LEM 0

ry CBD
UNEP
Distr.
CONVENTION ON GENERAL
BIOLOGICAL UNEP/CBD/WG8)/3/INF/1
DIVERSITY 28 September 2003
ENGLISH ONLY

AD HOC OPEN-ENDED INTER-SESSIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON ARTICLE 8(j) AND RELATED
PROVISIONS OF THE CONVENTION ON
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

Third meeting

Montreal, 8-12 December 2003

Item 4 of the provisional agenda*

COMPOSITE REPORT ON THE STATUS AND TRENDS REGARDING THE KNOWLEDGE,
INNOVATIONS AND PRACTICES OF INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES
RELEVANT TO THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF BIODIVERSITY

Note by the Executive Secretary

The Executive Secretary is circulating herewith the full text of the first phase of the composite
report on the status and trends regarding the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local
communities relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, prepared by a consultant in
accordance with decision VI/10 of the Conference of the Parties and annex I thereto. The executive
summary and recommendations arising out of the first phase of the composite report are before the Ad
Hoc Working Group as a separate working document (UNEP/CBD/WG8J/4). The document is being
reproduced in the form and language in which it was received by the Secretariat.

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/1.

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 3

Composite Report: Phase I

Composite Report on the Status and Trends
Regarding the Knowledge, Innovations and Practices
of Indigenous and Local Communities
Relevant to the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity

August 2003

Prepared for the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity

Compiled by UNEP-WCMC

Project number: 1248

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 4

The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) is the biodiversity assessment
and policy implementation arm of the United Nations Environment Programme, the world’s foremost
intergovernmental environmental organization. UNEP-WCMC aims to help decision-makers recognize
the value of biodiversity to people everywhere, and to apply this knowledge in all that they do. The
Centre’s challenge is to transform complex data into policy-relevant information, to build tools and
systems for analysis and integration of these data, and to support the needs of nations and the international
community as they engage in joint programmes of action.

El PNUMA Centro de Monitoreo de la Conservacién Mundial (UNEP-WCMC) es el brazo del
Programa de las Naciones Unidas del Medio Ambiente, la principal organizacion intergubernamental
ambiental en el mundo, encargado de evaluar la biodiversidad y la implementacion de politicas
ambientales. El UNEP-WCMC aspira a ayudar a tomadores de decisiones a reconocer el valor de la
biodiversidad para la gente de todo el mundo, y a aplicar este conocimiento en todo lo que hacen. El
desafio del Centro es transformar datos complejos en informacion relevante para las formulacién de
politicas de gestion, desarrollar instrumentos y sistemas para el analisis y la integracion de esos datos, y
apoyar las necesidades de las naciones y de la comunidad internacional en general en sus esfuerzos por
desarrollar programas de accion conjunta.

Le PNUE Centre de Surveillance Continue pour la Conservation de la Nature Mondiale (UNEP-
WCMC) est l'agence chargée de l'évaluation de la diversité biologique et de la mise en oeuvre des
directives du Programme des Nations Unies pour l'Environnement, la principale organisation
intergouvernementale environnementale au monde. Le Centre aspire 4 aider les gouvernements a
reconnaitre l'importance de la diversité biologique pour les étres humains du monde entier et a appliquer
cette connaissance a toutes leurs activités. Le défi du Centre consiste 4 transformer et simplifier des
données complexes en informations pertinentes afin de trouver des outils et d'établir des systeémes
permettant leur intégration et leur analyse dans la politique de tous les jours. Le Centre vise 4 appuyer les
besoins des nations et de la communauté internationale dans leurs activités et programmes communs
environnementaux.

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1

Page 5
Table of Contents

1 PACKMO WICASCMEMES s-c-cccszsecccstetecenacoretcectecseceever tetra cevvas secasseoeeore ToT CO TER TERRE TET 6
2 Background to Report........... axe)
3 Abbreviations...............0.000+00 +6
4 Information sources ih
AMIWEY REPIONATEPOMtSE esieeess essen sszcrcasevcet ne cao er ecnr tcc tecencat sta ecacse oerras eee coe ate sees rete ee ences Beara pce EE 7
AZ ieet OUNER: SOUTGES (2.2 ss ts ccsvesttsestarctossseccccuesseceotetessscessessestetccsso sis Rote eee oe ean ee TST cet 8
5 ae)
5.1 9
52
333}
6 State of retention of traditional biodiversity-related knowledge: categories..
Gu Rio wled Be Cate SOLES sisc.sccstecrescectoscccrt-sostonecasteserestonone m
G62; wekheplobaliscale st. .stseats See re 14
6.3. “Traditional” prohibitions and protected areas . 14
Gt SACKECSILES oe eo occas ct saen, 8 contact ccwens tectuesvenp unset ceeceee Sete bese scuc aascoscececsbi toes socscactuvatessedesustecteesseciersesesesr soe 15
Gp alraditionallMedicinal (Knowledge kreccccescccarcecscccserccscssecssceestccresarcetencotteresenteaneanet ne sseeere TO ETE REET 16
7 State of retention of traditional biodiversity-related knowledge: the need for a change in perspectives ...17
(ale Problemsjofirom anticizin [Ker sea ceeccccencccvcescececeserscecetcscestcnsescccestecesesraesercertmeoescenececstaeecseeatomenee Reet ecetraee 17
7.2 How to deal with perceived detrimental impact of IK/P...................scscscssssssceceseesesecessececeesececeeceeececeesseecees 17
7.3. The rights and wrongs of slash and burm................0. 18
7.4 Issues of credibility vs. scientific knowledge .. 19
7.5 Religion and rationality............... sees 19
Gime P EATCCEIVENCSS o.c-cnnceccsesesceseseececsses- ..20
7.7 Consequences of past perseCutiOn..........s.sesssseseseseseeeeeeteeeeeeeeeee 21
7.8 Impact of market forces and “free trade” (and trade agreements).............seceseseseseseseseseseseeeseeeseeteeeeseeeeeeees 21
8 Research® documentation \and| assessment qcsccpecc-cnceccecesaceccucsecrececeneccassouan-sussenscursctasstorsesnsbeccvesscorceverseesvesere 22
Sa 01 GALOIS \acecenceseesecceaconsesovscecsatorscsessenesess 223
8.2 Need for further research .. =25
8.3. Documentation issues ... ws
8.4 Access to registers ..... 27
8.5 “Secret knowledge” ...
8.6 Research ethics ......
9 Identification and Assessment of measures and initiatives to protect, promote and facilitate the use of

traditional knowled GGsecsecscseces cece ctestcecacscsececeeesenreeereeee soar seme cotanens Seancereneiehesttanstcnoe asucancescastessas encase saseraceretts 31
OM Incentive’ Measures: & Capacity=Buil img: -yeccccasccceseccseeesececereccovstececusssetcereaecercectassterssecenrsevatacersreacecsesseerees 32
9.2 Women as holders of traditional knowledge...............:.ssssssssscssssssesssssssssscsescsesssesssesesessssesessssssessseessecesesees 33
ONS ME UGaLIOneterscecere-seetsectsssceccacenseeesesccreozne 34
9.4 Land rights............. 235
OS iy REPatlath OD eee cccessaveccsccstvasescsncsusccacvaseranceseceenel 38
9.6 Problem of enforcement in developing countries. 38
OMe We DIS atl ON eos sree crestenteccecacecesentaceetecccusceeneraceece 39
OFS Ri shits and legal reco Smiitionese.ccesssreecasseseteascoassanserentcatensereresnrenerneenecerereteneaceneececsrerecccssnecurneneececeamuceeenercar 39
LO MInternationaltactivitiesvescceeceecsrcessceqee-cacesceccecescarsccorsesseesccoteccencucsacacerncncrasuceesrstcnasearascuasssassessscantacaranvecanaaress 40
10 Summary — Assessment, Feasibility, And further recommendation...... 41
11 Recommendations relating to subsequent phases of the composite report . 41
Appendix 1: Countries by region with data from Regional Reports..........--.--::sseeeseesees 42
Appendix 2: Information on Legislation for each Party relevant to Indigenous Knowledge .........-+-.-+1sssesee 49

UNEP/CBD/WG8)J/3/INF/1
Page 6

1 Acknowledgements

This Composite Report prepared on behalf of the CBD Secretariat by the UNEP World Conservation
Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC). It was compiled and edited by Dr. Mark Elliott and Harriet Gillett.
Alice Davies compiled Appendices | and 2. The project was managed by Harriet Gillett.

Dr. Gerardo Fragoso is thanked for his support as project supervisor.
Henrietta Marie from the CBD Secretariat is thanked for her guidance and support.

2 Background to Report

The proposal to produce this Composite Report was developed by UNEP-WCMC, in response to the
CBD Notification SCBD/SEL/HM of 27 June 2002 Hiring of a consultant team for the preparation of a
Composite Report on the Status and Trends Regarding the Knowledge, Innovations and Practices of
Indigenous and Local Communities Embodying Traditional Lifestyles Relevant to the Conservation and
Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity.

This Composite report was prepared as an eight week desk study, undertaken from July-August 2003 at
UNEP-WCMC in Cambridge, UK, for discussion at the Third 4d Hoc Open-Ended Inter-Sessional
Working Group on Article 8(j) and related provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

It is based on information provided in the Regional Reports, produced between March-June 2003 in
response to the same notification, and represents the Phase | report referred to in the CBD notification.

3. Abbreviations

Abbreviations used in this report.

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CGRFA Crop genetic resources for food and agriculture
TEK Traditional ecological knowledge

TK Traditional knowledge

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 7

4 Information sources

4.1 Regional reports

This Composite Report on the status and trends concerning the knowledge, innovations and practices of
indigenous and local communities relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity
is based on regional reports compiled by consultants under contract to the Secretariat of the Convention
on Biological Diversity.

The regional reports were based on desk studies, completed within a stringent timeframe (16 weeks). The
composite report was completed in seven weeks, based largely on information provided in the regional
reports. Given these conditions, the reports should only be considered to provide a preliminary overview
of the subject, rather than the comprehensive view originally envisaged by the CBD in Decision VI/10.
The regional reports consistently confirm this, stating that the scope and resources to compile the reports
were insufficient to meet its objectives. The need for further targeted research, and the considerations
which thus arise, are discussed in a later section of this report.

The regional reports are presented to the Third Inter-Sessional Ad Hoc Working Group on Article 8j of

the CBD as the following information documents:

e UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3 Africa - Regional report on the status and trends concerning the

knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities relevant to the

conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity

e UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/4 Australia, Asia and the Middle East - Regional report on the status and

trends concerning the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities

relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity

e UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/S Caribbean - Regional report on the status and trends concerning the

knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities relevant to the

conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity

e UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/6 Central America - Regional report on the status and trends concerning the

knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities relevant to the

conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity

e UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/7 Europe - Regional report on the status and trends concerning the

knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities relevant to the

conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity

e UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/8 North America - Regional report on the status and trends concerning the

knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities relevant to the

conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity

e UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/9 Pacific - Regional report on the status and trends concerning the

knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities relevant to the

conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity

e UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10 South America - Regional report on the status and trends concerning the
knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities relevant to the
conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 8

In addition to the Regional Reports, three other texts are referred to in the Composite report. The full
references are given here:

Ellen, R & Holly Harris (2000), ‘Introduction’, to R. Ellen, P. Parkes & A. Bicker (eds), /ndigenous
Environmental Knowledge and its Transformations: critical Anthropological Perspectives. Studies
in Environmental Anthropology, Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam, pp.1-34

Posey, Darrell A. 1996. Provisions and mechanisms of the convention on biological diversity for access
to traditional technologies and benefit sharing for indigenous and local communities embodying
traditional lifestyles. Oxford Centre for Environment, Ethics and Society Research Papers 6.

WHO, 2000: Promoting the Role of Traditional Medicine in Health Systems: A Strategy for the African
Region 2001-2010, WHO, 2000, (AFR/RC50/)

Sources of information for regional reports

Second National Reports by Parties to the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity were to
be a principal source of information for the compilation of the regional reports providing the basis for this
Composite Report. However, of the 187 countries and economic integrated organizations which are Party
to the CBD, only 94 had submitted their Second National Reports at the time of drafting this report. Most
of these reports (with only one exception) give some information on issues relating to Article 8(j), even if
this is only to say that such issues are not relevant to their national context. The Caribbean
UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/5 report highlights the difficulties faced in its compilation, owing to the lack of
information provided by Parties. Only 5 states of that region contributed Second National Reports, which
were intended to be the primary sources for these regional reports.

Of those focal points which did respond, however, many responses were little more than generalisations
and statements of intent. Geopolitical boundaries, too, prevent much pertinent data from being included.
Autonomous regions, for example, may be excluded from the national report, resulting in an incomplete
picture being produced.

Recommendation 1

Thematic reports on Article 8(j) should be compiled by Parties, based on a questionnaire produced by
the Secretariat.

4.2 Other sources

Although a large body of written evidence other than that contained within national focal points’
submissions was used in compiling the regional reports, there are many reasons for it to be considered
unsatisfactory. South America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10 notes that “despite the importance of the
indigenous presence” in South America, “there is no corresponding volume of studies and information”.
Even the most extensive literature, as pointed out by McGowan (19, quoted in Pacific
UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/9) should not be relied upon excessively. All too often, such literature (emerging
from a Western scientific tradition) “does little justice to traditional knowledge and to the culture and
traditions out of which that knowledge developed”. This, and other issues concerning documentation,
will be discussed further below.

Recommendation 2
Take steps to ensure parity between the submissions of indigenous peoples and, for example, Parties
through National Focal Points.

Recommendation 3
Establish mechanisms to encourage representatives of indigenous groups and local communities to
present information to the CBD

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 9

Recommendation 4
Develop mechanisms to ensure input from overseas territories and autonomous or semi-autonomous

regions

Develop mechanisms to ensure input from groups within states which are not Party to the CBD
Recommendation 6
Establish a clearing house mechanism relating to Article 8(j).

5 Crises of definition

“it is impossible to use ‘indigenous’ in a morally neutral or apolitical way.”
Ellen & Harris, 2000:3

5.1. What is traditional knowledge?

In presenting the combined regional reports, the first question which must be addressed, and which is
raised in all the regional reports is: what is traditional, indigenous or local knowledge? Alongside this,
goes the question “who are indigenous people?” Traditional knowledge (TK) is most frequently (and
problematically) regarded as knowledge held or mobilized by “traditional, local or indigenous”
communities. This causes its own problems, for not all indigenous peoples are traditional knowledge
holders, and not all traditional knowledge holders are indigenous peoples.

“As elsewhere in many Latin American countries and in the whole of the Caribbean, in Central
America traditional knowledge is a concept not only associated to the indigenous peoples who

inhabited this territory before the arrival of the Europeans, but also to the Afro-Latin-

,

Americans who developed their own culture within the region.’

South America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10
The regional report on North America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/8, citing Paci et al (2000) warns that not
all members of a given community are traditional knowledge holders. The emphasis is upon the potential
variation and adaptation of traditional knowledge, but this just as effectively demonstrates the difficulty
of assessing retention of traditional knowledge, distribution of which is “patchy at best”.
Each of the regional reports illustrates dominant attitudes to TK which are to some extent unique to the
region in question. Ellen and Harris (2000:6) highlight the peculiar attitude towards TK in western,
industrialised countries:
“The West often assumes that it has no IK that is relevant, in the sense of ‘folk’ knowledge, that it once
existed but has now disappeared, and that somehow science and technology have become its indigenous
knowledge.”
Europe and Russia UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/7 draws attention to an apparent tendency by many
European countries, according to comments in their National reports, to sweep traditional knowledge
under the carpet. These reports not only suggest the absence of “indigenous or local communities” within
the meaning of Article 8(j), but downplay the existence of “traditional knowledge” in general within their
national context.

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 10

However, these comments conflict with the important examples of the retention of traditional knowledge
that are provided across the region, from the use of seaweed as fertiliser in Ireland to coppicing in the
UK and traditional forms of “sea tenure” in Western European fisheries. Moreover, such examples belie
the notion that “traditional” practices in the West have become integrated into “scientific” knowledge.
Much of this knowledge is under threat, and initiatives are being pursued to sustain it. The danger,
evident in the responses of National Focal Points in Europe, is that such initiatives are not considered to
be of high priority within the context of 8(j), as they should be, and thus receive insufficient attention.
Ellen and Harris (2000:6) challenge assertions that traditional knowledge is of less relevance in developed
nations:

“But western folk knowledge (non-professional, experimental, uncodified, ad hoc, often orally
transmitted) is arguably just as important as it ever has been; just different, informed by science where
appropriate, and located in different contexts (domestic horticulture, dog-breeding, bee-keeping etc.).”
Similarly, Vogl, in Europe UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/7 recognises the importance of traditional
knowledge in developed countries:

“TK in industrialised countries needs special attention and special policies. It is well recognised that
many countries of Latin America, Asia, Africa, Oceania and countries of the North with ethnic indigenous
groups have TK. But especially European countries ignore that many professions, that deal with
biodiversity over generations, hold highly valuable TK for the conservation of biodiversity.”

In the Caribbean UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/5 the problems caused in the compilation of the report by the
lack of clear definition of traditional knowledge and related issues are highlighted. For the Middle East
(Australia, Asia and the Middle East UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/4) there is little discussion of the importance
of traditional knowledge or of how such categories are perceived (although both Lebanon and Syria
claim that traditional knowledge is a high priority for their governments, and Syria has ratified ILO 107,
the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1957).

5.2. Who are traditional knowledge holders?

In former settler colonies, such as in North America, New Zealand, Australia and South America in
particular, the definition of “traditional knowledge” or indeed “indigenous people” appears less
problematic. Both the USA and Canada legally recognise aboriginal and indigenous peoples, and North
America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/8 deals principally with knowledge ascribed to such groups. The
reports which cover Australia and New Zealand, similarly, focus on knowledge held by the indigenous
Aboriginal and Maori peoples:
“Settler peoples in Australia do not claim to be holders of traditional and indigenous knowledge systems,
and therefore the Australian National Reports present a distinctly different situation from that found in
the National Reports from the Asian region where national majorities can claim some legitimacy as
traditional or indigenous knowledge holders.”

Australia, Asia and the Middle East UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/4
In the report on South America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10 too, traditional knowledge is addressed
principally in terms of knowledge held by indigenous peoples. However, in Central America
UNEP/CBD/WGS8J/INF/6, traditional knowledge is not only associated with indigenous peoples, but also
African American groups such as the Garifunas, who developed their own culture within the region
following European contact.
The categories of “indigenous” and “traditional knowledge”, however, tend to be most controversial in
Asia and Africa. Australia, Asia and the Middle East UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/4 (citing Ferrari)
reports the attitudes of Southeast Asian countries as well as China and India, who
“have argued that the term cannot properly be applied to their countries given that the their majority
populations can be considered ‘indigenous’ in that sense.”
The Republic of Korea, for example, does not recognise any groups as “indigenous people”, and
considers the interests of no group legally differentiated from those of the nation state (Australia, Asia
and the Middle East UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/4). None the less, the regional report concentrates on the

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 11

knowledge and practices of particular marginalised or minority groups in each country, variously
described as “indigenous cultural communities” in the Philippines, “hill tribes” in Thailand, “isolated
and alien peoples” in Indonesia, “aborigines” of Malaysia and “tribals” or adivasi in India.

Like Asia, many African nations contest the use of these troublesome categories. Krugmann (Africa
UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3) explores the complexities of “indigeneity” in Namibia, ascribed as it is to
successive migrants, from San to Bantu, who had settled in the area prior to European contact. In
Zimbabwe, most strikingly, “indigenous” refers to Africans, or 98% of the population, while the
remaining 2% are “Whites and Coloureds” (Zimbabwe n.d. 8 in Africa UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3).

Ambiguity of definition does not merely make cross-cultural or global comparisons within the context of
this report difficult. The example of European attitudes to “traditional knowledge” shows that certain
knowledge and practices which might fall within the scope of Article 8(j) are excluded from consideration
because the text of the article has been interpreted in a particularly narrow way. Examples from Asia and
Africa show that “indigenous” can be more than a vague and unworkable category — it can be actually
divisive, depending as it does both on “self-identification” and official recognition.

5.3. The idea of “indigenous”

Posey (1996:7) defines indigenous peoples as holders of traditional knowledge, and “embodying
traditional lifestyles”. This definition does serve to an extent. However, it is somewhat problematic and
tautologous (Ellen and Harris 2000:3). It also excludes the substantial numbers of self-identified
indigenous people who live in urban, or “non-traditional” areas, as do almost half of Russia’s indigenous
population (797,300 of 1,646,500 according to Russian’ Federation, in Europe
UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/7). As has already been suggested, however, indigenous people do not always
hold traditional knowledge or — and this must be one of the key indicators for knowledge retention, as will
be discussed below — pursue traditional lifestyles.

Definitions of “indigenous” emphasise the marginal and disadvantaged status of indigenous peoples
(rather than their “primordial” claims to territory). Frequently indigenous populations are minorities
within the nation state (although practical and political difference between “indigenous” and “minority”
status is demonstrated in the context of, for example, the Saami in Norway).

The IWGIA (International Working Group for Indigenous Affairs) emphasises the “disadvantaged” status
of indigenous people alongside their primordiality, being descended from the inhabitants of a country
prior to colonial settlement or state formation. This definition explicitly differentiates certain groups
“culturally” from the rest of the population. That this usually also means distinction from the majority of
the population compounds the marginalised, disadvantaged status of indigenous peoples. Primordiality is
certainly a problem for many indigenous peoples. The San, for example, are from many perspectives the
“indigenous” inhabitants of - or, perhaps, the “first” to arrive in — their ancestral lands in Namibia. Other
groups, however, have also been resident in the same or adjacent territories for centuries prior to the
colonial encounter and subsequent independence. Appendix | provides data on indigenous populations,
drawn from the regional reports. Though incomplete, the table gives a sense as to the size of indigenous
populations in particular countries and the relative importance of indigenous rights and traditional
knowledge.

Equating traditional knowledge with marginalised, disadvantaged and culturally distinctive indigenous
groups is a wholly valid connection. The necessity for a report such as this, and for the implementation of
Article 8(j) and similar programmes, is that traditional knowledge is often seriously threatened. Where
traditional knowledge holders are not marginalised, threatened and oppressed, traditional knowledge is
less vulnerable. However, a situation in which indigenous people, their knowledge and lifestyles are
secure can, perversely, decrease the likelihood that traditional knowledge, and the measures in place to
protect, promote and develop it, can be documented and evaluated in reports such as this. Inuit account
for 87% of the population of Greenland, which enjoys some degree of autonomy from the Denmark. As
a result (Burgess 1999, in Europe and Russia UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/7:9), knowledge and practice
which elsewhere might be termed “traditional” or “indigenous” are not known as such in Greenland. As
in many European contexts, some of this knowledge can “slip through the cracks”.

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 12

Certain striking attitudes towards indigenous people, or traditional or local communities, and therefore of
traditional knowledge, can be broken down as follows.

Europe and Russia UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/7 suggests that the situation in Europe is fundamentally
different from other regions covered by the Composite Report. By and large, “traditional” knowledge is
not regarded as relevant to a contemporary indigenous or cultural group, but as knowledge relevant to the
past, and therefore implicitly obsolete, and in need of “preserving”. Because traditional knowledge
holders do not fit into the image of them put forward in discussions of Article 8(j), their knowledge and
practices are not regarded as relevant to the implementation of 8(j).

Australia, Asia and the Middle East UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/4 draws attention to the problem of
persecution and lack of recognition of indigenous peoples, and other traditional knowledge holders, in
Asia.

In the Caribbean (South America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10), the indigenous people have been mostly
wiped out, and account for less than 20,000 (0.05%) of the total population of 40,000,000. Yet here in
particular — though also throughout Latin America — groups such as Afro-Americans, or Mestizo,
Mulatto, Creole and Marroon peoples “are also communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for
the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.... Today many of these groups have
developed customary practices and cultural specificities, and have brought wide arrays of knowledge on
natural resources.”

Recommendation 7
Working definitions of “indigenous” and “traditional knowledge” should be agreed.

Recommendation 8
The CBD should define conditions for traditional knowledge in the context of 8(j) to be considered “in

39

use .

6 State of retention of traditional biodiversity-related knowledge: categories

6.1 Knowledge categories

“The traditional knowledge is a really really valuable thing, because it's about the...it's knowledge about
everything. Of food and material and storytelling, symbols, you name it, it's everything.”
Nilaas Somby, Sami, interviewed by Tero Mustonen, 2002

In general, the categories suggested within the notification, under which to consider the state of retention
of TK did not prove to be the most useful, although they have been followed in each of the regional
reports.

In this Composite Report, information on the state of retention of traditional knowledge is therefore
presented according to headings and issues identified in the regional reports.

The difficulty in using ecosystem categories in particular was highlighted in most reports: TK, it is
frequently argued, is a holistic system and does not fit in to such western scientific boxes. In a WIPO
report on traditional knowledge in West Africa, that which we know as “traditional knowledge” and
which is currently being exploited in the name of the conservation of the world’s biodiversity is described
as a wholly more complex entity:

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 13

“[it] comprises both aesthetic (the arts) and useful (the technological, medicinal and scientific) elements,
as well as tangible (such as medicinal plants) and non-tangible (such as medicinal knowledge)
components.”

Africa UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3

Similarly, knowledge of traditional medicine can often overlap with PGRFA or animals and
microorganisms. Traditional knowledge has been characterised as holistic, and resistant to categorisation
according to western scientific criteria. The implications of this for an assessment of the state of retention
of traditional knowledge are self-evident: predominantly being problems of cultural translation. The
implications for continued efforts in preserving and promoting traditional knowledge, however, and using
it to assist our sustainable use of biodiversity, however, are rather more uncertain.

TK can be codified and categorised in very different ways. What Western science defines as ‘traditional
ecological knowledge’ is, for example, distinguished by the Guanano in Colombia as ‘sacred’ knowledge
(held by a shaman), ‘specialised’ knowledge, ‘women’s knowledge’ and ‘cross-sectional knowledge’
(produced by exchanges between neighbouring groups) (South America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10).
Two lessons can be drawn from this example. Firstly, much TK is conceived of by its creators according
to its holders — the people who use it — rather than its subject matter (what it is used for). This
emphasises as well as any example the importance of the people involved, and highlights the divisive
tension between ‘conservation’ and ‘development’. The second critical point is that the way knowledge
and related practices are conceptualised by those who use them, and thus the way they are managed and
implemented, can be very different to the manner in which NGOs and governments would proceed. The
practical consequence is that any measure and initiative to protect, promote and facilitate the use of
traditional knowledge will stand a much greater chance of success if it is designed and presented in terms
which are meaningful to TK holders themselves.

Further examples illustrate the ‘alternative’ categories by which knowledge of the environment and
natural resource use is conceived of and applied. The Achuar of the Ecuadorian Amazon have
developed a complex taxonomic system and typologies of soil and landscape. They distinguish between
five significant categories: the plains, the spreading plains of the Pastaza River, the plains and partly
marshy recent alluvial terraces, the non-alluvial valleys and the hills (South America
UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10). Many indigenous groups have knowledge systems linking together all
aspects of the environment with cosmology and religion. The environmental knowledge of the Fulani in
West Africa transcends technical notions and carrying capacity and links ecology with cosmology and
religious values. Land and its products are carefully utilised as a source of food, pasture and medicine to
cure humans or animals from a range of diseases. Prayers for rain (salati el istisga) are often administered
during drought, and it is a widespread view that any misuse of the trees, water and grass would induce
droughts and epidemics, and alienate human beings from the gifts of nature (Africa
UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3). This image of a holistic system of knowledge is emphasised in the case of
South America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10, which calls for a reevaluation of development and
conservation approaches according to appropriate traditional concepts and categories. The example of the
multifarious uses to which the corn plant is used show how our own categories are incompatible with
those ‘on the ground’:

“All parts of the corn plant are used. The fruit is used for food, fresh leaves for wrapping and for forage,
and the cane and dry leaves for forage and fuel. The plant is also used as medicine. Fresh leaves are used
to cure wound, the cooked grains are given for malnutrition, and the hair is used as a diuretic.”

South America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10

It is necessary, according to the report, “to understand the relationship between indigenous culture and
nature in order to understand their bond with nature.” Traditional knowledge is in fact a part of a
complex, interwoven system that has been maintained for centuries. Such knowledge and practices

299

‘cannot be fragmented from everything that gives them sense and continuity’.

UNEP/CBD/WG8)J/3/INF/1
Page 14

6.2 The global scale

It is not possible to generalise as to the state of retention of traditional biodiversity-related knowledge on
a global scale. Even within regions, and further down at the level of nation states and even within
indigenous groups, there is often a high degree of variation. In North America, for example,

“Indigenous knowledge, innovation and practice in North America are simultaneously extinct,

threatened, in decline, in recovery and thriving.”

North America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/8

However, there can be no doubt that traditional knowledge faces a host of threats, from many different
comers, and every region covered under this report produced examples of traditional knowledge having
either disappeared, or at the risk of disappearing.

In Niue, for example, the government recognises a decline in traditional knowledge especially amongst
young people (Pacific UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/9). This trend is echoed by Saami (Europe and Russia
UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/7) and Maori elders (Pacific UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/9), as well as those of
North American indigenous communities (North America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/8).

The general picture in Africa, too seems to be that traditional knowledge is disappearing rapidly, and the
damage done to the region’s rich biodiversity is widely linked with this (Africa
UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/3). Systems of agriculture based on traditional knowledge, for example, are
being gradually eroded, largely due to the adoption of “modern” farming methods and losing sight of the
value of traditional knowledge and agrobiodiversity. Responding to international market forces, however,
new high-yield hybrids, and exotic species have also been introduced, and commercial monocropping is
having a disastrous impact on both biodiversity and the associated traditional knowledge and practices.

The greatest threats to traditional knowledge, raised in each regional report, are the loss of rights to land,
and the decline in use of traditional languages. These issues are to be explored at length in Phase 2 of the
composite report, and it is recommended to the Working Group on Article 8(j) that this urgent and
massive task be begun as soon as possible, and guaranteed sufficient resources with which to meet its
objectives.

Traditional knowledge continues to be the subject of much ridicule, from sceptics in government and
conservation alike. This is a problem that is highlighted particularly in Africa, but lack of recognition of
the special status of indigenous people and of the value of their knowledge is responsible for the rapid
destruction of traditional lifestyles.

In Asia (Australia, Asia and the Middle East UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/4), the outstanding examples of
encouraging the use of traditional knowledge relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity are to be found in China and India. This is true particularly of traditional medicines and
subsistence agriculture.

Europe is generally perceived as lacking in traditional knowledge which has not been integrated into
“modern” systems of knowledge and practice. There are nonetheless many examples of traditional
practices of landscape management, pastoral use and agriculture, which are proven to sustain a much
greater level of biodiversity than the destructive intensive farming and industry which appears to
predominate in the region. These practices, mostly limited to rural communities (variously considered
more “traditional” or less “developed”) are in danger, as the communities themselves are facing
disintegration (Pacific UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/7).

6.3 “Traditional” prohibitions and protected areas

One area of traditional practice which potentially enables the sustainable use, or conservation, of
biodiversity is that of the imposition of traditional prohibitions, “fallow periods” and taboos. In many
cultures, in most regions, traditional restrictions — which may or may not be accompanied by traditional
sanctions — have the effect of restricting or prohibiting access to resources. Examples of such restrictions

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 15

include short- or long-term temporary prohibitions on certain species, such as Maori rahui in New
Zealand (Pacific UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/9). A similar (evidently related) concept in the Cook Islands
is ra’ui, whereby chiefs imposed a ban on “fishing grounds and species they deemed to be threatened”
(Pacific UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/9).Temporary restrictions can be expressed simply as “fallow periods”.
In Fiji, farmers have scattered plots, (teitei), according to the type of land available and the quality of the
soil. The crops which have the highest food value and which take the most from the soil are planted on
the newly created areas. The lesser crops follow as the soil becomes less fertile until the time comes,
after several seasons, when the land is left fallow to rest (Pacific UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/9).

Also in the Pacific, Solomon distinguishes between two forms of temporary restriction in Niue: fono, and
usually longer term (sometimes permanent) restrictions known as tapu (Solomon:39). Often such tapu
are imposed for “spiritual or sacred reasons”, and a sacred dimension frequently underpins these and other
facets of traditional management.

Beyond the Pacific, throughout Asia, North and South America and Africa, certain species or certain
areas are set apart from everyday use, or exploitation proscribed altogether, with the effect of preserving
the local biodiversity intact. It has been proven that such traditions can be used in order to protect
biodiversity, while remaining sympathetic to local needs, thus enhancing effectiveness (an incentive to
participation).

6.4 Sacred sites

In Africa and South America there are numerous examples of sacred areas — most frequently forests or
water bodies (lakes or rivers), access to which is restricted, or completely prohibited. Africa
UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3 refers to the documentation of prohibitions and taboos surrounding “sacred” or
“fetish” forests in numerous African countries, where the felling of trees is forbidden, and often ordinary
people are forbidden from entering. Here, too, certain species are said to have certain divine or spiritual
association, and thus revered, or avoided as malevolent.

Sacred sites are a key issue in all the regions covered: be they Saami archaeological sites, sacred groves
in Cameroon, sacred mountains in North America, Aboriginal sites of cultural significance in
Australia, cemeteries and cremation grounds in Laos, or Kichwa sacred rivers in Ecuador. Prohibitions
and restrictions on access and exploitation may be permanent or temporary; long- or short-term, and may
or may not be explicitly intended to conserve or manage the use of biodiversity. Two things are clear,
however, from the global survey presented in this report:

Firstly, in almost every region, these traditional taboos are under threat. In Laos, community-managed
sacred forests established with government sanction continue to be plundered by illegal logging
operations (Australia, Asia and the Middle East UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/4). In Niue, fono and tapu are
in decline “due to lack of awareness amongst youth, pressure to clear land and harvest resources, and
poorly defined boundaries” (Pacific UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/9). In Burundi and Zimbabwe, sacred
forests are less respected due in part to increased pressure on land as populations grow, coupled with a
breakdown of traditional beliefs and customs.

This global trend is not only a concern because fragile ecosystems may be under threat, however. The
loss of the existing balanced relationship between people and “their” environment is evidence of a more
general cultural change. As has been said in regard to land rights and language retention, it is within
more general (not simply “ecological” as western science defines it) traditions that the functions of these
practices lie, and it is towards these that more efforts must be directed.

Secondly, there is evidence that the integration of “traditional” and “modern” or “western” systems of
environmental protection do work. In the Cook Islands, a ra’ui banning exploitation of certain fish was
supported by the government. It allowed the community to manage their resources without further
draining government finances, and acted as an incentive for future involvement (Pacific
UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/9).

In Senegal, three national parks have been established on sacred forests, providing an extra degree of
legal protection (Africa UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3). In New Zealand, Solomon describes two indigenous

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 16

conservation areas, managed by Maori communities according to their own principles (Pacific
UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/9).

There are two considerations, however, to be borne in mind while recommending that such examples be
replicated in other situations. Firstly, all contexts are different — article 8(j) is not simply dealing with
traditional knowledge, but with traditional knowledge holders — any initiative, and particularly those
involving legislation, must be fully sensitive to the feelings, needs, wants and expectations of the
traditional, local or indigenous communities concerned. Given the profound disadvantages experienced
by many indigenous peoples who have found their homes, livelihoods or culturally purposeful sites
swallowed up by national parks, any incorporation of such sites into protected areas must be done with
the full consultation, fully informed consent and subsequently the full cooperation of the indigenous
community in question.

Furthermore, however — as cases such as that of the Laotian sacred forest protected areas show — such
prohibitions, even when backed up by Government sanction and legislation, often fail because of lack of
enforcement. Governments can provide considerable assistance, but this research has shown that they can
just as easily make a bad situation worse, through intervention or through inactivity. Also, government
support is not always feasible, particularly in developing nations lacking the necessary resources.
Alternatives need to be found.

6.5 Traditional Medicinal Knowledge

Traditional Medicinal knowledge is one area of traditional knowledge which appears to be enjoying a
healthy state of retention throughout the regions covered. Numerous sources (e.g. Zhang 2000) attest
both to the continued practice of traditional medicine in developing countries and renewed, or new growth
in the use of such traditional products in industrialised countries. Traditional medicine remains popular in
Africa and South America because it is cheap, and western medicine is often less accessible:

“The major reason though for the probable ongoing stability of traditional medicinal knowledge is that it
is likely to remain in constant use by the majority of the population. The World Health Organisation
stated in 2000 that: “African Member States are aware of the fact that about 80% of the population living
in the African Region depend on traditional medicine for their health care needs,”

(WHO 2000).
The holders of traditional medicinal knowledge differ dramatically within different indigenous
communities. Different categories of knowledge, pertaining to different kinds of ailments, may be the
specialities of different groups or individuals within a community. Some knowledge may be secret,
treated as a family ‘heirloom’, the province of women, or shared by everyone. Studies by Geissler et al,
and Cocks and Dold (Africa UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF3) draw attention to the wide distribution of the
preparation and application of traditional herbal medicine, highlighting the prevalence of self-medication,
which is often missed by ethnographic studies:

“In some cases all members of the community may know how to treat a wide range of common diseases
and only seek the advice of a traditional healer for advice on specific diseases when their own treatments
have failed.”

Africa UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3

However, it is unclear to what extent the popularity of this knowledge, and the large (and expanding)
market for traditional medicinal products can be seen as conducive toward the aims of Article 8(j). In
fact, many sources have commented on the damage that harvesters of traditional medicinal products are
causing to biodiversity, where the product is collected from the wild. The popular examples of rhino horn
and tiger flesh in traditional remedies and potions are of course well known. The trade in faunal products
in other parts of the world, however is large and increasing:

“In any case, in all the Amazonian countries there is an increasing trade of faunal products through the
popular markets for medicines and amulets. This derives from an increased popularity of herbal medicine
and zootherapy which have become part of the urban popular medicine, as alternative models to the
official medicine.

South America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10

(eee

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 17

The popularity of traditional medicine in urban centres around the world is revitalising traditional
knowledge, and increasing its profile, adding pressure on wild collected resources. However,
commercialisation, and changing technologies of harvesting and production, such as the development of
commercial cultivation of Devil’s Claw Harpagophytum spp. in Namibia and South Africa, can also
have a detrimental impact on both biodiversity and local communities, unless the process is sensitively
managed (Krugmann in Africa UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3).

The apparently “damaging” aspects of traditional knowledge in general will be discussed further below.

7 State of retention of traditional biodiversity-related knowledge: the need for a change
in perspectives

7.1 Problems of romanticizing IK

TK excites a range of impassioned responses. Ellen & Harris (2000) refer, as do numerous other reports,
to the tendency among academics, NGOs, Indigenous Rights organisations, journalists and some
conservationists, to romanticise indigenous people. In particular, after the definition of indigenous people
offered by Posey (1997:6, see above), indigenous people are characterised by their traditional knowledge
and practices, and both are “close to nature” or “close to the soil”. Indigenous peoples’ activists claim a
relationship of intimacy, reciprocity and respect with their natural environment, which involves their
entire culture and lifestyle, embracing what Western conservationists are increasingly accepting as
“traditional ecological knowledge” (TEK) within a holistic system. Such claims — to a special degree of
expertise, and a traditional right (based on generations of experience) to care for and manage their own
territories, are the basis of much of the activity of Indigenous rights activists, and form the bedrock of the
work of the CBD in relation to Article 8(j).

Ellen and Harris, acknowledging as do many the vital importance of traditional knowledge in any
“pragmatic development strategy”, nonetheless warn of the damages of an over-romanticised view of TK,
and indigenous peoples:

“most of us will also accept that the claims made for the environmental wisdom of native peoples have
sometimes been misjudged and naive, replacing denial [of its efficacy] with effusive blanket endorsement
and presenting an ‘ecological Eden’ to counter some European or other exemplary ‘world we have
lost’”.

Ellen & Harris 2000:1

This romantic vision may very well be true to specific ‘indigenous’ conceptions of the relationship
between humanity and nature. However, it does not make sound practical sense to, or convince many
governments and other agencies in whose hands control currently rests. It is thus often repackaged and
marketed in a way which makes more sense to a Western, development-focused, ‘practical’
conservationist ethos; in terms of ‘traditional ecological knowledge’. This perspective has little use for
the other facets of a ‘holistic? knowledge system, with its alien rituals, obscure religious and spiritual
beliefs, shamans etc. The repackaging of TK highlights the persistent struggle which advocates of TK
maintain against dismissive and even condemnatory attitudes. This struggle has important practical
implications, and will be discussed through examples in the following section.

7.2 How to deal with perceived detrimental impact of IK/P

Traditional practices everywhere are open to condemnation on the grounds that they harm the
environment, rather than protecting it. It appears that there is often evidence on both sides of the debate,
and often the argument is as much political as it is ‘practical’, ‘ecological’ or ‘scientific’. Nonetheless, a
brief discussion of some examples from the global survey highlights some key issues.

Traditional practices are evidently not always conducive to the sustainable use and conservation of
biodiversity — the first criticism of the ‘ecological Eden’ tendency described above. In Tanzania and
Namibia, two examples are presented (Africa UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3) of indigenous perceptions of

Vice

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 18

fish stocks as limitless: while young cattle or eggs are rarely consumed to allow them to grow to maturity,

299

“fish are somehow different from living things...they constitute a near-limitless ‘resource’.

Deforestation in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in Iran is blamed upon local indigenous
communities. The Iranian National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP Secretariat 2001:8, in
Australia, Asia and the Middle East UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/4) advocates the resettlement of the
communities in question.

In a number of examples from Africa (and echoing accusations levelled at Saami and other reindeer
herders in Europe and Russia), pastoralists are accused of over-grazing. In the Ngorongoro Conservation
Area (Tanzania) in particular, a long battle has raged between officials and Maasai pastoralists, who
accuse each other of destroying the local habitat. Some traditional practices are actively discouraged.
Grazing is prohibited in certain areas.

Africa UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3 refers to the pervasive colonial stereotypes of ‘backward’ livestock
practices. If not actually destructive, traditional practices are all-too often perceived as inferior to
‘modern’ ‘western’, ‘scientific’ methods. In response, indigenous spokesmen attribute the destruction of
biodiversity to years of colonial and postcolonial mismanagement.

What is the truth of all this, however? One type of traditional practice: ‘swidden’ or ‘slash and burn’
agriculture, is common to many of the regions covered in this report, and illuminates many of the issues
raised so far.

7.3 The rights and wrongs of slash and burn

Swidden Agriculture, or ‘slash and burn’, has been practised in forest regions of Africa, South America,
and elsewhere for centuries, its cyclical pattern ensuring balanced productivity and continued healthy
levels of biodiversity. In Ecuador, the Amazonian (Achuar) system of ‘slash and burn’ (roza y quema)
provides at least 100 species of food crop. Throughout Central America it is known by many names,
whether “milpa” (Aztec) or “col’ (Maya). In the Philippines, the Hanunoo plant rice and 300 other
cultivars according to this method.

When used properly, it is suggested:
“This system has enormous advantages in the preservation of biodiversity since the space used

as orchard is maintained for two to three years, after which the terrain is left to regenerate into

a secondary forest.”
Central America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/6

Carriere (2002, in Africa UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3) characterises swidden cultivation by its effect of
“creating an equilibrium between forest dynamics and crop cultivation in order to sustain food production
over the long term.” All examples seem to show that swidden provides a relatively rich and varied supply
of foodstuffs, as well as woods, fibres and medicines, in a way which maintains a balanced and
biodiversity-rich environment. Examples such as Carriere’s study of Ntumu cultivation in Cameroon also
show the integration of indigenous cosmologies and belief systems into an ostensibly subsistence activity:
some trees are spared due to their cultural or spiritual significance, while in the Philippines, the Hanunoo
avoid some taboo or sacred areas of the forest.

It would seem that this system is the classic example of TK/P which must be preserved. However, in

some parts of the world, its advantages are not so readily recognised. Australia, Asia and the Middle
East UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/4 suggests that:

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 19

“swidden agriculture, or shifting agriculture, poses a threat to the ways of life of mountain
dwelling peoples who use these practices, because of the high rates of biodiversity loss and soil

infertility that result from the forest destruction entailed in this mode of production.”

Examples from Latin America, too, carry the warning that the system is not as productive as it should be.
South America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10 blames this on an increase in the use of agrochemicals,
encouraged by new rural development policies to meet increased demographic pressures. Carriere has
warmed that swidden is effective only in small populations, or low population density. Where swidden is
seen to be damaging, one or both of two conditions seem to apply:

1) Pressure on land and natural resources have escalated to the extent that the increased population
can no longer subsist by practising slash and burn as was traditionally done.

2) Economic pressures have forced people with little or no knowledge or experience of slash and
burn cultivation to adopt such practices. One, most serious, consequence of this change is that
areas of forest are cleared without regard to the knowledge that has informed such practices
traditionally — to select only forest with 10-12 years growth, for example (fallow growth being an
indication of soil condition) or selecting an appropriate time for burning.

Effectively, then, the dilemma regarding slash and burn agriculture is a matter of scale. As with many
forms of traditional knowledge, swidden farming is best suited to small-scale agricultural production,
pursued by smaller communities with low population density. It is when populations grow, or when
(through forest clearance by industry or intensive farming) demand on the land otherwise becomes too
great, that the problems arise.

To generalise: where traditional practices are held to be responsible for damaging local biodiversity, it is
because the conditions of their application have somehow changed. In the example of over-fishing In
Namibia and Tanzania, above, for example, the traditional understanding of fish as a limitless resource
is based on a long period when fish were indeed so bountiful that they appeared limitless, while
husbandry of land animals required more sensitivity. That this situation has changed speaks as much of
the threat to the people themselves as to the river’s ecosystem.

7.4 Issues of credibility vs. scientific knowledge

If one obstacle to the retention and promotion of TK is the perceived detrimental impact of many
traditional practices, another — potentially less refutable — block is the sense that much TK is not viable
because it is somehow ‘irrelevant’ or (echoing colonial attitudes to ‘primitive’ and ‘savage’ peoples)
based on ‘superstition’ and folklore rather than scientific fact. Returning briefly to the problem of
terminology, the description of TK as ‘folklore’ in much of Africa bears implicitly dismissive
connotations of backwardness and superstition (Kongolo 2001: 356 in Africa UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3).

The credibility of TK with respect to ‘scientific’ knowledge is questioned in terms of either its efficacy or
its ‘rationality’. We shall discuss the question of rationality first:

7.5 Religion and rationality

The Waitangi tribunal was established to consider Maori claims relating to the Treaty of Waitangi which
has, since 1840, regulated European settlement and Maori land ownership in New Zealand. In a
landmark claim from the early 1990s concerning the Whangami River, the Tribunal found in favour of a
Maori claim (Wail67) that the Crown had violated the terms of the Treaty, violated Maori traditional
knowledge, and acted inappropriately. In doing so, it supported the traditional belief system of the
claimants: that the River was a “single indivisible entity” and a “living being” (Solomon 2003).

Such sensitivity (albeit overdue) to indigenous belief systems is rare however. It has been stated
repeatedly that traditional knowledge does not fit into Western categories; that indigenous understandings
of the world, of nature are broadly holistic, and cannot be judged in terms of categories with which we are

ffoae

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 20

comfortable (South America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10). In many countries (Europe and Russia
UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/7) TK has been the subject of ridicule, considered unscientific, irrational and
thus worthless. Such discrimination is a clear threat to the retention of TK.

In the context of traditional medicine, for example, the spiritual dimension of medicinal practice appears
to be of less obvious interest in terms of biodiversity protection and is therefore ignored. Saami noiades,
or spiritual leaders (often described as “shamans”) used plants and animal products in their medicine but,
should diagnosis be uncertain, would seek advice from the spirit world using a shamanic drum (Brenna,
in Europe and Russia UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/7). Similarly, in South America practitioners of
traditional medicine, shamans, faith healers and yachacs are a link between the natural and supernatural
(South America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10). It is in the use of categories to conceptualise the natural
environment that the difficulty seems most widespread: local and indigenous categories do not fit easily
with those of conservationists and development workers:
“In the Afro-Americans of El Choco, “fright” can be classified as: hill, water, alive and of high hill.
These phobias can only be cured with vegetables and elements characteristic of those high places or
situations. If a person is frightened of the “high hill” or deep forest, the faith healer should pick the
healing vegetables in those places.”

South America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10
Fundamental cultural frameworks such as religious systems or systems of traditional medicine can and do
play a vital role in the retention of biodiversity-related knowledge systems. In fact, as pointed out in
Australia, Asia and the Middle East UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/4, there is great potential in the
engagement of religious institutions in activities aimed at the maintenance of such knowledge systems.
Dismissive and derisory attitudes to traditional knowledge must be reassessed if the principles and goals
embodied in Article 8(j) are to be successfully enacted. Equally traditional knowledge cannot therefore be
split up and repackaged in terms of “TEK”, TM or even knowledge of PGRFA or ecosystem
management, without losing touch with the guiding beliefs and principles which inform that which we
find most valuable.

Recommendation 9

Interpretations of Article 8(j) should be clarified in such a way as to determine the relevance of traditional
knowledge which is apparently unrelated to biodiversity management.

7.6 Effectiveness

It is more common to find TK dismissed as inapplicable or ineffective: that it is inferior to modern,
scientific knowledge. In Niue, for example, the NBSAP considers traditional knowledge and practices
insufficient to manage biodiversity in their own right, unless enforced and supplemented through “modern
management methods” (Solomon 2003).

Where TK is recognised as potentially useful by governments, it is often considered subordinate to (and
can therefore be overruled by) what Australia, Asia and the Middle East UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/4 call
“Western technoscience”. In Australia, for example, TK is often identified as:

“something to ‘take into account’ within the existing technoscientific policy framework rather than as a
serious, legitimate, comprehensive and workable system of sustainable environmental governance and
management that has been practiced for millenia to maintain Australia’s biodiverse resources and
environments. ”

Australia, Asia and the Middle East UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/4
Yet it is often the case that traditional methods can be just as effective in terms of sustainability and
productivity as ‘modern’ methods. Ethiopia, for example, is the tenth largest producer of honey and

fourth of beeswax. Such high levels of productivity are achieved by predominantly traditional production
techniques (Russo 2000 in Africa UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3).

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 21

TK is threatened as long as it is undervalued. A first step in securing TK and its practitioners is to raise its
profile and increase acceptance of it as a viable management strategy. This can be achieved through a
closer engagement between TK and Western science. In North America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3, the
value of TK is noted as being already proven by numerous examples of indigenous peoples having
“shown up the mistaken assumptions of non-indigenous scientists.” By strengthening TK’s credibility,
such experiences encourage further participation of indigenous people in activities to which they can
bring such knowledge. In addition to encouraging TK-holders to share and apply their TK, however,
improving the image of TK can reverse a damaging trend whereby young indigenous people are
forsaking, not applying, or even never learning, the traditional environmental wisdom of their
communities — seduced by western education and its promise of a modern, urban, affluent lifestyle. This
trend can only be reversed by lifting TK from its current inferior position.

One way to enhance the image of TK has been demonstrated by a number of African nations in relation to
Traditional Medicine. Traditional herbal medicine is being used in hospitals in Ghana to treat malaria as
well as ‘lifestyle’ diseases like hypertension, diabetes and arthritis. In Mali, traditional remedies are
being used in the fight against HIV and AIDS. Medicinal Gardens throughout Africa (numerous
examples are also documented in South America and Europe) not only provide ex situ conservation but
also resources with which to educate TMK consumers and practitioners, advertising TM to communities
very much in need of accessible, affordable health care. As well as enhancing popularity of TK among
the public, however, there are examples of efforts to enhance the profile of TK in the scientific
community. Testing of traditional medicinal formulae by the centre for scientific research into herbal
medicine in Mampong, Ghana, has proven the clinical effectiveness of over 200 medicinal plants.
However, scientific approaches and traditional knowledge system are not always compatible and as
always, TK holders must be in a position of control.

7.7 Consequences of past persecution

The example of traditional medicine in North America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/8 in particular
demonstrates that past, and sometimes enduring, persecution of traditional healers can lead to a reluctance
on the part of today’s traditional medical practitioners to discuss traditional medicine. The task of
determining the current state of traditional medical knowledge is thus made more difficult. To combat
this tendency, this distrust, and make the CBD’s programme of work in this area more manageable,
efforts must be made to “win the hearts and minds” of peoples who have been systematically abused for
generations.

Traditional medicine has been particularly vulnerable to western religious proselytizing, as its practice
has often involved explicit interaction with spirits (see above). Its connection to biodiversity is thus
perhaps not so obvious, except for the fact that many of the plant and animal ingredients are harvested
(sustainably or otherwise) from the local environment. Traditional Medicinal practices tend to be most
frequently perceived in terms of their detrimental impact on the environment. This perceived impact,
however, is perhaps linked to (and at the same time makes TM more vulnerable to) increased exploitation
by non-TK holders. Whereas other forms of knowledge are being exploited with the emphasis on how
they can be sustained, in this case knowledge is often sought in order that it might be plundered.

7.8 Impact of market forces and “free trade” (and trade agreements)

Whether in the form of a flood of new commercially produced products into local markets, the advent of
new industries bringing changes to the local job markets, or the promise of economic security through
western education, market forces are having a profound effect not only on local economies, but on the
cultures and traditional practices of indigenous peoples and minorities.

South America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10 discusses the problem of migration from local and
indigenous communities in the Andean region of South America to urban centres.

UNEP/CBD/WG83J/3/INF/1
Page 22

“The phenomenon of migration has had an effect on the traditional knowledge on biodiversity.
Some of the systems that harvest rainwater on hillsides have been abandoned because of the loss

of manpower required for its maintenance. Traditional knowledge is not passed on to the next

,

generation because the youth leave to work as labour.’

Similarly, in Kiribati, where fishing is the second largest source of foreign exchange, “instead of learning
how to fish people are focusing on obtaining a western style education or learning other occupations”
(Pacific UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/9). Fish traps and other fishing practices are being abandoned as people
are pursuing other activities such as education, working abroad, and using the money to buy tinned fish.

Elsewhere in the Pacific, economic and cultural intervention by larger states is bringing changes to
traditional consumption patterns, and thus has an indirect impact on traditional agricultural and culinary
practices. The Federated States of Micronesia, for example, has entered into a Compact of Free
Association with the USA. There is a noticeable shift to western-based values and practices, which have
been linked directly to an over-reliance on associated aid programmes and increased urbanisation, and the
wider availability of imports from Western countries (Pacific UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/9).

Another sphere in which international market forces have impacted upon traditional practices, and thus
upon the balance of local biodiversity, is that of agriculture. For instance, monocropping in the Andes
has had a significant impact on the production of potatoes, which had an immense ritual significance for
the Incas. The introduction of industrialised and homogenous plant cultures dramatically accelerates the
loss of genetic patrimony, and breaks the continuity of traditional knowledge, as well as generating
greater dependency in the market as traditional, locally-produced, are no longer available (South
America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10).

Although this report has not been concerned with the intricacies of intellectual property rights or, more
broadly, the commercialisation of indigenous and traditional knowledge, Article 8(j) is itself an example
of the increasing “marketability” of traditional knowledge. Concerns have been raised that potential
commercialisation threatens the security and sustainability of traditional knowledge. Examples from
India and the Philippines (e.g. Peoples’ Biodiversity register) provide the means to register and thus
preserve to some extent TK systems, but also have the potential to make them vulnerable to
commercialisation, without the consent of TK holders. However, instances where traditional medicine, for
example, is being commercially produced — even when benefit-sharing agreements have been worked out
— pose other dangers:

“If the potential for commercialisation becomes the key criteria for promoting, protecting and facilitating
the use of traditional and indigenous knowledges, then the aspects of these knowledge systems of, for
example, natural resource management that are not amenable to commodification and commercialisation
will be placed in jeopardy, not least because sui generis protective measures will not be developed or
extended to them.”

UNEP/CBD/WGS8J/INF/4

8 Research, documentation and assessment

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 23

8.1. Indicators

The need to establish reliable and clear indicators, both for the assessment of the state of retention and
traditional biodiversity-related knowledge, and to assess and evaluate measures and initiatives to protect,
promote and facilitate the use of traditional knowledge, is voiced in each of the regional reports.
The various consultants who compiled these reports encountered a series of practical and conceptual
difficulties, with regard to which several recommendations have been made for future action. These
obstacles to the successful implementation of Article 8(j) should, we suggest, be tackled as a matter of
urgency, and ideally before work commences on Phase 2 of the Composite Report.
The absence of clearly defined and reliable indicators constitutes both a practical and conceptual problem.
North America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/8 expresses concisely the dilemma with respect to Part I of this
report:
“as with determining one’s physical well being, determining the health of traditional knowledge could be
deduced from the existence or not of particular symptoms. While we have a general understanding of
concepts of health in one’s corporeal body, there is no agreement on what may constitute a healthy body
of traditional knowledge, innovation or practice. What are the indicators of health? Examples might
include the degree of language retention, degree of access to traditional territories, social health of
communities, duration and degree of contact with non-indigenous communities, extinctions of species,
etc.”
Agreement on the most reliable indicators of a healthy state of traditional knowledge, innovation and
practice, she continues, will facilitate the preparation of future reports particularly by defining a baseline
of health.
Australia, Asia and the Middle East UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/4 proposes four indicators “to gauge the
existence of traditional biodiversity related knowledge amongst indigenous peoples and local
communities”:

1. Recognition of the land and sea upon which indigenous peoples and local communities rely for

subsistence;

2. The extent of the dependence of human populations on traditional knowledge for subsistence

3. The extent of language diversity

4. The persistence of religious beliefs and practices
In addition to these four points, they also include a fifth, supplementary indicator:

5. Recognition of Traditional Medicinal Knowledge
Each of these potential indicators have been discussed in this report. Two in particular — land rights and
linguistic diversity — have received considerable attention.
Central America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/6 suggests language retention as a reliable indicator of
retention of traditional knowledge in the region, highlighting the often detrimental impact of language
loss:

“Tt appears that acquiring a superior command of the Spanish language also contributes
significantly to diminishing the knowledge of plant names and plant-naming competences, which
are indicators of correct knowledge of use.”

Maffi (1998), cited in Australia, Asia and the Middle East UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/4 complements this
claim, and in doing so highlights the close links between linguistic and cultural diversity and biodiversity:

“Countries with large numbers of languages are those with the most forests, are nearer the

tropics and with mountain ranges.”

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 24

Language retention is also regarded as a priority in the reports on Europe and Africa. In reference to
Africa, traditional knowledge is described as particularly vulnerable to change by its very nature, both
because it is retention is dependent upon continued practice on the land where it was developed, and
because it is rarely written down and recorded. In both circumstances, language is of major importance.
Without continued practice on traditional lands, and without adequate (ex situ) recording of knowledge no
longer practiced, language becomes more and more essential:

“Out of the context of the language within which it developed, knowledge is easily distorted and lost.”
Africa UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3

There are few examples of such indicators being used in the planning of measures and initiatives to
protect, promote and facilitate the use of traditional knowledge in relation to biodiversity. One such
example, however, is the call made by the National Aboriginal Forestry Association (NAFA), Canada,
for inclusion of specific indicators for the pursuit of traditional practices in sustainable management
(North America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/8). These include

e opportunities for the practice of cultural and spiritual activities;
e the extent to which traditional knowledge been used in forest management planning;

e the overall economic well being of Aboriginal communities, including the continuation of
traditional Aboriginal economic activities;

e and, traditional land use through traditional land use studies

Such indicators, however, are expressed in terms of indigenous peoples. Australia, Asia and the Middle
East UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/4 argues that there should be recognition of the difference between
“indigenous people” and “local communities”, and we have already mentioned the differences between
traditional knowledge in “Western”, “industrialised” countries and developing countries. In view of these
distinctions, these indicators may not therefore be applicable.

More work needs to be done in determining a coherent and reliable list of indicators. Without appropriate
indicators of health, the state of retention of traditional biodiversity-related knowledge cannot be
adequately assessed. Such an assessment is the baseline necessary for planning future measures and
initiatives to maintain, or reverse, current trends in the state of retention of traditional biodiversity-related
knowledge.

There is one more issue which has not been adequately considered in the commissioning of this report,
and is not explicitly dealt with in the completed reports. The problems it creates, however, are evident in
the bewildering array of examples presented. The issue is best expressed in the following questions:
when can traditional knowledge be said to be related to biodiversity? How is this relationship to be
determined? When, if ever, is traditional knowledge irrelevant to biodiversity? What aspects of
traditional knowledge fall within the scope of Article 8(j), and of this report? Furthermore, when is such
traditional knowledge to be considered “in use”? The answers to these questions are far from clear, and
yet they must be answered if the mammoth task conferred upon Article 8(j) is to be remotely achievable.

Recommendation 10
Establish baseline indicators for the state of retention of traditional, local and indigenous knowledge

Recommendation 11

Establish baseline indicators to assess the success or failure of measures to promote or preserve
traditional knowledge and practices

Recommendation 12

A table presenting population data on indigenous peoples worldwide, comparing this information with
Parties’ statements on the importance of traditional knowledge, and ratification of relevant international

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 25

conventions, has been included in Appendix 1. It is recommended that this work be continued, and kept
up to date, as a representation of indicators of the state of retention.

Recommendation 13
A table listing legislative measures to protect, promote and facilitate the use of traditional knowledge, as

drawn from the regional reports, is presented in Appendix 2. It is recommended that this work be
continued, and kept up to date.

8.2. Need for further research

The need for further research into many of the questions posed by the Working Group has been echoed in
each report. The original timeframe in which this report was to be completed was tight enough. The time
and resources ultimately available for the project have made the completion of an “accurate and
comprehensive assessment”, as called for by the CBD Secretariat in Decision VI/10.

One recommendation for further research is that the CBD Secretariat facilitate the flow of information on
traditional lifestyles and biodiversity use by producing and circulating a new Thematic Report on Article
8() and related provisions. There is an incredibly diverse range of groups and interests involved in issues
surrounding Article 8(j), and indeed the need for this report and the Article as a whole is occasioned by
the relatively poor state of integration of indigenous interests with the structures of biodiversity
conservation. This situation has not changed sufficiently, and there is a need for greater effort on the part
of the CBD to facilitate communication with the groups involved. This brief survey has demonstrated
that many of the most effective instances of the integration of traditional knowledge with the conservation
and sustainable use of biodiversity are small, community-focussed, resource-limited enterprises.
Channels of communication with such groups, particularly in developing countries, require further
development. There certainly needs to be more accommodation of the needs of these groups.
Connections and relationships must be built up and maintained over time, and information allowed to
flow in both directions, before another survey exercise such as this can be effective.

While there is doubtless a need for further targeted research, both empirical and secondary, as called for
by each of the consultants, there are important qualifications to consider prior to any recommendation.
These concern the sensitivities surrounding documentation and access to registers, and the need for a code
of research ethics.

8.3 Documentation issues

“The nature of traditional knowledge is such that more of it is transmitted orally than written down”
Daryl] Posey 1996:81

Most of what we consider to be “traditional knowledge” is transmitted orally. As such, it is rarely
documented in a form which is recognizable or useful to conservationists. This lack of written record also
makes traditional knowledge more vulnerable to permanent loss.

The situation is lamented in a statement by the Cameroon national focal point (in Africa
UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3). In a situation similar to most of the world’s developing countries, it is
claimed, lack of inventory of traditional knowledge and practices, along with lack of appropriate
protective legislation or clearly defined benefit-sharing mechanism, is “a major handicap” which prevents
“the government from benefiting from this rich heritage”

Documentation of traditional knowledge would, then, appear to be an unquestionably good thing. Yet the
quotation above demonstrates one of the primary concerns raised in opposition to documentation projects
such as traditional knowledge registers and databases. Discussing the lack of detailed information in the
available literature from which their report was compiled, Australia, Asia and the Middle East
UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/4 emphasises that theirs is not simply a methodological concern. Rather, it
concerns the future retention of traditional biodiversity-related knowledge:

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 26

“As national education systems are extended to rural and remote populations, the documentation of this
knowledge may be critical to the capacity of future generations of indigenous peoples and local
communities to access that knowledge.”
However, as hinted at by the above example from Cameroon, the intended beneficiaries of such
traditional knowledge documentation are not always the holders of such knowledge, or indeed their
descendents. The general issue of intellectual property rights, which pervades so much of the discussion
on access and benefit sharing is the subject of an ongoing assessment of the mechanisms for the
protection of traditional knowledge, carried out by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO),
in collaboration with the CBD and is outside the scope of this report. However, the issue of access to
knowledge, and in particular who has the right to regulate access to documentation or traditional
knowledge registers, and protect against external exploitation (e.g. biopiracy), is fundamental here.
In addition to its role in physically preserving knowledge that is somehow at risk of disappearing, another
vital purpose of sound documentation of traditional knowledge is the recognition of that knowledge, its
use, and of indigenous people as its holders:
“A community cannot build its capacity to mobilise its knowledge if there is no recognition that it is
owned by them.”

Australia, Asia and the Middle East UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/4.
Traditional knowledge must be recognised as credible and useful, but the rights of ownership of its
holders must also be ensured. For example, increased interest in the traditional knowledge of Inuit in
Greenland has put them in a difficult position:

“On the one hand, they are eager to have their knowledge integrated into research and policy
making which for so many years have ignored or looked down upon their knowledge. On the

other hand, they do not want to separate knowledge from context.”

Sejersen 1998:41, in Europe and Russia UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/7.

Similarly, in the case of North America the potential benefit is seen of the current high levels of
academic interest in traditional knowledge, but warns that this is not guaranteed to translate into benefits
for indigenous people:

“The interest of the academic world in traditional knowledge may help to secure the knowledge,
even if the interest does not extend to the practice and innovations related thereto. The many
activities underway presently to record traditional knowledge may at the very least provide
future generations with a record of the knowledge. Whether the knowledge is ever put into
practice will in large part decide whether it remains fresh, vibrant and relevant or becomes mere

fodder for the academic machine.”

North America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/8

In Africa, the recording of traditional medicinal knowledge is often part of initiatives to promote and
protect traditional medicinal knowledge. This is frequently a contentious issue, since once indigenous
knowledge of any kind is recorded, it is felt to be in more danger of exploitation, for example by

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 27

pharmaceutical companies. One possible solution to this dilemma is presented by organisations such as
Terrawatu, an NGO working in Tanzania. Terrawatu’s Medicinal plant use and conservation scoping
project compared and contrasted a rural and a peri-urban community, to investigate the influence of
urbanization on patterns of plant use. It ground-truthed the widespread perception that supplies of priority

plant species are decreasing in the district, and identified the threats to their preservation from both inside
and outside the communities.

The research produced a list of species (including both local and scientific names), habitats and uses, and
a description of the patterns of use (medicinal, ritual, nutritional, cosmetic, hygienic, construction, fuel,
fodder, etc.), importance, cultural significance, perceived availability and sustainability of harvest. The
notable aspect of this project was the dissemination of its findings. A summary paper was published,
presenting broad trends and a discussion of methodology, so as to enable replication of the project
elsewhere. The more comprehensive data on plant names, their growing conditions and use, for example,
was retained by the communities involved.

Thus the principal issue governing documentation of indigenous knowledge concerns access to the
results; Who gets to see it, and use it? Who, equally importantly, does not?

8.4 Access to registers

Regulation of access to traditional knowledge, once it is written down or documented in some other form,
is a problem common to indigenous people in a many regions. In South America as elsewhere, there is a
tendency to assume

“that common property is synonymous with open access, ignoring the fact that many local communities
do in fact regulate access to common property resources to ensure that they are developed fairly,
properly, and in a sustainable way. Traditional knowledge is passed on to those people who fulfil the
conditions to properly use and manage it.”

South America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10

The warning is clear: open access (by outsiders or members of the community in question who do not
otherwise have rights of access) can, and often does, cause the collapse of traditional resource
management systems:

“An unsuitable access to traditional knowledge may even cause the destruction of the cultural systems
and their productive mechanisms.”

Australia, Asia and the Middle East UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/4 warns against the misuse of traditionai
knowledge registers, using as an example the Aptanis of Arunachal Pradesh (India), who practice settled
agriculture in the Aptani Valley, Lower Subansiri district:

“The Apatanis are concerned about the loss of local varieties of paddy rice, the effects of population
growth on their agrarian resource base, and the need to expand education and employment opportunities
in their communities. In response to WWF suggestions that the Apatani peoples institute biodiversity
registers, the Apatani leaders insisted that traditional boundaries and resource distributions are known
and recognised within their communities and expressed concerns that a register may be misused by
government to assume control of land.”

Traditional knowledge registers do play a vital role in raising the profile of the knowledge and practices
and their holders. They can demonstrate the relationship between traditional knowledge and conservation
of biodiversity, where such a link has previously been in doubt. A project to document Karen traditional
knowledge in Northwest Thailand, for example, demonstrated their positive contribution to the local
environment in the face of threatened evictions (Australia, Asia and the Middle East
UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INEF/4). | However Ingold and Kurtilla (2000:186, in Europe and Russia
UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INEF/7) warn against potential pitfalls of a strategy which assumes that “to ensure the
continuation of valuable traditional wisdom, it is argued, no more is needed than adequate institutional
mechanisms for its storage and replication.” At worst, such a perspective can justify the very state

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 28

policies they hope to evade, removing indigenous peoples from their land. Knowledge can be preserved in
libraries and museums, but it is without value unless it continues to be practised.

Another example from India, however shows how arrangements can be made between researchers and
knowledge-holders to enable traditional knowledge to be used for conservation or other projects, and yet
be safe from indiscriminate exploitation without the people’s consent. In 1995, Kalpavriksh and the Beej
Bachao Aandolan (Save the Seeds Campaign), in collaboration with the villagers in Jardhar of the Teri
Garhwal district of Uttar Pradesh, initiated an exercise to document the various bio-resources used by the
community and their conservation practices. The members of the Beej Bachao Aandolan, a network of
local farmers who have been involved for a number of years now in reviving and spreading indigenous
crop diversity, actively collaborated with the Kalpavriksh members. By mutual agreement between
Kalpavriksh and the villagers, it was decided that a copy of the register will be kept in the village and
another copy would be kept by Kalpavriksh, and that all the information in the register can be used and
distributed only with the consent and knowledge of the villagers (Australia, Asia and the Middle East
UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/4).

8.5 “Secret knowledge”

The discussion in the previous sections has reinforced the point that not all traditional knowledge that
appears to be held in “common ownership” is in fact in the public domain. The warning from South
America reminds us that all intervention (for it must be realised that documentation and research are
forms of intervention) must show sensitivity to the traditional structures within which such knowledge is
held. The problem of “secret knowledge”, however, presents a yet greater dilemma.

Oral transmission leaves traditional knowledge more vulnerable to change, or (more optimistically) gives
it greater potential to adapt and develop. However, it could be argued that knowledge which is not
written down is easier to keep secret. Not all knowledge is intended to be for public consumption. It
might realistically be asked: does “secret knowledge” in fact constitute a sui generis system of protection?

In Kiribati (Pacific UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/9), traditional knowledge of fishing, weather forecasting,
navigating, building canoes, cultivation and traditional medicine are family heirlooms, which amongst
other things have a tradable value:

“These skills are kept within the family and can be transmitted to strangers or others outside the family

for special favours. Even when this happens not all the skill is revealed. The rest of the skill is imparted
at the deathbed to the carer. Sometimes the carer who may not be family may publicly challenge the
rightful heirs to claim that he or she gain full knowledge of the skill.”

The Kiribati example illustrates the importance to indigenous peoples of retaining the right to control
trade of, and access to, such knowledge. It suggests that knowledge, and particularly ownership of
knowledge, should be treated much more sensitively than is often the case, taking full account of the
power relationships involved in registers compiled by outside (western) groups. Traditional knowledge
registers are potentially useful, but also potentially dangerous. Ways of documenting and preserving
knowledge without infringing rights of ownership, undermining secret knowledge or denying the
knowledge-holders and their communities’ access to benefits have been developed in many instances.

In Tanzania, for example, Aang Serian and Terrawatu’s medicinal plant documentation project produced
a register of medicinal plants, access to which was controlled by the communities in question. A public
report provided some details of the research carried out, and the findings, but data which could
conceivably be of use to the community (and to outsiders) was excluded. This is an excellent example of
how research can illuminate the state of retention of traditional knowledge without disadvantaging the
source community (and can in fact benefit knowledge-holders and their communities). It also shows the
way for future ethical research in the area.

The benefit-sharing initiative between the Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute and the Kani
community in Kerala, India (Kerala Kani Samudya Kshema Trust), is a good example of the importance

ee

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 29

of goodwill on the part of the Research Institute, who informally shared receipts with the Kanis prior to
the formal establishment of a benefit-sharing arrangement. It does, however, raise concerns about
traditional knowledge registers:

“Intellectual property questions to be resolved for the creation of such a register include who operates the
register, who provides access to its contents to which parties on which terms, who conducts
documentation of the knowledge, who has the right to authorize documentation on behalf of the tribes,
which knowledge elements will be documented in which format, how to deal with local language
documentation in relation to national and international use of the register, etc. The role of the Plathis as
an informal association of healers which hold rights to the use of certain traditional medicinal knowledge
was not recognized by the benefit sharing arrangements in this case. Building on existing and accepted
institutions of traditional knowledge holders can be an important tool to structure their participation and
ensure the acceptance of the communities for benefit sharing arrangements.”

Pacific UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/9

Maroon traditional healers in Suriname were initially reluctant to participate in an International
Cooperative Biodiversity Group project because “it challenged Maroon tradition for healers to sell
knowledge about medicines to outsiders, or even to share it with them.” As ethnobotanical collecting
continued to develop, however, the traditional healers expressed a preference for being paid
approximately five dollars a day to participate as guides, rather than to “sell” their knowledge, per se
(South America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10).

Traditional knowledge may be held in secret, by members of one family, kin-group or age set, or by one
gender in secret from another, or it may be held in common between all members of a community. The
issue of secret knowledge may be frustrating to conservationists, who wish to use the specialist
knowledge of an indigenous people or local community to better conserve or sustainably use biodiversity.
It may be frustrating to development workers who want to ensure the preservation of the knowledge in
question. It is doubtless frustrating to bioprospectors or any group which seeks to exploit traditional
knowledge to its own ends. No outsider has the right to demand access to knowledge held by anyone, or
demand that it be shared with anyone else, even if it is deemed to be in the knowledge-holders’ best
interest. Moreover, access to knowledge may be restricted within a community. It should be appreciated
that researchers are able to access knowledge only with the consent of knowledge holders. Sometimes
this will be given freely, as in the case of the Maroon traditional healers of Suriname, other times it will
be closely guarded. Outsiders must respect the rules, and negotiate sensitively with the other factors,
which govern access to knowledge.

8.6 Research ethics

“The accelerated rate of Western research on Indigenous knowledge is deemed, at this point in time,
more of a threat to Indigenous peoples than a benefit for them.”
South America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10

“In Cameroon, the indigenous people or villagers constantly have the apprehension that any researcher
or exploiter coming into contact with them is likely to unfairly exploit their knowledge.”

Bokwe et al in Africa UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3

While it is acknowledged that an increasing amount of research is being conducted among indigenous
people, and particularly relating to traditional knowledge, the consultants responsible for the regional
reports have each called for more research to be done. In particular this should be targeted research,
geared to better answer the questions posed in the outline of the Composite Report. Yet despite the calls
for more research, there has been a signal failure in most of the reports to adequately deal with the crucial

topic of research ethics.

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 30

The regional reports on Africa and South America each refer to deep anxiety among indigenous people
about research conducted by outsiders within their communities. Indigenous people in North America,
too, have expressed concern that they are being exploited by anthropologists and other researchers, and
have taken action (as covered below).

The need for the development and enforcement of ethical guidelines on such a policy is clear. However,
there is no information from National Focal Points on the development of such policies. Where such
policies have been drawn up, they themselves often give inadequate attention to the needs of indigenous
peoples themselves.”

Professional and research Codes of Ethics have been adopted by numerous organisations, e.g. the
International Society for Ethnobiology and the American Association of Social Anthropology, although
the extent to which indigenous peoples are officially consulted in drawing up such ethical policies is
variable at best.

A number of indigenous and non-indigenous institutions in Canada have developed protocols to address
concerns about unethical research practices in indigenous communities. North America
UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/8 mentions the Mi’kmaw people’s Mi’kmaq Ethics Watch (2000), the Ethical
Principles for the Conduct of Research in the North, produced by the Association of Canadian
Universities for Northern Studies (1998) and the Yukon North Slope Research Guide, produced by the
North Slope Wildlife Management Advisory Council (2001).

Key principles to be borne in mind by potential researchers, as drawn up by the Mi’kmaw Grand Council
include:

e Mi’kmaw people are the guardians and interpreters of their culture and knowledge system- past,
present and future.

e Mi’kmaw people have the right and obligation to exercise control to protect their cultural and
intellectual properties and knowledge.

e Any research/study or inquiry into collective Mi’kmaw knowledge, culture, arts, or spirituality which
involves partnerships in research shall be reviewed by the Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch. (Partnerships
shall include any of the following: the researchers, members of a research team, research subjects,
sources of information, users of completed research, clients, funders, or license holders.)

e All research, study or inquiry into Mi’kmaw knowledge, culture, traditions involving any research
partners belongs to the community and must be returned to that community.

In addition, there are assertions that Mi’>kmaw knowledge is “collectively owned, discovered, used and
taught’ and that each ‘community’ has the right to knowledge and control over their “community
knowledge’, while also acknowledging that some knowledge will have ‘traditional owners’ such as
families, clans or associations. These traditional owners must be determined in accordance with the
customs, laws and procedures of the people. Authority to engage in negotiations is vested in the
Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch by the Mi’kmaw Grand Council, whose authority is asserted in the document
(North America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/8).

The Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch is an excellent example of an indigenous people claiming for themselves,
and exercising, the right to protect their own interests and to manage access to their traditional knowledge
and other resources as they see fit. However an example from Cameroon demonstrates the need for
adherence to the principle of full, informed consent. Poachers, illegal research and other illegal
exploitation of natural resources can in fact be facilitated by local populations. It is precisely as a result
of the prevailing insecurity endured by local populations that they enter into such damaging partnerships
with illegal exploiters, at the expense both of their quality of life and the surrounding biodiversity.
Giving disadvantaged groups the authority to make their own decisions, without providing them with the
means (the capacity in terms of education, experience, or the material comfort to make choices) to make
an informed decision.

A fair and equitable system of knowledge extraction must involve mutual benefit. All too often the
definition of one community or group as “indigenous” or holders of traditional or indigenous knowledge
can be used as an excuse to deny them access to “modern” or “scientific” knowledge and resources on the

lire

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 31

grounds that indigenous knowledge will be lost. Finding a balance between conservation and
development demands that indigenous or local communities are treated fairly and equally, and not as
living museum pieces.

Recommendation 14
A code of ethics governing research should be formulated, or adopted.

9 Identification and Assessment of measures and initiatives to protect, promote and
facilitate the use of traditional knowledge

Though intended to be the more substantial of the two Parts of this Composite Report (according to the
notification providing for this report), Part II, is less comprehensive that Part I. This reflects the relative
scarcity of examples of measures and initiatives specifically designed to protect, promote or facilitate the
use of traditional knowledge. To compensate for this lack of information, this section includes relevant
measures and initiatives which result, perhaps as a side-effect, in the protection, promotion or facilitation
of the use of traditional knowledge, even if this was not the main intention.

The authors of Australia, Asia and the Middle East UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/4 admit that the
information available on these questions in the Middle East was negligible both in volume and detail. As
stated in the introduction to Part I, many of the comments made in the various reports from National
Focal points were little more than generalised statements of intent. Some projects were referred to very
generally, or without sufficient detail for the authors of the regional reports to identify them.

There are a number of points to make at this stage, before discussing in some detail the findings of the
reports. Firstly, from the information at hand to the authors, it is possible to give some idea of general
trends at the regional level. Measures and initiatives to protect, promote and facilitate the use of
traditional knowledge appear to be particularly undeveloped in the Middle East and the Pacific. There are
many projects to restore and preserve traditional knowledge in Europe, from language programmes to
folk museums. It is fair to say, however, that the conservation or sustainable use of biodiversity is rarely
a priority in the planning of such activities. This is in fact a common theme throughout the regions.
Measures are rarely intended to impact upon biodiversity conservation. There is often an understanding
that such an effect may be incidental, however. For example, the Municipality of Kautokeino
autonomous municipality project (Finnmark, Norway), did not prioritise biodiversity in dealing with local
communities and traditional management. Conversely, most projects which do prioritise biodiversity in
Europe (and elsewhere) do not prioritise TK.

International conventions such as the CBD and ILO 169 (the International Labor Organization’s
Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, which will be discussed
in some detail below) may not always be the most effective tool in addressing the problems faced by
indigenous peoples. Thailand, for example, although evidently more active than many other countries on
these issues, has yet to formally ratify the CBD. Ratification has been opposed by local NGOs due to the
CBD’s perceived potential to weaken the nation’s strong position on ownership and control of biological
resources and related knowledge UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/4.

South America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10 makes the most important point in relation to South America,
but it is applicable to traditional knowledge and indigenous peoples worldwide:

“Protecting and preserving the Traditional Knowledge of Indigenous people necessarily entails
consolidating the fundamental axis of identity-territory-autonomy which allows the generation and
perenniality of this knowledge.”

Without legal/constitutional recognition of their right to exist, and their right to exist as a culturally
distinct group within the nation state, and without the legal and practical right to live on and manage their
lands, indigenous people, and the traditional biodiversity-related knowledge they hold, cannot thrive.
Later sections begin to summarise the state of progress with regard to the granting of these rights in the
countries and regions covered by the report.

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 32

9.1 Incentive Measures & Capacity-Building

Documentation of information, in any format, can be considered a form of capacity building and there is
obviously a wealth of material, although this may frequently be difficult or impracticable to access. Even
when published, highly relevant material may be effectively inaccessible due to problems of literacy,
language and cost. However, documentation is clearly critical in recording TK that may otherwise be lost,
if, for example the biodiversity it relates to is lost or less abundant.

A large number of projects involving incentives and/or capacity-building measures in order to conserve
and enable the sustainable use of biodiversity, and to incorporate — and thus sustain — relevant traditional
knowledge and practices, are mentioned in the regional reports.

Clearly, the best projects are those which combine incentive measures and build the capacity of existing
and potential participants, and all such initiatives should be tailored to the specifics of each situation.
However, although the needs of indigenous people and local communities will vary dramatically, it is
possible to identify some frequently recurring themes.

Many incentives are economic. This is not always the most practical or desirable option. One factor in
ensuring participation in existing or future activities is to ensure that the promises made to stakeholders
are fulfilled. The failure of the Laotian government to protect the sacred forests and culturally significant
sites of local communities from illegal loggers has discouraged local people from participating in any
such programme in the future, for even the most central benefit that was promised — continued protection
of their traditional lands — has not been delivered.

Again, land is a major issue, and the guarantee of title or access to traditional territories is possibly one of
the best examples of both incentive measures and capacity-building. Access to land is one of the most
fundamental claims made by indigenous rights activists worldwide, and in many cases insufficient
progress has been made in providing people with the land on which their subsistence and cultural survival
depends. Each of the reports emphasised the importance of land in maintaining traditional knowledge and
practices, and this issue is discussed at length below. However, at this point it should be pointed out that
the granting of land-use rights both acts as an incentive for involvement (providing what people want
most) and builds the capacity of participants (by providing land upon which to subsist and thrive).

In Africa (Africa UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3), there appear to be very few existing direct incentive
measures that encourage holders of traditional knowledge to keep it and to apply it. The majority of
measures involve indirect incentives, such as recognition of customary systems of land tenure. There are
a number of incentives, offered by sources such as the World Bank , the EU and international
development agencies, available to anyone who plans to document traditional knowledge, and such
projects have been mentioned in this report.

One serious criticism of incentive measures in Africa is that donors seem very rigid in offering incentives
which suit their own purposes, and not necessarily the needs of the potential recipients (Africa
UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3).

An excellent example of a project which is apparently both providing incentives to continued
participation and building the capacity of participants to preserve the traditional knowledge of their
people is the Aang Serian Community College in Arusha, Tanzania. The college provides a course on
local traditional knowledge developed by and for indigenous youth from a variety of ethnic groups, in
collaboration with the college, and encourages students to carry out their own research, discussing their
culture and history with their elders, and thus help bridge the “generation gap” between young and old.
Students produce a booklet on their research and what they have learned, a copy of which is retained by
Aang Serian as part of an archive of indigenous knowledge from various ethnic groups. Access to the
archive will be restricted, in order to benefit the indigenous people concerned, rather than leaving them
and their knowledge vulnerable to exploitation.

Recommendation 15
Strengthen existing indigenous organisational structures.

UNEP/CBD/WG8)J/3/INF/1
Page 33

Recommendation 16

Best practice guidelines should be developed, to support the planning of measures and initiatives to
protect, promote and facilitate the use of traditional knowledge.

9.2 Women as holders of traditional knowledge

“Gender and knowledge are linked in many ways, women and men often hold very different skills and
different knowledge of local conditions and everyday life.”
Central America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/6

Women continue to occupy a marginal position in many initiatives designed to promote, facilitate or even
document traditional knowledge and local biodiversity use. There is little or no mention of women in the
reports on Europe and North America. A collaborative project by the Gwich’in Social and Cultural
Institute and the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre, in Canada, has documented and publicised
women’s traditional skills in manufacturing clothes (North America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/8). There
is no mention of the knowledge or practices of women in relation to biodiversity at all, however.

Women do not feature in the regional report on the Caribbean UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/5. In Central
and South America, there are a number of examples of studies and projects which have specifically
involved female holders of traditional knowledge. Emphasis is placed upon the value of traditional
biodiversity-related knowledge held by women, and the use of ‘heirlooms’ and ‘female oriented natural
heritage for cultural conservation’ by the Jardin Etnobotanico Comunitario in the Pisac valley, Cusco,
Peru (South America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10).

Many societies follow (to some extent) a gendered division of labour. In the traditional lands of the
Piaroa, in southern Venezuela, men perform the bulk of forest foraging and are more knowledgeable
about high forest plants, while agriculture is generally the preserve of women, who are as a result more
knowledgeable about garden flora (Central America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/6). This pattern is evident
elsewhere. For example, women often play a key role in agroforestry in parts of Africa (Africa
UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3), and in the management of home gardens in Thailand (Australia, Asia and
the Middle East UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/4).

In a number of examples from Central America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/6, men tend to dominate
management of commercial cropping (e.g. coffee) and women maintain traditional and medicinal plant
cultivation. Economic imperatives have led to the allocation of the best land to the commercial crops, and
the traditional economic activities of women — and with them their knowledge and status in the
community — are threatened.

Samoan women are involved in the collection of shell-fish, while men dominate deep-sea fishing. In
Kiribati, too, reef-fishing and collection of shallow-water seafood is done by women, and deep-sea
fishing by men (Pacific UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/9). Women have traditionally been integral to fishing
activities in fishing communities in Pakistan. However, they are marginalised in traditional agricultural
communities who now depend on fishing as a higher proportion of their income.

Many practitioners of Rongoa Maori, or Maori Traditional Medicine in New Zealand are older women
(Pacific UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/9). Research projects carried out in Africa interviewed female
informants, recognising the important role women play as custodians of traditional medicinal knowledge
in particular. Kokwaro (in Africa UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3) notes that some medicine men passed on
their knowledge to their first wives, and more generally indigenous women and those in local
communities tend to dominate the fields of child disease and female medicine. Such dominance is
reflected in the following description of “women’s knowledge” as it is conceived by the Guanano in
Colombia:

“Women’s knowledge ... is reserved to the female world; so that only women have access to it; we could
assert that it is a consequence of the respect to privacy. Its origin is attributed to the great Hycho mother

Mosce

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 34

(grandmother of the Guananos), who in former times led women to attain the power to govern men. The
function of the knowledge of women relates to giving birth, to the production of cloth and utensils for the
kitchen, to secrets on the optimal conditions to handle seeds, their resistance to means and the
maximization of the production, to handle the taxonomy of wild plants that can be used by the
community, and the handling of the different paintings that serve as additives for the decoration of
dresses and the woman's body.”

South America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10

In many cases, it is women who retain valuable knowledge, due to their active role in decision making for
the household. Women, therefore, may be the major reserve of information relating to traditional
medicines, crop varieties, animal products, fuel, fibre and food plants and many other biodiversity-related
areas. Women often hold knowledge that men do not. Wherever women are marginalised, so too is the
traditional knowledge of which they are custodians under threat of being marginalised or lost completely.
As a result it is important to remember to include women equally in any initiative that takes place.

Recommendation 17

Specific capacity-building activities should be targeted at indigenous women in rural or otherwise
marginal communities, and the traditional knowledge and practices that continue to be held by them.

9.3 Education

Education can play a vital role in building the capacity of a community to further participate in
conservation, and in development. Rather than projects which seek to instruct indigenous peoples in
“best practice” - “modern” or “scientific” methods of environmental management — however, any effort
to implement Article 8(j) must begin from the position that the practices of indigenous peoples can be at
least as valid and beneficial as the “modern” knowledge of conservationists. Education, therefore, may
be considered in one of two ways; either using Western science and learning to complement and support
traditional knowledge, or prioritising traditional knowledge in the curriculum — whether that curriculum
be based on formal western structures or an indigenous model — to teach indigenous people about their
traditional knowledge and to help ensure its survival.

Provision of education within a formal western system is not always beneficial to indigenous people.
Centres of education are often far from traditional lands — who almost by definition live in remote
regions. Thus students have to travel long distances, and often spend considerable time away from their
lands, their communities, their elders and their knowledge. If they return, they are often less
knowledgeable than they would have been if they had stayed. The danger that young people will lose
touch with their knowledge, their cultures and traditions while away, and perhaps never return, is a
serious one.

To combat this trend, educational institutions can be established in areas populated by indigenous
peoples, which are accessible to their children, stemming the flow of migrants to the cities. The Saami
University College was established in Guovdageaidnu, Norway, in 1989 and is the only Saami institution
offering higher education. In Russia, schools have been established in remote regions to cater for the
local indigenous populations. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the economic crisis has
hit these schools badly, and many are unstaffed or otherwise in decline. It has always been the case,
however, that indigenous people in Russia and elsewhere have to travel to the nearest city obtain higher
education. In Sweden, the Saami School Board administers the National Saami Schools, established
under the Saami School ordinance.

Another solution is to integrate indigenous knowledge into mainstream education. Langton and Ma Rhea
treat such initiatives with some degree of scepticism, which seems to be echoed by indigenous people in
other regions (e.g. North America, UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/8). Western-based education has in the past
been criticised for dismissing and attempting to supplant indigenous knowledge. It is therefore, they

eee

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 35

suggest, pertinent to ask why the same western systems now want to incorporate aspects of indigenous
knowledge into their curricula UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/4):

“Indigenous people might welcome the increased interest as an opportunity to preserve their knowledge
systems, and have their rights acknowledged under international legal protocols. However, they are also
(with good reason, perhaps) suspicious of “business people, scientists, teachers and government officers
— whether foreign or local — trying to elicit their traditional ecological knowledge, for example, while
refusing to recognize their fundamental human rights.”

Such understandable scepticism notwithstanding, however, some attempts to integrate traditional
knowledge within a common system and a common curriculum seem to date to have been unsuccessful.
A survey conducted by Education International (1999), reported that in Europe, only Sweden and
Greenland provided for indigenous education in the form of “Indigenous schools, classes, faculties or
other educational services” available to even a proportion of the indigenous community. Indigenous
control of such institutions, however, was said to be limited (UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/7).

Elsewhere, however, a different, more directed form of educational initiative has been proposed, and in
some cases has proven successful. McGowan (2000, in UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/9), calls for the
establishment of a system to facilitate the teaching of rongoa Maori (Maori Traditional Medicine) in New
Zealand. He emphasises, moreover, that such teaching should (like the knowledge system itself) be
holistic, covering “not just the knowledge of rongoa, but the experience of working with the people to
whom the medicine belongs, those who need the healing it may provide”. In African countries, for
example Nigeria, something like this is provided by traditional medicine hospitals, which not only
provide healthcare, but also often act as centres for exchange and preservation of traditional medicine
(Africa UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3).

Recommendation 18

Where appropriate, indigenous knowledge should be integrated into formal, local or national systems of
education, which are directed towards local or indigenous communities

Recommendation 19

Offer appropriate education and training to indigenous and local communities that can enable sustainable
development while being compatible with their traditions

9.4 Land rights

“Participation in land management is integral to the overall wellbeing of indigenous peoples and local

communities.”
Australia, Asia and the Middle EastUNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/4

“The fundamental requirement for the existence of these people, their cultures and knowledge, is their
association with the territory. Their survival and continuity are indissoluble of their territoriality and
socio-economic processes and policies have affected them in different degrees and with specific local

characteristics.”
South America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10

Each regional report echoes the same point: that access to the land upon which traditional knowledge is
based, together with the opportunity to practice it, is the absolute minimum required for retention of
traditional biodiversity-related knowledge. Yet most of the world’s indigenous people live on land to
which they have no legal title (Galaty & Ole Munei 1999, in Africa UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3).

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 36

The African regional report suggests that the state of recognition of customary land rights in that
continent is very poor. Post-independence land legislation in a number of African countries has placed
legal title of all previously “common” or “tribal” lands into the hands of the State, abolishing (in the eyes
of the law) traditional systems of land tenure. This once again places the interests of the state above those
of indigenous people and local communities (UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3).

In part this lack of legal recognition, and the serious practical difficulties which result, stem from the fact
that the “modern” system of land tenure adhered to by the state seems inapplicable to the “traditional”
model. Customary land rights tend to be collective, ambiguous and negotiable; they are less certain than
formal registration and title (Galaty & Ole Munei in Africa UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3), and thus
frequently incompatible with national systems. Traditional systems of land tenure are often conceptually
very different from the legal systems adhered to by many modern states, whether industrialised or
developing. The Maasai notion of e-rishata, for example, divides land and resources, but boundaries are
more “zones” than “lines”: families with rights derived from those of the community mingle together on
land they use in common on the basis of negotiation, which can lead to conflict. In the 1960s the Kenyan
government began to divide Maasai pastoral regions into “ranches”, the titles to which were held by
groups. These groups split up over time, encouraging claims that land be officially subdivided among
them, thus destroying the traditional system (Africa UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3).

In the Arctic and North America, indigenous peoples’ rights to land are often recognised on the basis of
traditional and continued use. In Canada, the Nisga’a Final Agreement provides them with the right to
harvest wildlife in the Nass Wildlife Area in a manner consistent with their traditions
(UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/8). In Russia, “territories of traditional natural resource use” are guaranteed
under a law passed in 1999, but most applications for this status have been declined, and the two that have
been accepted have since been annulled (UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/7). Under the terms of the Treaty of
Accession of Austria, Sweden and Finland to the European Union (1994), Saami in Finland and Sweden
are guaranteed exclusive rights to reindeer herding, though this does not explicitly confer access to or
control over traditional pastures (Europe and Russia UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/7).

Most of the Amazon countries, with the exception of Suriname, have initiated processes of demarcation,
reparation and entitlement of lands. Large areas have been formally recognised in countries like Bolivia,
Brazil, Colombia and Ecuador. Colombian law recognises “collective entitlement to territories” (South
America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10). Yet there are serious gaps in the legislation which grants land-use
rights to indigenous peoples in South American countries:

“unless its application is judicially requested, it is not currently possible to allocate land titles to
indigenous people within protected areas, in a way that would allow them to pursue their practices.”

South America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10

Even more seriously, once a protected area is declared, official jurisdiction takes precedence and allocates
exploitation rights to “untapped” resources to outside groups.

The Australian Native Title Act (1993) is intended to accommodate Aboriginal systems of land tenure.
However, changes, made to the Act in 1998 deny property rights to indigenous peoples, and has raised
serious concerns over its constitutionality.

Few laws in Asia appear to confer full legal title to land upon indigenous people. In Laos PDR,
legislation on Customary Rights and the Use of Forest Resources secures legal rights for local people.
Yet as discussed in previous sections, the enforcement of this legislation is insufficient. Elsewhere,
loopholes in the Philippines Mining Act allow mining companies to circumnavigate local governing
bodies of Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs). Resistance to such encroachments has sometimes led
to militant action, as communities demand land and resource rights.

Local laws in China cover land use issues. India’s Wildlife Protection Act confers hunting rights to
Scheduled Tribes. Though somewhat ambiguous in terms of implementation and enforcement, Forestry
and Local Government legislation in Indonesia seems to afford legislative protection to customary land
tenure.

Similarly, in Sarawak, Malaysia, the Sarawak Land Code recognises customary land rights, though these
are poorly defined on the ground. The Constitution of Thailand provides grants local communities a

ee

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 37

substantive role in the management of their own resources, and legislation passed in 1996 (though not yet
enacted) would strengthen indigenous peoples’ traditional management structures in forest areas. As with
the bulk of such legislation in Asia, however, it is not explicitly intended to provide for indigenous
systems of land tenure, or indigenous peoples’ rights to land.

Protected areas

Access to traditional lands and territories is all-too often denied to indigenous peoples by the creation of
Protected Areas on such sites. There are examples from all over the world of the creation of protected
areas leading to increased alienation of indigenous people from their lands, their livelihoods and their
traditional knowledge and practices. Where indigenous people have been permitted to remain within the
boundaries of national parks, for example, their experience has often been negative, seeing restrictions
imposed upon their lifestyles which either preclude the exercise of traditional knowledge and practices or,
equally damaging, force them into a stereotyped mould of what park authorities think of as “traditional”.
Often, the very premise for the establishment of protected areas has been antagonistic towards traditional
practices. The Ngorongoro Conservation Area, in Tanzania, is one example, where the priority of
conservationists to protect the area’s wildlife has led to prohibitions on grazing, hunting and cultivation
by the people who live within its borders (Africa UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3).

Flexibility is required above all in the management of national parks or other protected areas in which
indigenous people and local communities live. Protected areas in Italy, subject to local planning
regulations, allow for experimental models for conservation and sustainable development. Incentives are
provided to traditional production activities with acknowledged compatibility with the local ecosystem.

Biosphere Reserves, established under the "Man and the Biosphere" (MAB) Programme, were officially
launched by UNESCO in 1970 are of particular relevance. Biosphere Reserves are areas where people can
maintain their traditional land use practices, as well as improve their economic well-being through the use
of culturally and environmentally appropriate technologies. Such traditional systems are highly useful for
conserving ancient breeds of livestock and old land races of crops, which are invaluable gene pools for
moder agriculture.

Even where such flexibility is assured, however, the most effective course is close and equal cooperation
between local populations of protected areas and the managing authorities, if not guaranteeing locai
populations a full and effective role in the management of protected areas. There are varying degrees to
which access to traditional lands can be granted to indigenous peoples and local communities, and
traditional knowledge thus maintained and balanced with the demands of local biodiversity.

Recommendation 20

The CBD should actively encourage Parties to recognise the land and sea tenures of indigenous peoples
and local communities.

Recommendation 21 _. os
Actively involve local communities in the management of protected areas.

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 38

Recommendation 22

Incorporate restrictions of use and access to “sacred” or otherwise culturally significant sites into
appropriate local or national legislation

9.5 Repatriation

The repatriation of culturally purposeful objects from museums has been an important issue in
relationships between western museums and indigenous peoples in particular, and remains a contentious
issue, although much progress has been made. A variety of artefacts have been returned by European
museums to originating communities overseas. In the main, however, these repatriations have involved
sacred objects, human remains or otherwise sensitive objects (Europe and _ Russia
UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/7; see Simpson 1997)

The collaborative project between the Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute and the Prince of Wales
Northern Heritage Centre in Canada has helped to repatriate skills and knowledge no longer practised in
the Gwich’in Settlement Area” (North America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/8).

Any repatriation of objects that has been documented, however, appears to have little direct relevance to
the preservation or promotion of traditional biodiversity-related knowledge. Repatriation of information
is ongoing, and there are a number of recent examples presented in the regional reports, although the
frequency of such activities is difficult to determine.

9.6 Problem of enforcement in developing countries

There are all too many examples of legislation which has been introduced that appears to offer much to
indigenous peoples and traditional knowledge, but for one reason or another fails to deliver. The most
common reason seems to be a lack of enforcement of existing legislation. It has already been stated that
the vast majority of indigenous peoples live in developing countries, just as developing countries boast
the highest levels of biodiversity, and it is clear that the issue of traditional knowledge among local
communities is most pertinent to those communities which have not yet “fully developed” (i.e. forsaken
their traditional knowledge in favour of western, scientific knowledge).

One significant problem for developing nations is the lack of resources available to governments. It is an
unfortunate reality that the rights of indigenous peoples are not high priorities for many governments, and
distance — both physically and socially — from the centre of power lessens the effectiveness of legislation
in the relatively few instances in which it has been introduced.

It is estimated, for example, that nearly one hundred uncontacted peoples continue to live in the Amazon
Basin, many of them having populations of less than 300 and under high risk of extinction (South
America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10). The environment upon which these peoples depend is being lost

at a dramatic rate, and yet the potential to provide aid remains severely limited as long as they are
uncontacted.

In the context of Africa, (Africa UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/3) it is conceded that, while it is in many ways
desirable to confer responsibility for in situ conservation on local/indigenous populations, these
communities may not have the capacity to protect their lands from threats such as illegal exploitation
from outsiders.

Recommendation 23

Legislation to protect, promote or facilitate the use of traditional knowledge must be enforced and
enforceable in order to be effective.

There is a fine balance to be negotiated here. State intervention can be necessary to enforce legislation or
customary law in the face of external encroachment. However, the state itself may not always be in a
position to provide such support. Where such intervention is possible, moreover, it may not always be the

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 39

best option. In fact, examples from all regions show that the state of retention of traditional knowledge,
and its impact on the local biodiversity, can be quite healthy. In such a situation intervention is
unnecessary and, especially when it involves greater involvement of government or outside agencies,
even counterproductive.

9.7 Legislation

Appendix 2 provides an outline of existing legislation which impacts on issues relevant to Article 8(j), as
it has been documented in the regional reports.

In Europe as a whole, specific legislation directed towards traditional knowledge has not been
implemented or even drafted. A number of Parties emphasise that, although no specifically targeted
legislation has been developed, some legislative provision does deal with traditional knowledge
indirectly. A substantial number of European Parties have expressed enthusiasm for the development of
sui generis systems to protect traditional knowledge in principle. However, most do not consider such
measures relevant to their own national context. Worldwide, from the information provided in the
regional reports, the development of sui generis systems of protection remains in its infancy, and an
assessment of processes claimed to be currently underway is not possible as yet (Europe and Russia
UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/7).

9.8 Rights and legal recognition

Indigenous peoples’ right to exist as a culturally distinct group within the nation state receive insufficient
recognition throughout the world. The International Labor Organization’s Convention (No. 169)
concerning Indigenous and Tribal peopies in Independent Countries recognises indigenous people’s
rights to existence as a culturally distinct population within a nation state, to retain their customs,
traditions and “customary laws”. It recognises, moreover, the right to “self-determination”, i.e. that
indigenous identity is something that a group can take upon themselves.

ILO 169 is the only legally binding piece of international legislation on indigenous people’s rights. It’s
predecessor, ILO 107, the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention 1957, was ratified by only 27
nations. In what would appear to be a somewhat retrograde step, ILO 169 has to date been ratified by
only 17 nations: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominica, Ecuador,
Fiji, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, the Netherlands and Venezuela.

The Venezuelan Congress endorsed the ILO 169 in December 2000, but the full legal procedures have
yet to be followed bringing this into law. The USSR signed ILO convention 169 in 1989, and since then
has taken steps such as convening a Congress of Northern Indigenous Peoples (in March 1990), and
drafting several federal laws on the rights of Indigenous people (Murashko 1999). However, the Russian
Federation has not yet informed the ILO of its adherence to the convention. In terms of domestic
legislation, too, many draft laws have been rejected by the Russian parliament, the Duma
(UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/7).

The regional report on South America discusses the fragility of indigenous people’s legal status,
referring specifically to the great disparity in recognition of indigenous people, and lack of legal
provisions for transboundary ethnic groups. This fragility affects the implementation of measures which
seek to protect indigenous peoples interests and rights, including those over their traditional knowledge
and practices. Addressing the parlous state of indigenous peoples’ legal recognition thus must be seen as
a priority if Article 8(j) is to be successfully implemented (UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10).

Recommendation 24

The Working Group should encourage Parties to ratify ILO 169

We have not data on the legal recognition of minorities or indigenous people in the Middle East. The
Constitution of Australia (UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/4) confers no special status on indigenous people.

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 40

In Africa, the constitutional recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights is rarely assured. No African state
has ratified ILO 169, although a number of states (Angola, Egypt, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Malawi and
Tunisia) are signatories to ILO 107. However, the African report also highlights that even where
“indigenous” status is recognised, such recognition can be equally damaging when not accompanied with
respect for their rights. Pastoralists such as the Maasai have been accused by successive colonial and
post-colonial governments of damaging the environments in which they live, such accusations serving to
justify gradual erosion of their traditional activities and in some cases expropriation from their traditional
lands.

9.9 International activities

International organisations undertaking activities of particular relevance include BGCI (e.g. conservation
of medicinal plants), FAO (e.g. forest conservation), IPGRI (e.g. conservation of underutilised crops),
UNEP-WCMC (e.g. biodiversity information management), UNESCO.

UNESCO’s Preliminary Draft International Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural
Heritage has the potential to make a dramatic impact on the control of access, and therefore the retention
of, traditional knowledge. The Convention will stress the safeguarding of oral traditions and expressions,
including language as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage, performing arts, social practices, rituals
and festive events, knowledge and practices about nature and the universe, and traditional craftsmanship.
It will also stipulate the drawing up of national inventories by States Parties and the establishment by
UNESCO of a Representative List of the Intangible Heritage of Humanity and of a second list of
Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding. This concerted action by the international
community should ensure better visibility and improved safeguarding of this particularly vulnerable
heritage. Currently little information is available on this draft convention but it has the potential to be
highly relevant.

A comprehensive study of existing relevant activities undertaken by these organisations could lead to
improved synergy between these.

The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation, an international initiative endorsed by the CBD provides a

framework for actions to be undertaken by a wide range of implementing agencies and includes targets
relevant to this project, including:

e Target 9. 70% of the genetic diversity of crops and other major socioeconomically valuable plant
species conserved, and associated indigenous and local knowledge maintained

e Target 13. The decline of plant resources, and associated indigenous and local knowledge,
innovations and practices that support sustainable livelihoods, local food security and health care,
halted

This could be considered as a model for development of a comparable Global Strategy to support
implementation of activities covered by Article 8j. Alternatively or additionally, the Working Group on 8}
could consider offering to act as the lead or co-ordinator on implementation of these two targets.

Recommendation 25

Undertake survey of current activities of International organisations relevant to 8j, with view to
developing synergy (also mentioned as the subject of Phase II, activity 6.1)

Recommendation 26

Develop a Global Strategy to support the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local
communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of
biological diversity

Recommendation 27
/

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 41

Working group to act as, or identify candidate to lead or co-ordinate implementation of targets 9 and 13
of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation

10 Summary — Assessment, Feasibility, And further recommendations

One question which this composite report was intended to tackle was the feasibility of using traditional
knowledge and practices to enhance existing efforts by non-traditional knowledge holders to sustainably
use and conserve biodiversity. It would seem that this question divides into two: on one hand, is it
practically feasible to employ — and perhaps adapt - such knowledge, whatever the ends? On the other
hand, is it ethically or morally appropriate to “use” or “exploit” such knowledge in this way?

Issues of compatibility have been repeatedly raised in this report. In the case of traditional medicine in
particular, there is an argument that the transfer of traditional medicinal knowledge across communities
could be irrelevant, or even harmful, outside its original contexts. Western science, it is argued, cannot
appreciate traditional cultures. Without clear understanding, attempts to record, document and transfer
TK could disempower indigenous people (South America UNEP/CBD/WG8J/INF/10).

The final qualification to all the examples and recommendations presented in this report is that situations
vary from region to region, country to country, people to people and even within ethnic groups and
communities. An approach that would be of use in one instance may be ineffective, even disastrous, in
another. It is essential, therefore, that initiatives remain local in focus, and are tailored to specific
communities rather that relying on generalised approaches.

11 Recommendations relating to subsequent phases of the composite report

The Notification requested that this Phase 1 Composite Report should include recommendations if
necessary, to revise the outline of the subsequent phases of the report as contained in Annex I of decision
VI/10. The work undertaken so far does not suggest that any of the topics proposed for subsequent phases
are redundant.

In Phase 1, access to and ownership of land has been discussed as a major issue in relation to traditional
knowledge, and particularly that which is related to biodiversity. This is a large, complicated and
contentious issue which requires further research and consideration. It is suggested that it will form a
significant part of the work of the next phase.

The importance of language retention as an indicator of traditional knowledge retention, and as a means
toward preserving and promoting traditional knowledge use, has also been highlighted in Phase 1. This is
also a broad and complex topic, which will require further detailed investigation in the subsequent phase
of this report.

One further suggestion regarding the structure of the Phase 2 reporting is that attention be paid to
traditional knowledge, folklore and cultural practices which do not appear to be directly relevant to the
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. It has been argued in this report that such beliefs and
practices constitute indicators of the retention of other forms of traditional knowledge. Moreover, they
are often a facet of holistic knowledge systems, without which “traditional biodiversity-related
knowledge” cannot be properly understood. It is therefore suggested that such information be included
within the next phase of the Composite Report.

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 42

Appendix 1: Countries by region with data from Regional Reports

_ Indigenous
_ population

AS a ce ay ae |
(se ed |
Denn rmiticien nee Migne (hee
[Borman Retratticdta| nee neon ee Sl ae
DurkinaleasoMenn (Meratined New| eighth Ne | ee
[erie oe Pe ea a ee a ee PS
(Carneroonielnn muaratifiedms) Der anMPED Ly ecBiphi ob Ie). | easel
CxONGes 2 wen aicue: St a i a
ee ae
Republic

ca ence eee ee) ee ae
(Cenitaras: anaes peice aie i a 7 a ae
corr nici fae Taos Hen | |
[CUTEST ie | ey re
panes aie | i a a ie |
(Diba erated le Sma Migh Dal ee Sool
a Tl ll
EquatonialiGuineat|maccessionm. |
Eritrea ian So lMaccession ale SS iie nw i oh
Ethiopia aeaeenenn | Mimratihiedan fe IP High sk | ee ae
Cio: Si a aaa eae ae
Cail {a Ue cir a as es es
Cini ll RC a a a a ae |
(CR a ee ee ee ee er |
STE
Kenyan Pirated Gener |e te
SS
(ia ol i ee aT as a |
fs)

Men Re ee ee
Si ee a a |
(ar aT a aS a |
i ee aa
(iite ain ee eo)
Nemes Sal i a a Se Se)

' According to Second National Report to CBD

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 43

Fame ie Sy

Principe

ratified
accession
ms
ratified

ratified

ratified

eA newest “a ase :

CSE Dorel ea
htaccess
a |
ae)

ambodia accession
hina ratified

ran

I ratified
(Islamic Republic

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 44

al

i a ic a ae

Japan| acceptance [| | 24,000 Ain

in ee enc a a

Lea Pe Rae a a
[i eSea ee a aS

0.8 million 67 groups
23%

Lao PDR accession
2 million 71 groups
11.1%

a

—

&

one
Maldives | ratified |
[Mongolia | ratified [|
ies

ey
Can< ict i ee aa
RA ee Dc i a aa

Philippines ratified 6.5 million 50 groups
16%

Ce i
[Republic of Korea | ratified |
ee ace
eet eee
(eee

ae]

(2)

audi Arabia accession

NIN

Syrian Arab ratified 107 High
Republic

Dn

lan |
i="
8.
>
i=}
a
KA
2
=)
o
a.

By se |
g eae
Fea ae
[Barbados | ratified [|
cubated [107 [ah
[Dominica | _ratified | |
Grenada | ratified [|
Tat se | ratio RIO aa
Jamaica Eratified ves) (oe eo
Saint Kitts & Nevis Saris ees

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 45

Saint Vincent & the} accession
feos | |
Trinidad & Tobago

{

27,300 (13.65%)|Maya (10.6%),
Garifuna (6.1%

Dominican
Republic
| Salvador
4,945,511
48.01%

a
= (Ngobe

Albania [sor ane
=
eer as 1)

prus aes)

zech Republic

(Gren 2
Greenland
stonia
rance
Macedonia
Georgia —|_ accession _| (ak folrorned
ig
Greece

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 46

|
ratified

—

ireland | ratified _|

—

Sic

i

ithuania

It cad Seat

Netherlands _—'|_acceptance | '169_ |
Ninn in i a aa a
i ic a ae a
ortugal CC ae [ant ll
ee ll
i =|

Ise

ge}

po)

Serbia & ratified
Montenegro

lovenia
Switzerland
Ukraine | ratified _|

Nn

”n

n

a

aes |
pee |
20,000
ee re

976,305 (3.3%) |
9.47%

Ih Hawaiians

New Zealand E
169 :
Marshall Islands | ratified [ |_—High |

> The Soviet Union also endorsed the Convention in 1989 but the Russian Federation has yet to inform the ILO of its
adherence to the Convention

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 47

Raciaiesia (Fed ratifie
States

BBR accesion_
Samoa | ratified _|
Mantes

uU

sn

4

Quechua (30%),
Aymara (25%)

(24.85%)

or

PEE
To

3 Ratification documents were not deposited with the ILO

)

UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/1
Page 48

mestizo
38.45%

a

+ Venezuela has incorporated ILO Convention 107 into national law but has not registered its adherence to the
Convention with the International Labour Office

* The Venezuelan Congress endorsed the Convention in December 2000 but the full legal procedures have yet to be
followed bringing this into law

“Aoesdorg yuaaaid 0}

pur ‘adpaymouy [eo1dojo9a jeuonIpen
yajoid pue wayye 0} wWayshs suauas)
Ins B JO} paau ay} sourpino yoday
JeuoneN Isiy S,uooIaWeD “AqISIaAIp
JedBojorg 0} payejas syysry Awedoig
Jenj99][9}Uy UO UONRSIsa] [eUOTeU OU
ST 219 “(29°L66] WOOIOWTED) IOAIMOH
(uoneziuediQ Auadolg [enq92]]2}U]
ueoLY) IdVO 4) JO sayeys saquiaut
WIA s]uaWaaISe paudis sey uoOIBUIeD|

oSpa;mouy seuoNIpen yo uonsa}01d
ay) pue Suueys y1yauaq ‘saomosal
o1)0U98 0} ssadoR UO ‘adeis

YPIP ay} UL OSTe ‘UONE]SISA] 0} S19JOI
uodas jeuONeN puodsas s.uruag

ANGATMONM SNONADIGNI OL LINVAA TAY ALYVd HOVA YOU NOILVTSISAT NO NOILVWUYOIANI

Z “puaddy

6b o8eg
T/ANI/€/f89M/0dO/daNn

dy} SB YONs ‘seare payda}oid s_uooIDWIeD
jo jsow ui snyy, ,,'asodind o1y19ads:

B 0} pur] ay) pauaisse sey ayes ay} se,
dt} B YyoNs [HUN,, spur] asayy Adnoo0 0}
sqyaii sajdoad snouadipur saajuerend
Ajuo yoy ainuay, puey ayy “IaAaMop{
(EL ‘1-1e 39 aMYO) 939 sa0j1a}
surysy ‘sonsed ‘pueywey ‘saarasar
UIUIIM SyYBU Arewosno Jay} astosexa
0} dayj oe “911 ‘s}Ysu Jasn aaey saydoad
snouasipul pur ‘pue] snouadiput

0} aft) [eda] sey JUAWTUIAAOS ay)

Joy oy} SuIMoyjo.y ‘spury ,,Arewrojsno
pure aaneu,, Jo }daou09 ayy paystjoqe
PL6I JO Wy anual, pue’T ay]

“‘uordal ay) Ul Sajdoad snouasipur Jo
UOIIPUOD ay} 0} UOKUAVE [eqo]s UMP:
SAeY ZOOT Ul Spur] Jay) Woy UdWYysNg
UBG JY} JO SUONDIAD [RISIOAONUOD OY],

‘(078661 BURMS]Og) JUQWATeURLU JOOd
Woy Sainysed 49a}01d 0} Wie YoIy
sayoues pjoyasea] [eIssawwos payeals
(p861) Aoyog pueyq Suizery pequy ay.

($7

uonjdas 99S ‘Sh: 1007 YOOIYNITHY) ap
Suunsas ul paysisse uayo sey yoy
‘spury Jo durddew ayy padesnooua

sey SIy], “(puey jenuaptsal 10

a]qeze 10J) preog puej-qns ayy 10 ‘preoq
pur] ay) 0} Ajdde 0) ajdoad pasnbar
OV YL ‘syaryo pue uawperay Aq ueg 0}
pur] Jo dunuesd oy) pue ‘uoneso]ye J[as
ySnosy) saoinosai pure pur] Surureyqo
Jo uONIpeN ay) papua (0261) VW

pure] yequy ay) ‘euemsjog wia}sam Uy

“SMO S JaWae y,, pur , SYS
Jenjsayjaruy Awunuiwo5,, sapun
uonoajoid ‘yuasuos pawuoyut oud
Jo aonovid ayy soy saptaosd yorym
‘odpaymouy [euoHIpes, payersossy
pure saomosay jeotojorg

0} ssag9y Uo JOY Yep ay) Furpnyjour
“payesp uaaq dary uonrystaa]

Jo sway! snosawunu “eiqiueN Uy

(ZUN Bidong) saoinosay
[PorFojorg 0} ssaddy Jo UONEINTIY
al) JO} pur ‘ssopaaig, wUe|q

pur syowiey ‘sonrunwwos [e907
JO SIYANY IYI JO UONIA}OIg AY) 104
MP’T [APOP URI oy} UO paseg
uoneysida] payesp sey eidoiyysy

DATEU JO }lyauag UOWWOD pue
asn dy} JO} pasaysiurwpe pure pjay ae
spur] |] ounsua ysnw oYyM yuapIsard

ay) JO [OsJUOD aU} JapuN *, spur] d1qQnd,,

aq 0) viuRzur |, Ul spur] j[e parejoap
£96] JO UoNerR|DOp eYsMY oy,

€THI JO BOURUIPIE pur ay) Aq pauljap
Ajjenuasse st eluezur y, ul aunuay pur]

(LEL-ZOOT BAUNYN) PUR] J9AO syaryo
Jo AuoyINe jeuoNIpesy ayy paaowas pue
* quawodeuewsiw asn pury,, yi [kop
0} UoNessTUTWpe pur] JO SuONNNSUT
JOYIO pur sayin ‘saseay paonponul yoy
pure] 6261 AL ‘UoneU ayy yo Ayadosd
se papiedos Sulog pur] ‘pourejurew
sem wa)sAs sty) ‘aouapuadapul

JOY ‘purl or opin pyoyacy

Pay auo ou pur syarys Aq payesoye
pure pasoisiurupe sea purl ‘(quit
<snouadipur, Ayuo ay) ae oyjoseg

ay) YOIYM UT) OYTOSAT JO WWa}sAs
ainuay puey LuONIpey ay) Jopuy)

(Z007:L661 O8U0) Jo d1IQndo1
onjesdowaq) pastusosar Aysadoid

jou ore s}yats pury s,ajdoad snouasipur
ofuog jo ayqnday sneI0UWIAg ay) UT

UMO Ayjedoy

Josuoy ou Ady) yoryAr spury [Rsysooue
ay) Woy UONDIAA JO UONeLdoidxa
uaUIUET JO Teay Ut AAI] SUONe|ndod
[eso] — uonejndod Awd Aq pasoyeos

B JIM aAsasay aaydsoig pur aig
ade}UaH POM B — aAsasay jeune elq

0S aded
/ANI/€/f89M/G40/daNN

Os[e sey uoURgaT] SanauRA|
queyd 1900 s}yst quayed payuesd
osye aAvy eUrYyD pur uedey ‘ereaysny

‘siaquiaut AQdf/ ae ueder

pure eal0y ‘eljensny ‘eulyd [pajaoid
aie] suoneaouur queyd yeroawui09

yey) auNsua 0} pousisap si siapaaiq
queyd 10j uoNda}01d suauad Ins Jo
wayshs (AQd/-Swe]g JO sanaueA MON,
JO U0N}99}0Jq IY} JOJ UONUDAUOD ay])}
sayejadaa suonuarqggG Sap u01}99}01g

P| Nod jeuoNeusa\U] UOIUL) ay],

81 Ld VSEN emgequiz)

samosas d1JaUas JO yUotUdO]aAop pur
UONPAIASUOD dy) 0} parRjar SUONPAOUUT
pure ofpaymouy euoniped) premor

pue y9a}01d 10 ‘saomosa dAUad

0} Ssa9d9R [ONUOD Jey) SWUSIUeYysOU
Jeda] Aue sou ‘syysu Ayadosd
Jenjoa][a}UT BurMIIAOT YomaweIy
yeda] 10 Aotjod ou sey amqequiiz

[S$ o8eg
T/ANI/€/f8 M/C 8)0/ddNN

jadoid ay) yo yetuap ay) JaAaMOY
(Z661) Z ON Ogeyy 0} asuodsar
SANLISISa] ay) payuasoidal E66] IOV
APL PANN ay ‘suajsAs peda] pesnyd
Jo jayyered Jo aoua}sixa ay) wos asue
YOIYA SaquaIAIJIP DUIOUODA pu |eIDOS:
“Jesny[No ayy aepourwos9e 0} ‘sny}
‘pure wajsds uelensny ay) apisduoje
swia}sAs ainua) pur] jeudu0qy
a}epOUUIODIE 0} SI(9661) YIM pue
(Z661) T ON OGeW U! UOIsI9ap yNOD
Ysty oyp Aq oinjeysidoy uelpeysny

ayy uodn ysniuy yoafod jers0s ayy,

‘odpaymouy,

diay) pue sajdoad snouadipur

JO} UONDa}0Id |[Ny JO WOYs s|[ey
—ajdoad snouadiput jo snyeys jetsads
ay) JO UOKUaW OU SoyPUL Tey J9Ry
ay) pue — uoNNyYsUOD ayy ul sajdoad
snouodipul papsoyye syysu yo youy ayy,

(09:6661 Pauay, Fury

M)SiuRUITE]D JOJ SAN|NIYJIP Juasasd

Ue SITY) “WIE]D ay) JO doUBSUI ay)

woyy sreaf dosy) pIyeAuUl ase sue] pue
‘auity aye) ued ajdoad jo dnoid ads]
Ajyenuajod e yons Sursiuedio aourg
unoo ul readde jsnur sauersiyauaq

ay) [[e 10 ‘sauersiyauaq yenuajod

[2 Suns ‘payy aq ysnwi sanequasaidas &
Joya wie]D B ayeW OF “ay Arewioysno)
9AN199]]09 JO SIAP]OY se ‘sjrounos
ade]IIA se yons ‘sarpoq ayeiod109
Aroynyeys astudose1 Jou Op sunos

dy) OAIMOP{ “SMET AFPUNO)SND JURAgTAI
Jo aouaisixa ay) JO Joosd uO synod ay
UI PaljaA aq ued samjsed yo diysiaumo
.SantuNWWOD snouddipuy (ayy

yeda]) AouednsaQ Jo WY Sry payuesyH pue
‘(apy Arewioysno) Aouednoag Jo swyany
pawaag jo snjejs jenba ay) asiudooa1
sunoo ueruezuey (b9°6661 INGOT
Uag) JUasuod jeENUapIsalg NOY
suonesodioo pure siowuey feIaWw0s
0} puey dn Suraid Ajypenpesd uaaq

daRy SONWOYINE ade]]IA yng ‘suerueZUe

yey} aNsua 0} paudisap si siapaaiq
queyd 10} uoda}0Id sudUas Ins Jo
waysks (AQ MSE JO SONDULA MAN,
JO UOIIA}OIg AYP 10J UONUDAUOD aY],)

sajejakaA, suoUaygG sap UON}99}01g
PR] Inod jeuoeusdyU] VOI) ay]

Ul $}sa104 JO JUoWOneURYY SUIpIedOY
suone[ndoy joWadI0jUq ay)
‘ajdurexa 10] ‘aas) suordas jeroutAoid
UI Sanss! JUaWaTeUEW 9dINOSaI

pur purl s1y19ads SuraA09 SMey [290]
payuauiajdiui osje aavy sassaisuoD
sajdoag [etoutaoid asauryd ay.

Sanieuoneu AjWOUIW ay) JO Sysola}ut
pur sjydu pnymey ay) syoajosd aye}s
aL, ‘Seis p sony ‘saytjeuoneu
Ayourul 10} aoue\sisse aptAoid

pure sjsu aajuerens 0} ayeIg ay) YM
Aujiqisuodsai s}saa Bury Jo a1Qnday
(sajdoag ay) Jo uoNNNsUOD ay]

0} paau ay SadpajMouyoe SMATAa say}
Joy ajdrouud duipmad ayy, wwowedeueyy

$10}9a5 [Je Ul JUoWodeUeL

aounosal fesmeu paseq-Ayunwwos
ayeyloey 0} pur ‘Ayadoud yenyo9]]9 ut
pur svaze pajoajosd ‘syyats Ajaadosd
puey 0} Sunejay sme] Uayysuays

aomosay [EINIeN pue UON}da}01g
[eludWUOIIAUT UO MET 966] 24) JapuN
suone[ndas pur smej-Aq duipnyjour
“AISIZAIPOIg Furwaquos uonrysisa]
SunNstxa SuimatAal Si BIpoquie||

£661
JOY duUBIEN?) UR] [BUONEN ay}
ysnomp syonpoid (payojdxa-1900
pur) jeuontpesy Jo Wodxa ay) uo
suonouysal pasryd osye sey uenyg

~ dapayMOUy LUO IpeRs} JO UoNda}01d
ay) IA sIys ssopaog yueyd
[PTOIDWIUIOD JOUR 0} SLUTE YOIYAr
SdRLL SB yons suonedijgo jeuonewaiut
0} asuodsal & syuasaidas asojasayy

yy ‘squeyd yo uonepoydxa persaww0s
ay} 0} payuty St yy JO yey} Japun
papsoyye syyu ayeSosqe pynoys Ae

OU UT pur JY UONDa}01g adpa|Mouy
AyunwiwoD pue AIsi9Alporg ayy

ut ajdoad snouaadiput 10y suonsayoid ayy
{IM UONIUN[UOd UT peal aq O} SI 8661
JOY SaNaueA UR]_ Yesp S,ysapelsueg

“samjaueA
queyd Suipsredar me] e payuowaydut

eck decks Sey

(1007 “tue A
A UJ[PAaMUOWIWOD das) Saye}sa BAS
snouadipul 0) SYS Bas DAIsN]oXe yuRIT
0} paurjoap sey uNo| YAP] ay) 2onOBId
ul ‘sueiyesjsny snouasipul yo s}ysu

Ras JOJ SApIAold E66] DV APL PANLN
ay} YSnouppYy (g66I Te 19 UoIsUeT)
UONCUILILOSIp feIses UO SUO}UIAUOS
Jeuoneusayut yy gourljdui0s

Jo Yor] pure AjyeuoNN}ysuos

SI INOgE SWIADUOD pasted SPY 661

UL JOY AY} 0} sjusUIpUaUe WoIy payjNsar
yorym ajdoad snouasipul jo sys

|

syyau .sajdoad yeo0]

pur snouadipur yo uordaj}o1d ay) 0}
juounnuos Buoys vB sjuasazdal 8661
pY UONIa}O1g Aspaymouy Arunwu0D
pure Aisidaiporg yesp s,ysape|sueg

Ts aded
V/ANI/€/f89 M/G80/daNN

syysu Ay
sastudosas Aqtoidxa yory “erpuy
‘eyeyetue y Jo A10}19) ay} UL SaNIeA
quejd yo yoadsaz ui waysds suduad

Ins ev pasodoid [jig siysny yenjoo]]a}Uy
Ayunwwog eyeyewey ueipuy

au) “b66] SB Ajzea sy ‘afpaymouy
JeuoNIpen 39q}01d 0} susIUeYysoU

DAN LISIAa] My19Ads Jo yuaUdoJaAap ay}
UI Japeay POM ke ST BIPUT Jey) JWApTAd
SLY ZOOT IY (UaWIpuswy puodas)
syuajeq ay} UI passasppe uaaq sey
adpa|Mouy payeisosse pue saomosal
-01g JO UONIA}01d JY} “eIpUy Uy (eIquIy:
Ipneg pur ‘eyuey Us ‘eisAeyeyy ‘URC,
‘ueysIyeg ‘weujarA ‘sonauen queyd

JO UONda}01d ay} JJ UONRIsIdA] RUONeU
Jay} Jo ywawidojanap ay) Ul AOdN

YIM YONO} UI ae SaLNUNOD [RIaAaS

pur diyssaquiout AQdfN 40J payeniur
sey BIpuy) sioquiaw AQd() ae ueder
pur voloy ‘eipensny ‘euryo [payoajosd
ase] suoneaouut yueyd yeroiauw09

Jey) aunsua 0} pausisap si siapaaiq
quejd 10j uoNdajoid suauad ins yo
wiayshs (AQdf)-SIURI[d JO SANAUBA MON
JO UOND9}O1g AY 1OJ UONUDAUOD ay])
sayejada,A, suonuaigy sap uoN99}01g

P| Anod jeuoNeUsayU] UOIUL) AY],

sa9mnosal [2919 001g JO asn ayy

0 No Sursue syyauaq ay) Jo Sureys
ayqeiinba ay) pur ‘syuauoduioa

S}I JO asn a]qeureysns ay)

“AVSIAAIP [LIITO[OIg JO UOEAIASUOD
ay) Joy sapraosd yotym 7007 I9V
Aysiaa1porg ay} payovua sey eBIpuy
‘sanssi asayy 0) asuodsad uy ‘AJaUeA
ay) JO UONNJOA ay} 0} SUOIINGLNUOD
JOU} JOJ SANUNUOD [RIO] 10
adel[iA pue ssapaeiqg yueyd usamjaq
duueys-j1yauaq 10} sapiaoid yoy

at “(Tp aot aas) puny auad v jo
juauuysijqeisa ay) ysnomyy, ((1)LZ
apy) yueg auad jeuonen,

ay) ul AjaueA pasaysidas ay) JO paas
usodap 0} siapaaiq sauinbas 1007
OY SIYTRY S swe pur sanoueA,
que] JO UONDA}O1g UPIPUT AY],

(si0}9as einy[Nouse

pure Ansasoy ur) uoreyuowaydun

SH JO} SayNyY paye1sosse ay) pure (6661)
sue] JO sanaeA MAN JO UOIA}01g
ay) uo UONR[NSay ay) SI aApaymouy
JeuonIpes Jo uoyIa}01d ay} 0}

Suyeyas uONr]sIsa] yUIIAI SOW S_eUTYD
“SONOLIBA

quryd JaA0 sya quayed payuesd

osye aavy eulyS pur urder ‘elpeasny
sioquiow AQdf oe ueder pue

raroy ‘eryeysny ‘eury,) [payoojoid

€5 odeg
T/ANI/€/f89M/d8)/daNn

saieig asayy
ul payuawajdui pue poziuso0se1
aq 0) sme] Arewoysno jeuoldsar
sayqeua yoy ‘UOINISUO;

94) Japun sajyeyg snowouojny
poresap aie suorsas ulead
BIPU] JO Sa}e}g Jy) UI SeaTy
equ JO uoeNsiUTUpYy ay} JOy
sapiaoid uonnyysuod ueipuy ay,

0} Wdas P[NOM (s}ysH puey snoudsIpul
40} SurptAoid) G66] “S ‘ON 99199
Sueyjy URE JO JoysIUIPy ay) pue
(sojdoad snouadipul Jo sy [e110}19}
pure soinjonyys yepe ay) Suiziusooa1)

[EUOTIPEN JO ddUa|SIXO oY} SozIuTOdaI
uONNyNsuUOD UeIsauOpUT oy) YsNoITy

‘sajdoad snouadipur ayy Jo wayshs
JeuONNINSUT oY) UIIYIM suOTeSI|GO pur’

6661 ‘TZ ON MPT JUAWUAA0D| s1YysH ‘sMe] ‘SusTUeYySaW ‘sUOneZIUesI0

[2907] au) (6661) Me] ANsa104

St [[9M SB ‘SUONNNSUI snOUAaTIpUT

dY} 0} SUIOJAI UADAI ‘eISAUOpUT UT] SastUdOda1 UONNINSUOD UeISaUOpUT ay],

RIPU] Ul SAaqU], paynpayss
0} S1YySu Sununy siayuos 726]

JOY UONDA}OIg PIM PY) “VIpuy Uy

(20utAolg SueifayzZ ul SdAOsay
aiNjeN uO suoHRINsoy ‘9dUIAOI UN]IL
UL OJI[PIIM JO luawaseurypy Juipresay
SONY [PUOISIAOIg ‘AdUIAOIg SuIUORIT
UI S]UP]q PIA Poosuepug pue

aIeY JO UONIA}OJg AY) Turpseday sayny
JeuoIstAolg ay) ‘aduIAOIg Suopsueny

~sartyeuoneu
SPUIYD JO [|e Suowre aour)sisse jenjnu
pure Ajiun ‘Aqiyenba yo diysuoneyas

e sdojoaap pure spjoydn pue

BIsauOpuy

my

diay) Jo ywawdojaaap ayy Ul AOd!)
YUM YONO} Ul are SALyUNOD [BJOAaS
pur diysiaquoaw AQdf 10} parentur
sey BIpuy) sIaqUIDW AQ ae ueder
pure valoy ‘elpeysny ‘eurys ‘[payoayoid
ase] UoNPAOUUT JURY JeIoJOWWOD

JY} JuNsua 0} paudTisap st siapaaiq
que|d 10} uoNoa}01d suauad ins jo
waysks (AQd{)-sWue}q JO SanaueA MAN
JO UONDA}OIg AY} 1OJ UONNUAAUOD ay)
sayejasa, SuoUuaygy sap uoNIa01g
B] INod jeuoNeusaUy UOIUL) AY],
SaNaueA juRld suipsmesas
Me] B pajuawaydu sey uourqa’y

Jenjoa]/a)UI pue juawaseueW
pur] es] ‘aspaymouy
Jeuonipexy jo joodsa ur siamod
Suryeu-Mey| ayeig ‘santunuui0s
[e900] pur sajdoad snouadiput

JO} s\yau Jo uOTNNQUSIpP
yenbaun ur payjnsar sey
adpajMouy ;euoNipes) 0} UONLIaL punod our
Ul [oUOD [eda] JO UONEJUAUTeyy] UO aNTeA pue paulap Ajsood ase Kay)
ay) ‘SANMUNLLUODS [RIO] JOJ} ‘APOD pue’] yeaeses ayy Aq pastudooas
AIUBWIIAOS [BIO] SoINsua wWa}sAs aye s}Yysu pury Arewoysno ayy
JBuoNNNsuOD s eISARTeYY TY AA “YBMEIES JO a}e)s uRISARTeYY OY) UT

qqo

ayy aep-aid Aayy ing siayomeasar
udIa10} 10} oR] ul are sjouUOD
ssasoe jeuoneu awog ‘aovjd ur
Ajquauino st adpaymouy jeuonipes
JO somNOsad [RIITOJOIG JO 9sN ayy
Joy ajdoad snouadipur yim Suueys
Wyauag 0} dy19Ads UOKRsIFa] ON

BISARTRYAL

uoueqa’]

satoads paysajo1d-uou yo surysiy pue
Sununy ay) Surpnyour ‘aouaystsqns Joy
saounosad }S10J asn 0} ajdoad yeso] 40y
syySu jeda] saundas (966 |) SAdINOsay
1S9104 JO asf] pue syysry Arewojsng

ay UO AVIN/PS JOPIO AY) “Cd Soe UT

uonoajoid
adpa|Mouy ;eUONIpe JO sansst
SSauppe JOU Op sMr| Juayed payorua
Ajquasad s.ueder ‘saunjonas asay)
ysnomp adpaymouy snouadipul joaioid
0} syaas pue syysu Ayadoid yenjoayfayut
Jo wayshs padojarap ]jamM eB sey ueder
Ajuanbasuog “Ayadoid yenjoayayut

Jo asn ay) Suneyndas syuatuaaiae
JeuoNeWajul JO JUaWdojaAap

ayy ur 1aAeyd Aay e usaq sey

ueder ‘sanayea jueyd 1900 syysu yuajed
pajuesd ose savy eulyD pur ueder

‘RI[eENSNY ‘slaquUOW AQd/ ae ueder ospa|Mouy
pur eoloy ‘eyensny ‘euro [payaioid Jeuon pen Jo siapyoy duraq way)
ase} suoneaouur juryd jerosawui0s JO uoNIUso9a1 10 pur] Jy suol9a}01d 1661
Jey) QuNsua 0} pousisap st ssapaaiq nury Sunuess yo woys syyey nq Jy suONIpesy nury jo adpajmouy
queyd 10} uonsa}oid si4auad ms Jo suoniped) pue ainyjnd nury sunowod JO uoneurWassIg pue sinjjnD
waysds (AQdf)-SlueIdq JO SANaUeA MAN! Joy swres1doid dojaaap 0} yuaUIUIaAOT nury Jo uoNowoig ay) Japun dnoid

sauinbas £66 OY SUONIperL| [esny]Nd JouNsIp v se pastudooa are NG
Nury Jo aspajmouy jo uoyeurwassiq] — vONNINSUOD ay) UI palyUap! jou ae
pure oinyjng nury Jo uoNowolg ayy,

JO UONDI}O1g AY} 1OJ UONNUAAUOD ay)
sayejada,A, suonuaqy sap u0N9a}01g
P| Inod jeuoneusauy uoIUy) ayy,

Pepsoyye suoNda}od jeUONNySUOD ayy
Peuluuapun oyeyns Juapisag Japun
JUOWUIIAOS URISAUOpUT [PU9 ay}

Aq pajuawiaydut smey yey) andze (0007)
ofoy pure ws09]y ‘elsquopuy jo sojdoad
snouadipul ay) Jo suiajsAs jesnyjno

ay) WoO paAuap sannua jeontjod

‘squdWaSueue yUuoWad0jUa
pur uonejuowajdu saneqsiurupe
at) spunouns Aindiquie ‘meq Ansoo.y
DU} 0} UONR[AI UL SBA] Je “DAQMOP]
“aInud} pur] pur sdueUJaAOd Arewojsno
0} UONda}OId SANLISITA] ployye

PS oseg
/ANI/€/f89M/GdO/daNN

YUM YoNO} UT are SALNUNOD [eIDANS
pure diysiaquiawt AQdf/ 107 parentui
sey BIpuy) siaquiaw AOQdf) ae ueder
pure valoy ‘elyeysny ‘eulyd [pa}oajoid
are] suoneaouut jueyd peroraww09

JY} aINsua 0} paudisap si siapaciq
juejd 103 uonsa}01d suauad ins yo
wayss (AQd/)-Swe]q JO SaNaUeA MAN
JO UON}D9}O1q BY} 10} UONUDAUOD ay)
sajelada,, suonuaiqy sap uonda}01g

P| Nod JeuoneuUajUy UOIUL) AY],

"SUOISI9ap

juatuaseuetu pue duruueyd ui poajoaur
are ajdoad jeoo] Jey) soinsua joy)

ay] Sauoz Jayynq, say) pue sysed jo
uatUYst]qeisa ay} J0J aprAoid oy yey)
0} sjuatupusure € 66] 3Y) Ajreynorped
Pur °€26] VW UONBAIASUOD azIP]IM
pure syseg jeuoNeN op ‘Jedany uy

Saosnosad UMO I19y) ad1jod pue aseuews
0} SatjuNWWOd siamodua ‘saomnosar
JSA10J Puke S}sasOJ JO ASN ayqeureysns
pue juawaseuew ‘uoneArasuos

AY} SUIZDUOD YOIYM “uONe|sIdI] ISosO]
ay L (S661 ‘Suone[Nsay ay) osye aas
Pur “€661) IOV IS9104 ay) pur (6661)
JOY ADUBWIDAOD JJag [2907] s,jeday

UI JUAPIAa SI SatUNWIWWOD [BDO] JO
uonediorued ay) uo siseyduia Suons vy,

SWysu siapaciq yueyd
syoajoid (6661) IOV Sana, JWUe[q
JO U0NIa101g YRIP ay) ‘eIsAeyeYY UT

‘(eIqeiy
Ipneg pure ‘eyue’y ug ‘eisdeyeyay ‘UeUIG,

“URYSIyeY ‘WeUJaIA ‘sonaueA yueld
JO UONda}0I1d JY} JO} UONEISTFa] [euoTeU

GS o8eg
T/ANI/€/f8 9 M/Gd0/daNn

‘satouajadwioo (jediorumur
pur ajeJs ‘[euoNeU) snoueA
ay] UaaMjaq palayeos are Ayadoid

(0007 OV)
SANIUNUILOD g 0} UONBINp sIBAK Op

-0Z JO $19e1]UOD panssi pry JUoWUIAADDH
aU) 866] BduIg (SjuaWAeY asy)
aAlasay DUNUN}] UO Me] pur ‘saa.J as()
jue[q [PINeN UO MPT ‘poomjany pue
Jaquil |, JSOIOY JO ISOAILFY IY} JOJ S99,4
UO MPT ay} ‘aydtuRxa JO} ‘aas) saqmnosas
JSA10J JO ASN puke s}sas0} JO JuoWaTeuRLE
ay} Joy waysAs aouad] B pajuawadiul| —ao1joe1d 0) sdnoss otuyja Jo syyTu ay)
SPY 8661 JOST ON UONNJOsaY] — sjajord ({eUTYD Jo) UONNINSUOD ay}
JapuN JWAUWIAAOH uRIOAUOW ay} “eIfOdUOPY Jo UOIaI snowWoUONe ay) UT

‘drysiaumo|

a}81§ JURUIWOP Jo yloMaueLy
JeuONNINSUOD eB UIYIIM ‘saTTANOR
[eany[no pue sansuo} aaneu say)

Waysks (AQd/)-SIe[d JO SaNAUeA MON)
JO UONDI}OIg JY) 10} UONUAAUOD ay)
sajejasa,A suoHualgO sap WON}99}01q

P| Inod ;euoyeusaU] UOTUL) 9Y],

syuajed duipseday

21NWe}IS UMO S}I AARY JOU SA0P Ing Me]
quayeg uoNPsadoog J[NH ayy 0} Ayed
SLIBIES) , B1O]HJOJ JO SYIOM ur sya
(SIOYINE dt} Ist949X9 |[eYs pue spoyjaw
pue suvaw jes] [Je Aq aoyyJo} FeuONeU
ay) 9a}01d 0} MOARApUA []eYS, ABS AY)
AqazayM SJa LU 910] 4]OJ JO UoNIa}0Id
ayy soy saptaoid $661 JO SZ ON

MPT 1YSUAdOD seed IY) JO GE APU
“Auadoid jenqoayjayur 0} uoNR]ad Uy

(S661)
(Sasoding Jay 410J pur ‘sasoding

IAWWOD Pur 1pNUIIIS
JOJ ‘SAANPAUAG] puke syonpoid
-Agq J10Y} ‘saounosay MNIUEH,

pur [eordojorg jo Sunsadsoig
ay) JO} Ylomawresy Aroye|Nsay,

B Suiquosaig, LPT ON J8PIO
aannoaxy . ‘Ajatureu ‘syuawmysut
21qe}OU ary) 0} ASL UAAIT sey

‘santuNWWOD feINy[Nd snouadipul

Jo s}ydu ayy souYysua YoIYyr
‘[sourddijiyg ay) Jo) uonnyysuoD
L861 24) JO LI WONIAS ATX apy

are yoy ajdoad snouadipur

se paryisseyo sdnoid Aue aziudoo01

Jou saop “uoITas ay) UI SUOKeU

JOYIO 0} IRIS ‘BaIOY JO d11Qnday oy,

padiawa aaey adpaymouy

JeuolIpes y99}01d 0} UON|sITa]
Aaissaidod pue aANeAOUUT atUOs ‘aseq
JeuONMNsUODS sIy) WI (Z| UONDAS
AIX 9]9lYy 22s) santunuuos yemnyjno
snouadipul oJ syyTuU JO UONIa}0Id pur’
uonlusosas papraoid uoNNNSUoOD Lg61
ay) Jo uoNdope ayy ‘sourddiyryg ay) Uy

(eiqeiy

Ipneg pur ‘eyuey Us ‘eisAepeyy ‘URW
‘uRIsIyeY “WeUalA ‘sanaueA jueld

JO uoTa}0Id ay} 104 UOTETSISa] [eEUOTWeU
Hay Jo yuaudoyarap ay) ul AOdN

UM Yyono} ul aye SarUNOD [RJaAas

pure diysiaquaw AQdN 104 parentut
sey eIpuy) siaquaw AQdf/ ae ueder
pur ealoy ‘eyensny ‘euro [paroooid
are] suoneaouut yuryd yerssowui0s

yey} aunsua 0} paudisap si siapaciq
queyd 10} uoNda}01d sudUas INs Jo
waysks (AQd/-SE]d JO SONSUEA MAN
JO UONDA}O1g AY} 10J UONUDAUOD ay)
sapejada,A, SuoNua}g(C Sep U0NIA}01g

P| Inod jeuOHeUIAU] UOT) YL
‘(eiquiy

Ipnes pur ‘eyue’] Us ‘eIshepel ‘URW
‘ueystyeg ‘WeujalA ‘sanauea jueyd

JO uoKSa}01d ay) JO} UONRSITa] PeUOTeU
Hayy Jo yuaudoyaaap ayy ul AOdN

(Z007 “OdIM) sensed pue
suoneAouul ‘sadpaymouy pareyjal
Hoy) pure saoinosas [eoI1dO]O1Ig 19A0
SoUNWWOD ([eUOIpPes) pure) [edo]
Jo syyau ayy yoddns pur yo2}01d

0} sure yoIy sIysny AuNWWOD
pur saoinosay jeoiFojorg 0) ssa99y
Uo UOHRSISa] payesp sey UeIsTyed

gs oseg
T/ANI/€/f89 M/Gd0/ddNN

‘(eiqeiy

Ipnes pure ‘eyuey Lg ‘eisAeyeyy ‘UeWIC
“ueisiyeg ‘ureujar,A ‘sanaue jueyd

JO uONda}01d ay} 1OJ UONLISISa] FeUOTeU
Hayy Jo yuawidojaaap ayy ul AOdN

WIM Yono} ul are saLqUNOD [es9Aas

pure diyssaquiaut AQd/ J0j pareniut
sey PIpuy) siaquiow AQdf) ae ueder
pure ealoy ‘elyensny ‘eulyd [paiajoid
are] suoneaouur jueyd perosauui09

Jey} QINsuUa 0} PoUdIsap si sIapsa1q
queyd 10J UoNsa}0I1d sauaa Ins Jo
waysds (AQd/-SiUe]q JO SaNAUeA MON,
JO UONDA}O1g BY) 10} UONNUAAUOZD ay)
sayejadaa, suonuagg sap UON9a}01g

P| Inod jeuoeWayUT UOTUL) aL

‘sjuejd yeuroipau yo asn

dy} 0} TuNLjas adpayMouy ;euontpey jo
uonsajo1d ay) SurUayBuayys 0) MATA B

YU UONR]sIsa] Sunsrxo ay) Bumaraas

Ajjuauno si aursipayy snouadipur

pur wnyeapzy Jo Ansiui ueyuey ug ayy.

(eiquiy
Ipnes pur ‘eyueT ug ‘eIsAepeyy ‘ueWIC|
‘ueysiyeg “WPUIAIA ‘sanauea uel

JO UONda}01d ay} 1OJ UONE]SIFa] [eUOTeU

Hay) Jo yuawidojaaap ay) ul AOdN
YIM Yyono} Ul oe SaLUNOD [esdAas:
pur diyssaquiout AQdf) 10} parentur
sey PBIpuy) siaquiawW AQd/ ae uedey|
pure ealoy “eiyeyjsny ‘eur ‘[parsajoid
ase] suoneaouut jury perosawur0s
Jey} aunsua 0} pauSisap si siapaaiq
quejd 10} UoNda}o1d suauaa ins Jo
wayss (AQd/-SIUeI dq JO SONAULA MAN
JO UOTD2}01g OY} 10 UONUDAUOD ay)
sajejadaA SUOKUAIGG Sap UONIA}01g
BP] inod jeuoneusajuy uoTUyA) ayy

“YON BU dU} JO asOY} WO JUNSIp se

SISQIIJUT_SANTUNWWWOD [Bd0] 10 ,sajdoad

snouasipul astfenjdaouos jou saop

(uoneindod Ayisuap yary e pue ssew

pur] jews Ajoaneyas e se) arodeaursg

sioquiaw AQdf ae ueder pue
ka10M “BITeISNY ‘eulyD ‘[pajsa}o1d
ase] suoneaouut yuryd perorouU09 aye}s uoneu
Jey) QINsuUa 0} poudisap st siapao1q DY} JO sJsaiajur ayy 0} ATPENUaLayyIpP
queyd Joy UoNda}0I1d sUaUas INs JO) ‘asuas [P89] & UI ‘polapisuod

Bia | : !
EL eS etree seer eee eres

LS a8eg
I/ANI/€/f8 9 M/dd)0/ddNN

ey

410j UONII}O1d ay) JO} (OZ ON

Me]) Me] UBIURWUeURY JO JUAWdO|aAap
ay) puryaq ajeuones ay) sea JI Se
‘uonoajoid aanisod Jo yoayyo ay} aAeY
P[noys sayyes 1 yey pue payoajoid aq
Pinoys urewop o1qnd ayy ul aspaymouy
[euoNIpey) yet Suipueyssapun ayy

0) aoueyodui yeaid sayoeye eweUeg

‘upjstyeg ‘weujarA ‘sono jueld

JO UONIa}01d ay} JOJ UONE]SIsa] FeuONeU
Jay) JO yuaurdojaaap ayy ul AOdN

YIM YONO} Ul are SALyUNOD [eJaAas

pur diysiaquaw AQdf 10) payeniul
sey eBIpuy) siaquiawW AQd/ ae uedes
pur eooy ‘eyes “‘eulyD ‘[payso}01d
are] suoneAouut yuryd yerorouw0s

Jey) AiNsua 0} pausisap st siapaasq
quryd 10} uoNIa}01d sUdUaT Ins Jo
wayss (AQd/)-SWE]d JO SAHAUBA MAN
JO UONDA}01g AY) JOJ UONUAAUOD ay)
sajejada,, SUON}UIIGGO Sop UOIIA}0Ig

P| Inod jeuONeUayUy UOTUE) OY

“saatoalgo d1Sa}eNS SI JO uO)

se sjewiur pure syuryd eso] Jo saomosal
onjauas pure sjysu Ayadoud yenjoojjaqur
Prendayes 0} uONesIda] Jo JuaUdojaAap
ayy saynuapl (ZE -2661 ‘Uoday,
JeuoneN Isi1q ay) Jo wed se papnyour)

(ZS S) suoistaoid

Suneys-1yauaq pur (1¢-¢ pss)
Ayrpesoy zeynotued & ut padojaaap
pur pansasuos sanaueA AuNWIWOS
Joy UONIA}01d suTe}UOS (6661) IV
uoNda}01g SANAUA UR] WY] a],

$]SOJ0} JO S9dINOSAI AY) ASN (SHIT
UlUIM) pur adeuRUt OF s}YdL s.ajdoad
snouadipul jo uonsajoid aaneysisay

B sapraoid yr ‘syysu pur] yoaye

0} papuayur joy ur OU SII YysnoInTy
sear }so10y ul sajdoad snouasipul

Jo sammpongys yuawadeuew peuONIpesy,
ay) uaySuads Jayuny pynom “payseua
uaaq 194 JOU sey YOIYA “9661 IOV
jsazoy AuNWUOD ay] (L-997:Z00T
Je 19 uuIsfeAtA ) SAadINOSaI UMO JAY)
Suiseuew Ul 9[OI BANuEISqNs Q0WI e
YIM SatUNWIWOD [e90] aprAold 0} 1661
UI papuowe sem UONNINSUOD IY] AY],

T/ANI/€/f89 M/G0/ddNN

uondajoid Jo sua)sAs

suauad ins ayeudoidde yo yuawidoyanap
aU] 0} UAATA aq Pynoys UONeIapIsuos
JOyUNy ‘adpaymouy jRuonipey

Jo} UONIa}01d aAlsuayosdwi0d

aprAoid jou pjnos uonsajoid Ayadosd
fenoayjaiur yo suaysAs Suystxa

dOUIS BY} POU Os]e sey BUeURg
adpaymouy [emyjnd snouad put

6S o8eq
V/ANV/E/f89M/dd0/daNN

Tweg Joy UONBUASaIdaT

Jeonijod sapraoid yor,

Apog paysaja Ayjeoness0wap &
S126] Ul poyst[qeisa uatuerfed
Twresg Jo ‘Bunawes ayy,

‘(L661 PuefUry) tues Aq payqeyur
suolgal ul Saounosal [eunyeu jo
uonoajoid pur asn ‘uawadeurw
9Y) AJBUIPIO-09 0} ‘9dIAIAS Ye
pur }soJ0.J YSIUULy ay) se [JOM se
“moqe’] pue ‘Aysnpuy pue apes,
‘aonsne ‘juowuosAUq ‘Ansor04
pur aimyjnoudy jo sauysiuiyy
ysiuuty ayy ya sayesadooo

J] 2781S ay) SIA-B-SIA suoeindod
Teg Jo} uoNRyuasaidas

yeontjod sapraoid yoryn

Apog paysaja Ajjeoness0ulap

BSI UOWeT[Ieg URS ay,

Bunso7T

asaosey ay} pue pueyusaiy

ul jodunspue 7] ayy - juowerpred
UMO S}I SEY YOR (p61

aouls) yreWUAG Jo Wopsulry
24) JO SUOISIAIP AATRISTUTWUpe
seasioao SuraA0d-j]as

are (6L6| Puls) puejusalyH pue
(861 A9UIS) spur]s] aorey ayy,

(81:L661 UaPaMs ‘7007

‘012661 UoIup uRadong) ajdoag ies
2Y} UO ¢'ON [O90] 01g “66 ] ‘UOTUA,
uvadoing ay) 0} uapams pur puryury
“RLsny JO UOIssad0Vy Jo Ajeary, ay] JO
suid} ay) Jepun Aupuegsny Joaputal 0}
SIYST AAISNOXa payuesd ose Tes oY]

(812661

UIPIMS ‘TOOT “O1-2661 VOIU,
uvadoinq)Aipuegsny Jaapulas 0) s1ysu
SAISNOXa tweRg sjuRId ‘ajdoag tues
ay) UO EON [OI0I01g “P66 ‘UOTUT

ueadomg ay} 0} uapamg pure pueyury
‘eINsny JO uoIssaddy Jo Akar] ayy Jo
SwiJ9} oy} Jopun Aupuegsny 1dapuras 0}
SYS DAISN]IXA payuess ose wes ay

Waele WWeRS,, ‘SanWoUTPy [eUONHeN|
JO WOND9}01g AY} 10} UONUDAUOD
ylomawesy ueadomg ayy Aq

PaJdA09 Jou are AEMION UT URS ayy,
(0661 Ul 691 OT Paynes AeMoN,
8661

Ur 691 OT] Paynes spuepiayian ay],

‘sanoury euoneN,

JO UOND9}01g JY} 10} UONUAAUOD
ylomawresy uesdoing ay) Aq pasaaoo
ase pue[Uly puke Uapamsg UT Tues ay],

AeMION,

spuepoyaN

0} paajoaul sajdoad snouadipur
ay) 10J sariunyoddo awos
Jseay Ie aplAosd sjudtuoasde asoy
666] JO WaWaATy [euLy ev eISIN
ay) pur ‘sjuawaody wired puey
aatsuayaidwoyg snayy pure auaq
NIYES £661 94) Pur UT YoIMd
7661 4) £661 JO SuBIpUy UOYNA
JO} [loUNOD ay) yWIM JuaUaaIT
[eULy Ppasquy) auf “p86 1
JO JuaWAaITY ;eULYy yN|eIANUy
ay) apnyjour syuatwaarse papnjouoD|
uonenosau Japun aie syuowiooide (ASAAIRY BLPASIN ayT
08 J9yJOUR AjayewWrxoidde} jo suoseas jrUONIpey ay) pue ‘sasodind
pure papnyjouos uaaq aaey ANSAWOP Joy Jsaauey B.eASIN Oy)

Syuaaadae JUAWUIDAOA-J[9S JO] JO JINJeU ;RUNLUWOD ay) YM JUD)sISUOD ‘(SE uONdas)
Jaquunu 8 ‘\nsor eB sy ‘sjuatuaalae SI ey) JauURW PU, ALY AyIPTIM swy8u Awan pur jeurduoge Sunstxa
JUDWUDAOT-JJas JO UONEHOFaU ayy} ~—-SSPNY OY) INOYSnosY) ayt|PyIM ysaarey JO uUoHeUnyjead pue UoNUdOIar

10j Aoijod & paidope yuaWUaAOH] 0}: YF ay) DARY suaZIIIO B eTSIN Tey) popnjour joy rovowy YON ysnug
Jesapaj UeIpeuRD ay) 666] UI] Sapraoid yuowdaIdy jeULy e.eASIN 9YL] OY) O1 sJUaLUpUAUE ZH] OY) “epeUeD UT

Me,
RUS
(100z Sasn)
JUDWIWAAO8 |B UO payin Mou
(61.9661 49Rq) JUOWDAOT si durysy pue Sununyy ‘spury rues
2}F}S OY) YVIM SuOIsUa} Fea[D UaAaq] —_UO SaNIAT OR Surysy pue Fununy 1900
dary ay) YTnope (T90T SGSM)| Aiwoyine tureg papurosas yuawUaA07 |
JUALUWAAOS ay} 0} preg AJOsIApe aU) P66L Ul(R 12661 UAPIMS *ZONT
UP SP £66] FOUTS pouONsuNy| ‘01 :266| UOIUs] URodoing) ajdoag tes
sey jasunowues ayy, suoneindod AY) UO €'ON [090101 “PHG] ‘UOT
ues 10} UONBIUAsaidal yeoijod}] — uradong at) 0) UdpaMg pur pueyULy ‘sonuoulpy jeuOneN,
aplAaosd 0} payoaya Aypeonessowap}] “easy JO uoIssaddy Jo Awol ay) JO JO UONIAOIg AY) 10} UOUAAUOD
SI pure jasunowes ayy pares) sua) ay) JapuN Aupueqsny Jaapuias oy] = ysoMawes.| URadosng ay) Aq posaaod
ST JuaweIped Weg ay) ‘UapaMs Uy] S}YFU aAIsNjOXa pajuesd ase weg ayy] — aye purlU] pur Uapameg ul IlURS ay],
(ewing) juawerpred
‘(uorday snowouoine yeUoy oI) ayy Aq paysafos uoaq aary sme] Rup
ul WouRsyy | ,.adnjas [ea1Tojo99-ouypa,,| Aue pure “6O] UONUDAUOD palynes JaAa
SY) pur JOUISIP UYSYFON oy}) paynuue} uonesapa,y ueIssNy oy) IeY) puNoy jou
Jaye] asaMm paydasor uaaq pey yey) dary am “WoAAMOF] (6661 OYYSEINIA)
OM} pur ‘paydafos aM sNyeIS LL 10} ajdoad snouaaipuy yo siysu ay) uo
suoneordde jsou ‘saramoy ‘1 O07 01 dA] sme] [eJapay pesoAas Funjesp pue (9661
100Z Ul D9J0} OJUT PasdyUd puke “6KH6] Ul] YoIRPY Ul) Sajdoag snouddIpuy WoYyON
passed sem (Sq.L.1/Sd.LZ) ..2Sn aounosad JO ssauduo, eB Juruaauos se yons
[einjeu peUONIpeN JO SaO}WA],,] Sdays uoye) sey Udy) aduIs pure “BR6] UT
JO JuaUYsI[qeysa ay) Tuljqeua Mey YW} 69] UONUDAUOD OT] poudis ASSN ou.
"sonsst (SOL: 1007
weg yim Ajpeatjioads yJeap sey Jepsa]jo.4) ,.a[doad snouoaiput
suey [PUOIsayY pur JUSLUWIAADH ue se snjejs peda] stay) pourejos
[eoo'7 Jo Ansiuipy ay) ur saysiuyy peajsut ing Ayourw B se past] Jou a9M
Ayndaq & £66] aug ‘suoneindod Hwee ay) BY) popuatuWOdad Joey UL

09 odeg
I/ANI/€/f89M/G80/ddNN

oo)

“pl Jaquiadag “Ayadoig jeujsnpuy
jnogeE aWIFaI UOWWOD ‘gp UOISII9Gq
‘9661 ‘Z Aine ‘saomosay

o11aUaH paquosqns ay} 0} ssad0R

UO aUITa1 UOWWOD :16¢ UOIsINAq
adpaymouy jeuonipedy

Pur AVISIIAIP [BIIFOJOIg ay} 0} JURADTAI
soidoy saajoaut yey) Ayodoid yeuysnpur
pur jenjoa|jajul oy) Suipsedos paydope
uaaq aaey Suorsi9ap JueLOdUI OM)
JUAWUOIAUA NYO ay} Uy ‘Bjanzaus,,
pure mag ‘Jopenog ‘eiquiojod ‘eIAlOg
Aq pawoy uoneziuesio jeuorgsas

qns & si (NYO)euIpuy peprunwo))

40 SUONEN JO AuNUIWOD URapuY oy],

[9 o8eq
T/ANI/€/f89M/GdO/ddNN

‘ajdoad asayy Jo Audayur eunyjno
0190s ay) azipsedoaf yey) swafqoid |[Ns:
ue a1ay} ‘spue] snouadipur uozewy
JO JuaWA]}UE dy) UT 9OURApe Ue

uaaq sey aJay) yey) Joey ay) Jo ayids uy
seosre uozeury oatjoadsal say)

ur Ajurew ‘paziudoa1 uaaq aary spur]
JO SUd}X9 ISPA “JOpenog pur [Izeig
“RIQUIO]OD “BIAI]Og ay1] SaLUNOD
AUIS U] ‘Spur] Jo JUaWAWUA pue
uonesedal ‘uonroreuap Jo sassaooid
yoouapun ‘aureuting 104 }daoxa ‘uoldar
UOZeUTY ay} JO SALNUNOD ay} JO ISO

sureyye

UMO Jay} aseueUL 0} AWOUOINE
ssa] Aqueoiiudis aary yuauusaAod
[eJapay oy Aq poziuZosa1 Jou

S/N ay) Ul saqu, pue sanrunwuwo0s
SHI IsOW ‘oy UeIpUy

94) Japun Suneiedo spueg suonen
1SIIJ JOASMOY “WUaWUIBAOT

=J]9S 0) YSU JUaZOYUI Ue SuIpjoYy
se paziudooal uaaq aaey vouoUry
YUON ut sajdoad snouadipur
[PION “epeues ur sanrunwuwos
snouasipur duraao0d

~JJAS JO yey) OF ULye AWoUONe

JO aardap & aay (Saquy) sajdoad
snouasipul Auetu juawuisa03,
[esopay ayy Aq uoltudo9—1

[elo M9Y) JO yNso1 e Sy

‘sareyye

UMO Jay} oseuR 0} AWOUO)NE
ssa] Ayjueroyiuais sary yuaWUseAod
yesapay ay) Aq paziusosar jou

S/N ay ul saquy, pue saniunwuo0s
SHO ISOU “Joy UeIPUT ay) Japun
Sunesado spueg suonen Isst4
JOAIMOY “UAWUIAAOS-J]as 0} 1YSU
juasayul ue Furpjoy se pazudosas
uaaq aary BOOTY YON

ur sajdoad snouasipul [je 10N

aa payMouy

JeuonIpen say) y9a}01d pue asn

1661 Ul 691 OTL Paynes Bialjog

‘quatuUoA08

[esapay ay} Aq paziusooas Aype1oyyo

are (saqu],) sajdoad snouadipur Auew
Aepo} uaWWaAo0y ueseury ay) pue
$9]81§ payuy ey) ul sajdoad snouadipur
ay) uaaMjaq Sdiysuonejas ay) UI SUMOP
pur sdn uaaq aaey o1ay) ysnow[y

vy

‘Jo uonsa}o1d ayy 0) parejas Ajpeoiyioods
Sansst Japisuos 0} payepdn uaaq

DdUIS 9ARY SUOISINAG ASAYL ONT “FI
Joquiaidag “Ayadoig jesnpuy ynoge
SWIFaI UOWOD “Ogp UOISID9 ‘9661
“Zz Ajng ‘saoinosay dnauUay paquosqns
ay} 0} ssadoR UO aUIaas UOLUWOD

16€ UOIsI9aq_-aapaymouy [euOHIpes)
Pure AJISIIAIP [RIITOPOIg dy) 0} JURADTAL
sordoy saayoaut yey) Ayadoid yeuisnpur
pue yenqoojjarut ay) Buipsedas paydope
uaaq aAey suorsisap JueHodwi OM)
JuaWUOITAUA NYO ay} Uy BjanzauaA,
pure niag ‘JOpendy ‘eIquio[oD ‘BIAT|Og
Aq pawoy uoneziuedio jeuordas

qns & st (NYO)eulpuy peprunwoD

JO SUONEN JO AunuIWOD URApUY oy.)

uozeuty aanoadsas stay) ut Ayureur
‘paziusosa uaaq aARy spur] JO syua}xo
ASBA “JOpeNdg pure |Ize1g ‘eIquIOjOD
“RIAI[OG OXI] SALUNOD atuos Uy spur] JO
juawapinua pue uonesedas ‘uonrorewap
Jo sassaooid yoouapun ‘aweunng Joy
jdaoxa ‘uoldas uozewy ay) Jo sauyuNod
ay) Jo soy ( Pu B}IIeH) eIquoO[OD

ur ajdoad yoryq ayy yo Auapt

ay) JO uoNda}01d pue uoNUROaI

au) pur AxjUNOD ay) JO ay] A1WOUODA ay)
pur sarorjod ay) ul sayrunuuo0s yoR1q
ay) Jo uonedroned ay) ‘sa110j11193

JY) JO JUIWIAIINUA IAN}III[OI OU)

0} 1Y9 ay) SazIUTODAI Jey) VON NSUOD
ay) jo Asoyisuesy st yoTyM “Cg apoE
ay) sdojaaap eiquiojod Jo OL Me]
ajdoad asayy yo AuFayur pesnyjno

0190s ay} azipsedoal yey) suiayqosd

are olay) ‘spue] snouasipul uozewy

Jo JuawayInUa ay) UT DduRApe Ue

uaa sey azayy Ieyy 19ey ayy Jo ayids uy
sear uozeuly aatjsedsar

ayy ur Ayurew ‘paziudooas uaaq

SABY Spur] JO $]U}Xa JsBA “JOpenog pure
JIzeag ‘RIquwojoD RIAIOg ayI] SALUNOS
AUIOS UJ ‘Spury Jo JUaWAyUS pue
uonesedas ‘uoneorewoap Jo sassac0id
yoouapun ‘atueuring Joy Wdaoxa ‘uordar
UOZRUTY OY} JO SAIUNOD ay} JO ISO

uoneindod uesuawy-olyy aut J0y
syydu jerads duraqquerend padojaaap
uaaq sey UONP]SIsa'7 suOINNSUOS
JOY) UT payesdasuod

are ajdoad asayy Jo sys oy) pue
‘uoNNsUOS s,ANUNOD oY} UL pauLysud|
are ajdoad snouadiput jo sya

AYL 1661 Ut 691 OT! Paynes eiquiojo)

SOmUNUILOD
yor|q pur snousdipur ayy 07 s1ysu
Jesny[No pue per0} 1119} samsse ‘gg6]
ut paidope ‘jizerg Jo uonynsuoD ay],
ZOOT Ut 691 OT PAyNeA [Ize]

Sapa] Mouy [euOTIpel

Jo uonsa}01d ayy 10y yesodosd jeuoneu
B SUTE}UOS YOIYM JUAaWINIOp

B JO UOTIONposd ay) OF pay YOTYM

‘gorjd yoo) sdoysyiom g] JuaWoode
SIy} JO }JNsai eB Sy ‘SALNUNOD Jaquiay|
ay} JO Quo YoRa UT SaIpNys jeuONeU

JO UONeIOgRIA BY} SAYsi[qeysa Jey) NYO
ay) JO [6€ UOIsI9aq ay} Jo UONISOdsIq
Aroyisues |, ay) 2NIaxa paquosqns

Sem AJOI90S [LAID ay] pur sjuesead
‘suoneziuesio snouadiput ‘syuedroned
SUdWIUIAA08 ay) SuoWe UONPIadooD
jo juaWaady jeUONNyNSUI JO}UT

ue ‘g66] UT 'SoIdo} asayy 0} payejas a}e)S
ay) JO suoIsi9ap ay} ul UONedIoNed
Popuewap aary suonesiuedio
snouadipul URIAI[Og AY} 966] WO]

RIqUIO]OD

/ANI/€/f89M/G90/ddNN

“uonoajoid nay], SantuNUIWOD [290]
Pure oruyja ayy Jo sqysu jenyoayjaqut
9AI}99]]O9 JO UID}SAS SAU INS B JO
JUSWYST[GeISA ‘SIYBNY 2BaNda]]OD ay jo)
ap ayy Jopun “77 ¢ apy UT sayeorpuT
“NVO U2 JO ogp UOIsI9aq ay) Jo suraW
Aq paysiqeiso ‘Auadoig jeujsnpuy jo
awIsay UOWWOD ay) YIM paztuoWeY
‘Kpadorg jenyoayjayuy JO Me] AY, ‘QO0Z
“pl saquiaidag “Ayadosg yeuisnpuy
jnoge sual UOWIWIOD ‘ggp UOISINAq

« (9661 ‘Z Aine ‘saomnosay sNauayH
Paquosqns at} 0} ssadoe uo aUTdar
UOLILUOD °[6€ UOISIDAG 4 :adpaymouy
JeuONIpes pur AYISIaAIp [edIdO]O1g

2Y) 0} JURAQTAI SoIdo} SAA;OAUI

yey) Awadoud yensnpur pure jenjooyjaqut
OY} 0} spredas se poydope uaaq aaey
suotsioap jueyoduit om) yuaWUOIIAUS
NV ou) uy ‘Bjanzaua, pue nag
‘ropendg ‘BIquiojog “BIAIjog Aq pauLoy
uoneziuedio ;euorsal qns e si (eUIpPUY
peprunwog Jo} NYO palerAaiqqe)
suoneNn Jo Aunwwod ueapuy ayy,

pasiseydua

st(09 1007 a0ydsouny ayy

Jo Auystuip)) adpaymouy yesjsaoue
ayy Jo Aadoid yenqoayjaqut
9A1}99][09 ay} 0} sajdoad ayy
wos Sunes JYys1 oy} saajuPsend
Jey) pueunuos jeuonnjysuo0s

at) ezieuonesado 0} suu0u
Surdojaaap Apuadin yo Ayissaoau

aYL AVSIAAIPOTQ Jo asn afqeureysns

pue UONPAIaSUOD dt} WOly

syljauaq paAuap ayy Jo uoNNquysIp
ayqeiinba pur sey ayy . ‘saaquesend
Jopenog jo Ayissaaiporg jo Adayeng

JeuoneN pure sarsijod ay} JO ued
(OIGADVNOD) pepissoarporg,

B] ap UONSay ap [euoINRN UOISTUIOD

ay) ysnosy) pauuoyiod aq 0} sey
asoy) uo JusWIdaISe Aue pure “(Z| |

uondas) aspaymouy [euoNIpen pue

AyISIDAIpoIg 0) ssadde pazuoyNeE

-UOU dy) SAUTJ J9AS YIM saystund

JOY AjIsI9AIPOI_ S,LONY BISOD °

6 woIsioaq

jo uontsodsiq Auoysuesy wYysig ay) 0}
AATIONPUO UOISSNOsIP pue UONeTSoAUL
Jo ssaooid [euoneu e 0} pay pey

SIU] “JONBU sty} UT payst|qeiss uaaq
jou aAeY SuUOIOR d1y19Ads pure so1di;od
‘Apuaroyya adpaymouy [euonipey

ayy s}oaj}oid uoNeyndas peusayur ue yey}
Joey at Jo ands upogp pure [6€ “She
SUOISIDAG SNVO OY) JO JUaUIdo]aAap
ayi ut padeyd yt pred yueyodut

ay} pue adpaymouy jeuonipey

ay) Surpseday aanjoe Apepnoiyed usaq
sey PIQUIO]OD 03 0) Aem Buoy e [NS

SI as9y) ‘soydoad [eins pue snouadipur
JO Sys ay) Joy UON]SITa] ay) UI ape
uaaq dARY SODUPAPE IS[IYM JOAQMOH

HI 0} ssaooe pue adpaymouy snouadiput

€9 deg
T/ANI/€/f8 DM/Gd)0/dd NN

‘ajdoad

snouadipul ay) 0) Auownyed
JBouO}sIY pue feinyjnd Jo saysuen
ay) sayesodsoour pure “(€007
ZOAPYD) JUSWIUIDAOS-J]as pue
Je0}1I9) se YONs syYBU dAyoa]]oo
WAIIIP ay} Surwsd9U09 MET
BSI], SIS feUONNsSUOD JAY)
JO asiosoxa ay} pue yuawAofua
al) saajuerend 31 pue ‘suoyninsut

‘dnoud 2a1199]/09 & se pure sjenprAipul se
saljijiqisuodsas pue syysu ay) asiosoxa
pure ‘sariunuiwod [eso] ‘suRLOpendg
-olpYy ‘a|doad snouasipul jo

SO1J0}L9} pue pur] se yons Grunuw0s
Jo SJySu ay, - ‘soajuesend 1openog

Jo Ajlsiaatporg Jo Adayeg jeuoneN
pure saroijog ay} Jo ueg ‘ajdoad asaty

ATES IY) YUM UOHeaLaUT/JO AWUsayur pesnyjnd O190s ay) azipsedoaf]

ay) sayejnday aw aus oy) ye pur’
‘s]00J [BI)SaduR JO saryjeuoeU
d¥I] SOATASWAy) aUTjap

JIA yey Sajdoad snouadiput jo
SUOTINNSUT dy) JO UOeZTUOWTeY,
pure uoneurps00d ‘quatudoyaaap
ay} ayn O},, suorstAosd paureyu0s
yafoid siyy Siyary aansa]]oD)
uo jesodoid Me] b ssorsu0g

ay} 0} payuasaid suoneziuesio
snouodipul Jopensg uy

yey) swajqoud are asay) ‘spur]
snouasipul uozewy Jo juawayynua ay}
Ul 2ouRApe Ue UdAq sey a1ay} Jey) 19RY
ay) jo ayids uyseore uozewy aanoadsal
Hayy ul Ayurew ‘paziudose1 usaq

DALY Spur] JO S]Ua}xa ISA “JOpenog pue
[IZe1g “eIqUIOJOD ‘eIAT}Og ay!] SaLNUNOD

uonejndod uesuawy-o1y

AWOS UJ Spur] JO JUaWATUA pue] oY} 0} paajURIeNs are syysu JeIoads pue
uonesedas ‘uoneorewap jo sassaooid| ‘uonnjysuos s,Anunos ayy ul paulzysua

yoouapun ‘aweurng 10y }daoxa ‘uorsar

are ajdoad snouadiput jo syyau

UOZEUTY dy} JO SAIIUTOD ay) JO SOW] PUL “S661 Ul 69 O'TI Paynes Jopenoy

€661 Ul 691 OT! Paynes Rory eISOD] voTY LISD

ajdoad asay yo AuBajur yesnyjnd

0190s ay) azipredoaf yey) swayqoid

are Joy} ‘spuey snouadipul uozewy
JO JUAWA}JWUA aI) UT aoURApe UP UIAq
SPY a19y) EY JORJ AY) Jo ayids uy ‘sease

‘AU]) OF payxuty Sajdoad snouadipuy
ayy JO aspaymouy 9aNda]]09 ay} Jo,
UOJ JO OUNTAY B SaYst]qriso MET
aYL (9 *Z UONDaS) AYISIOAIP [BO1FO}O1g
ay) JO SoNsua}9eeYd pur sasn
‘soruadoid uo ajdoad pue sarniunwwos
snouadiput Aq padojaaap adpaymouy
Jeuonesouadiajur pue poyeynuinooe
ayy se odpaymouy payejas-AyIsIoAIpoig
[euonIpen souyap y] ‘ssapjoy sy jo
}yauaq ay) JOJ SAdsNOsal [RIIFO]OIG UO
adpa}Mouy 9A1}99]/09 J9A}01d 0} sue
(zooz sNdNY) 118ZLZ NV 0007 ‘Fl Juasuod pauWoyul pur UONRI]NsUOD|
Jaquiaydag “Ayadoig jeusnpuy ynoqe Joud ‘aonsnf jo uonenstuupe
aWITa1 UOWWIOD ‘Ogp UOISINAG ‘9661 pure juawusaA0d-jJas ‘Awouo}ne
‘z Aine ‘saomnosay osnauayH paquosqns se yons payorosdde ase soido) yons
dy} 0} ssadoR UO atuIdas UOWWOD ‘ssayjo Juowy ‘sontuntuwos pue
16€ WOIst9aq:adpaymouy jeUONIpes ajdoad asayy jo siydu jeyuauepuny spood sduimesp
pur AjissaAip yeoIToOIg dy} 0} JURADI>L pure sajdiouud Suipsedar pur sajinxa} esnyjNd 0} payousai
soido) saajoaur yeu Ayadoid yeuysnpur suontsod yim jesodosd payaouos st adoos eda] si] aspaymouy
pure yenyoajjaqut ay) Surpsesas paydope B pajuasaid ‘ajdoad sueraniag Pareyjai-QIsJaAIporg yeuONIpes
uaaq dary suorsioap juRLOdtuT omy Oly oY} JO SAANRUAsaIdar apnjout jou saop 11 Ng (OZ WN IV)
qUdWUOIIAUD NYO ay} Uy Bjanzaua,, yim Apurof “Aqunos 000T UL IDV a]doag snousadipuy ay)
pur niag ‘Iopenog ‘eiquojoy ‘eIAllog ay) Jo suoneziuedio snouadipur JO SIYARY aanda|JOD oy payesynwosd
Aq patuioy uoneziuedio peuorsas quaraJIP JO SaaRyUasaidas ay) sey PWeUR UONNINSUOD s}I UT
qns ev si (NYO)euIpuy peplunuoD “€66] UL UONNINSUOD [RINI]Og a) Ino Jas are ajdoad snouadipur jo sys
JO SUONEN Jo AjtunwuwoyD ueapuy ay], Jo uoNeWIOJI ay) SuLINp ‘nda UT au) pur ‘P66 Ul GOL OT] Paynes aq

Jo Audoyur pesnyjno o190s ayy azipsedoof|

yoadsor yey) swio|qoud ose asoy) ‘spur snouadiput

SIU} Ul SULIOU Ystqeisa 0} AyIssadqu uozeWy JO JUdWATNUa ay) UL aoUBApR

dy) 1sad3ns yey) sour Adtjod ue udaq sey doy) eI Jory ayy Jo ayids uy

pure suonisod ‘syuauinsop jeroyyo S10}19}

are alay) “JaAaMo}{ ‘AISJAAIPOIG Hoy) JO UONLoeWApP oy) INO FulAued are

Jo aspayMouy [euoIped ayy YIM OYM SoUO ay) aue SAANeU oy) ‘euBANS

parejas sajdoad snousdiput ay) jo pur ejanzaus, uy spur] Jo uowaynua

syydu UO pur saomnosal NAUAT 0} pur uonesedas ‘uonessewap Jo sassao0id

saga ay} Surusaqu0 suoneindal yooyopun ‘aweuung 10} 1daoxa ‘uolsal

oytoads Aue aary jou saop eurAny UOZPLUY dy} JO SALNUNOD ay} JO ISO
) MP] OY) 0} BuIpsosoe
juawdojaaap pur asn ‘uonenyea
Hoy) ‘adpaymMouy jeysaouesay)
Jo Auadoad penqoa}[aur aAt9a][09
ay OL 6, SWI ay) soyst|qeisa
Jopendgy Jo UoNMNsSUOD IY],
JO9}JO TeYI 0} Payeyoip aq [JIM WY MET
Jeroads & 0} pjay aq [jIM UONRoI|dde
pur uonenyea yo suustueysou

+9 adeq
I/ANI/€/f89 M/Gd0/ddNN

SONTUNULUOD SNOUdTIpPUT JO Spaou

ay) 0} pajydepe swiaysAs suaued ins

Aq 10 Ayadosd jo sw0y yuajstxa J9y10)
Aq payoajoid Buraq wos way) daay

JOU Soop sy) ‘adpaymouy ;euON pes ay)
Jo Bunuayed ayy syiqryoid uonnyysuoD
au ysnompty |,adpaymouy jeysaoue
Pure saoinosar asayy uo payiqiyoid

SI sjuajed Jo uonensidas ayy, syyauaq
9A1}9a]]09 ansind 41 0} payelsosse.
aspayMouyY ay) pue sadmosai o1}90Ua8
Oy) YIM payejar AWANoe |] ‘ajdoad
snouasipul ay) Jo suoneaouul pur
adpaymouy jeuontped ayy Jo Awadod
Jenjoayjaqut Sanjoay[oo ay) s}oa}01d 1
pure paajuesend si jy, ‘soyeqs ‘ejanzaua,,
Jo uUONNINSUOD ay) Jo PZ] APUY

adpayMouy [BUOIIpPes 39a}01d 0} WOU
[eda] apim e Ysi[qeysa 0} AnjuNod ysIIy

‘uonrsuaduios ayeudoidde
ue YIM pure sarunuu0s

ay} JO JUAsUOD |]Ny YIM pases
aq [JIM UONRUUOFUT [eoTUR}Oq

IlV ‘Sajdwes ureyias yo asn

ayy Joao syysu Auadod yenqoayjayut
pure MoY-MoOUy ‘s}os9as |RIOAWOD
ayqenyea ssassod ajdoad snouadipul
yeyp astudooal ‘oafoid uoNsa]]09
queyd jeuroipaw eB wosy dunjnsar
‘SAITUNWUOD YIM SjudUaaIae
Jewioy ‘dnoiy Asiaarporg
aaneiodsog euoyewayuy

au Aq payonpuoo ‘76 6] aouls
Aemiapun uaaq sey juawradxa
Jeu} eB ‘aspaymouy jeuonIpesy

ay) uo sarotjod a1ytdads 10)
suonejngar ou are asayy ysnouy

69 odeg
T/ANI/€/f8DM/d4)0/ddNN.

‘sdoyeul soy) Surppuey

Jo} sajdoad snouaaipur ay} 0}
Atwouoyne jo uldrew apim e sjuesd,
pure uonnsuod ayy ur payst[qeysa
sqydi ayy dn syoid jesodoid

ay Ssuoneziuesio snouea Aq
paipnys Buraq st Ajquassy jeuoneN
ayy Jo yoaford ayy Jo UOIsIOA Mau
ay Ajquiassy jeuonen ayy Aq
paaoidde usaq sey ‘ejanzaua, ur
sajdoad snouadipur Aq papremioy

‘SOLO}LA} UMO Jay) SuNeoreWAp
sojdoad snouadipur yyiM ‘spury jo

‘santunWUWOD snouadipuy] JuoWwayua pue uoNeredas ‘uoNeoreWAp
pur ajdoag Jo [1g MueFIO ayy] Jo sassaooid uayeyapun sey ejanzouaA,

‘sajdoad

snouadipul jo syysu ay) sastudooe1
PIANZaUaA JO UONNINSUOD ayy,
‘ZOOT Ul 691 OT Paynes ejanzous,,

LO

pjanzaua,,

aweulng