Between Hope and Hype: Traditional Knowledge(s) Held by Marginal Communities

Traditional Knowledge (TK) systems have always been integral to the survival and adaptation of human societies. Yet, they enjoy a fairly recent recognition and popularization by scientists, the media, politicians, corporates and the wider public. In this paper we present a typology of key driving forces behind the popularization of TK held by marginal communities: an equality preference motive, a value motive, a compliance motive, a scarcity motive and a strategic motive. Secondly, through the use of a simple model, we discuss the hype's impact on marginal communities. Moreover, we critically assess the outcome of a number of policy instruments that intend, in part, to protect traditional knowledge bases of such communities. Our analysis primarily draws upon secondary literature; policy documents and case studies within economics, the social sciences, conservation biology and legal studies. We argue that whilst the public and institutional hype around TK may have resulted in its prioritization within international conventions and frameworks, its institutionalization may have adversely impacted marginalized communities, and in particular contexts, unintentionally led to the creation of 'new' marginals. We purport that the traditional innovation incentive motive does not hold for protecting TK within a private property regime. Instead we identify a conservation incentive motive and a distribution motive that justify deriving policy instruments that focus on TK to protect marginal communities

Food and Nutrition Security Indicators: A Review

In this paper, we review existing food and nutrition security indicators, discuss some of their advantages and disadvantages, and finally classify them and describe their relationships and overlaps. In order to achieve this, the paper makes reference to the existing definitions of food and nutrition security (FNS), in particular as they have been agreed upon and implemented in the FoodSecure project (www.foodsecure.eu). The main existing conceptual frameworks of FNS predating the present paper are also used as guidelines and briefly discussed. Finally, we make recommendations in terms of the most appropriate FNS indicators to quantify the impacts of various shocks and interventions on food and nutrition security outcomes

The Economics of Land Degradation

Healthy soils are essential for sustaining economies and human livelihoods. In spite of this, the key ecosystem services provided by soils have usually been taken for granted and their true value - beyond market value - is being underrated. This pattern of undervaluation of soils is about to change in view of rapidly raising land prices, which is the result of increased shortage of land and raising output prices that drive implicit prices of land (with access to water) upward. Moreover, the value of soil related ecosystems services is being better understood and increasingly valued. It is estimated that about a quarter of global land area is degraded, affecting about 1.5 billion people in all agro-ecologies around the world. Land degradation has its highest toll on the livelihoods and well-being of the poorest households in the rural areas of developing countries. Vicious circles of poverty and land degradation, as well as transmission effects from rural poverty and food insecurity to national economies, critically hamper their development process. Despite the need for preventing and reversing land degradation, the problem has yet to be appropriately addressed. Policy action for sustainable land use is lacking, and a policy framework for action is missing. Key objectives of this Issue Paper and of a proposed related global assessment of the Economics of Land Degradation (ELD) are: first, to raise awareness about the need for and role of an assessment of the economic, social and environmental costs of land degradation; and second, to propose and illustrate a scientific framework to conduct such an assessment, based on the costs of action versus inaction against land degradation. Preliminary findings suggest that the costs of inaction are much higher than the costs of action