Capacity Assessment on Traditional Knowledge in Iran by: A. M. FAZEL M. PANAHI M. R. KHOSRAVI 7th Co

1
Capacity Assessment on Traditional Knowledge in
Iranby A. M. FAZELM. PANAHIM. R.
KHOSRAVI7th Conference of the Parties to the
CBDFebruary 9-20, 2004, KL, Malaysia
2
Background on capacity assessment

• Following up required administrative procedures
  within the DoE and UNDP (recruitment of national
  consultant, contracts, forming working group to
  undertake the study),
• Designing the previewed work organization,
• Developing an appropriate methodology
  (consistent with existing realities) determine
  the literature review at national and
  international levels as well as interviews with
  relevant stakeholders in the country, including
  academics, decision makers and main actors at
  administrative sector,
• Undertaking the study (collection and analysis of
  information, drafting the preliminary report and
  its finalization according received comments by
  key national partners,

3
Key findings

• Positive aspects
• Magnificent richness of traditional knowledge in
  different sectors and economic activities,
  including forestry, agriculture, rangeland and
  watershed management, traditional medicine, food
  production, horticulture, etc. that are directly
  dependent on biological diversity
• High proportion of rural population who they are
  still the most important holders of traditional
  knowledge
• Governmental protectionist policies against
  importation of some agricultural productions
• High potential for rehabilitation of Traditional
  Knowledge if adequate awareness raising campaigns
  happen
• Decision makers commitment to review classic
  approaches re. traditional knowledge and
  accepting new ideas and concepts

4
Key findings (continued)

• Negative aspects
• Lack of consensus amongst the diverse
  administrative sectors in the country regarding
  how existing challenges at regional and
  international levels would be faced,
• Increased demand among rural people, farmers and
  local communities, etc. to use and develop modern
  knowledge and technologies in their agricultural
  activities,
• Lack of dialogue and technical cooperation among
  different administrative sectors on traditional
  knowledge matters
• Lack of detailed information on possible positive
  socio-economic implications of protection of
  traditional knowledge in the country and
  assessment of the current situation impacts on
  the future development

5
Key findings (continued)

• Concentration of public understanding on content
  of traditional knowledge rather than protection
  means
• Lack of national experiences on application and
  utilization of different instruments for
  protection of traditional knowledge at global and
  regional level
• Domination of classic models for national
  development and underestimation of the role of
  traditional knowledge in development plans
• Non-harmonization undertaken studies and measures
• Shortcomings in institutional and administrative
  required capacities

6
The priority areas for capacity building

• Awareness raising at three levels of decision
  makers, public and local communities
• Facilitating dialogue among relevant national
  institutions and stakeholders
• Strengthening administrative capacities at
  national and local levels
• Promoting existing national legislation, removal
  of legislative gaps
• Immediate enforcement of laws

7
The priority areas for capacity building
(continued)

• Joining international and regional cooperation,
  and existing multilateral, regional and
  international agreements
• Getting involved in ongoing negotiations
• Implementation of some case studies, e.g. Zagros
  Biodiversity Project