biodiversity and traditional knowledge

BIODIVERSITY AND TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE Editors: Dr. R.N. Pati Dr. Shailesh Shukla Dr. Lawrence Chanza

1

FOREWORD

2

PREFACE Since time immemorial, the human beings depend on natural resources for their day-today living and livelihood. The population growth, industrialization and misuse of natural resources have led to disappearance of biodiversity. The modernization of agriculture, monoculture cultivation, out migration of forest dwelling communities to cities across biodiversity hotspot regions of the world have multiplied the episodes the erosion of biodiversity and related traditional knowledge. It is a very serious concern. The dam construction, mining activities and cultivation of cash crops have ignited out migration of rural people and invited subsequent health and social problems to the traditional communities living across forest regions of the world. Different indigenous communities have adopted community-based approach to sustainable use and protection of biodiversity as cultural practices. The religious legitimation has been granted to plants and animals among various indigenous communities. The indigenous communities conserve rich medicinal plants diversity in sacred groves. These indigenous communities across forest regions of India have traditional mechanism for management and protection of biodiversity. The local communities incorporate spiritual aspects of biodiversity conservation in terms of celebrating harvest festivals and local fairs. Celebration of festivals and fairs provides platform for celebration of cultural diversity and sharing the knowledge of biodiversity with others. Such sharing of knowledge on biodiversity not only enhances the diversity of gene pool, but also related knowledge through communication. Such interaction stimulates strengthening of cultural and traditional base of indigenous peoples’ practices relating to biodiversity conservation. The indigenous communities have strengthened the relationship with local ecosystem in terms of biodiversity conservation and preservation of traditional knowledge. The political and bureaucratic understanding and interaction relating to inter-connection between community and ecosystem have facilitated sustainable use of natural resources in some forest regions of India. The globalization has led to commodifacation of all natural resources for profit across all forest regions of India. The traditional knowledge and traditional varieties of crops have been converted into commodities and commercialized by the big players for their own interest. The multinational companies have introduced privatization and monopoly rights, which have threatened the traditional knowledge and biodiversity. The ethnobotanical knowledge of species upheld by traditional communities since generations together has been hijacked for developing new drugs. The liberalization of market forces in traditional territories have encouraged numerous private and public enterprise and institutions to acquire biodiversity and traditional knowledge of communities for development of foods, nutraceuticals, pharmaceuticals and other industrial products. However, unfortunately, the technology and knowledge from these institutions and industries are not shared and applied for development of the regions from where they have borrowed traditional knowledge and natural resources. These institutions protect their intellectual property rights ignoring the interest of indigenous communities and posing threats to biodiversity conservation. The indigenous communities are exploited by theft economy. The indigenous communities have been isolated from the natural resources and denied their rights to traditional territories. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank have introduced new paradigm for development in Third World and Developing Countries. But, the policies and programmes adopted favour the big players. The renewal of traditional mechanism and institutions for community based biodiversity conservation and application of traditional knowledge for sustainable use of natural resources have taken back seat. The Traditional Knowledge of indigenous healers of hundreds of tribal communities in India contributes towards existence and continued use of Traditional Medical Services over

3

generations. The regulated use of Traditional Medicine is a debatable issue. Unfortunately, in spite of popularization of traditional medicine in many developed and developing countries of the world, a very little attempt has been initiated to grant official recognization of healers and use of traditional medicine. Awarding official recognisation to healers and their services is a challenging issue. A good number of countries have developed model for recognizing the traditional medicine and services of healers under law. The regulatory systems for traditional medicine and documentation of related traditional knowledge have not been widely adopted among significant section of developing countries. The countries like, Brazil, China, Denmark, Ghana, Japan, Norway, the Republic of Korea and Saudi Arabia have taken lead to develop model for granting legal recognisation to traditional medicine. Their footsteps have been appreciated and widely recognized by other countries of the world. The European Union has also initiated path breaking efforts for regulating the quality of traditional medicine and mechanism for registering the herbal products developed by the traditional healers. The combination of traditional knowledge with application of modern technology has contributed to manufacturing of not less than 25% of modern medicines. Not less than 60% of antitumoral and antimicrobial drugs have been developed by different pharmaceutical companies of developed countries through research on traditional knowledge and traditional medicine. The relevance and importance of traditional knowledge has been greatly appreciated by scientists and industrialists working on development of new drugs. The scientists working on traditional medicine have raised their concern that the quality control in product manufacture and appropriate understanding of active ingredients in traditional medicine are missing. Without appropriate research initiated on examination of safety and efficacy of traditional medicine, the development of new drugs by application of traditional knowledge will be a nightmare. Inadequate fund is available for undertaking research on safety and efficacy of traditional medicine through laboratory experimentation both national and regional level. The experimentation is going on at micro level. The standardization of cultivation, harvesting of medicinal plants and handling of medicinal components of these plants is a very challenging issue. This is one pre-requisite for laboratory screening and clinical application of herbal products as per law. Quality control and verification of safety of drugs developed through application of traditional knowledge is also another challenging issue. Efforts have been initiated at international and national level to address above challenges most effectively. A good number of countries have initiated formulation of policies and regulatory mechanism on use of traditional medicine and creation of globally acceptable criteria. Such steps would facilitate international trade on traditional medicines and earning of foreign exchange. A greater importance needs to be given on research relating to long-term use of traditional medicine, documentation of related traditional knowledge and appraisal on appropriate clinical trial on safety and efficacy. The laboratory screening, field testing and clinical trial in human beings is very expensive. The national and state government need to include these components in policy framework for considering the evidence based use of traditional medicine. The State and National Governments need to examine the proposal and encourage the researchers to generate adequate data on use of traditional medicine and validate how the uses of these medicines are acceptable as safe and effective by the people. Such database would generate feedback for policy makers for granting registration of healers and traditional medicine. The footsteps of European Union enacting legislation in 2004 recognizing registration of traditional medicine needs to be followed by other countries of the world. Several countries of the world including India have initiated path-breaking efforts for integrating traditional medicine into primary health care by application of modern scientific knowledge. The policies and programmes developed have appropriately accommodated the mechanism for trust building and mutual respect and collaboration among traditional healers and 4

doctors. In spite of progress in research on traditional medicine, inadequate efforts have been initiated to prepare drugs and encourage pharmaceutical companies to come forward to support State Government for developing resources for production of herbal drugs for public use immediately. The drugs developed by pharmaceutical companies commercialising traditional knowledge of healers are very expensive and confined to aristocratic people. The common people cannot afford these drugs. The political willingness for application of traditional medicine in public health care system is severely missing. The episodes of cultural alienation are growing day by day through the forces of globalization and liberalization of marketing forces. The gaps in cultural transplantation and preservation of cultural heritage are multiplying. The cultural property rights, intellectual property rights and customary laws of indigenous communities of forest regions in India are grossly violated. The biopiracy activities by agents of multinational company are growing without notice of local administration. The traditional knowledge has been wrongly used for commercial benefits without integration of spiritual, moral and other fundamental principles of traditional healing arts. The researchers have not properly understood the indigenous concept of life, health and diseases and agencies involved in biopiracy and bioprospecting activities. There is an urgent need to address above issues and develop mechanism for reduction of cost of drugs developed from medicinal plants and commercialising traditional knowledge of indigenous communities. The scientists and researchers working on biodiversity conservation, traditional medicine and documentation of traditional knowledge in different parts of the world have critically examined different dimensions of application of traditional knowledge, use of traditional medicine and their integration into primary health care and modern allopathic stream. The integration of both the system would not only offer reciprocal benefits but also contribute towards enhancement of general knowledge and quality of practitioners. It has been urged that the application of traditional knowledge and use of traditional medicine needs to be included in medical curriculum. Greater focus is given on research on documentation of traditional medicine so that various dimensions relating to traditional medicine and its knowledge shall be appropriately explored. This volume has accommodated the research papers of good number of scientists who have advocated formulation and declaration of traditional medicine oriented policies and urged for undertaking political and bureaucratic commitments ensuring integration of traditional medicine with primary health care. This book will be highly useful for researchers, scholars, policy makers working on mainstreaming traditional medicine into centre of primary health care. Bhubaneswar October 30, 2012

Dr. R.N. Pati Dr.Shailesh Shukla

5

CONTENTS Foreword Preface Introduction

CHAPTER – ONE TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOREST RESOURCE UTILISATION 1.

Traditional Knowledge and Forest Management Practices for Sustaining Life on Earth Stella Joy Tara Joy

2.

Traditional Knowledge and Forest Resource Utilization: Practices of the Karbi Tribe of Northeast India Kh. Narendra Singh

3.

Umarjhala Clusters An Ideal Approach of Forest Management Strategy For Sustainable Development In Southern Rajasthan” A Case Study of Banswara District. Seema Bharadwaj Lalit Choudhary Dinesh Chandra Bhatt

4.

Forest biodiversity resource and its conservation by indigenous people of Mizoram, northeastern India F. Lalnunmawia S.K. Tripathi

5.

Traditional Knowledge and NTFP utilization: the Aadi Aushadhi Model Fr. Lancelot D'Cruz s.j.

6.

Conserving India’s Biodiversity through the use of Traditional Knowledge: examples from Northeast India” Pranab Pal

6

CHAPTER – TWO BIOPROSPECTING, TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT 7.

Bioprospecting of Wild Edible Resources for Ecological and Economic Security in Central Himalaya, India Vikram S. Negi R.K. Maikhuri

8.

Bio-prospecting, Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property rights Kavya Dashora

9.

Intellectual Property Rights and Protection of Indigenous Environmental Knowledge: Evidences from India Krishna Raj

10.

Biodiversity of Plants in the Osun Osogbo Sacred Rainforest Groves in South Western Nigeria Adebowale Biodun

11.

Bio-prospecting, Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property rights S. Ganeshan P.E. Rajasekharan

CHAPTER – THREE DOCUMENTATION AND PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE 12.

Documentation and Protection of Traditional Knowledge T K Mukherjee

13.

Ethnobotanical Documentation of Medicinal Plants in Southern Western Ghats, Tamilnadu P.G.S. Shirley, N.J. Jeffrey Bose M.Suresh P. Mehalingam

14.

Traditional Knowledge: An Approach for Protection TabassumIshrathFathima Venugopalan Nair. S.N

7

CHAPTER – FOUR AGRO-FORESTRY AND TRADITIONAL FOOD 15.

Agro forestry—Need of the hour P.R.Reddy

16.

Indigenous Knowledge, Native Agriculture and Sacred Landscape: The Apatani of Eastern Himalaya N.K.Das

17.

Agro-ecosystem resource utilization pattern along different elevational transects in Central Himalaya. A.K. Uniyal, B.S. Rawat S. Suyal CHAPTER – FIVE TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND HEALING HERITAGE

18.

Traditional Knowledge and Promising Healing Heritage of Gond Tribe in Bastar Region of Chhattisgarh R.N. Pati Jay Dyck

19.

Traditional remedies among the inhabitants of the Bhilangna Valley, Garhwal Himalaya, Uttarakhand M.S. Gusain C.S. Rana

20.

Integrating Gujjars’ Indigenous Knowledge, Rehabilitation Programme and Wildlife Conservation for Policy Implications: Lessons from Rajaji National Park, North–West India Ritesh Joshi

21.

Gastrointestinal helminth infections and herbal cures in the traditional medicine of tribal communities in Northeast India Veena Tandon, Arun Kumar Yadav, Bishnupada Roy

22.

Adaptive Management of Medicinal Plant Resources: Need for a Participatory Science Giridhar Kinhal

8

23.

Indigenous Knowledge System among Odisha tribal communities with emphasis on proto-peasantry, arts and crafts: A few Observations Harapriya Samantaraya Premananda Panda

CHAPTER – SIX TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND LIVELIHOOD 24.

Herbal Home Garden for Sustaining Traditional Knowledge and Biodiversity in Urban and rural Environments R.B.Singh Nitu

25.

Medicinal Plants Cultivation and Domestication: Need a Ground Level Research in Central Himalaya, Uttarakhand, India L.S. Kandari V.K. Bisht R. Hiranmai Yadav Tripti Negi

26.

Sustainability of Livelihood Resources in Central West Coast, Uttara Kannada District, Karnataka, India T.V. Ramachandra, M.D. Subash Chandran, N.V. Joshi M. Boominathan

27.

Medicinal Plants of Ramagiri hill Forest of Karimnagar district, Andhra Pradesh, India: Treasure-trove of Traditional Herbal healers EN Murthy, Vatsavaya S. Raju MNV Prasad

28.

Collection and Marketing of Wild Honey by Indigenous People of Palawan, Philippines Arsenio B. Ella Emmanuel P. Domingo

29.

Farmers’ knowledge of soil fertility bio-ecological indicators influencing land use management at forest-agriculture interface in southern Cameroon Mala, A. William Geldenhuys, CJ. Prabhu, R.

9

CHAPTER – SEVEN DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 30.

Conservation of Medicinal Plants Biodiversity: A Case study from Garhwal Himalaya, India Upma Dobhal P. C. Phondani Snehlata Bhandari N. S. Bisht

31.

Foundation of Green Marketing; Green Production from Natural Resources; a Classic Case - Amino Acid: Green Technology - India Supremacy R. C. Gupta V. Sharan

32.

Chat (Catha edulis) Mania in Ethiopia: Sense of Euphoria or Illusion? Sanjay Singh

33.

Synthetic and Bio-pesticides Usage in India Noor A Khan Neeta Thacker

34.

National enactments ancillary to Biological Diversity conservation and sharing of benefits L.K. Jha Imotemsu

35.

Biodiversity Status of threatened fishes of Narmada River, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh R.K. Srivastava Bazgha Athar

36.

Biosphere: Connecting conservation with livelihood S.C.Tiwari Shabir Ahmad Bhat

37.

Preliminary in-vitro validation of Medicinal plant use in Treatment of Helminthiasis in Cattle: A case study of Pastoral farmers in Kabira subcounty, Rakai District- Uganda. Dennis Kamoga

38.

Diversity of small mammals in Maharashtra State: Zoogeography, Distribution and their conservation status S. S. Talmale M. S. Pradhan

10

39.

Diversity of medicinally important plants: A case study from Tenhrill area of Mizoram Bidyasagar Singh B. P. Mishra S. K. Tripathi

40.

Traditional Jhum farming and indigenous technical knowledge of the Lotha- Nagas of Wokha district, Nagaland L. Nzano Humtsoe, Sabitry Bordoloi L. Subenthung Humtsoe J. Longkumer

41.

Traditional use of Nature and Sacral Knowledge of Indigenous Peoples of Russia Bocharnikov Vladimir Laletin Andrey

42.

Microbial Biodiversity in Soils as affected by Agro forestry Systems and Organic Nutrient Sources P.Prabhu Prasadini S. Vani Anusha B. Sreemannarayana Y. Prasanna Lakshmi

43.

Sustainable Forest Management: Global Trends and Opportunities Abha Shukla Swaranjit Singh Cameotra

11

INTRODUCTION R.N. Pati Shailesh Shukla Lawrence Chanza The indigenous people around the world are exposed to different challenges and constraints to satisfy their various needs, by adopting to their environment and by exploiting biodiversity components the best possible. The forest dwelling communities have knowledge, traditional skills that regulated the management of natural resources and different production activities. Different international level and national level enactment have been made and enforced to protect intellectual property right and prevent erosion of traditional knowledge of these communities. But a very little attempt has been made by policy makers and administrators to appreciate what the local knowledge forbids and permits the forest dwelling communities to do. The dos and don’ts are part of the customary laws. Honouring the customary rules will lead to strengthening the indigenous community and preserving their local knowledge system. The advantages of application of traditional knowledge are numerous. The traditional knowledge provides clues and time tested module for use of local materials for preservation of crops and promote organic farming. Certain indigenous communities use traditional technology to disinfect the houses during funerals and preserve the dead body. Different communities are reported adopting natural plants as pesticides and biofertilizers. The policy makers need to critically examine these promising practices of traditional pest management products and use of plants for bio-fertilizers. These micro level applications of traditional knowledge in endogenous development need to be amplified to form the basic structures for accelerated economic development. The scientists have assumed that the holistic growth and development of indigenous people across the world depend on their knowledge, culture and their spirituality. The true development of indigenous territory can be attend by starting from within and adopting their best practices of sustainable use of natural resources for endogenous development. The customary laws of indigenous community always emphasized on the principles of sharing knowledge and exchanged experience and skill on indigenous knowledge system. This principle must be incorporated in development programmes and forest governance policy of the local government. A large number of studies on indigenous knowledge system of different forest dwelling communities and related customary laws have been conducted. But, the studies on cosmo-visions, worldviews, spirituality, local concepts towards endogenous development have been missing. There is an urgent need to renew indigenous forms and systems of learning at community level. The empirical studies have validated that the traditional healers in different forest dwelling communities of the world continue promising practices of healing for different ailment and often award wonderful cure to many chronic diseases. The healers need to be oriented on primary health care and be integrated into modern health care system. This will increase the manpower situation and primary health care delivery coverage in many remote regions of the world. The traditional medicine is holistic and culturally acceptable. This approach treats both physical and spiritually related ailments. The incorporation of traditional healing practices requires formulation of national policies and provision of legal recognition and social equity for traditional healers. These

12

aspects have been drastically missing from the policy framework. The studies have indicated that the land tenure system often throw challenges for conservation of medicinal plants. Efforts have been made to document indigenous plants but a very little scientific experiment has been made on medicinal property of these plants. The forces of globalization have posed series of threats to preservation of local knowledge base and enforcement of customary rules across the indigenous territories. The globalization has stimulated entrenchment of modern sciences and technologies throughout the world. The experts and development agencies working on renewing of community-based model of natural resource management express their serious concern on endogenous development and localization of development. It has been realized that traditional knowledge and local science are product of world view. The interaction of cultures and sharing of worldview has promoted relation between different forms of knowledge. This book is a master piece where different internationally renowned scientists have shared their research findings relating to best application of traditional knowledge for endogenous development and sustainable use of natural resources.

The empirical validation indicates that the healthy relation between different communities, sharing of their knowledge and expertise and creation of complex web of high levels of cooperation, exchange and support are being eroded very fast. The mechanism of sustainable use of natural resources adopted by indigenous community through generations together has been collapsed due to influence of numerous internal and external factors. The lack of codification of indigenous knowledge system has encouraged modern pharmaceutical companies to commercialize indigenous knowledge of medicinal plants through biopiracy and hijack intellectual property rights of indigenous communities. The traditional communities have developed their own mechanism to manage their natural resources and the ecosystems surrounding them such as natural environment, economic, cultural and political organizations, animals, plants and rivers. They possess unique knowledge of these elements, which constitute a set of interacting units known as indigenous coping systems. This community developed a knowledge base, which refers to the set of interactions between economic ecological, political and social, environments within the community with a strong identity, drawing existence from natural resources through patterned behaviours. This knowledge base is transmitted from one generation to another to cope with the change. There are micro level institutional arrangements, which define various roles and responsibilities to the communities to ensure community based natural resource management and survival of the group. But unfortunately, the indigenous communities around the world have failed to encounter the threats posed by colonialism, commercialization, globalization, modernization and lack of efficient codification, break down of the family structure and induced human displacements. They are handicapped to resist the erosion of the traditional knowledge base and its commercialization by outsiders. The process of biodiversity loss has created lot of insurgencies and challenges in their social life. The life support system of these communities has been challenged. The environmentalists around the world have urged cooperation at all levels for protection of indigenous communities and life support systems and meeting present development needs while keeping in mind those of future generations need these life support systems. There is a growing concern for transferring enough natural capital to future generation. The protection of life support

13

system of the world is a serious concern, which requires all sorts of knowledge and coherent information. The tips and best practices of natural resource management by indigenous communities will be very relevant for development intervention and combating global warming. The indigenous community has a history behind its knowledge resources, which shapes the endogenous development process. The erosion of traditional knowledge is no doubt a great threat to endogenous development. Conservation of biodiversity without conserving indigenous knowledge system is a very short term solution. The future generations will be deprived off availing benefits from experimentation, innovation and community based practice of biodiversity conservation and knowledge accumulation by indigenous communities. Most of the advances made in new drugs from medicinal plants have been the outcome of indigenous knowledge. Even Recombinant DNA research owes its origin to indigenous communities who screened and selected the seeds. The modern science has drawn a lot of insights from indigenous communities in terms of drug development and bioenterprise interventions. Indigenous knowledge system provides guidelines for developing strategy on sustainable development in terms of self-reliance, economic sustainability and cost effectiveness. The modern allopathic doctors have relied on and drawn insights for treatment of cancer, diabetes, obesity, drug addiction directly or indirectly from indigenous healers. The indigenous knowledge system is highly relevant and useful for elite mass in urban areas. The indigenous people of Asia, Africa and Australia have extensive knowledge of plants and animals, which are used for multiple-purpose at national, national and local levels. The economic value of medicinal plants is very high at global market. These plants are also used as food and medicine for many ailments. The pharmaceutical companies have commercialized the traditional plant based knowledge of indigenous communities and develop new drugs of food supplement having growing market and demand among urban elites. The medicinal and food value of many plants constitute an important source of protein, essential amino acids and mineral elements. The leaves of good number of medicinal plants are also used as raw material or sliced in thin shreds and added to soups and stews. The leaves of some medicinal plants have unique medicinal ingredient for healing any deep wound within very short period. The laboratory screening of such plants would generate new drugs for treatment of healing and application in surgery. The cultivation of such plants and commercialization of their products will not only enhance employment opportunities of indigenous farmers but also boost of the local market. In absence of research and laboratory test of such wonderful herbs, a good number of valuable medicinal plants are eroded from the habitat. The studies have shown that commonly used medicinal plants are collected from secondary forest, the edge of paths, firms, village peripheries and informal gardens. The knowledge of use of these plants is kept confidential and confined to traditional healers. The medicinal plants administered for more severe illness are considered more valuable and useful and collected from high or secondary forest. This book contains various chapters dealing on sustainability potential and community based biodiversity conservation approach. There is an urgent need to promote socio-economic valuation of traditional knowledge. The commercialization of traditional knowledge has facilitated bio-prospecting, a win-win situation for both pharmaceutical companies and the owners of knowledge of medicinal plants. The

14

issues of benefit sharing from commercialization of traditional knowledge have been debated by many scholars and presented their research finding in this book. There is an urgent need for revitalization of traditional institutions which will help the local authorities, development cooperation policy makers, natural resources managers and stakeholders to ensure food security and fight against poverty. The appropriate social re-engineering mechanism should be developed to make traditional institutions of governance participatory, revolving on community based management System with more equitable access to and control over knowledge production, sharing and application. A good number of scholars have debated on socio-economic valuation of traditional knowledge as related to biodiversity conservation. They consider socioeconomic valuation in terms of function and utility derived from indigenous knowledge. The socio-economic valuation covers a wide spectrum including socio cultural values, ecological values which are usually measured and monitored with effect of indicators of their contribution to ecosystem integrity and resilience and regenerative capacities. Economic values are very often driven by the willingness to pay and willingness to accept the contributions of traditional knowledge to modern scientific discoveries and drug development. Various valuation techniques are adopted for measuring the economic values of traditional knowledge system. These techniques are hedonic pricing, contingent valuation and travel cost methods. Many scholars have emphasized that the traditional knowledge on indigenous use of medicinal plants could stimulate new innovations in pharmaceutical industries and have many beneficial applications such as new medicinal trails for diseases like malaria, cancer, tuberculosis, skin diseases, sexual transmitted diseases which contribute significantly to health care sector in forest regions of the world. A section of research articles presented in this book focus on application of indigenous knowledge on community based forest management on sustainable use of natural resources. The researchers have presented case studies of best practices from many forest regions of the world. The community driven models for use and protection of forest and wildlife resources have many promising dimensions. Unfortunately, the significant contribution of indigenous community to forest conservation have been ignored or belittled. The indigenous communities control the natural forest areas either consciously or unconsciously through their traditional practices and application of strong conservation ethics. The forests in Africa and Asia have been shaped by millennia of human influence, which have affected their features. The abandonment of marginal lands, socio economic development, re-naturalization and inappropriate forest management policies lead to rapid erosion of cultural values and contribution towards globalization of cultural forest landscape. The cultural values and related traditional forest knowledge are not preserved by Government. There is urgent need to develop guidelines to integrate the conservation of cultural values and related traditional knowledge in rural development and the management of protected area, developing strategies and actions at planning level and management that can be included in state level forest policies. Some chapters in this book have critically examined beekeeping as a means of forest exploitation. The beekeeping practice has been continued from past generation

15

to present generation with a gradual evolution in beekeeping technology and resource access and management arrangements. The authors have examined the forest management systems for sustainable forest honey production. The studies have identified that there are diversity of customary trees and forest tenure arrangement to forest for beekeeping purposes. Traditional beekeepers normally use the forest for hive construction, hive hanging, pollen source and fumigation. The traditional beekeepers invest a lot to the conservation of beekeeping trees. The policy makers and programme executives need to draw insights from traditional beekeeping practices to learn conservation potential of the practices and improve success of modern forest management practices in different regions of the world. A section of researchers have highlighted how traditional knowledge system of indigenous communities has promoted forest conservation and supported livelihood system for survival. The application of traditional knowledge for sustainable conservation, harvest, processing and utilization constitute a big resource, which can be harnessed in knowledge transfer. The forest regions of different parts of India, Africa and Australia are endowed with rich biodiversity of plants having social economic and environmental functions, which are not fully exploited. It is a very serious concern that natural resources across different forest regions of the world are becoming scares as a consequence of environmental degradation with loss of habitat. There is an urgent need to promote efficient management and conservation of forest ecosystem, so that balance between eco-health and human health can be maintained. Articles in this book have indicated that the indigenous communities of the world have rich reservoir of knowledge on conservation of natural resources. The traditional practices and knowledge streamline sustaining nature conservation. The factors of erosion of conservation are influx of western cultures and practices, high population growth, modernization, high demand of resources and poor documentation of such practices and knowledge among others. There is an urgent need to critically examined the importance of traditional knowledge in forest management and conservation and encourage the speedy adoption of this model in modern day forest practices. The studies have shown that harvesting and consumption of plant products from forests contribute large proportion of livelihood of people living around the forest. A great majority of harvested plant products are non-timber forest products. Studies have validated that the excessive extraction of forest products is likely to impact negatively on the population structure and organization. Many medicinal plants collected from forest are used for multiple purposes and play important role in population livelihood. The interlinking of traditional knowledge and customary rules with forest policy has been urged by the scientists and researchers. The authors have seriously emphasized upon transmission and renewal of traditional forest related knowledge upheld by indigenous communities. The process of transmission and share such knowledge depend on a wide range of factors such as use of biodiversity, collective activities, principles governing communal access to forest and mountains and customary laws that promote transmission of indigenous knowledge along with cultural and spiritual values. The authors have raised serious concern over erosion of customary rules. They advocated that the indigenous community should be encouraged and empower to maintain collective decision-making process and sharing values and cultural preferences relating to conservation of traditional varieties of species. In some articles

16

of this book, emphasis is given on rapid loss of genetic diversity as related to erosion of traditional knowledge. There has been a major loss of genetic varieties across forest regions of the world. It has been noted that the kinds of varieties that are lost are those used for special occasions. The revival of plant diversity and culture has been advocated by a section of scientists who urge for cultivation of traditional varieties of medicinal plants due to their cultural significant. The cultivation of such plants provides cultural links to ancestors and makes the community feel distinct. It has been validated that cultural identity is strongly linked to conservation and contribute to revival of cultural identity among tribals. The scientists have emphasized on empowerment of local communities in management of bio-resources and strengthening technology and knowledge for value addition, basic social and economic needs. It has been recognized that the indigenous communities living in forest regions of world preserves vast wealth of traditional ecological knowledge relating to conservation of plants species. This knowledge base can be meaningfully utilized for finding practical solutions to pressing problems of conservation and development. The scientists have also emphasized that recognition of traditional territories, resources and authorities would go a long way in preventing cultural and biological erosion. The well-being of the forest dependent communities always depends on gainful utilization of traditional knowledge. There is a serious concern to build capacity and upgrade repertoire of indigenous knowledge through community driven bottom-up approaches. The local conceptualization of nature, forest knowledge systems and adaptive natural resource management practices of indigenous community contribute significantly to conservation of biodiversity. The local conceptualization of the nature is accumulated and reflected via the spiritual, human and natural dimensions. There is a positive correlation between local conceptualization nature, local ecological knowledge, local classification of ecological foresrest successions, soil fertility management and local agro-climatic knowledge systems. The studies have validated that the effects of seasonality determine the dynamics of local bioecological knowledge at the spatiotemporal scale. The relationship between the formal governance structure and the traditional governance of the forest has many replicable components. A good number of indigenous communities across different part of the world apply traditional knowledge for sustainable use of forest resources. The traditional knowledge base has mechanism for ensuring sustainable utilization of biological resources as well as regulates access and benefit sharing. The customary rules of traditional communities prescribe the principles of equity, reciprocity and equilibrium in management of resource and benefit of sharing for all. These mechanisms are managed by traditional institutions and community elders who always treat communal ownership on forest resources. The communities are honoured as custodian of forest. Such traditional system plays important role in maintaining the integrity of the natural forests and conservation of the biodiversity. The forces of globalization and liberalization of market forces have significantly influence the effectiveness of traditional forest governance system to conserve biodiversity. These factors are anthropogenic factors, modernisation, religion and formal governance institutions. The formation of new forest policy and control of forest resources by state and Central Government have eroded the influence of community managed forest governance and enforcement of customary laws and principles that sustain the forest. There is an urgent need to examine the impact of formal governance system on traditional system of governance with a view to determine the positive elements of both system and explore

17

opportunities for integrating both systems towards enhanced management of biodiversity. Some chapters of this book have unfolded the meaningful utilisation of traditional knowledge for agro-forestry and organic farming. A good number of indigenous communities practice traditional method of farming for shifting cultivation. Some tree species are deliberately left on the field to serve different functions. The indigenous farmers make periodic observation and note down the influence of these tree species on environment. The modern agriculture has drawn combination of horticulture with agriculture from traditional farming of indigenous communities and their practices. The importance of combination of tree species with agriculture has been known through long history farming system and knowledge handed over to these generations. The traditional knowledge of farmers about tree-crop associations are crucial for the development of agro-forestry systems. The indigenous farmers make critical observation and analysis on tree characteristics and habit, tree canopy architecture, structure, texture, extent, etc in combination with crops, Ecological, Traditional uses; subsistence & commercial, biological & engineering functions, the value of the tree parts e.g. medicines, housing, food, fuel wood, religious, etc. The local names of plants and tree species are derived from functions, attributes, uses, other special characteristics and history of their discovery. The local names of tree species indicate the information on different characteristics of the plants and their renaissance. The traditional practices have proved that the conservation of tree species cannot be envisaged without the participation of local communities. The existence of selected trees in agro system is fundamental property of agrarian landscape. The structure of agro system varies according to latitudinal gradients and practices of local communities. There is a very close relationship between plant diversities and selectivity of species conserved in agro system by indigenous community. These are all governed by customary rules and traditional knowledge system. The tree species conserved in agro system provide many non-timber products such as food, forage, medicinal plants, materials for household construction, fuel wood etc. The combination of horticulture with agriculture drawn from traditional practices is highly relevant to promote household food security and generate additional income from rural poor. The application of traditional knowledge is found to be very effective to combat threats related to natural resource management. The customary rules of indigenous communities always validate the ethics that the well-being of human society is closely related to the well being of natural ecosystems. The use of local knowledge contribute to sustainability and conservation of biodiversity in multiple fields such as biodiversity conservation, maintenance of eco-system service, tropical ecological and bio-cultural restoration genetic resource conservation, sustainable water management. The researches have shown that local knowledge has been found meaningful for eco-system restoration and relevant ingredient for adaptive management. The relevance of traditional knowledge for effective biodiversity conservation has been reflected in many fronts. The scientists have drawn insights from indigenous knowledge for scenario analysis, data collection, designing of adaptive strategy, management planning and developing long term trends. The indigenous practices and institution mechanisms such as inter-generational transmission of knowledge, cooperation and collective action for conservation, community laws on exploitation of biodiversity, transfer of useful

18

species between different households within the community contribute significantly to community based conservation. The indigenous cultural practices provide protection to local biodiversity irrespective of their use value. The traditional conservation ethics preserved by the indigenous communities play a very important role in ensuring participatory forest resources management. There is a serious concern raised by different scientists and environmental activists to protect and preserve indigenous traditional knowledge for greater well being of society. A series of international and national enactments have been made. The agenda of these enactments are rarely translated in to action at grass route. Appropriate measures have not been taken by Government to respect, preserve and maintain traditional knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the right of indigenous community to share in economic benefits derived from commercialization of their knowledge. This is a very serious issue. The misappropriation of indigenous knowledge by pharmaceutical companies and other big industries have not been legally challenged. Debates are continuing on protection of intellectual property right of traditional communities and providing them benefit out of commercialization of their knowledge. In absence of community based sui generis system, no attempt can be made to define the subject matter of protection and opening scope for renewing customary laws and institutions for natural resource management. Greater emphasis need to be focused on intellectual aspects of indigenous knowledge system, world view of local communities and assessing the needs of the local communities. The researchers conducted so far have not identified the scope and area to protect community right over their knowledge and traditional resources and territories apart from identifying the need for protection and strengthening their cultural and spiritual values.

19

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS 1.

Miss. Tara Joy Director Active Remedy Ltd. 16 Selwood Road, Glastonbury Somerset BA6 8HN U.K Email : [email protected]

2.

Mrs. Stella Joy Director Active Remedy Ltd. 16 Selwood Road, Glastonbury Somerset BA6 8HN U.K Email : [email protected]

3.

Dr. Kh. Narendra Singh Reader, Department of Anthropology, Assam University: Diphu Campus Diphu-782 460, Assam, India Email: [email protected]

4.

Dr. Seema Bharadwaj, Head of the Department Department of Zoology HDJ Government Girls P.G College, Banswara 327001, Rajasthan, India, E-mail: seema377@gmail.

5.

Dr. Lalit Choudhary, Head of the Department Department of Zoology. Aravali Mahavidhyalay, Banswara 327001 Rajasthan, India, E-mail: [email protected].

6.

Dr. Dinesh Chandra Bhatt, Jambukhand Mahavidhyalay, Kalinjara, NH 113, Banswara 327001, Rajasthan, India.

666

7.

Dr. F. Lalnunmawia Department of Forestry, Mizoram University Aizawl-796004 Mizoram, India.

8.

Dr. S.K. Tripathi Department of Forestry, Mizoram University Aizawl-796004, Mizoram, India Email : [email protected]

9.

Dr. Lancelot D’Cruz Department of Biology, St. Xavier’s College, Ahmedabad 380 009, Gujarat, India. Email : [email protected]

10.

Dr. Pranab Pal Wildlife Institute of India Chandrabani , P.O.Box- 18 Dehradun -248001, Uttarakhand, India, Email : [email protected]

11.

Dr. Vikram S. Negi G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development, Garhwal unit, Srinagar, Garhwal, Uttarakhand, India Email : [email protected]

12.

Dr. R.K. Maikhuri G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development, Garhwal unit, Srinagar Garhwal, Uttarakhand, India.

667

13.

Dr. Kavya Dashora CABI South Asia NASC Complex New Delhi India, Email : [email protected]; [email protected]

14.

Dr. Krishna Raj Associate Professor, Centre for Economic Studies and Policy, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore – 560072, India, Email: [email protected]

15.

Mr. Adebowale Biodun AREO National Commission for Museums and Monuments, 16, Cotonou Street , Wuse Zone 6, P.M.B. 171, Garki, Abuja Email: [email protected]

16.

Dr. S. Ganeshan, Senior Scientist, Division of Plant Genetic Resources Indian Institute of Horticultural Research Bangalore 560 089, India, Email: [email protected]

17.

Dr. P.E. Rajasekharan Division of Plant Genetic Resources Indian Institute of Horticultural Research Bangalore 560 089, India.

18.

Dr T K Mukherjee Scientist and Consultant Former Editor, Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, NISCAIR, CSIR, Dr K S Krishnan Marg New Delhi 110 012, India E-mail: [email protected]

668

19.

Dr. P.G.S. Shirley, Department of Botany, V.H.N.Senthikumara Nadar College (Autonomous), Virudhunagar - 626 001 Tamilnadu. India, Email [email protected]

20.

Dr. N.J. Jeffrey Bose, Department of Botany, V.H.N.Senthikumara Nadar College (Autonomous), Virudhunagar - 626 001 Tamilnadu, India, Email [email protected]

21.

Dr. M.Suresh Department of Botany, V.H.N.Senthikumara Nadar College (Autonomous), Virudhunagar - 626 001 Tamilnadu, India, Email [email protected]

22.

Dr. P. Mehalingam Department of Botany, V.H.N.Senthikumara Nadar College (Autonomous), Virudhunagar - 626 001 Tamilnadu, India, Email [email protected]

23.

Mrs. TabassumIshrathFathima Institute of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine Foundation for Revitalisation of Local Health Traditions # 74/2, JarakabandeKaval, Post Attur Via Yelahanka, Bangalore – 560106, India.

24.

Dr. Venugopalan Nair. S.N Institute of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine Foundation for Revitalisation of Local Health Traditions # 74/2, JarakabandeKaval, Post Attur Via Yelahanka, Bangalore – 560106, India.

669

25.

Dr. P.R.Reddy Former Scientist “G” , National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad-500 007 Res: 12-13-332, Street No. 12, Tarnaka, Hyderabad-500 017, Andhra Pradesh, India, E-mails: [email protected]; [email protected]

26.

Dr. N.K. Das Visiting Fellow ASI Kolkata, Kolkatta, West Bengal, India, Email: [email protected]

27.

Dr. Anil Kumar Uniyal, Assistant Professor, Doon (PG) College of Agriculture Sciences and Technology, Camp road Selaqui, Dehradun, Uttrakhand, 248 001, India, Email: [email protected]

28.

Mr. B.S. Rawat Doon (PG) College of Agriculture Sciences and Technology, Camp road Selaqui, Dehradun, Uttrakhand, 248 001, India Email: [email protected]

29.

Mr. S. Suyal Doon (PG) College of Agriculture Sciences and Technology, Camp road Selaqui, Dehradun, Uttrakhand, 248 001, India, Email: [email protected]

30.

Dr. R.N. Pati Executive Director, Council for Tribal & Rural Development ISO 9001-2008 Certified Consultancy Agency HIG-101, Kanan Vihar, Phase-I, Po: Patia Bhubaneswar-751024, India, Email : [email protected], [email protected]

670

31.

Mr. Jay Dyke, Research Scholar, Department of Indigenous Studies University of Winnipeg, 515 Portage Ave, Winnipeg Manitoba, Canada, R3B 2E9 Email: [email protected]

32.

Mr. M.S. Gusain Project Coordinator, State Medicinal Plants Board, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India, E.mail: [email protected]

33.

Mr. C.S. Rana Herbal Research and Development Institute, Mandal-Gopeshwar 246401, India, E.mail: [email protected]

34.

Mr. Ritesh Joshi

Conservation and Survey Division, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, New Delhi – 110 003, India E-mail: ritesh_joshi2325 35.

Dr. Veena Tandon, Professor, Department of Zoology, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong, 793 022, India, Email : [email protected]

36.

Mr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Department of Zoology, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong, 793 022, India

37.

Mr. Bishnupada Roy, Department of Zoology, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong, 793 022, India.

671

38.

Mr. Giridhar A. Kinhal Additional Managing Director, Foundation for Revitalisation of Local Health Traditions (FLRHT), No. 74/2, Jarakbande Kaval, Attur Post, Via Yelahanka Bangalore-5600064, India, e-mail2: [email protected]

39.

Dr. Harapriya Samantaraya, Principal, Womens College of Padampur, Bargarh, Odisha, India, E-mail: dharapriya @yahoo.co.in

40.

Dr. Premananda Panda Member Secretary, Academy of Tribal Languages and Culture (ATLC) Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India, E-mail:[email protected]

41.

Dr. R.B.Singh, Professor, Department of Geography, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007, India, E-mail: [email protected]

42.

Miss. Nitu Department of Geography, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007, India, E-mail: [email protected]

43.

Dr. L.S. Kandari School of Natural Resource and Environmental Sciences, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Haramaya University, P.O. Box #337, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia Email: [email protected]

44.

Mr. V.K. Bisht, Herbal Research and Development Institute, Mandal, Gopeshwar-246401, Chamoli, Uttarakhand, India.

672

45.

Dr. R. Hiranmai Yadav School of Natural Resource and Environmental Sciences, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Haramaya University, P.O. Box #337, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia.

46.

Miss Tripti Negi Wildlife Institute of India, P.O. Box No. # 18, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248 001, Uttarakhand, India.

47.

Mr. T.V. Ramachandra, Environmental Information System [ENVIS], Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012 India, E Mail: [email protected],

48.

Mr. M.D. Subash Chandran, Environmental Information System [ENVIS], Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India E Mail: [email protected],

49.

Mr. N.V. Joshi Environmental Information System [ENVIS], Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India, E Mail: [email protected],

50.

Mr. M. Boominathan Environmental Information System [ENVIS], Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India, E Mail: [email protected]

51.

Mr. EN Murthy, Department of Plant Sciences School of Life Sciences, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad -500046. Andhra Pradesh. India.

673

52.

Mr. Vatsavaya S. Raju Plant Systematics Laboratory, Department of Botany, Kakatiya University, Warangal-506 009. Andhra Pradesh, India.

53.

Dr. MNV Prasad Department of Plant Sciences School of Life Sciences, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad -500046. Andhra Pradesh, India Email: [email protected]

54.

Dr. Arsenio B. Ella Scientist III and Research Assistant, Forest Products Research and Development Institute (FPRDI) Department of Science and Technology (DOST), College, Laguna 4031 Email: [email protected]

55.

Mr. Emmanuel P. Domingo, Scientist III and Research Assistant, Forest Products Research and Development Institute (FPRDI) Department of Science and Technology (DOST), College, Laguna 4031.

56.

Dr. Mala, A. William Department of Plant Biology, University of Yaoundé I, c/o PO Box 3638 Yaoundé, Cameroon; Email: [email protected]

57.

Mr. Geldenhuys, CJ. Department of Forest and Wood Science, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa c/o Forestwood cc, PO Box 228, La Montagne 0184, Pretoria, South Africa. Email: [email protected]

58.

Mr. Prabhu, R. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya, PO Box 30677 Nairobi (00100). Email: [email protected]

674

59.

Dr. Upma Dobhal G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand, India Email: [email protected]

60.

Mr. P. C. Phondani G. B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development, Kosi- Katarmal, Almora, Uttarakhand, India

61.

Mrs. Snehlata Bhandari Department of Botany, H.N.B. Garhwal Central University, Campus Pauri (Garhwal), Uttarakhand, India

62.

Mr. N. S. Bisht Department of Botany, H.N.B. Garhwal Central University, Campus Pauri (Garhwal), Uttarakhand, India

63.

Dr. R. C. Gupta, SASRD Nagaland University Medziphema-797 106, Nagaland, India.

64.

Mr. V. Sharan SASRD Nagaland University Medziphema- 797 106, Nagaland, India.

65.

Dr. Sanjay Singh School of Plant Sciences College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences Haramaya University, Ethiopia E-mail: [email protected]

66.

Dr. Noor A Khan Scientist, National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, Nehru Marg, Nagpur - 440020, India.

675

67.

Dr. Neeta Thacker Chief Scientist and Former Head, National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, Nehru Marg, Nagpur - 440020, India.

68.

Dr. L.K. Jha Former Dean, School of Forestry and E.S Department of Environmental Studies North Eastern Hill University, Shillong, Meghalaya, India E.mail : [email protected]

69.

Dr. Imotemsu Director, The Global Open University,Pezeilitsei Colony, Tinpati Junction,Kohima.,Nagaland-797001, India, E.mail: [email protected]

70.

Dr. R.K. Srivastava Environmental Research Laboratory P.G. Department of Environmental Science Government Model Science College (Autonomous) Jabalpur 482001, Madhya Pradesh, India.

71.

Mr. Bazgha Athar Environmental Research Laboratory P.G. Department of Environmental Science Government Model Science College (Autonomous) Jabalpur 482001, Madhya Pradesh, India.

72.

Dr. S.C.Tiwari Reader Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Environmental Sciences Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, India.

73.

Mr. Shabir Ahmad Bhat Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Environmental Sciences Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, India.

676

74.

Dr. Dennis Kamoga Joint Ethnobotanical Research and Advocacy P.O.Box 27901, Kampala, Uganda, Email: [email protected], [email protected]

75.

Dr. S. S. Talmale Zoological Survey of India, Central Zone Regional Centre, 168-169, Scheme No. 5, Vijayanagar, Jabalpur-482 002, Madhya Pradesh, India, E.mail : [email protected]

76.

Mr. M. S. Pradhan Kalpanamati Housing Society, B-2, Aundhgaon, Pune-411 007, Maharashtra, India, E.mail : [email protected]

77.

Dr. Bidyasagar Singh Department of Environment Science, Mizoram University, Aizawl – 796004, Mizoram, India.

78.

Mr. B. P. Mishra, Department of Forestry, Mizoram University, Aizawl – 796004, Mizoram, India.

79.

Mr. L. Nzano Humtsoe, Biodiversity Laboratory, Resource Management and Environment Section, Institute of Advanced Study in Science and Technology, Paschim Boragaon, P.O. Gorchuk, Guwahati-781035, Assam, India.

80.

Dr. Sabitry Bordoloi Professor, Biodiversity Laboratory, Resource Management and Environment Section, Institute of Advanced Study in Science and Technology, Paschim Boragaon, P.O. Gorchuk, Guwahati-781035, Assam, India.

677

81.

Mr. L. Subenthung Humtsoe Watershed Development Team, Land Resource Department, Kohima-797002, Nagaland, India.

82.

Mr. J. Longkumer Department of Agriculture Extensions, School of Agricultural Sciences and Rural Development, Nagaland University, Medziphema Campus-797106, Nagaland, India.

83.

Dr. Bocharnikov Vladimir Pacific Institute of Geography FEB RAS, Vladivostok, Russia.

84.

Mr. Laletin Andrey Friends of the Siberian Forests, Krasnoyarsk, Russia

85.

Dr. P.Prabhu Prasadini, Department of Environmental Science, College of Agricultur, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad 500030, Andhra Pradesh, India.

86.

Dr. S. Vani Anusha, Department of Environmental Science, College of Agriculture Rajendranagar, Hyderabad 500030, Andhra Pradesh, India.

87.

Dr. B. Sreemannarayana Department of Environmental Science, College of Agriculture Rajendranagar, Hyderabad 500030, Andhra Pradesh, India.

88.

Dr. Y. Prasanna Lakshmi Department of Environmental Science, College of Agriculture Rajendranagar, Hyderabad 500030 Andhra Pradesh, India.

678

89.

Dr. Swaranjit Singh, Professor and Head Environment Biotech and Biodiversity Institute of Microbial Technology 39-A, Chandigarh, India. Email: [email protected]

90.

Dr. Abha Shukla, Professor and Head Environment Biotech and Biodiversity Institute of Microbial Technology 39-A, Chandigarh, India.

91.

Dr. Cameotra Professor and Head Environment Biotech and Biodiversity Institute of Microbial Technology, 39-A, Chandigarh, India.

92.

Dr. Shailesh Shukla Assistant Professor, Department of Indigenous Studies University of Winnipeg, 515 Portage Ave, Winnipeg Manitoba, Canada, R3B 2E9 Email: [email protected], [email protected]

93.

Dr. Lawrence Chanza Executive Director, Zambia Institute of Natural Medicine and Research (ZINARE) Plot No. 8570, Champepe Road, Light Industrial Area, Lusaka, Zambia. Email: [email protected]

679