48
65 Michel Pimbert
fundamentally different knowledge
systems and ways of knowing. Claims that
one tradition of knowledge and practice
(local, vernacular systems versus external
science-based systems) is always better
than the other may ultimately restrict
possibilities. The idea of cognitive justice
emphasises the right for different forms of
knowledge – and their associated ecologies,
practices, livelihoods and ways of being –
to coexist. As Visvanathan argues, cognitive justice is ‘the constitutional right of
different systems of knowledge to exist as
part of a dialogue and debate’. This implies
the continued existence of ‘the ecologies
that would let these forms of knowledge
survive and thrive not in a preservationist
sense but as active practices’ (Visvanathan,
2005). It is noteworthy that the successful
protection of biocultural heritage in the
Potato Park in Peru has grown out of local
communities’ affirmation of their sovereign
right to sustain their entire knowledge
system, including the landscape and territories that renew biodiversity, culture and
livelihoods (see Box 4).
Articulating and claiming this right to
cognitive justice by and for hitherto
excluded actors is a key challenge for all
involved in power-equalising research for
biodiversity, rights and culture. This is a
crucially important safeguard against the
standardisation induced by hegemonic
western science that is now increasingly
controlled by the life industry corporations
(ETC, 2011; Grain, 2012). In the absence
of ways of working grounded in principles
of cognitive justice, the Nagoya Protocol on
ABS could lead to the development of
narrow science-based community protocols which do not reflect the distinct and
diverse cultural norms, knowledge systems
and practices of indigenous and local
communities. Inevitably, this side-lining of
Box 4. Indigenous communities claiming
cognitive justice in Peru
The concept of indigenous biocultural heritage
territories (IBCHT) grew out of power-equalising
research and has guided a successful community-led
initiative in Cuzco, Peru known as The Potato Park.
Located in a biodiversity hotspot for potatoes, the
park is an IBCHT centered on the protection of potato
biodiversity and related knowledge. The area is home
to more than 4,000 varieties of potato as well as
other traditional crops, including corn, barley, wheat,
oca and olluco. The Potato Park provides an
alternative approach for protecting traditional
knowledge. It protects not only the intellectual, but
the landscape, biological, economic and cultural
components of knowledge systems, thereby halting
loss of traditional knowledge as well as
misappropriation. Communities' collective control
over their knowledge has been strengthened by
systematically affirming the holistic and indivisible
nature of their rights to land, territories and selfdetermination. Cognitive justice is being claimed as
the concept of IBCHT is increasingly recognised in
national and international negotiations on the
protection of biodiversity and knowledge.
Source: Argumedo and Pimbert (2008).
local knowledge systems will facilitate ABS
regimes that are extractive, unfair, patentfriendly and easily captured by
corporations and new cycles of capital
accumulation.
Extended peer communities co-validating
knowledge
How knowledge is validated – and by
whom – matters a great deal in today’s
context of open-ended uncertainties in
which ‘we do not know what we do not
know’. Co-enquiries between local communities and outside scientists need to be
open to the possibilities of a ‘post-normal
science’. 7 This is the sort of enquiry in
which the facts are uncertain, values are
often in dispute, stakes are high and decisions are urgent. Post-normal science
recognises a plurality of legitimate perspec-
7 Post-normal science expresses three key insights: 1) These times are far from ‘normal’:
uncertainty now rules political and environmental affairs. 2) ‘Normal’ puzzle-solving science is
now thoroughly inadequate as a method and a perspective for solving the great social and
environmental issues of our times. 3) Extended peer communities of citizens can no longer be
relegated to second class status, and their special knowledge can no longer be dismissed as
‘unscientific’, inferior or bogus (see Ravetz and Funtowicz, 1990).