Cristina Baldauf, Dayanne Támela Soares, Letícia Troian, Terry Sunderland

Not by scientists alone: scientific (dis) information and the contribution of traditional

ecological knowledge to forest management

Latin America: historical use of NTFPs

Traditional people have been using NTFPs over more than 10,000 yearsIn the Amazon → Brazil nut and palm species: ~11,200 to 10,500 years bp (Roosevelt et al. 1996) In Chile: boldo leaves among 45 edible plants dated between ~11,000 to 13,000 in Chile (Dillehay et al. 2008)

Microsoft Corporation

Bertholletia excelsa

H.Melo

Oenocarpus bacaba

Pneumus boldusMonte Verde campsite

H.Melo

Historical use: Traditional Ecological Knowledge

“Paleolithic science” “Neolithic

science”: domestication

“Modern science”

Time

200,000 bporigins

100,000 bp expansion

10,000 bp

300 bp

present

HUMAN KNOWLEDGE: Historical perspective

Toledo and Barrera-Bassols (2009): adapted from Levi-Strauss (1962)

“Post-modern science”

TEK “SCIENCE”

Lack of basic ecological information on harvested species

Effects of harvesting remain understudied

Less studied: Bark and exudates

The recent “modern science” and NTFP ecology

Trichilia spp. CATUABA

Even for plant species that are widely traded there is little

ecological information

Objectives

Ecological knowledge is one important aspect of sustainable management strategies

To identify the main gaps in scientific ecological knowledge about NTFP’s

Testing hypotheses concerning the patterns of available information

To discuss the role of traditional ecological knowledge in NTFPs management

Suggestions for future research

Methods

Level of current ecological information: 30 species commercially harvested for bark and exudates in Latin America and 9 ecological variables

Databases for papers, dissertations and “technical notes” which assessed ecological aspects of the selected species.

Keywords: scientific and vernacular names; combinations of species name + variables name in English, Portuguese and Spanish

H.Melo H.Melo

Luehea divaricata

Açoita-cavalo

Carapa guianensis

Andiroba

Myracrodruon urundeuva

Aroeira

Schinopsis brasiliensis

Baraúna

Stryphnodendron adstringens

Barbatimão

Breu

Protium heptaphyllum

Caesalpinia pyramidalis

Catingueira

Euphorbia antisyphillitica

Candelilla

Euphorbia antisyphillitica

Drimys brasiliensis

Cataia

Copaifera langsdorffii

Copaíba

Trema micrantha

Grandiúva

Tabebuia impetiginosa

Ipê

Hymenaea courbaril

Jatobá

Brosimum gaudichaudii

Mama-cadela

Pinus caribaea

Pinus

Methods

Ecological/harvesting variables: Pollination; Seed dispersal; Density; Population structure; Population dynamics; Population genetics; Propagation methods; Bark/exudates regeneration; Effects of harvesting on reproductive system

0- no information available; (red)1- Information for other species of the same genus; (orange)2- Preliminary or insufficient information about the species; (yellow)3-Precise information about the species in one study area or harvesting level; (green)4- Precise information about the species in more than one study area OR harvesting level5- Precise information about the species in more than one study area AND harvesting level

Number RES POL DIS PRO REG DEN STR DYN GEN REP1 bark 3 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 32 bark 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 03 bark 3 2 3 0 3 3 1 0 04 bark 3 3 3 0 3 0 0 2 05 bark 3 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 06 bark 3 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 07 bark 2 3 3 1 3 3 0 2 08 bark 3 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 09 bark 3 3 3 0 1 2 2 0 010 bark 1 3 3 3 3 2 0 2 211 bark 1 3 3 0 2 2 0 2 012 bark 2 2 3 0 2 2 2 0 013 bark 1 3 3 0 2 2 2 3 014 bark 3 3 3 2 3 0 0 0 015 bark 3 3 3 0 3 0 0 2 016 bark 3 3 3 2 3 0 0 0 217 bark 3 3 3 0 3 3 2 2 018 exudate 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 019 exudate 0 3 0 0 3 3 2 0 020 exudate 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 121 exudate 1 3 3 0 2 2 0 0 022 exudate 3 3 3 3 2 0 0 0 123 exudate 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 024 exudate 1 3 3 0 2 2 2 1 025 exudate 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 0 326 exudate 2 3 3 0 3 3 2 2 227 exudate 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 028 exudate 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 029 exudate 2 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 330 exudate 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2

RESULTS

Differences in knowledge between species: key variables

Production system Geographic distribution Timber

Trade Forest typep > 0.05 p >0.05p > 0.05

p <0.05 p <0.05t-test; 10000 bootsraps

Correspondence analysis: patterns of knowledge

Axis 1 x Axis 2

% Inertia Cumulative %Axis 1 35.4 35.4Axis 2 23.5 59.0Axis 3 16.7 75.7

There are no group of species in terms of scientific knowledge

Generalized lack of knowledgeCritical aspects to be addressed are: REG, DYN, REP. If natural populations are declining: GEN (conservation and domestication)More studies on dry forest and savannas!!

“It is absurd to suppose that the savage, a child in intellect, has reached a higher development in any branch of science than has been attained by the civilized man, the product of long ages of intellectual growth”

(James Mooney 1891)

AND WHAT ABOUT TEK?

CBD (1992) “Traditional knowledge can make a significant contribution to sustainable development”

2012: 50 years of “The Savage Mind” Lévi-Strauss (1962)

Value of indigenous knowledge

There is a growing recognition of the importance of TK

TK and climate change: adaptation and mitigation strategies will be integrated in the next IPCC Assessment Report (AR5, 2014)

Combinations between species scientific and vernacular names + key words (traditional knowledge, local knowledge, ethnobotany, ethnoecology, management, harvesting...)

Literature on TEK: rich debate on its merits but with few examples of its application to NTFPs management in Latin AmericaTraditional people rarely document their experiencesCase studies

NTFPs and TEK

Case study- Himatanthus drasticus (janaguba)

“conventional” and “civil” scientists collaborate to

address questions of forest management

Interdependent science

All people create knowledge

Discuss and decide together each stage of the research

Necessity of multiple methods: triangulate on better management practice

Evaluate conventional and civil science with equal rigour

Information Studies before 2008

Traditional knowledge

New studies (2008-2012): interdependent

Autoecology

Habitat Cerrado/Cerradão Cerrado/Cerradão Cerrado/Cerradão

Density/ha 27.8/ 31.6 Higher in Cerrado 33.3/28.5

Flowering peak Nov/Dec Nov/Dec Nov/Dec

Fruiting peak Dez/Jan Dez/Jan Dez/Jan

Seed dispersal wind wind Wind

Case study- Himatanthus drasticus (janaguba)

Comparison between different knowledge

More similarities between new studies and TEK than between “scientific studies”: move beyond “validation”; “reliability” of TEK

Post-modern science: “new rationality comprised of multiple rationalities” (Sousa Santos 1988)

Information Studies before 2008

Traditional knowledge

New studies (2008-2012): interdependent

HarvestingEffects on reproduction

No information No effects Increase in reproduction

Effects on demography

High impacts (based on visual impression)

No impacts No impacts (based on matrix models)

Individual mortality after harvesting

High mortality(based on visual impression)

No association between harvesting and mortality

No association between harvesting and mortality (biomass experiments)

Ideal frequency No information Each 18 months At least 24 months to bark recovery (biomass experiments)

Theory of planned behavior (Ajzen et al 1991; Ajzen et al 2011)

Knowledge is just one of the predictors of behavior

Interval between harvesting events

Ideal: at least 18 months (59.5%)In practice: each 12 months (73%): economic pressures

A boatman was transporting a pretentious man through rough water when the first said something that went against grammar rules. - Haven’t you ever studied grammar?- No, said the boatman.- In this case, you’ve lost half of your life.

Minutes later, the boatman turned back to his passenger.

- Can you swim?- No. Why?

- In this case, you’ve lost all your life. We are sinking.

(Wisdom tale from oriental tradition, from Shah 1985)

THE ROLE OF TEK: CONCLUSION