Conference criticizing the international politics of Traditional Knowledge

A conference held recently at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva brought to the surface a powerful set of academic critiques of the politics of TK law at the international level. Criticizing instruments like the otherwise much-praised Nagoya Protocol, academics (many of whom involved in the negotiations and / or implementation of the instrument) suggested that the field is still riddled with concessions to state sovereignty and loopholes that disregard the transnational nature of TK exploitation.

A fuller report of the conference presents some of the arguments made in more nuance, and is well worth a read.

Written by Lucas Lixinski

Recognition of TK in the Latin America region - an example to follow

A couple of weeks ago the Peruvian National Institute for the Defence of Competition and Intellectual Property (INDECOPI), in order to preserve the knowledge that native peoples have on the use of biodiversity, presented 453 titles of collective knowledge to communities located in the Loreto region in Peru. 

The indigenous peoples of this region managed to register 453 knowledge related to more than 120 plants in the Amazon area, covering different uses such as food, medicine, vegetable dyes, etc. To date, INDECOPI has registered over 800 TK in the name of indigenous communities.By these titles the Peruvian State through the INDECOPI guarantees the rights of these peoples that the use of their knowledge is made only with their consent -- they are the true owners.

In August 2002, Law 27811 was enacted in Peru establishing a sui generis intellectual property protection for collective knowledge of indigenous peoples linked to biological resources, ie the properties, uses and characteristics of the biodiversity.

Since 2010, the Office of Inventions and New Technologies of INDECOPI works with the Research Institute of the Peruvian Amazon (IIAP), through its programs PIBA (Biodiversity Research Program Amazon) and Cultural Diversity Research and Economics Amazon (Sociodiversity) in the recovery of the collective knowledge of indigenous peoples. They live with the people, experiencing their customs and needs. Only then TK is identified, reassessed and recorded, so that in future the indigenous community gets the benefit.

Source INDECOPI.

Peru on protecting traditional knowledge

The Peruvian Institute for the Defense of Competition and Intellectual Property Protection (INDECOPI), meet last week in Lima with representatives of fourteen countries in Latin America. The meeting aimed to share experience on systems of resource protection and traditional knowledge. This time, the institution will share the Peruvian experience in the protection of genetic resources and traditional knowledge, specifically through the national registries of traditional knowledge and system identification, management and monitoring of cases of biopiracy.

INDECOPI says “Today, the importance of these resources and knowledge is becoming increasingly clear, given its application and use in different branches of food industry and health, and becoming part of the identity and cultural heritage of our people”.

Peru set up a legislative framework to protect genetic resources and traditional knowledge -- Law No. 27811, which covers a sui generis rule of collective traditional knowledge related to biodiversity. Peru also has a National Anti-Biopiracy Commission, chaired by INDECOPI, which aims to identify, analyze and deal with cases of biopiracy involving Peruvian origin resources or traditional knowledge of indigenous Peruvians. The Commission has resolved favourably to the Peruvian and indigenous peoples, 10 cases of biopiracy (in the patent offices of Japan, Korea, France and European Patent Office).

INDECOPI reports that the meeting was also attended by Chief of Staff Advisors to the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, Mauritius Chabaneix Belling and Begoña Venero, Head of the Section of Genetic Resources and Knowledge traditional World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva.

Source INDECOPI.

Drug discovery and Biopiracy

On May 9th, the University of Buckingham UK, received a privileged visit. Prof Graham Dutfield from the University of Leeds gave as a talk regarding a paper that he published last year in the topic of 'Traditional Knowledge, drug discovery and patent-based Biopiracy’ (European Intellectual Property Review 33(4)).

The (TK) King and I

Room F06 was packed and hot -- I am not sure if the topic was a boiling one or it was a warm date BUT at the end of the date, we did have some sizzling questions. The mixture of the audience was from different areas such as: Medical Law and Ethics, Intellectual Property Law; Environmental Law, Human Rights and Tort.

Prof Graham started by explaining the term biopiracy – but very carefully challenging on whether the word should be coined. Anyways, he continued to say that it could be regarded as misappropriation [most people called stealing] of biological resources or traditional knowledge (TK) through the patent system; and/or it is the unauthorised collection [once again most people called stealing] for commercial ends of genetic resources of TK. I mentioned the word ‘stealing’ because it is the people’s common word – not the lawyery one.

The talk proceeded deeper into the issue: is TK important in the pharmaceutical industry? and if it is so, what part or role, if any, TK takes into the invention per se? To patent an invention there are some requirements that need to be fulfilled: novelty (new) and inventive step (non-obvious) – and industrial application, but focus being today in the first one. Is it new or novel the use of specific plants (containing some chemical properties) for the purpose of the cure/ treatment of ‘x’ disease? As Prof Graham mentioned, it may be new to us BUT not new perhaps to an indigenous healer – the query is: does this destroy novelty? Novelty is destroyed by use and/or publication. Yet, the problem with this issue is: how will a Patent Officer, let’s say in the UK, become aware of the use of this invention in a small village community of indigenous people in the Amazon? It is not common for healers or the said community to document this and what is more, sometimes they do not even share this knowledge with their own community but passes that info to a worthy Indian– it is a ritual (we called a trade secret). This is indeed a very difficult issue because in our world we need evidence.

How can we help? To document or not to document

I am afraid I do not have an answer. In one side of the coin, to document will give protection not only in situations of Patent and other intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), and moreover, will be helpful in cases of entitlement of land and preserving their culture. There is indeed the traditional knowledge digital library in place; but, on the other side of the coin, indigenous peoples want to keep their identity, heritage, autonomy, so why do they need to disclose their way of living? We need to remember that their purpose of life is not material to them. Their spirituality (not religion as such) is based on what they called ‘cosmovision’. It means people do not have hierarchy! Everything is part of the ‘one’ i.e. animals, land, people, plants; they all are part of the one cosmos. That is the reason why I cannot make my mind – I cannot recommend with a blind eye the documentation of this rituals. It is asking for transformation –perhaps an involuntary transformation and this may have negative effects.

The lecture of course covered many more issues, but this is the one that I felt needed some addressing today, perhaps tomorrow or another day I will cover other issues. Many thanks to Prof Graham for given us not only the time and his valuable knowledge BUT given us the chance to open our minds in a very interesting topic.

The Protection of Traditional Knowledge in South Africa

South Africa has been examining the legal protection of Traditional Knowledge. The South African Intellectual Property Amendment Laws Bill (2008) is an attempt to protect Traditional Knowledge (TK), an area particularly abundant on the African continent and one which has been vulnerable to misappropriation.  The Bill has been widely criticised for following a traditional intellectual property framework. 

Rather than grappling with TK as something very unique and not akin to intellectual property it follows the ‘square peg in a round hole’ model drawing on traditional principles of intellectual property and trying to force TK to fit within them.  The World Intellectual Property Organisation TK developing instrument has with the influence of the African Group too some degree avoided this (see WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/12 submission by the African Group).

A preferred model would have followed the enlightened Swakopmund  Protocol adopted by the African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation (ARIPO) which does not use the term’ indigenous’ but refers to the TK of local and traditional communities and includes principles of custodianship, guardianship and collective cultural ownership.

One key area which the South African Bill does not address is medicinal knowledge an area where misappropriation and bio-piracy has occurred. One example of misappropriation from an indigenous group in South Africa is the well documented Hoodia plant patent (P57), a patent utilising the appetite suppressant nature of the plant. The San people, an indigenous African peoples of the Kalahari used the Hoodia plant to suppress hunger on long journeys.  The TK in relation to the plant was invested in the group. The San people were not asked for their consent and initially they did not benefit from the commodification of their plant however eventually a benefit-sharing agreement was set up although not totally without criticism (for more info here).  

The Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) invests sovereignty over biological resources to the State, Article 8(j) require States to ‘respect, preserve and maintain the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.’  The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity 2012 also provides for the fair and equitable sharing of benefits of TK associated with genetic resources.

Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) and access and benefit sharing (ABS) in relation to indigenous peoples are important principles. FPIC permeates the 2007 United Nations Declaration on Indigenous Peoples Rights and is evident in articles 11.2, 19, 28, 32.2 and effective redress for breach of the right is contained in 11.2, 28.1 and 32.1.

As far as the writer is aware the Bill has not progressed to the Statute stage. 

Written by Fiona Batt.

Work In Progress: Traditional Knowledge Protection at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)

There has been increasing concern about the exploitation and unlawful misappropriation of Indigenous Peoples’ Traditional Knowledge. The protection of Indigenous peoples’ Traditional Knowledge and genetic resources has been the focus of The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). In particular the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge (TK) and Folklore (IGC) has spent some time exploring the interplay between intellectual property, (TK) and genetic resources with the purpose of either developing a new international instrument or accommodating control and protection in the present intellectual property system.


In 2008, ‘The Protection of Traditional Knowledge Gap Analyses’, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/13/5(B) Rev. prepared by the Secretariat for comment by the IGC examined gaps in the present system for the protection of TK and options for filling those gaps. Gaps in the protection of TK in the existing legal framework were:
(1) subject matter not covered under existing IP law;
(2) right holders not recognized as such, and other beneficiaries excluded from the benefits of protection;
(3) forms of use and other actions that cannot be prevented;
(4) absence of entitlement to obtain remuneration or other benefits.

The document also looked at ‘working definitions’ of TK and determined that there was no internationally recognised definition but included examples from Art 8(j), Convention on Biological Diversity Art 9.2(a), International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Art 31, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and para. 12, Interlaken Declaration on Animal Genetic Resources.

The options which have emerged as potential definitions in a new instrument and put to the WIPO General Assembly in September 2011 WO/GA/40/7 are included in WIPO/GRTKF/IC/21/4, ‘The Protection of Traditional Knowledge: Draft Articles. Article 1 Definition of TK:

• Option 1: For the purposes of this instrument, the term “traditional knowledge” refers to the know-how, skills, innovations, practices, teachings and learning, resulting from intellectual activity and developed within a traditional context.
• Option 2: Traditional knowledge is knowledge that is dynamic and evolving, resulting from intellectual activities which is passed on from generation to generation and includes but is not limited to know-how, skills, innovations, practices, processes and learning and teaching, that subsist in codified, oral or other forms of knowledge systems. Traditional knowledge also includes knowledge that is associated with biodiversity, traditional lifestyles and natural resources.

The next important dates in the debate concerning TK are April 16 -20 2012 where the following documents are on the agenda: WIPO/GRTKF/IC/21/4 (TK Draft Articles), WIPO/GRTKF/IC/21/5 (a response to WIPO/GRTKF/IC/21/4 by like-minded countries), WIPO/GRTKF/IC/20/INF/4 (document on key issues) and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/20/INF/8 (Glossary of key terms).

All documents for this meeting can be found at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=25008.

Written by Fiona Batt

Chilean national attire: complementing two cultures

Last week the Chilean ‘Camara de Diputados’ (MPs) unanimously approved Agreement No. 522 and so declaring the DOÑIHUE ‘Chamanto’ an Intangible Heritage.

Chamanto is a traditional attire and it is one of the most distinctive pieces wear by ‘huasos’ (huaso is the name given to countryman – i.e. cowboy). The piece is poncho-like made of woven with threads of silk and wool double-face. It is said that all chamantos are work of art and in Doñihue there are only 45 weavers that work in this trade who are very protective and reluctant to share their knowledge (TK is shared from mother to daughter).

The report given by the MPs explained that this piece is ‘unique and distinctive’ and encloses a primitive “relationship between man and land, keeping its symbols of belonging and tradition".

Finally, there is a statement made by the MPs that relates to what a nation is – rather than trying to divide what a native or non-indigenous is or what cultural aspect we need to be looking at. The assertion is as follows:

“...to exalt the cultural values of the homeland is a need for the community, since it implies recognition of national identity from elements that bind the whole society, identifying common values and principles belonging to the nation”.

I remember the movie ‘My big fat Greek wedding’ where a very traditional Greek young lady married a non-Greek and struggles to get her family to accept him. In the wedding speech her father tries to explain the roots of the young couple respective surnames saying that one is ‘apple’ and the other one is ‘orange’ – different, but in the end, they are fruits.
Today we have a fine example of that. Reading the Agreement I noticed that the MPs observed that ‘chamantos’ are complementing two cultures: the indigenous and the Hispanic, and while they are different, they harmonize and represent (beautifully) the whole nation.

Agreement No 522 can be found at this link (in Spanish)

The Value of Traditional Knowledge

It is becoming more common place to hear about indigenous traditional knowledge in legal academic discussions ranging across a wide variety of subjects -- human rights, intellectual property, environmental law, economic law, medical law, and cultural heritage. Traditional knowledge is a simple name for an area that is vast in scope. Just what is traditional knowledge and why is so much importance being placed on this across such a wide variety of areas of law?

A new article in National Geographic, “The Key to Understanding Climate Change: Indigenous Knowledge” ( link to article here ) highlights the ways in which indigenous knowledge is and has been important in understanding the environment. A few statistics noted in the article bear this out: “Comprising only four per cent of the world’s population (between 250 to 300 million people), they utilize 22 per cent of the world’s land surface. In doing so, they maintain 80% of the planet’s biodiversity in, or adjacent to, 85% of the world’s protected areas.”

These facts and figures alone point out the importance of indigenous peoples and indigenous traditional knowledge to the environmental health of the planet today. But there is also an important contribution to be made to scientific knowledge, again, as noted in the National Geographic article, “[indigenous] community-based and collectively held traditional knowledge accumulated and maintained through practice over countless generations, offers valuable insights into the state of the environment. Indigenous knowledge possesses chronological and landscape-specific precision and detail that is often lacking from scientific models developed by scientists at much broader spatial and temporal scale…”

The National Geographic article is not the only one to point out the benefits, and indeed, the necessity of traditional knowledge in scientific research today. An article at this link points out the valuable contribution that local traditional indigenous knowledge played in the study of the migration habits of killer whales, in research done through the University of Manitoba. The article quotes Paul Irngaut, “Inuit traditional knowledge is essential to scientific research,” Irngaut said. “It’s verified by local hunters year after year. It’s not projections or predictions — it’s current and it’s accurate.”

This is good news—but the involvement of traditional knowledge in scientific research and development comes at some risk. Whether adequate protections are provided in law and in practice is the subject of on-going debate. An article reflecting on the protections in the Kenyan Constitution ( link here ) argues that the Kenyan Constitution provides adequate legal protections for traditional knowledge. How traditional knowledge is protected and exploited in other parts of the world will be the subject of future blog posts.

Save the date!

A goody bag comes in your way! It is full of different topics that cover indigenous peoples. From language to land and from human rights to traditional knowledge we will be able to see all these topics under one roof.

Here is what Dr Alexandra Xanthaki says:

Brunel Law School in collaboration with the UN Expert Mechanism on Indigenous Issues is organising an Expert Workshop on Indigenous Languages and Cultures at Brunel University on the 8th-9th March 2012. The Workshop aims to contribute to the Annual Report of the Expert Mechanism, which will be on this same topic.

The themes that will be discussed in the conference include:

* An overview of indigenous peoples’ right to culture under international human rights law
* Indigenous peoples’ rights to language
* Indigenous peoples’ cultural self-determination and autonomy
* Indigenous peoples’ right to culture and lands, territories and resources, including reparations
* Custom, human rights and justified limitations
* Indigenous peoples’ traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions
* Indigenous intellectual property rights
* indigenous identities and spirituality

Speakers include:

Elsa Stamatopoulou (Former Chief of the Secretariat of Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues)
Prof. Julian Burger (Former Chief of UN Minority and Indigenous Unit, currently Essex University)
Prof. Siegfried Wiessner (St Thomas Law School, US)
Prof. Rene Kuppe (University of Wien)
Dr Federico Lenzerini (Sienna University)
Prof. Samson (Essex University)
Prof. Paul Havenmann (Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London)
Dr. Robert Dunbar (University of Aberdeen)
Dr. Damien Short (Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London)
Prof. Joshua Castellino (Head of Department, Middlesex University)
Dr. Marilena Alivizatou (UCL)
Prof. Sonia Harris-Short (University of Birmingham)
Dr. Susan Aikmann (University of East Anglia)
Prof. Graham Dutfield (University of Leeds)
Dr Ghanea-Hercock (Oxford)
Prof. Marie-Benedicte Denbour (University of Sussex)
Dr. Kristin Hausler (British Institute of International and Comparative Law)

Definitely, the team that was put together is of some notoriety in the area of Indigenous Peoples and hopefully you can be there –it’s a date!

not this type of date!

Anyone interested to attend can email Dr Alexandra Xanthaki at alexandra.xanthaki@brunel.ac.uk.

Protecting traditional knowledge and culture: Colombia gives an example

The protection of traditional knowledge is seen this time by way of Intellectual Property law: collective marks and Geographical Indication (GI). The news that I bring you today relates to the legal recognition (granted by the Colombia Superintendence of Industry and Commerce (SIC)) and thus protection of some of the most recognised products in Colombia which have aboriginal origin. The legal certification granted to the products would give the makers the possibility of defending their product against piracy and initiate legal proceedings that arise when another trader makes a copy or takes advantage of the reputation of their products on the market.

Both legal figures relate to the follow:
Collective marks as any other trade mark distinguish the goods/services from those of others. It signifies membership of a particular group; it does not have anything to do with quality but just identifying a particular association and thus designating who can use the mark.

Geographical indications are policies designated to highlight a link between the natural geographical advantages or the reputation associated with a place and the products produced in that place. There is however no definition of GI in the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property but the TRIPs Agreement defined them as “indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the goods is essentially attributable to its geographic origin” (art 22(1)). Note that according to TRIPs this measure applies to ‘all’ products. There is also the Lisbon Agreement and the Madrid Agreement -- the latter protects GIs at international level.

It is good to bear in mind that all these treaties exhibit different approaches but with a key point – to protect a product from passing off, in other words where one trader sells goods/services in the appearance of another trader’s goods/services. Another important point here is perhaps that many countries do not recognise handicraft as GIs but just foodstuff as the EU for example.

On December, Colombia saw the recognition of seven artisan products as a GIs (in the form of Denominations of Origin) and added to this, six associations were granted a collective mark also for artisan products. What caught my attention from these products was that all of them were born before the colonization and were made by different ethnic groups.
The base of the Colombian handicrafts is from natural products offered by this land and is at hand. For instance: clay, bamboo, leather, fibers, sisal, wool, wood, calabash, and precious metals. They do reflect the cultural expressions. Hammocks, pieces of gold, silver filigree, basketry, tapestry, ceramics, accessories in coconut or seeds, embroidery, sculptures, wooden objects and hand-woven items are an excellent showcase of Colombia to the world.

The products that received GI protection were:

• ‘ Mochilas Wayuú’: bags made by the Wayuu, a group of indigenous people who live in La Guajira Peninsula in northern Colombia. Each ‘mochila’ is hand-made by one woman and each woman has her own signature.
• ‘Tejeduría Zenú’ (weaving)
• ‘Hamacas de San Jacinto’ (hammock)
• ‘Sombrero Aguadeño’ (hat)
• 'Sombrero de Sandoná (hat)
• ‘Cerámica de Carmen de Víboral’ (ceramics)
• ‘Mopa Mopa Barniz-Pasto’: pasto varnish is a decorative technique developed by indigenous communities of Nariño in southern Colombia. Mopa-mopa is extracted from a plant that grows in the department of Putumayo in the Colombian jungle. The plant produces a gelatinous pulp, and through a traditional process of heating (previously there was the chewing and then the throwing in boiling water) is converted into a thin resin sheets- the artisan, with the help of his hands and even teeth ends to stretch; this then is tinted with vegetable dyes which will cover the surfaces of wooden objects.

Those that were registered as a collective marks were:

• ‘Sombrero Vueltiao’: hat resulting from weaving iraca palm fibres called ‘caña flecha’ that are native to Aguadas and has its origins in the Zenú Indian culture. This natural fibre is transformed into black and white fibers that are braided by a traditional Zenú technique—originally, it was only white, as the artisans had not discovered a painting technique until later on.
• ‘ Filigrana de Mompox’ (weaving gold jewellery)
• 'Tejeduría de Usiacurí’ (weaving)
• ‘Artesanías del Valle de Sibundoy’: handcrafted products in beads, wool, yarn, fiber, seeds, wood carving located in the Department of Putumayo (Colombia), home of lnga and Camentsá Indians.
• ‘ Mochilas Arhuacas’: bags made from wool of sheep by the Arhuaco Indians.
• ‘Werreregue de los Wounaan’:Wounaan Indians who produce basket and trays made of werreregue palm. Originally, the Waunana women manufactured werregue vases quite solid and compact so it could be used to carry water.

Source Bulletin Latinpymes.

Venezuela’s dinner on Christmas Eve: a reflection of a tradition

The topic of Indigenous is very close to me because...well you see, my grandparents from both sides came from Europe (Italy (mother’s side) and Spain (father’s side)) to Venezuela (South America) and married (both of them) native people. I do not remember much of my indigenous grannies because they died extremely young and so was I. One of them was more native than the other but they surely were different from our neighbours [the colour of their skin, the way they dressed – one being against wearing any shoes! and the hair – so black, so shiny].

Today I will bring a Venezuelan Christmas tradition which is specific to this holiday since I consider this dish to bear a resemblance of what I am, a mixture! Indeed the dish I bring you today is influenced by the Europeans and Indigenous Venezuelan: the ‘hallaca’.

The hallaca is the result of our historical process. Its provenience and name has different versions but I would like to keep to my belief, to what I was taught.
When and how was it born?
The strong contrast of flavours and colours is evidence of both influences. It combines meat, olives, raisins, cappers and vegetables wrapped in a maize dough; this filled dough is then wrapped in bananas (or plantain) leaves tied with a string and ready to be cooked in boiling water. The tale is that in colonial times the owners of lands would give leftovers to their servants and slaves, and they received this in their traditional cornmeal and plantain leaves for later cooking.
The name - its meaning
It is said that the word ‘hallaca’ comes from one of the Indian language called Guarani and derived from the word ‘ayúa’ or ‘ayuar’ which means to mix or stir, and because of a linguistic degradation was renamed ‘Ayacara’ and today it is known as hallaca.

In this blog we will be covering every aspect of Indigenous people but from the legal point, yet we also need to be realistic and thus, there is the need to identify ourselves with the minority. Indeed, it is good to remind not only to ourselves but to our readers that indigenous people influenced what we are today, and they are still part of us and our society.

More info here and here.

Dartmoor Commoners and Moor knowledge: Turkey plucking and moor

I am a Dartmoor Commoner. Simply this means that I have a right to graze cows, sheep and ponies on two Commons on Dartmoor. I share those rights with other Commoners but the land is owned by an individual or company. I see this as a form of ‘communal ownership’ unusual outside indigenous communities. I asked a fellow Commoner about Christmas traditions and he suggested turkey plucking.

Traditionally at least for a few hundred years a bird has been at the centre of the Christmas dinner. Today most people buy a turkey, goose or chicken killed and prepared in a factory and ready to put in the oven. However small farms and small holders in places like Dartmoor will be preparing birds relying on the knowledge passed down to them. Once a bird is killed it has to be plucked. Feathers must be plucked out carefully and gently to prevent the tearing of the skin. Feathers stray and it is best to pluck straight into a bag. Most pluckers will place the bird on their knees and pluck using a downward action. In my own family my husband has taught our sons and one in particular is better at it than the others. On Dartmoor farm labourers will be called from a neighbouring farm to help in the plucking which takes time and happens two weeks before Christmas.

Interestingly whilst discussing turkey plucking with my neighbour he talked about his ancestry and said that he could trace his family back to before the ‘Conqueror’ came in 1066. The evidence being a rhyme told to him by another Commoner. ‘The Cruises, Crockers and the Copplestones when the Conqueror came they were all at home.’ Oral traditions are often used by indigenous peoples to connect themselves to their land. He asked why he was not counted as a member of an indigenous peoples. My answer was complicated and one which will be discussed in this blog in the future.

Written by Fiona Batt.