Indigenous people regard the land as part of themselves. By contrast, non-indigenous societies have generally come to view natural areas as commercial reservoirs of natural resources. Natural resources are considered wasted unless extracted and put to "use." Modern use of natural resources often harms the well-being of indigenous dwellers. Past practices have varied immensely in their attention to the needs of indigenous people, but in the main, industries using the resources have not been as careful of the needs and rights of indigenous groups as is necessary. Thus, developing guidelines on how to include indigenous people in the decision-making process about their future is a crucially important task to be undertaken.

No one body has the authority or right to impose guidelines on how indigenous people should be included, nor even which important variables might be considered. In fact, there are many arguments and counter-arguments that attempt to define the limits of the use of natural resources (non-indigenous perspective) or the intrusion on the land (indigenous perspective). Often indigenous people point to the continued existence of intact ecosystems where they remain the primary inhabitants and owners of the land as evidence of their excellence in stewardship of the environment. These arguments are countered by proponents of resource use, pointing to the disappearance of large animals as a result of the arrival of immigrant "indigenous" people, and to the fact that indigenous communities are so small they do not have a significant impact on the carrying capacity of the land. These arguments are rebutted by noting that the technology-based civilizations so overpopulate regions they inhabit that the entire world is in danger of having its carrying capacity overwhelmed. It is not helpful, however, to dwell on these ideological arguments. Instead, the most useful approach is to recognize that there are deep differences in perspectives, and that these differences can be viewed as opportunities to work together, rather than in conflict.

Projects that have an impact on the land and environment are potent in their effects on indigenous people. Disputes over ownership or rights to resources, or the repair of environmental damage, can reach violent proportions and result in human death on a large scale, either directly during armed conflict, or indirectly as indigenous people lose their capacity to survive on the land. Thus, it is vitally important to develop non-conflictual means of managing environmental impacts of resource extraction projects, for the mutual benefit of the project and the indigenous people. Yet, at the present time in many countries, development of natural areas is a priority that supersedes environmental considerations and sometimes indigenous human rights. In some, but certainly not all countries, legislation requires the assessment of potential environmental impact before a project begins, but it is rare indeed that environmental assessments include traditional knowledge of indigenous people - and all the guidance it can offer as part of the environmental assessment.

The Guidelines suggest a framework within which managers of environmental assessment and development planning projects can ensure appropriate inclusion of indigenous people and their traditional knowledge as part of the process. These are not guidelines on how to carry out an environmental impact assessment nor how to plan a development project; they are intended to guide the parties on how to include indigenous people and their knowledge in the process so that mutually beneficial results occur, based on fair play and equity.

There are, of course, many stakeholders in any project involving the environment, but for the purposes of these Guidelines, three major parties are involved in the process: the government regulatory agency, the proponent of the project (usually a corporation), and indigenous people. The Guidelines consequently are presented in three sections: indigenous, corporate, and government. Governments are called on to recognize, protect, and monitor the rights of both the corporation and the indigenous people. Proponents of projects need to be aware both of the advantages of using indigenous knowledge and of the sensitivities of indigenous people and their rights. Indigenous people need to know what their rights are, and how to negotiate effectively with corporations and governments.

The Guideline are most useful to parties who wish to cooperate, but even in circumstances where cooperation seems unlikely they offer ideas and advice.

Indigenous People
According to the International Labour Organization, there are about 5,000 different indigenous or tribal peoples living in seventy countries. The total world population is estimated at about 300 million, mostly in Asia.

All definitions of the concept of "indigenous" regard self-identification as a fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the term indigenous should be applied. Within the UN family, the ILO (ILO Convention 169) defines Indigenous and Tribal people as follows

• tribal people in independent countries whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations;
• people in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonization or the establishment of present state boundaries and who irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.

Traditional Knowledge
What is Traditional Knowledge?
An understanding of traditional knowledge and how it differs from non-indigenous knowledge is an important basis for determining how to include it in environmental assessments. Knowing what it contains, and how it is acquired and held, are fundamental to being able to make good use of the knowledge and to encourage all parties to be aware of the added value its use will bring to assessments. The following is a brief introduction to traditional knowledge.

The Words of the Director General of UNESCO (Mayor, 1994) defines traditional knowledge admirably:

The indigenous people of the world possess an immense knowledge of their environments, based on centuries of living close to nature. Living in and from the richness and variety of complex ecosystems, they have an understanding of the properties of plants and animals, the functioning of ecosystems and the techniques for using and managing them that is particular and often detailed. In rural communities in developing countries, locally occurring species are relied on for many - sometimes all - foods, medicines, fuel, building materials and other products. Equally, people's knowledge and perceptions of the environment, and their relationships with it, are often important elements of cultural identity.

Most indigenous people have traditional songs, stories, legends, dreams, methods, and practices as means of transmitting specific elements of traditional knowledge. Sometimes it is preserved in the form of memories, ritual, initiation rites, ceremonies, or dance. Occasionally it is preserved in artifacts handed from father to son, or mother to daughter. In indigenous knowledge systems, there is usually no real separation between secular and sacred knowledge and practice - they are one and the same. In virtually all of these systems, knowledge is transmitted directly from individual to individual.

The following characteristics of indigenous traditional knowledge were defined in a workshop on environmental assessment held in Inuvik, Canada, in November 1995. These are the words of Inuit people answering the question:

What do we mean by traditional knowledge?

• It is practical common sense based on teachings and experience passed on from generation to generation.
• It is knowing the country; it covers knowledge of the environment (snow, ice, weather, resources), and the relationship between things.
• It is holistic - it cannot be compartmentalized and cannot be separated from the people who hold it. It is rooted in the spiritual health, culture, and language of the people. It is a way of life.
• Traditional knowledge is an authority system. It sets out the rules governing the use of resources - respect; an obligation to share. It is dynamic, cumulative and stable. It is truth.
• Traditional knowledge is a way of life - wisdom is using knowledge in good ways. It is using the heart and the head together. It comes from the spirit in order to survive.
• It gives credibility to people.

Comparisons Between Indigenous and "Scientific" Knowledge
The temptation to compare scientific and traditional knowledge comes from collecting traditional knowledge without the contextual elements. For example, the Inuit people have a far richer and more subtle understanding of the characteristics of ice and snow than do non-indigenous people. In fact, some Inuit classification is accessible only by virtue of its relationship to human activities and feelings. In South America, some Indian tribes have a classification system for trees that identifies many species that science does not, and appears to miss obvious species that science recognizes. Once again the classification systems have a different set of assumptions, so are not directly comparable. The species that appear to have been missed by aboriginals, turn up as recognizable in other contexts for the native people. The "extras" from a scientific perspective are identified by native people either because science simply missed them, or because ecological variants have equal importance to genetic species from a traditional standpoint. These comparisons sometimes incorrectly lead science practitioners to trivialize traditional understanding.

Whereas scientific practice generally excludes the humanistic perspective, traditional understanding assumes a holistic view including language, culture, practice, spirituality, mythology, customs, and even the social organization of the local communities. Indigenous people rarely have formal written records of their knowledge.

Table 1. Comparisons Between Traditional and Scientific Knowledge Styles

INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE Assumed to be the truth Assumed to be a best approximation Sacred and secular together Secular only Teaching through story-telling Didactic Learning by doing and experiencing Learning by formal education Oral or visual Written Integrated — based on whole systems Analytical — based on subsets of the whole Intuitive Model or hypothesis-based Holistic Reductionist Subjective Objective Experiential Positivist

For many indigenous people today, the communication of traditional knowledge is hampered by competition from European-derived cultures that captures the imagination of the young. They are bombarded by technology that teaches them non-indigenous ways, and limits the capacity of the elders to pass on traditional knowledge to the young. As the elders die, the full richness of tradition is diminished, because some of it has not been passed on and so is lost. It is important therefore to find ways of preserving this knowledge. One of the most effective ways is to embody it in the decisions about projects that affect the communities. Around the world, there is a sense of urgency to "collect" traditional knowledge because as the elders die, there is a danger that the knowledge will die with them because young people are not always following traditional ways. The parts of the traditional knowledge base that are currently being collected most actively are both the classification and the technological aspects. Databases of traditional knowledge exist in many locations, mostly outside traditional communities, but there is as yet little linkage among the databases.

The definition of traditional environmental knowledge from the Dene Cultural Institute (Canada) gives some insight into the indigenous view of the comparison between scientific knowledge and traditional knowledge about the environment:

Traditional environmental knowledge is a body of knowledge and beliefs transmitted through oral tradition and first-hand observation. It includes a system of classification, a set of empirical observations about the local environment, and a system of self-management that governs resource use. Ecological aspects are closely tied to social and spiritual aspects of the knowledge system. The quantity and quality of TEK varies among community members, depending on gender, age, social status, intellectual capability, and profession (hunter, spiritual leader, healer, etc.). With its roots firmly in the past, TEK is both cumulative and dynamic, building upon the experience of earlier generations and adapting to the new technological and socioeconomic changes of the present.

Traditional knowledge has value and validity. It provided the basis for much of modern medicine; centuries of herbalist knowledge accumulated in the early writings of travelers, clerics, and natural historians. That ecological knowledge exists in traditional knowledge for thousands of years was first pointed out publicly in the Brundtland Commission in 1987. Very recently, the Biodiversity Convention, Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration and Forest Principles provided a contemporary context for traditional knowledge.

Too often, traditional knowledge is incorrectly made parallel only to "science". Science is but a small part of non-indigenous knowledge. Similarly, to suggest that indigenous traditional knowledge is only the equivalent of science is to diminish incorrectly the strength and breadth of indigenous traditional knowledge. Thus, the suggestion that traditional knowledge should be characterized as "traditional science"diminishes its breadth and value. Nonetheless, there are categories within the traditional knowledge base that parallel science.

Table 2. Comparisons Between Traditional and Scientific Knowledge in Use

INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE Lengthy acquisition Rapid acquisition Long-term wisdom Short-term prediction Powerful predictability in local areas Powerful predictability in natural principles Weak in predictive principles in distant areas Weak in local areas of knowledge Models based on cycles Linear modeling as first approximation Explanations based on examples, anecdotes, and parables Explanations based on hypotheses, theories, laws Classification •a mix of ecological and use •non-hierarchical differentiation •includes everything natural and supernatural Classification • based on phylogenetic relationships • hierarchical differentiation • excludes the supernatural

Classification Resource Management: the development and use of traditional technology for farming, hunting, forestry, fishing, trapping, and managing the resources for the use both of the current and importantly for the future generations.

Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics: the understanding and awareness of the "web of life."This includes the concept of origins of interrelatedness of types of animals, plants, and rocks. It understands the dynamic interrelationships of current ecological members of the same areas.

While it is not appropriate to compare scientific and traditional knowledge as equivalents, the use of traditional knowledge in environmental assessments and development planning means that the two knowledge bases will be in contact with each other as practitioners attempt to weave the two together. To assist in understanding the similarities and differences in the characteristics of the two, the characteristics are listed below. Table 1. examines the styles of knowledge, and Table 2, the characteristics of the two in their use and application.

Women and Traditional Knowledge
Traditional knowledge that is held by women needs special consideration for a number of reasons. Aboriginal women, as the primary harvesters of medicinal plants, seed stocks, and small game, are keepers of the knowledge about significant spheres of biodiversity in their own right, and as such they are the only ones able to identify the environmental indicators of ecological health in those spheres.

Perhaps even more central in importance is the fact that women share with men the responsibility for stewardship of values, including "eco-values", in their societies. They feel a keen responsibility to future generations for actions undertaken today that affect nature, to ensure continuity and wholeness of their lifestyle, their culture, and the natural world in which we all live, for their descendants. It is women, in the main, who transmit to the next generation these values as part of their stewardship role. Their multi-generational perspective needs to be taken into account, especially when we recognize from experience that so many projects have foundered, and led to destructive consequences for nature, because insufficient consideration was given to the later phases.

For the success of development projects that will have an impact on the environment, it is important to recognize that indigenous women around the world have, in the main, been harder hit by the negative consequences of development than men. For example, in many parts of the world it is often women who grow food crops, gather water and fuel, and perform most of the work that sustains the family; the privatization of land, the building of dams and irrigation projects and mines, and the huge array of negative impacts of agri-business have marginalized women and dispossessed them of their independent ability to sustain themselves and their children. It is in everyone's interest to involve women in planning development, for increasingly women view development plans that do not consider their knowledge and values as violence against their ability to ensure the safety and future of their children -their ability to sustain life itself.

As a final point, it should be noted that the current dominant models of economic growth and development are models that turn on notions of commodities produced for profit in the marketplace. These models do not easily recognize the economy of "women's work", which is largely invisible because it is undertaken for subsistence or domestic purposes rather than for profit; it is consequently not often "counted"or valued. This is true for Canada's indigenous women, who rely on their own sustainable harvesting of nature for the production of both food and clothing for their families, far more than they rely on it for the making of goods for sale.

This hidden economy of women's work is often inextricably bound up with nature, and this needs to be recognized in any environmental assessment of the impact of a development scheme.

Women and Children First
For all these reasons, many now believe that in conceptualizing development, women and children should be put first. Women's well-being as the creators and sustainers of life is inextricably bound up with the integrity of the natural order. We neglect their knowledge and wisdom in environmental assessment at our peril. In ensuring their well-being, we will go a good part of the distance in ensuring the well-being of the environment.

These Guidelines look to ensure the participation of indigenous women, given the traditional knowledge they hold, the special and critical role they play in their societies, and the fact that they will experience the consequences of development most keenly. Since indigenous women are generally not yet widely organized to respond to requests to participate in environmental assessments, extra care must be taken to design a process that will include them in a central role, in a way that respects the demands of their lifestyles.

Traditional Rights to Resources
Each local community owns its traditional knowledge. Often the knowledge of one local community is also the knowledge of another. It is regarded as intellectual property. Indigenous people have shared this knowledge freely in the past and have rarely received proper compensation or recognition for it. Today, indigenous people feel that they, who are the keepers and developers of the knowledge, should be compensated for sharing or collecting it -just like any other professional. Governments or corporations do not always agree with the idea that indigenous people should be paid for their knowledge.

A great deal has already been done to bring order and profile to both intellectual and cultural property rights, but it is far from satisfactory. In some locations, indigenous people have a very difficult time demonstrating that they have any rights. Intellectual and cultural property rights are very difficult for indigenous people to protect because a physical expression of the "property" is required for such protection. Knowledge that is still in a person's mind is not easily protected, yet the knowledge of indigenous people is primarily held in the minds of people, not on paper. Even if protection were available, it is usually difficult to define the legal entity in which to invest the ownership. Agreements on the use of traditional knowledge and recompense for its use vary immensely according to the negotiating skills of the parties entering the agreement.

Legislation concerning intellectual and cultural property rights is wholly inadequate and often inappropriate for protecting traditional rights to resources and to the knowledge bases indigenous people have developed about these resources. Currently special alternative systems (these ad hoc systems responding to specific situations are sometimes referred to as sui generis systems) are being developed. Several debates have already taken place regarding these new special systems. The best examples of international debates developing sui generis approaches are in the implementation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) under the auspices of the World Trade Organization; the development and revision of the FAO Global Plan of Action and International Undertaking on Plant and Genetic Resources; and the continuing evolution and development of the Convention on Biological Diversity through its Conferences of the Parties.

Traditional resource rights are currently largely based on human rights principles, not in legal documentation. More international law is needed. In the meantime, there are essentially four processes that can be used to develop legal instruments to protect traditional resource rights:

• identifying "bundles of rights" expressed in existing moral and ethical principles,
• recognizing rapidly evolving "soft law" which is currently being influenced by "customary practice" and legally non-binding agreements, declarations, and covenants,
• harmonizing existing legally binding international agreements signed by nation states, and
• "equitizing" to provide marginalized indigenous, traditional, and local communities with favourable conditions to influence all levels and aspects of policy planning and implementation.

The most important document to establish traditional resource rights is the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. This is currently being reviewed by the Commission on Human Rights of the UN Economic and Social Council, so does not yet have the force of international law.

Another important document that establishes resource rights for indigenous people is the Convention on Biological Diversity, which was signed by many countries in 1992. Many of the signatory countries have also ratified the convention in their own governments, giving it the force of international law. It, unfortunately, is a relatively weak instrument. The specific right that is granted to indigenous people is excellent in concept, but weak in application. An initial caveat in Article 8 limits the requirement to "as far as possible and appropriate", and a specific caveat in section (j) empowers the nation in question to apply the right subject to its own internal legislation. It reads as follows:

Article 8 ... Each party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate: (j) Subject to its national legislation, respect, preserve, and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations, and practices.

Indigenous people often find themselves petitioning for rights that are taken for granted in non-indigenous societies. For instance, in 1995, the final statement from a consultation in the South Pacific, held in Suva, Fiji, states:

We assert that 'in situ' conservation by indigenous people is the best method to conserve and protect biological diversity and indigenous knowledge, and encourage its implementation by indigenous communities and all relevant bodies.

Indigenous people also believe that successful conservation depends on full rights and control over their lands, territories, and resources. This is consistent with science as well; a "commons"(unowned land and resources used at will by anyone) are never well managed. It is well known that ownership is the foundation for good management. Yet in 1992 it was deemed necessary to state the obvious. The Charter of the Indigenous-Tribal People of the Tropical Forests proclaims:

The best guarantee of the conservation of biodiversity is that those who promote it should uphold our rights to the use, administration, management and control of our territories. We assert that guardianship of the different ecosystems should be entrusted to us, indigenous people, given that we have inhabited them for thousands of years and our very survival depends on them.

Indigenous people are willing to share their traditional knowledge with the rest of humanity, but they insist on a guarantee that the fundamental rights to define and control this knowledge be protected by the international community. Currently this protection does not exist.

There is both danger and benefit in the increasing acceptance of indigenous knowledge. Charlatans who unscrupulously romanticize indigenous sacred beliefs, natural resource management, or health care can be very destructive. Often these disciplines are exploited with no regard for the consequences of misusing the knowledge.

Development Projects and Indigenous People

The Impact on Indigenous People
The survival of indigenous people is directly tied to the maintenance and sustainable use of a healthy and vibrant ecosystem. The earth is as a mother, honoured for nurturing and sustaining them. From it they draw their traditions, culture, and subsistence. For most indigenous people, the particular land on which they were born and on which they have lived is as important to them as a mother - to take away "their land"and offer them some other parcel of land, or something else in recompense is to profoundly misjudge the essence and importance of their relationship to a specific landscape.

Having an integral and meaningful role in making decisions about their own future and their ability to shape that future by deciding for themselves is an important and deserved right for indigenous people. Recently indigenous people have begun to assert their right to decide, and international law as well as some nations have begun to recognize this demand. Environmental assessments, socioeconomic impact assessments, these Guidelines, the assembly of case studies, support group activities, and many other actions underscore a growing world sympathy for the concept of indigenous traditional rights to resources.

Government Priorities
Government priorities significantly affect the potential inclusion of indigenous people in planning their future. Many countries have fiscal survival and resource development as their highest priority. When this is the case, the extraction of forest and mineral products from natural areas is regarded as a major benefit to the country. The attendant reduction of environmental value is not regarded as a large offsetting cost. For indigenous people who dwell on the land, however, their very survival is at stake. Thus, while indigenous people welcome progress, they also want to be able to continue living on their land and making their own decisions about their future.

Governments have a responsibility to their citizens and international law is increasingly protective of traditional rights to resources. One of the keys to establishing mutually beneficial development projects is for governments to require environmental impact assessments with meaningful participation of local indigenous people as a precondition to granting concessions, and to recognize that the desired end result is satisfactory economic, social and developmental benefits for all parties involved. Both the negotiations and the actual assessments should include equity, empowerment and respect for both parties. The diligence of the regulatory agency in monitoring the fairness of these assessments and the implementation process contributes significantly to the success or failure of both the assessments and the project. If there is no requirement to begin a project with an environmental assessment, the difficulty of establishing a negotiation is vastly increased.

Because of differences in concepts of ownership, indigenous people often begin at a disadvantage. Governments assume central ownership of land unless it has been sold and deeded to an individual or a corporate entity. Under this regime, forest dwelling people, and many indigenous groups who live on the land, have no "legal"rights to the property they have lived on for centuries. Although the Convention on Biological Diversity (Article 8 (j)) has legal stature, and holds that indigenous people do have certain stewardship rights, it depends on the laws of the nation.

Environmental Assessment:
A Planning and Decision-Making Process
Environmental impact assessments are designed to be a planning and decision-making tool. The processes of environmental assessments vary widely - some are highly consultative, others are done in isolation. There is no generally accepted prescriptive definition of what an environmental impact statement should be like. The assumption for virtually all environmental impact statements, however, is that the basic approach will be "scientific."In the past, this assumption has worked to exclude, rather than to include, indigenous knowledge. This is unfortunate because indigenous knowledge has much validity. Indigenous knowledge of these critically important areas is derived from thousands of years of close interdependence with the natural systems.

The premise of an environmental impact assessment is simple; 1) establish a description of the baseline environmental situation, 2) define all the actions to be taken in the project that will affect the environmental situation, 3) predict and prepare plans to mitigate the effects of the actions as they are currently described. The decision-makers are then expected to use this information to make a judgement as to whether the benefits to be accrued from the project outweigh the environmental costs. On the basis of this cost-benefit analysis, they render their decision: to accept, to reject, or to modify the project.

In practice, there are many difficulties inherent in carrying out a valid assessment. The concept of the "environment"is loosely defined, especially today, when in addition to ecological or biological considerations, there are social, cultural, and economic factors that must be considered. Formal socioeconomic impact assessment should also accompany an environmental impact assessment because the natural environment has such a profound effect on indigenous people. Socioeconomic assessments are only possible through a consultative planning process. They predict future social, cultural and economic effects upon individuals, families, organizations, communities, regions, institutions and other social units. All parties to a development project should be aware of the environmental, social, and cultural costs of the project and work to establish an early definition of mutually acceptable ethics and values that each party will undertake as a commitment. It is rare, however, that baseline data pre-exist in sufficiently detailed form to be of much use. This forces the corporation to gather data on the baseline situation. Data collection is almost always limited by a lack of time and money.

A regulatory agency normally sets rules for how assessments are to be prepared, but it is usually the corporation that develops the process to define benefits, effects, and mitigation measures. In almost all world jurisdictions, it is the responsibility of the corporation to create and deliver the assessment. There is good logic to this approach - projects are so varied that a uniform methodology would not suffice for all situations. The politics surrounding the statements and reports are almost as important as the information they contain. Stakeholders, governing bodies, vested interests, activists, politicians, and many other forces are at play in decision-making. For any stakeholder group to have an effect of significance, it is imperative that it be a part of the process and that it participate in the politics of the assessment. Regardless of who the corporation might be, it is not easy for the corporation to maintain an unbiased perspective to uncover and explain all the potential problems the project might cause.

There are now many technological advances that can effectively mitigate the effects of industrial processes that even a few years ago were difficult or impossible to treat. Industry is currently developing excellent waste treatment and reclamation processes that should be actively encouraged in handling waste products from mining and pulp and paper production. These are but two examples of just how fast the evolution of new technology in the field of environmental protection is progressing.

Using Traditional Knowledge in Environmental Assessments
We do not have sufficiently accurate models to predict combined ecological, social, and cultural impacts from complex changes in the environment. Because ecological bottlenecks often occur years apart, it is difficult to impossible using normal short-term scientific procedures in environmental assessments to find them and include them in the analysis, yet they can be the single most important factor. To satisfy the data needs of existing predictive models requires multi-year information about many species. Given the relatively ineffective long-term scientific methodology normally associated with environmental impact assessments - primarily a lack of long-term baseline data, little knowledge of the subtle effects from the project's actions, inability to predict long-term effects accurately, difficulty in defining or even discovering indirect effects, and an inability to determine bottleneck occurrences of critically important factors - traditional knowledge bases are amply able to help fill these gaps. This is precisely why the long-term knowledge bases of traditional people can help to solve these problems. Unfortunately, there is no lengthy history of traditional knowledge having been used extensively in assessments. Thus, there is no substantial body of evidence to support the notion that traditional knowledge can improve the effectiveness of environmental impact statements.

When indigenous knowledge is used in its original context, and in partnership with science, the combination is often a powerful tool. Important examples are to be found in resource management, where both scientists and native hunters, trappers, or fishermen work together giving equal weight to both types of knowledge. The practice of co-management works better if a hands-off style of governing the actions of on-the-ground members of the co-management team is used. Because the information base is not easily written down, members should be chosen from the non-indigenous side who are not skeptical of traditional knowledge and process. The intimate relationship and trust amongst the members needs to be maintained to keep the authority and power of co-management. In a few cases, forcing it on aboriginal communities caused the loss of valued traditional knowledge without proper compensation for the knowledge. Though sometimes difficult, co-management experience has been extremely positive.

Indigenous people should begin to collect specific information both about the environment and about the corporation as soon as the project is known to be a possibility. Even in the biological areas there are subtle, even insidious effects that may occur. Gradual changes may have an accumulating effect, such as changes in water quality that are not toxic, or "harmful,"but that may alter the underlying trace minerals. Indirect effects from these subtle changes might include a loss of herbivorous animals on which the community depends, because of the changed plant community. In cumulative effect, these small changes can ultimately be disastrous. The people best equipped to discover these subtle potential changes are the holders of traditional knowledge of the area.

Negotiating Mutually Beneficial Results
As in all negotiations aimed at finding mutually beneficial results, there must be flexibility on both sides. Indigenous people will need to assess their expectations from the project against the costs that will necessarily be incurred. Corporations will need to understand that human lives and quality of life are at stake for the indigenous people, and the corporation may need to be creative in discovering ways to enhance the opportunity for these people to continue to live in the area that is important to them and to continue to develop according to their own decisions.

Governments or corporations should begin projects by acknowledging that indigenous people must be involved from the beginning ensuring their decision-making role. Unfortunately, there are numerous examples of corporations or governments initiating projects with no intention of heeding the objections of indigenous people. Like anyone else, indigenous people will resist if, without consultation, their life values, homes, culture, and food sources are compromised or destroyed. Few governments actively protect the rights of indigenous people to own the land on which they have traditionally lived. Even in the most enlightened countries, indigenous people are not often vested with the right to decide on the initiation of development projects on their traditional lands, and in many countries they are not invited even to participate in decisions that govern the initiation or development of the projects. The normal reaction to this disregard of human rights is to refuse to cooperate, or to become hostile. While this is understandable, there are more effective strategies that indigenous people can adopt - they can make use of existing laws, regulations, and policies governing acceptance of the projects, and can make use of public attention through the media - and increasingly, this is what has been happening.

A business project may begin with a negotiation between the corporation and the government over the use of the land long before the people who live on it, and who have for all memory assumed the land to be theirs, are even aware that the discussions have taken place. By the time the government or corporation approaches the local communities, key decisions may already have been taken, and they will have been taken without the inclusion of the people who live on the land. This works to the detriment of both parties. The local community may be compromised and the corporation may have made poor decisions based on a lack of knowledge that could have been supplemented by local people. The corporation may well believe it has acted properly and legally, though indigenous people have had their very lives endangered. Furthermore, indigenous people feel betrayed by the governing body, and no matter where they turn there are apparently no means of recourse. Resentment becomes a major impediment to successful relations between the corporation, the government bureaucracy, and the local community. Tempers can flare quickly and disastrous results occur all because of different starting assumptions held by the key parties involved.

Negotiations should be based on equity, empowerment, respect and cooperation. Knowledge gains power when it is shared amongst equal partners, and when all knowledge bases are shared, the end result is much more able to solve problems than any one system alone. There are distinct financial benefits to including indigenous knowledge and in addition the corporation will acquire the profile of a good corporate citizen. Excluding indigenous people at the outset may result in protracted and costly legal and review processes, which in turn will undermine the project's effectiveness and the image of the corporation.

Non-indigenous and indigenous people may have trouble communicating because of a vastly differing fundamental understanding of the universe and assumptions of what is and what is not fact. For example, some indigenous people pay strict attention to their elders, who have intimate knowledge of the truth. The elders usually speak in the form of metaphors and parables. Story-telling is the single most important aspect of transmitting information and understanding as well as the reiteration of cultural values. Most anecdotes told by elders have many levels of meaning. The native listener understands this and uses the experience to become wiser. Often instead of becoming more knowledgeable, the listener has been purposely confused by specific information and is driven to go and discover answers for himself. The purpose of some of the anecdotes is to encourage self-enlightenment, not simply to pass on information. Non-indigenous listeners may become frustrated and even angry when they try to get straightforward information from an indigenous person. Non-indigenous people have a long-established practice of answering questions directly, and are not accustomed to working their way through parables. They certainly do not assume that an elderly person speaks the truth of the universe. Anger may arise because the listener feels he or she is being deceived or that some high degree of obfuscation is going on when it is not appropriate. Having no grounding in the symbolism of indigenous people's speech and thinking patterns, it is often enough to frustrate a non-indigenous listener.

These communication difficulties also arise because there are significant differences in perspectives between a project manager and a village elder. The elder can see many generations into the future and feels the need to give wisdom about this endangered future to the project manager. The project manager, in contrast, just wants a simple answer to a simple question, and instead must attend to a long, complicated story. Short-term versus long-term thinking is directly derived from the differing needs of the two parties, and yet for a successful conclusion to the project, both must be satisfied.

Further compounding this difficult situation, and under the continuing pressure of financial drain for days spent in "non-productive talk,"there is uncertainty about which knowledge base has more "power"in case of differing opinions. Needless to say, the owners of each knowledge base feel theirs is more important. Here again the difference is often in time frames; the project manager may feel he needs the immediacy of facts, whereas the local community is much more concerned about the long-term future. Which knowledge base will have the deciding vote in a case of a dispute? Unless this is established early in the process, conflicts will inevitably arise and litigation or bad press may follow.

On a number of occasions, corporations and indigenous groups have been able to create round-tables of communities and other stakeholders working with the industrial corporation. Many of the obstacles have been worked out in a spirit of cooperative negotiation. One of the clear lessons from these early round-tables, however, is the need for commitment on both sides to honesty and a willingness to be at least partially flexible to the needs of the other parties. To the benefit of future opportunities to create round tables, there are a number of these agreements that have now been published. One note of caution from experience: if government representatives are invited to join the group too early, it has been found that positions polarize quickly and the process may degenerate into a conflict-ridden argument.

Trust is the principle on which indigenous people base most of their relationships. Negotiations with indigenous people must be founded in concepts of equity, respect, and empowerment. In business, trust is not necessarily a basic assumption, the legal process is the basic assumption. Business employs the dictum of caveat emptor, where each party is assumed to be capable of discovering the pitfalls and negotiating past them, if necessary through legal means, or by backing out of the project. Indigenous people normally do not operate on this principle. For them if there is no trust, normally there is no negotiation.

The Compensation Package
There are few more contentious issues in the successful completion of negotiations over environmental, social, cultural, economic, and other impacts than determining what the compensation package should be both for indigenous communities and also for individuals within those communities. When a community is significantly affected, people will want to be compensated for any real or perceived loss of quality of life. In addition, indigenous communities will want to be compensated for any traditional knowledge they provide for the corporation, and also for any participation in the assessment process. Often the corporation perceives that the indigenous community is being paid to gather the information, and then wants payment to compensate for the knowledge itself. There are very few precedents that offer useful guidance to the level of compensation that should be paid. In some countries, treaties and land claim negotiations provide guidance, but because these payments are from governments, they may be far in excess of the fee rates or compensation for environmental losses that a corporation could pay and still maintain a financially successful project. At the same time, one could argue that perhaps this defines a project that should not proceed - the cost to the indigenous people and the environment is too high.

Other approaches are sometimes useful. If the corporation allows the indigenous community to share in the revenue from the project on a partnership basis, the amount of compensation is negotiated on a quasi-equity share base. In some cases, the project may anticipate royalties from patents on processes or materials that result from traditional knowledge. Sharing these on an equity base can help to solve the problem of determining the compensation package. In Costa Rica, a company called InBio has significantly changed the attitude to forest cutting. It has an arrangement with US pharmaceutical companies to undertake "bioprospecting" for active biological agents in the forest. A retainer - quoted in the multi-million dollar range - keeps the parataxonomy force of indigenous people active, and for any discovery, InBio retains a portion of the revenue on a royalty base. The amount of money involved in a successful pharmaceutical discovery is in the range of several billion dollars.

Part of the thinking and planning that goes into calculating a compensation package must include planning for the time after the project has been completed, or when the project goes into operation. This will depend entirely on the nature of the project. For instance, if the project is to cut down a forested area and sell the timber, what happens to the people from the community who were employed to help cut trees and move logs? Will they be left without a job? What will happen to the economy of the community when the income from the extraction of trees comes to an end? If the project was to build a plant, and many local people were used as construction helpers, are there replacement jobs for these people in the factory? What kind of jobs? Are there enough for everyone? What guarantees do they have that the promised jobs will be there when the plant opens? If the project is a mining project, have they negotiated a payment for the extraction of resources from their land based on gross revenue? What happens as the ore becomes increasingly harder to find and the mine becomes less and less profitable? The revenues to the community will decline with the revenue to the community. Most mining towns last only a few years or decades at most, unless some other industry comes along to replace the mine. What plans have they developed for the community when the mine closes - as it inevitably will do?

The cost-benefit ratio of the project must consider the long-term as well as short-term economics. They will have a profound effect on the longevity of the community. In non-indigenous societies, the loss of a mining town is regrettable, but for the most part, people are not tied to the land, and can move to other locations to find their futures. This may not be so for indigenous communities. If there is no way to ensure a sustained revenue base for the community beyond the end of the project, it is important to consider what the community will do to replace the lost revenue. Perhaps during the course of the project, the community can develop its own technological capacity or find ways to market the commercial products by transforming its traditional crafts and taking the opportunity to make contacts outside the community through the corporation's network of associations. The main thing is to think about it and negotiate the best arrangement possible and plan what will be done as the revenue base winds down.

Conclusions

Development projects that have an impact on the environment will continue to be undertaken in the foreseeable future. The needs of indigenous societies and technology-based, non-indigenous societies can be met within these projects, but it requires cooperation and mutual understanding. Sharp differences between the indigenous and non-indigenous knowledge bases, and a lack of understanding about these differences, have made cooperative solutions difficult in the past. Past experiences for indigenous people interacting with development projects have often been quite unpleasant. Too often, as the indigenous people attempt to assert their rights, conflict arises to the detriment of both the development project and the indigenous people. There is a growing world sympathy for indigenous rights that will give indigenous people more authority over the resources in the future. Fortunately there is also an increasing appreciation of the advantages of using science and traditional knowledge together to find mutually beneficial results from development projects.