Just a report: traditional knowledge

I lost the first lecture of the second day of the forum at PICC by the Malaysia Science Academy and it was a loss. I was late and could not listen to Dr Martin Abraham, a knowledgeable leader in the field of community-based empowerment. The second talk was about Orang Asli's traditional knowledge by Dr Colin Nicholas, who is the founder and the coordinator of the Center for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC) based in Subang Jaya in Malaysia. He said that the knowledge they are using, is related to their subsistence, well-being, culture and identity, especially when it comes to medical plants, living in nature and artistic works (Orang Asli heritage). The whole knowledge is collectively owned, transmitted orally, mixed with rituals and cultural values. There are plenty of evidence to prove that "it is the knowledge" that can be considered sustainable. Reference to many books published; also reference to the Semai way of conflict resolution and the ancient wisdom (how they understand environment) transmitted orally through story-telling (reference to a book of Orang Asli animal story). What is not working is the imposition of western paradigms on their culture and power structure. As the lecturer mentioned, there seems to be a great difference between the way Orang Asli looks at the forest and the way the Western-supported attitude towards the forest. For Orang Asli, the forest is the center of the world. Also there is a challenge of the state's rights to the forests versus Orang Asli's ownership of the forest. If their habitat is touched or they are moved to another place or their life is negatively influence, depression would govern on their life. The lecturer referred to a series of threats such as policies of development and globalization.

The third lecture was presented by Margarita Naming from Sarawak Biodiversity Center about the role of local communities in conservation of useful plants. She explained about the traditional knowledge and as an activity to preserve the knowledge, she referred to community gardens, as an interesting and useful method to empower communities in Sarawak in conservation of biodiversity. The first stage is to talk about the traditional knowledge and its importance. The second is a workshop in the village to set the vision and mission. The third would be to choose methods to document the traditional knowledge. Also, people in the community are trained how to create a community garden (where they can learn more about the plants) - through in-situ conservation (there was a show case in the powerpoint slides about a garden in Long Iman in Mulu) - this creates additional income for community too through tourists visiting the community garden. However, there are challenges: traditional knowledge is fast disappearing; it is mostly orally transmitted; people in communities are highly protective of their knowledge and not willing to give it to others or next generation; at the same time, the younger generation is not interested to continue with the traditional knowledge; there is a low priority in documenting, with no monetary benefits, decreased community livelihood, and more important plant resources are depleting. In total, the programme seems to be effective, since communities under this programme, become more aware of the importance of documenting and conserving their traditional knowledge as their heritage before it is lost with the passing of the older generation.

In the Panel, there was a discussion about an action plan. Following are the points raised that I thought they were important:

Dr Colin Nicholas:
mindsets of the policy-makers have to change; words are beautiful but not understood by the people; the key to maintaining traditional knowledge is to recognize the right of the local people to their own knowledge; they do not want to be moved to another place, since it is their own traditional land;

Dr Martin Abraham:
Policies are important: Once it has been done for oil (nationalizing) why not for trees;
Mainstreaming TK is necessary; students in schools have to learn about TK;
In communities, there is no "I", there is only "we", everything is collective; they have collective rights too;

Dr Rita Manurung:
Political environment is very important in this regard (since the policies come from there)
Sarawak Biodiversity Center has been established by a government ordinance. The government feels that the communities should maintain their own traditional knowledge and that's what we have been doing during the past decade. We have encouraged communities to do so; a very recent activity, has been establishing community gardens; A data base has been set up under SBC's Traditional Knowledge Documentation Programme (the only systematic collection of traditional knowledge).

NGOs
- Mainstream the biodiversity in all sectors (more important than traditional knowledge) (it has been mentioned in action plans)
- Pressure of modernizing is tempting for communities
- Why we don't have one law for all states in Malaysia? Malaysia should guarantee indigenous people's right

Participants:

• Our local communities have more things than only traditional knowledge; do not commercialize them; it is a culture that has to be preserved. 
• Young generation is not interested; it seems that they do not care even to go to school; what would be an appropriate attitude regarding such reluctance.
• A personal experience: children do not talk in the language; they do not practice the traditional knowledge; new religion aspects; good spirits have become bad spirits; 
• Funding much needed 

There were some other discussions at the end that I am not adding here. Sorry for late publication. This report should be read with the first part of the report (that is about the first day of the seminar) and has been posted before this one.

Traditional Knowledge and Local Communities in favor of Biodiversity

Today (22 Nov. 2012), I attended a very exciting forum on "Conservation of Fauna and Flora" - the role of traditional knowledge and local communities" which was held by the Malaysian Academy of Science in PICC (Putrajaya). There were many presentations, but there were only three papers presented in the event that I liked very much. That's why I tried to give a very short report of these three papers in my blog. I do not know whether they can be found in the internet, but I am sure there exists certain clues for those who are interested to find out more about the role of traditional knowledge and local communities in protection of the environment.

The first paper that was presented by Professor Indraneil Das from the Institute of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation (UMS) was really informative, trying to picture how people in local communities have been involved in protection of environment through mythologies, belief systems and religion. An example is Pulong Tau National Park, Gunung Murud in Sarawak. He emphasized that the participation of the people has to be incorporated in the management plans. However, he concluded that "pragmatic conservation policies" are highly required to be considered and scientific data and regulations are needed too. Neither top-bottom nor bottom-up, linkages are more important.

Another lecturer from Penang, Dr Zulfigar Yasin, talked about the role of traditional knowledge and local communities in the conservation of coral reefs in Malaysia. He showed one slide which showed a Google satellite picture taken in the night from Malaysia that people mostly lived near the sea, and he added that most of the traditions in Malaysia are somehow related to sea. He also referred to the point that the names given to the reefs - are not new for people, since people know the reefs since years ago. He also mentioned that the people do not "compartize" the knowledge of the sea - it is a practical knowledge they use in their own life. Then he analyzed the threats to coral reefs.

The third contribution was presented by Dr Chang Yu Shyun who talked about the macrofungi used by Orang Asli for food, medicine, charms or other uses. This is important to remind that the Orang Asli communities in Malaysia use the natural resources in the forests for various purposes. She said the knowledge on mushrooms, while invaluable, are transmitted orally. She said that the researchers used a pictorial guide in visiting the villages of Orang Asli (only five tribes) - and the people told them about the mushrooms. The collected data have been categorized and studied. She showed pictures of the mushrooms and beliefs of the tribes regarding the mushrooms and their related uses. To my point of view, the research was highly important since it studies in details the local traditional knowledge on mushrooms. As it was included in the recommendations of the research, it has to be extended to other sub-tribes, especially in Sabah and Sarawak. Among the conclusions, there were issues which are important to look into, such as: "urbanization", "lack of interest of younger generation", "no replacement of knowledgeable elders", "loss of forest areas", "migration to urban areas", and "increased use of modern medicine". The researcher concludes that such use of mushrooms facilitates conservation. The results have been published in the book: Common Edible Mushrooms of Orang Asli Communities in Peninsular Malaysia written by Lee Su See, Chang Yu Shyun and Noraswati Mohd. Nor Rashid, published by Forestry Research Institute Malaysia, Kepong in 2006.

Community Dialogue, a book review

Some months ago, Parvin Pakzadmanesh and Mostafa Pakdelnejad and me (Saeid Nouri Neshat) edited a book in Farsi entitled: "Hamandishi Mahlehee va Jayegah aan dar modiriat mahaleh" (or Community Dialogue and its role in Community Management). The book was published in Tehran by Jameeshensasan publication.

The book has four chapters. The first chapter starts with the concept of dialogue in Iranian culture and continues with the concept of mahaleh (or community) with an aim to show how important is the role that "dialogue" can play in a community. It also studies, in brief, local management in communities that was prevalent in the past in Iran. From there, it reviews how the new structure of communities works in Tehran and suggests that "dialogue" has to be revived in communities. It also defines other necessary concepts such as "facilitator", "community researcher" and "community dialogue". The chapter moves further and tries to show that a dialogue can result in actions and therefore, defines "action plan" as a major result of such interactions at local level.

The second chapter is a conceptual framework. It uses an approach of local development based on "the symbolic interaction" and tries to show that citizens in a city could be neighbors that are responsible for their communities.

The third chapter studies the process of "community dialogue" project implemented by the Tehran Municipality (Research Center) in Tehran. It analyzes the data collected from the dialogues facilitated in 1388 (2009-2010) and 1389 (2010-2011) and proves how effective community dialogues have been organized in Tehran.

The fourth chapter is like a suggested framework for an effective dialogue within a community. Any facilitator or community member needs this part, if they are going to be engaged in a dialogue with certain positive results.  It has many useful points regarding facilitation, training and empowerment, participation, sincerity, trust, decision-making, citizenship, community management, neighborhood councils, differences among communities, special groups in need, special issues in communities, women's participation and involvement, practicality, monitoring and evaluation.

The book has been published in Farsi, and I am thinking to translate the book in English, since I think any community worker needs to read the book. 

Community management and facilitation

In Tehran, a city council whose members are directly elected by Tehran citizens is in power. Still for a metropolitan city like Tehran, such council acts mostly at macro level. After some time, and by a decree by the Tehran city council, neighborhood councils were established. These negiborhood councils (or Shora-yari or friends of the council) are again elected by the direct votes of people in communities. Tehran has been divided into 374 communities, and each of them has one established neighborhood council.

After sometime, a new mechanism was introduced: community manager (or Modir Mahaleh). A new concept that was brought into the communities to resolve the problems with the city council (who cannot decide for every community in Tehran) and the neighborhood councils (who had only limited duties of monitoring the municipality and keeping communication with the city council). The new community manager now has come into scene, with more powers, to help the community development.

To select one capable community manager,  a new entity was established in communities in Tehran: Community Trustees' Committee (or Heyat Omanaye Mahaleh), composed of members from neighborhood council, community mosque, local active groups (CBOs) and the representative of the Municipality at sub-district level. This entity helps the community manager to better decide and act in the community. 

It seems a little bit strange that in less than 20 years we have created five new mechanisms in Tehran: City council, neighborhood councils, Community Trustees' Committee, local groups at community level, and community manager. I think such mechanisms cannot work well without the people who know how to talk, how to create a constructive dialogue, how to decide in groups, and how to cooperate with each other. Facilitation can be an effective tool for all those who intend to have results at the end, since it will assist to have communicative process at various levels. In fact, facilitators can be much useful in creating common visions and objectives at various levels from smaller groups of community-based organizations to committees and neighborhood councils.

Diversity in Mahaleh (Community)

The level or better to say the "intensity" of diversity in communities or in local groups, is not the same as the diversity in bigger organizations, especially those organized from different communities. Does it mean that a local group shaped in a community has to be very week since they are only from the community and the members are not diverse. Is that true ?
When I look back at my experience in working with different communities and local groups in Iran, I can imagine how week the groups were. In some cases, some female villagers, with not enough knowledge, came together, while they were trying hard to create a change in their own community; they were not enough empowered since, at least, for one reason, they were not diverse. What has to be done ?
I think that we have to create diversity and contribute to it, as much as we can. If the group are only men, we have to encourage them to include women too, and the reverse is also true. Age diversity is another fact. Is there possible to invite various individuals from different age groups ? The third is to create diversity through involving various people from different perspectives.
In one village, I remember, I suggested students (university students) to join the group. The students were not in the village (they were students in other cities), but they came back the village when there was a holiday. That would be good, since these students could act as a bridge between the community and the resources available outside the community.
There are many other ways to guarantee the diversity within the local group, but, as facilitators, we have to ask the local people how they can add to their own diversity or to the diversity of their own group. Of course, the people attending the meetings have to be trained on diversity, so that they can understand the concept better. They have to understand diversity as "source of knowledge" which may be much helpful.

Encouragement of dialogue in communities: active listening

I have heard it many times that people in Iran have an oral culture and tradition; which means that messages are mostly transmitted in speech or songs, and will takes various forms of sayings, folktales, chants, etc. It also means that they talk but the do not write; however it seems people do not listen too.
In our workshops in various Tehran communities (mahalah), we had to encourage an dynamic dialogue on major problems among people living in a community. People, especially women and the members of local councils, loved such 2-3 hour meetings since they had a chance to talk about their own problems in presence of neighboring individuals; we found that people do not tend to listen. We, as facilitators, were there to encourage "dialogue". Dialogue means a process of talking and listening. Of course, when we are talking about listening, it is mostly active listening. As an active listener, he or she should be able to repeat back in his/her own words what he/she has been told (or what she/her has heard). This does not mean the listener agrees with what she/he has been told, but rather understands what others are mentioning. In fact, active listening - as a part of dialogue - improves mutual understanding in a community.

To be able to encourage "listening" in our project in Tehran communities, we used the five following techniques:

• Before the meeting starts, the facilitators remind the participants that they have two ears but one mouth. It is better to listen twice than they talk.
• The facilitator reminds people to listen carefully what others mention and not to refer to anything repeated during the brainstorming.
• Creating a pause either through paraphrasing or repeating, would help the participants to actively listen and think about the comments.
• The facilitators have to use the same language as people using, and to avoid expertise and literary words. People may listen better to a familiar language. 
• The facilitators will mention the fact that we are here not to judge but to understand what exactly people think about their own priorities in community.

Community acts in an environment

I remember, once in a local community, people were invited to attend a planning programme. I started to facilitate the meeting based on the process that had been designed. During the meeting, one of the local authorities thought that he should intervene, and when necessary, he started to continue the meeting without me. I let him continue, since I was really tired on that day (and of course I had no other choice); but then I found that he was just trying to end the meeting, since somehow, he might have thought that the people might demand something more than the capacity they had as local authorities of the municipality (as a governmental ). That was one of the worse memories of my facilitation activities.
Community empowerment will not happen without a general change within the system. The whole administrative system has to accept that such empowerment activities are a part of the general policy. In fact, the community acts within an environment and receives so many inputs from the environment. An enabling environment can help a community to move forward while a disabling environment impedes a community to progress.
However, a facilitator who is involved in community empowerment cannot wait until the system accepts the general idea of community empowerment. He or she has to start her work, even if there are problems. It means people have to experience participatory decision-making. That can start with very small projects in community. Such small activities will affect the environment.