In recent years, attitudes to indigenous knowledge have been in a state of flux. Academics (Western or otherwise) have sought to research and document the diminishing pool of knowledge, while Western development policy makers have increasingly viewed it as an essential tool. Ironically, in turn, the holders and propagators of indigenous knowledge in the developing world have in some instances become more inclined to disregard their own knowledge in favour of Western science. (Bentley et al 1991: 118, Agrawal 1995: 415, Chambers 1980: 2).

One objective of a number of organisations and individuals is the global sharing of indigenous knowledge. By establishing international libraries and databases, it is hoped that the development community will be able to draw on documented indigenous knowledge and apply it anywhere. Such initiatives are based on the assumption that it is possible to apply solutions to problems in one country, to similar problems in another country. It relies on the transferability of the knowledge.

This paper examines some of the issues raised by this enterprise. It looks at the nature of indigenous knowledge itself and at the changing attitudes towards it. The recent interest in dissemination of the knowledge is discussed, and some of the knowledge-sharing initiatives are examined. The paper goes on to look at whether it is possible or beneficial to share indigenous knowledge, and to discuss the benefits and limitations of trans-national and trans-cultural knowledge sharing. The paper considers the beneficiaries of this sharing process and looks at whether this reflects a genuine and effective response to the needs of indigenous peoples.

It is concluded that the global dissemination of indigenous knowledge has, in many ways, been a constructive exercise, but that major problems exist associated with the transfer of any ideas or technologies, be they ‘indigenous’ or ‘modern’ in nature.

Indigenous knowledge (IK), also known as ‘local’, ‘traditional’ or ‘Rural People’s’ knowledge is not easily or simply defined. It is a term which has been employed in recent years in such a way as to become value laden, and has gained meaning beyond its mere semantics. Warren (1993: 2) describes IK as ‘the systematic body of knowledge acquired by local people through the accumulation of experiences, informal experiments and intimate understanding of the environment in a given culture.’ Indigenous knowledge is usually applied to disciplines such as medicine, environmental management, agriculture or even religion. It rarely exists for its own sake. Examples of practices that have evolved using indigenous practices include mixed cropping systems, water management systems, pastoral cattle movement, crop rotation methods, irrigation systems and the use of medicinal plants for people and livestock. For the purposes of this paper, in the interest of simplicity, the term IK will refer to the knowledge itself, and IK technologies or systems refer to the practices above. Much of IK work is concerned with agriculture and the environment, and this paper concentrates more on the transfer of such technologies and systems than on others.

Authors writing on IK related subjects generally agree that indigenous knowledge is characterised by the following.

• IK is unique and contextual. It is ‘embedded in a particular community’, ‘contextually bound’ (Agrawal 1995: 416) and ‘defined by the economic, social, cultural, ideological and belief system in which it is found’ (Ahmed 1994: 13).
• IK is passed down from generation to generation, often by word of mouth. (Marglin 1990 in Agrawal 1995: 418)
• IK is frequently the basis for local level decision making in the community (in Agrawal 1995: 416).
• IK does not necessarily operate in the same cosmology as western science.
• IK develops and evolves through time

Like most writers, Ahmed believes that indigenous knowledge is dynamic and is ‘developed and adapted to very specific biological, ecological, climatic and socio-economic conditions.’ However, opinion is divided over the nature of this process of development and adaptation. Many writers support the notion that IK evolves through a process of controlled experimentation while others assert that the farmers are capable only of ‘trial and error’ (Bentley et al 1991: 116. Philips 1994: 4). However, such discussions are beyond the scope of this paper.

A final aspect of indigenous knowledge associated with its dynamic nature is that it ‘is a mixture of knowledge created endogenously within the society and knowledge acquired from outside but then absorbed and integrated within the society’. (Ahmed 1994: 12). The ability of IK to encompass (and lend itself to) other streams of knowledge and technologies clearly pertains to the issues in this paper.

There are many other contested issues surrounding the definition and meaning of the term indigenous knowledge, as well as questions about just how (or if) IK stands apart from ‘other’ knowledge or ‘Western Science’. Regrettably, these too are out of the scope of this paper, and no assumptions are made about such points. Discussions relating to the sharing of IK are based on the definitions as set out above, and pertain to knowledge collected in the developing world amongst people and communities who live in rural, more ‘traditional’ ways than we in the West.

Attitudes to traditional methods in agriculture and medicine have changed significantly over the past fifty years. Agrawal (1995: 413) describes attitudes during the 1950s and 1960s. Indigenous knowledge was viewed as ‘inefficient, inferior, and an absolute obstacle to development.’ Approaches to communities clinging onto their knowledge involved re-education of ‘savage minds’ in the attempt of ‘modernising’ ‘primitive cultures’. As well as education, transfer of western technology was the pervading objective. (Levi Strauss, cited in Scoones et al 1994: 17). However, in time, indigenous knowledge increasingly became recognised as a ‘valuable and under-utilised resource’ of importance to the owning communities and the development process alike. Indeed, it is seen as a response to ‘the failure of the grand theories of development’ by many, and as a ‘shift from the pre-occupation with the centralised, technically oriented solutions of the past decades that failed to alter life prospects for a majority of the peasants and small farmers in the world.’ (Scoones et al 1994: 17, Agrawal 1995: 414). Indigenous knowledge was first formally recognised as invaluable to Sustainable Development at the Rio Conference: ‘Our Common Future’ in 1987. Since then, many institutions have shown increasing interest in it, and numerous international conferences have taken place concerned exclusively with indigenous knowledge. (Ahmed 1994: 3, Warren 1993a :93)

It is important to note that attitudes to indigenous knowledge amongst those in the Western and developing worlds alike ‘run the entire gamut from pride in traditional methods and rejection of new knowledges to admiration for new ideas and embarrassment about older practices.’ (Agrawal 1995: 424) There has been a temptation to over-exaggerate the value of indigenous knowledge amongst its patrons, and it is important to recognise its very real shortcomings (as well as strengths) as compared to Western science. Equally however, some persist in giving indigenous knowledge less than its due. Chambers (1980: 2) describes how ‘modern scientific knowledge is […] associated with the machinery of the state,’ while indigenous knowledge systems are ‘associated with low prestige rural life’ and ‘even those who are its bearers may believe it to be inferior.’ (1997: 205). In recent years, however, the status and legitimacy of IK has improved many fold and it is widely accepted and viewed as an essential part of sustainable development.

Kothari asserts that indigenous technical knowledge has two ‘powerful advantages over outside knowledge - it has little or no cost and is readily available.’ Indigenous systems and technology are often cheap and can frequently be paid for in goods or services, making them more accessible to those who do not have cash incomes. Ahmed (1994: 13) finds that indigenous knowledge systems and technology are ‘found to be socially desirable, economically affordable, sustainable and involve minimum risk to rural farmers and producers, and above all, they are widely believed to conserve resources.’ This sets indigenous technology and systems apart from many modern ventures. There are situations in which modern science is not appropriate, and use of simpler technologies and procedures are required. Such areas may include those where there is no infrastructure to speak of, no electricity, no roads, no access to markets for necessary inputs, no capital, and no technical know-how in or near an area. (Appleton 1991: 55). In addition, the use of IK in projects has been found to ‘assure that the end users of specific agricultural development projects are involved in developing technologies appropriate to their needs.’ (Warren 1993b: 2).

In some circumstances however, there is a genuine call and need for modern technology. However, many technological projects in the developing world fail as a result of lack of knowledge and understanding of the beneficiary community. Participation and a detailed knowledge of indigenous practices can be used to ‘bridge the gap between technical government services and farmers.’ (Fielding 1994: 143). Sometimes modern technology has things to offer and improve indigenous methods, such as when there are genuine shortcomings or flaws in the understanding of the people of their environment. Some examples of such shortcomings exist amongst Honduran farmers, who believe in the spontaneous generation of insects, have no understanding of the concept of natural predators (useful for chemical free integrated pest management) or knowledge of the existence of microscopic organisms. (Ahmed 1994: 8, 27. Bentley 1991: 117). In understanding these beliefs and knowledge-gaps it becomes possible to help them to improve their farming methods, with scientific embellishment. (Schumacker in Appleton 1991: 47). Another example is in the ‘slash and burn’ practices amongst the Maasai, which have been found to be (at least in the eyes of certain Western scientists and ecologists) genuinely and gravely harmful to the natural environment. (WB, 1999 Internet source. Ole-Lengisugi 1996: 16). Waters-Bayer (1994: 147) suggests that IK and Western Science need to fuse in terms of knowledge, practice and in internationally accessible knowledge pools.

The existence of indigenous knowledge is threatened by the development process, and the WB (1999 Internet Source) states that IK systems are ‘at risk of becoming extinct’. (WCED, 1987: 114 in Ahmed 1994: 2). Kothari attributes this to the fact that oral paths are being blocked and people are no longer staying in homogenous community blocks. Indigenous knowledge systems in rural communities are rarely documented. Thus, should the method of preservation and perpetuation be disrupted, there is a risk that within one generation, the knowledge could be lost for ever. (Warren 1993b: 1). In addition, children are being educated more, and frequently education has been found to lead to anti-IK sentiment. (Kothari 1995: 10). Given that IK is threatened with extinction, it is possible to justify the documentation of indigenous knowledge on academic anthropological grounds alone. (Hunn in Bentley 1991: 117) However, it is believed that indigenous knowledge has much to offer and teach the world at large, and only by research and documentation can it be preserved and made available to development workers world wide, and its uses be exploited. It is for this reason that the international databases and internationally available libraries are being established. (Warren 1993b: 1).

Within the scope of reading undertaken for this paper, a number of authors independently suggest that international indigenous knowledge databases are the way forward. Agrawal would like to see an ‘increasing awareness and systematic use of such knowledge’ and suggests that IK should be documented and disseminated amongst people through newsletters and journal articles. (1995: 419-420). Brokensha et al (1980: 8 in Agrawal 1995: 419) suggests that such archives could be used by nationals and foreigners alike to ‘increase awareness and systematic use of such knowledge’. Warren (1993a: 1), suggests that ‘active networking is needed if we are to make the most of this still largely untapped resource’. According to Warren the functions of the international IK information sources include;

• Providing a central forum for published and unpublished information and data on IK for use by development practitioners,
• Development and distribution of training materials on the methodologies for recording IK systems
• Establishment of a link between the citizens of a country who are the originators of IK and the development community. (Warren 1993b: 3).

Accurate and effective methods of recording IK are necessary for effective understanding of the knowledge, for the development of appropriate and ‘interactive agricultural technologies’ and for successful application. By documenting the IK systems they can be juxtaposed against global (‘modern’) knowledge systems, facilitating the development of ‘sustainable agricultural technology options, rather than standard technical packages of practices.’ (Philips 1995: 11, Warren 1993a). Databases and resource centres could aid the fusion of IK with Western science, wherein one makes up for the shortcomings of the other.

When a group of veterinary students from developing countries were asked what their future bosses may say if they declared an interest in IK, ‘one student replied without hesitation – "Laugh. Until awareness is raised it will not be taken seriously."’ (Fielding 1994: 141). Fielding (1994: 142) goes on to suggest that an international IK forum would serve to improve the legitimacy and status of indigenous knowledge as well as stimulate discussion about indigenous knowledge at village, national and international levels.

A growing number of ‘formally established indigenous knowledge resource centres’ are being established world wide, and in 1993, there were eleven across five continents. Three organisations united to facilitate the establishment of these National Resource Centres (NRCs), the Dutch organisation ‘LEAD’, (Leiden Ethnosystems And Development Programme (LEAD 1999 Internet Source) with ‘CIKARD’ and ‘CIRAN’, details of which are given below. (Warren 1993b: 2). Warren (1993a: 2) describes the function of the newly formed IK National Resource Centres as to facilitate the documentation, networking and exchange of information on IK, to research the impact of world-wide development on these systems, and to share IK for the purposes of development activities and extension. The Internet is extensively used for global information sharing on IK due to its cheap, quick and widely accessible nature. In addition, there are publications and newsletters, as well as the quarterly Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor (IKDM). This is ‘aimed at all those with an interest in the role of indigenous knowledge in participatory approaches to sustainable development’. Liebenstein reports that the IKDM is distributed to over 3000 individuals in 120 countries. (1996: Internet Source). Its objectives are to provide an instrument for the exchange of information; a platform for debate on the concept of indigenous knowledge in a variety of disciplines and an overview of activities in the field of indigenous knowledge and sustainable development. It functions as the ‘core platform for the global indigenous knowledge network’. (WB 1999 Internet Source). The IKDM is also available ‘online’ i.e., on the Internet in electronic format.

The following describe five major resources that are freely accessible on the Internet.

• The Centre for Indigenous Knowledge in Agriculture and Rural Development (CIKARD) of Iowa state University. CIKARD is the foremost research and knowledge collection organisation in this field, and frequently publishes in the Indigenous Knowledge Development Monitor. This organisation focuses its efforts on ‘preserving and using the local knowledge of farmers and other rural people around the globe.’ (CIKARD 1999. Internet Source). The site is hosted by CIESIN, the Centre for International Earth Science Information Network in Columbia University. It acts as a global clearinghouse for collecting, documenting, and disseminating information on indigenous knowledge of agriculture, natural resource management, and rural development. In addition it formulates agricultural and natural resource management policies and designs technical assistance programs based on indigenous knowledge. (CIESIN 1999: Internet Source)
• The Centre for International Research and Advisory Network. (CIRAN). This organisation hosts pages for the Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor, online version. In addition, CIRAN hosts the ‘Indigenous Knowledge Homepage’. This is a site that searches, indexes and makes available all relevant information on the Internet pertaining to indigenous knowledge, including papers, journals, mailing lists and Usenet groups. (CIRAN 1999, IKDM 1999: Internet sources).
• The World Bank Indigenous Knowledge Database. The objectives of this initiative are to ‘increase and improve the available information on indigenous knowledge, its collection and classification’ as well its application. (WB 1999: Internet Source). It seeks to facilitate better adaptation of global knowledge to local conditions, to design activities to better serve the country needs and to share IK through ‘South-to-South’ exchange. The Internet site goes on to list 50 documents detailing indigenous practices and asks for further contributions, comments and criticisms. (WB 1999: Internet Source)
• The International Development Research Centre. (IDRC). The mandate of IDRC is to ‘help researchers and communities in the developing world find solutions to their social, economic, and environmental problems. IDRC connects people, institutions, and ideas to ensure that the results of the research it supports and the knowledge that research generates, are shared equitably among all its partners, North and South.’ It is possible to search through some 12,000 documents with a keyword search.
• The Centre for World Indigenous Studies. CWIS. This organisation is ‘dedicated to wider understanding and appreciation of the ideas and knowledge of indigenous peoples and the social, economic and political realities of indigenous nations.’ (CWIS 1999: Internet Source). It also operates the Fourth World Documentation Project (FWDP) whose aim is to ‘is to present the online community with the greatest possible access to Fourth World documents and resources.’ (FWDP 1999: Internet source).

There are various other information, research and campaigning groups concerned with indigenous knowledge, but those detailed above are amongst the more prominent in the field. Another source is the Sustainable Development Network used to encourage the use of ‘indigenous, traditional and locally available knowledge, expertise and experience for sustainable development. (Warren 1993a:1)

So far this paper has described the nature of indigenous knowledge, and some of the moves towards creating public archives of knowledge. It is clear that the process IK dissemination is well advanced, but it is important to question the worth and feasibility of the initiative. There are various potential problems with the transferability of IK, relating to the willingness of indigenous peoples to share their knowledge, the overall effectiveness of the projects and the nature of benefits and beneficiaries.

Fielding (1994: 138, and Philips 1995: 6) describe IK as the ‘ideal’ tool for development in being cheap and readily available. However, it is universally agreed that IK is highly context-specific, and it is questionable as to whether given IK systems which prove effective, cheap and readily available in one place will remain so in another. Scoones et al (1994: 5) point out that ‘it is increasingly recognised that agriculture is a complex social process, not simply a complex, diverse and risky technical activity.’ (My italics). In a project in Honduras, various methods were implemented to help farmers control pests in an Integrated Pest Management project. (Bentley 1991). The methods were to draw on a mixture of the farmers’ own observations and on the knowledge of the scientist and anthropologist working on the project, though it was criticised for being heavily biased towards the ideals of the Western entomologist and pre-set project objectives. Various ‘logical’ methods were suggested and ‘extended’ to the communities, but many came up against (and failed because of) cultural ‘obstructions’. One such obstruction was the fact that farmers tended to respond to disasters rather than to prevent them. Their cosmology was fundamentally different from that of the scientist, and as a result, the suggestions proved inappropriate and ineffective. This example demonstrates the difficulties associated with the transfer of ideas and technology from one culture to another.

Scoones et al (1994: 9) write about the move that has taken place from the development practice of Transfer of Technology (‘TOT’) to more participatory approaches which incorporate the use of indigenous knowledge. Transferral and extension of IK are seen as politically correct alternatives to TOT. It seems, however, there may be very little difference between the transfer of Western science and the transfer of indigenous technology and knowledge, and that they may both encounter ‘cultural obstructions’. All holders of IK (i.e., those in developing countries, usually less-educated rural dwellers) are clearly not an homogenous group sharing cultures and cosmologies. No two are the same and most are very different. Given that indigenous technology is embedded in, and reliant on, a particular cultural and social context, in order to guarantee its successful transfer, it seems logical that the context would have to be transferred with the technology. This is clearly not feasible, and changing cultures and cosmologies to suit transferred technologies is not (or should not be) within the scope of development projects. Hence, unless ‘recipient’ and ‘donor’ cultures matched, successful direct transfer may not be possible. Should the transfer of cultures ever be envisaged, it could be suggested that ‘TOT’ would become ‘TOT 2’; Transfer of Thinking. (Fielding 1994: 138).

In contrast to IK technologies, Western science and technology is not culturally, socially or environmentally specific. Agrawal notes that ‘indigenous knowledge, […] exists in close and organic harmony with the lives of the people who generated it. Modern knowledge, however, thrives on abstract formulation and exists divorced from the lives of people.’ (1995: 425). In isolation, this suggests that the transfer of modern technology is likely to be more effective and sustainable than the transferral of indigenous technology, as it does not bring cultural baggage with it. However, it is necessary to view the two technologies more broadly. Often Western science requires more capital, and its use relies upon the presence of infrastructural support for operation, and maintenance. Most modern science has been designed and developed by highly educated people with easy access to ‘unlimited’ resources, and addresses the needs of people in a developed country. In contrast, most indigenous technologies have been developed using few external inputs, many natural resources, by, and for, a set of people with little money or education. (Cunningham 1991 in Ole-Lengisugi 1996: 2). Although cultures, cosmologies and ecology can never be matched (or transferred or fundamentally changed), it seems clear that if technology is going to be transferred, it is preferable to transfer it from a context that more closely resembles that of the target community. Hence, while neither may be ideal, the transfer of technology, knowledge, systems and ideas ‘South to South’ seem preferable to ‘North to South’. This fits in with the mandates of the National Resource Centres and with the movement to document and disseminate IK.

In addition to social contexts, IK practices and technology are often ‘adapted to a specific biological, ecological and climatic conditions’ (Ahmed 1994: 13), which suggests that they would inoperable or inappropriate in environmental conditions different to those in which they had been developed. Unless environment and (as noted above) cultures and social contexts matched, direct transfer would not be possible. However, it is likely that certain aspects of, for example, agricultural or irrigation systems could be transferred and may be operable in any environmental conditions. Equally, lessons could be learnt from the way in which a community tackled a particular problem in one environment, and could be applied to a similar problem in a different context.

There are other indigenous practices that are unquestionably non-transferable which rely entirely on a culture and its set of beliefs, religion and spirituality. Fielding describes an example of goat-herders tying red ribbons around the necks of goats to protect them from the ‘evil eye’, and hence, illness. When asked why or how this practice works, a goat-herder is likely to give a reason associated with a very specific superstition (in this example, the ‘evil eye’), or to reply that ‘it just does’. Such practices, from an outsider’s view, cannot ‘work’. (Fielding 1994: 138). Indeed, examples of such practices are difficult to document, as they rely on ‘irrationality’, and cannot be captured in the logic that is required for conventional journals (or scientists’ minds). There are also many problems with understanding, and misunderstanding, the reasons for which certain indigenous practices are done. A good example of this is cited in Fielding (1994: 137) who describes what appears to be cattle pastoral movement, apparently undertaken for environmental reasons. In fact, pastoralists may ‘move their cattle in order to steal, to find wives or husbands, to show off to other groups, - all reasons likely to be unreported in knowledge elicitation’. This is cultural and social (caught up in environmental) contextuality in the extreme. Even knowledge of such idiosyncrasies would be unlikely to aid transferability.

There are success stories wherein technologies developed in one place have been successfully transferred to another. Appleton (1991: 49) suggests that all technology can be transferred, but in order for successful transfer to take place, there must be a detailed ‘understanding of what the people want, and what the people are already doing’. She details various examples of successful transfers of technology and of knowledge that have taken place in Nepal. In addition, under the heading of ‘technology transfer from within’, she describes successful ‘South to South’ transfers of ‘local expertise to wider audiences of small producers within countries and regions.’ The resulting thriving informal sector is doing so ‘not because of the scientists, engineers, foreign technical experts or assistance programmes, but because of the artisan innovators and the customers that advise them.’ (ibid. 49). Such a process would require research into the practices at the outset, and an organisation or body to co-ordinate knowledge sharing.

Fielding (1994: 37) writes that ‘it is difficult to understand why we expect farmers to freely share their expertise and belief with other farmers, yet do not expect it of others.’ It is vital to look into the implications of knowledge collection and sharing on the poor. Indigenous knowledge for many people means a livelihood, and the fact that they alone are the holders of it puts them in a favourable position, and enables them to pay for consultations to, for example, farmers, or in the case of a healer, the ill. Other forms of knowledge have potential commercial value. Documentation and dissemination of this knowledge could lead to exploitation should the information be secured by certain parties who could patent the methodologies, and then not only use the knowledge for commercial reasons, but even charge the original innovators for continuing to use it. However, documentation of knowledge can also serve to effectively clarify intellectual property rights, and to help the innovators to reap its commercial benefits. (Warren 1993a: 3). Certain documented knowledge could never be released to the public domain. An example is described by Waters-Bayar (1994: 144-146) relating to the production of a fermented milk drink called nono by women in Nigeria. To guard against urban businessmen capitalising on the women’s innovations, the literature was purposely not published. The author notes the need to find a balance between documenting IK accomplishments and making ‘valuable knowledge available to others who might misuse it.’ Similarly, the World Bank showed some level of caution in releasing the document by Ole-Lengisugi on Ethnobotanical Practices amongst the Maasai, for the writing of this paper.

When confronted by research scientists asking to document a people’s knowledge, many farmers ask ‘who will benefit?’ (Kothari 1995: 9, 10). Is the information collation ‘for outsiders, by outsiders.’? Warren, (1993: 4) who describes the National Resource Centres in some detail fails to mention methods of allowing indigenous people access to the documented information; just the development workers. But how could the information be made available to illiterate people, with no access to reading material and no computers? It could not, and that is not the aim of the centres, and it is not the only way in which indigenous peoples can benefit from a knowledge collection and dissemination process. If the mandates of the National Resources Centres, and the ideals of the various authors who enthuse about the use of international databases are followed, then indigenous people have much to gain. They will benefit from a better informed development industry who better understand the communities with whom they are working. ‘It is important that these centres do not become ‘banks’ to which only the better-educated and economically powerful have access – leaving out the illiterate and particularly the women. To make a real contribution to rural people’s development, these centres must develop and promote approaches to increase rural people’s awareness of the wealth they possess and help them further enrich it.’ (Waters-Bayar 1994: 147).

In terms of direct transfer of indigenous technology from country to country and continent to continent, it seems there are a number of difficulties which are not possible to overcome. The highly contextual nature of the knowledge restricts its transferability. However, although the notion of ‘lifting’ a solution to a problem in one place and applying it to a similar problem in another may not be realisable, there are some circumstances in which this would work. In addition, there are likely to be many circumstances in which much could be learnt (rather than lifted) from similar situations, which could help shape solutions elsewhere.

One ‘way forward’ in development has been described as ‘learning how to solve problems from a holistic perspective, and how to work together with others in seeking shared goals.’ (ILEIA 1991 in Ahmed 1994: 2). International databases that responsibly make accessible all information that has been documented, could effectively serve to educate and guide policy makers towards more appropriate and sustainable development solutions.

Agrawal, A. 1995. "Dismantling the Divide Between Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge." Development and Change Vol. 26, No 3, pp 413-439

Ahmed, M.M. 1994. Indigenous Knowledge for Sustainable Development in the Sudan. Khartoum, Sudan. Khartoum University Press.

Antweiler, C. 1998. "Local Knowledge and Local Knowing". Anthropos 93, 1998:469-494

Appleton, H., Jeans, A. 1991 "Technology from the People: Technology Transfer and Indigenous Knowledge". Science, Technology and Development. 9, Nos. 1 and 2.

Bentley, J. W. and Andrews, K. L. "Pests, Peasants, and Publications: Anthropological and Entomological Views of an Integrated Pest Management Programme For Small Scale Honduran Farmers." Human Organization Vol. 50, No. 2, 1991.

Bentley, J. W. 1994. "Stimulating farmer experiments in non-chemical pest control in Central America". pp 147-150 of Scoones, I. Thompson, J. and Chambers, R. (eds.) 1994. Beyond Farmer First. Rural people's knowledge, agricultural research and extension practice. London. Intermediate Technology Publications.

Centre for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University. 1999. Internet Address: http://www.ciesin.org/

Centre for Indigenous Knowledge in Agriculture and Rural Development, (CIKARD). 1999. Internet Address: http://www.ciesin.org/IC/cikard/CIKARD.html

Centre for International Research and Advisory Network. (CIRAN) 1999.

Internet Address: http://www.nuffic.nl/ciran/

Centre for World Indigenous Studies. (CWIS). Internet Address: http://www.halcyon.com/FWDP/who.html

Chambers, R., Pacey, A. and Thrupp, L. A. 1989. Farmer First. Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. London. Intermediate Technology Publications.

Chambers, R. 1997. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. London. Intermediate Technology Publications.

Fielding, D., Kirsopp-Reed, K. 1994 "Indigenous Knowledge - The Way Forwards or Backwards in Tropical Agricultural Development?" Science, Technology and Development. 12, Nos. 2 and 3.

Fourth World Documentation Project. (FWDP). Internet Address: http://www.halcyon.com/FWDP/fwdp.html

Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor, (IKDM). Homepage, online version. Internet Address: http://www.nuffic.nl/ciran/ikdm/index.html

The International Development Research Centre. (IDRC) 1999. Internet Address: http://www.idrc.ca/

Kothari, B. 1995. "From Aural to written: the documentation of Knowledge in Ecuador." Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor. Vol. 3, Issue 2. pp 9-13

Leibenstein, G von. 1994 The Monitor: the future of an instrument for networking. IK Monitor. 2 (2).

Internet Address: http://www.nuffic.nl/ciran/ikdm/2-2/articles/liebenstein.html

Leiden Ethnosystems And Development Programme. (LEAD) 1999. Internet Address: http://www.lead.org/

McCorkle, CM. 1994. Farmer Innovation in Niger. Iowa State University Research Foundation

Nweze, N. J. 1994. "Indigenous Financial Practices Amongst Farmers in Nigeria". IK Monitor. 2 (2).

Internet Address; http://www.nuffic.nl/ciran/ikdm/2-2/articles/nweze.html.

Ole-Lengisugi, N. A. M. 1996. The Role of Indigenous Knwoledge in Sustainable Ecology and Ethnobotanical Practices among Pastoral Maasai Olkenerei-Le-Simanjiro Experience. Tanzania, Maasai Resource Centre For Indigenous Knowledge (MARECIK).

Philips, A. O. & Titilola, T. 1995. Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices. Case Studies from Nigeria. Ibadan, Nigeria. Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research (NISER).

Purcell, T. W., 1998. "Indigenous Knowledge and Applied Anthropology: Questions of Definition and Direction." Human Organisation. Vol. 57, No 3 Fall.

Salas, M. A. 1994. "’The technicians only believe in science and cannot read the sky.’: the cultural dimensions of the knowledge conflict in the Andes." pp 57-68 of Scoones, I. Thompson, J. and Chambers, R. (eds.) 1994. Beyond Farmer First. Rural people's knowledge, agricultural research and extension practice. London. Intermediate Technology Publications.

Scoones, I. Thompson, J. and Chambers, R. 1994. Beyond Farmer First. Rural people's knowledge, agricultural research and extension practice. London. Intermediate Technology Publications.

Warren, D. M., G. W. von Liebenstein, and L. J. Slikkerveer. 1993. "Networking for Indigenous Knowledge". Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor. 1. (1): 2-4.

Warren, D. M., Rajasekaran, B. 1993. "Putting Local Knowledge to Good Use". International Agricultural Development. Vol. 13 (4): 8-10.

Waters-Bayar, A. 1994. "The ethics of documenting rural people’s knowledge: investigating milk marketing among Fulani Women in Nigeria". pp 144-147 of Scoones, I. Thompson, J. and Chambers, R. (eds.) 1994. Beyond Farmer First. Rural people's knowledge, agricultural research and extension practice. London. Intermediate Technology Publications.

Winarto, Y. 1994. "Encouraging knowledge exchange: Integrated Pest Management in Indonesia". pp 150-55 of Scoones, I. Thompson, J. and Chambers, R. (eds.) 1994. Beyond Farmer First. Rural people's knowledge, agricultural research and extension practice. London. Intermediate Technology Publications.

World Bank. 1999. The Indigenous Knowledge Initiative. Internet Source: http://www.worldbank.org/html/afr/ik/newdatab.htm)

 
<align= rightjonrouse@iname.com