).
A lot of societies in the past and even in the present time benefits greatly from traditional ecological knowledge. A good example of such societies is the Karuk tribe in India. Lynn (2012) pointed out that this Indian tribe employs TEK in the management of their natural resources. They belief that the sustainability can be better achieved when ecological varieties are well nurtured. Furthermore, the traditional knowledge is extensively employed in the traditional tribal setting so as to address climatic change both in the present and the future. This is fostered by the excellent government-to-government and intertribal relationships existing in the society. Moreover, Vinyeta & Lynn (2013) explained that indigenous American Indians and Alaska natives now identify and implement culturally appropriate strategies in order to assess the impacts of the climate. They also easily adapt to the corresponding changes. This is spurred by the disproportionate impacts they face as a result of climatic changes. TEK is essential in dictating the changes, developing adaptation strategies and also the appropriate implementation of the requisite management principles. The climatic dimension of TEK is such an extensive facet, showing that TEK is a wide and all-encompassing phenomenon.
Wright, Wang & Tang (2013) pointed out that the knowledge is put to risk in regions where the communities no longer actively connect with the environment in their daily lives. Thus, the recent boost in modern western science in different parts of the world might be doing traditional ecological knowledge more harm than good because its transference from one generation to generation is oftentimes overlooked. They cited the case of Jiuzhaigou National Park (JNP) which is located in the Aba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous district in Northern Sichuan Province situated in south western China. TEK has been greatly abandoned as the community now resorts to park gate fees and tourism activities for daily living. This has greatly denied by the community due to their cultural heritage as well as the immense benefits of TEK.
Ecological management can be greatly boosted by marrying TEK with western sciences. Although this will not be achieved easily, and it would yield a complementary result if effectively achieved. As Freeman outlined, traditional ecological knowledge has great management relevance, mostly when it comes to renewable resources. Effective environmental impact assessment can be achieved with the implementation of traditional ecological knowledge.
In short, the bottom line of the discussion emphasizes that traditional ecological knowledge should be married or incorporated with systematic scientific knowledge. This is because as Gadgil et al. (2005) pointed out, “it is difficult to systematically conduct properly planned and replicated experiments in complex systems” (p. 205). TEK consider features that lie outside the boundaries of western sciences as it describes factors that cannot be explained with the knowledge of space and time. It attempts to capture and explain the features that cannot be described or accounted for by western science. More so, TEK involves empirical practices, a feature that it shares with western sciences. On the other hand, western science is limited to within the bounds of space and time and therefore such science cannot explain any other parameter lying outside this framework. Integrating the adaptive management of TEK with western science will go a long way to open up a whole lot of opportunities. Therefore, the answer to the question on whether or not TEK practitioners should obtain license or permission because of intellectual property right becomes quite obvious.
References
Anderson, N.E. (2007) Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Natural Resource Management. American Anthropologist, 109(3), 571-572.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as Adaptive Management. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1251-1262.
Biró, É, Babai, B., Bódis, J.& Molnár, Z. (2014). Lack of knowledge or loss of knowledge? Traditional ecological knowledge of population dynamics of threatened plant species in East-Central Europe. Journal for Nature Conservation, 22(4), 318-325.
Chapman, P. (2007). Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and scientific weight of evidence determinations. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54(12), 1839-1840.
Martin, J., Roy, E., Diemont, S., & Ferguson, B. (2010). Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK): Ideas, inspiration, and designs for ecological engineering. Ecological Engineering, 36(7), 839-849.
Society for Ecological Restoration (2014). Traditional Ecological Knowledge |. Retrieved 01 December 2014, from http://www.ser.org/iprn/traditional-ecological-knowledge.
Elisabeth, P.(2014).Letting the leaders pass: barriers to using traditional ecological knowledge in comanagement as the basis of formal hunting regulations.Ecology&Society,19(2),pp.1-16.
Freeman M.M.R. (n.d). The Nature and Utility of Traditional Ecological Knowledge. Retrieved November 30, 2014 from www.carc.org/pubs/v20no1/utility.htm
Gadgil, M., Olsson, P. E. R., Berkes, F. & Folke, C. (2005). Exploring the role of local ecological knowledge in ecosystem management: three case studies. Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change, 189-209.
Houde N. (2007). The Six Faces of Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Challenges and Opportunities for Canadian Co-Management Arrangements. Ecology and Society. 12(2): 34 Retrieved December 1, 2014 from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art34/ES-2007-2270.pdf
Lertzman D.A. (2010). Best of two worlds: Traditional ecological knowledge and Western science in ecosystem based management. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management. 10(3). 104-127.
Lynn K. (2012). Karuk Tribe: Integrating Traditional Ecological Knowledge within Natural Resource Management. Retrieved November 30, 2014 from http://tribalclimate.uoregon.edu/files/2010/11/Karuk_profile_5_14-12_web1.pdf
Vinyeta K & Lynn K, (2013). Exploring the Role of Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Climate Change Initiatives., PNW-GTR-879 Retrieved November 30, 2014 from http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr879.pdf
Wang, Y. Tang, Y. &Wright, W.(2013).Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Nontraditional Communities: A Case Study in Jiuzhaigou National Park. Journal of Park &Recreation Adminstration, 31(3), 77-95.
