Private versus Collective Knowledge:

Can anthropology’s research and conceptual tools help bridge the divide between a
non-Western, Indigenous and a Western-based body of knowledge?

A Brief Case Study on Livestock Breeding as an Example of Western- and Non-

Western Legal System Differences and Similarities

Legal Systems and Development

Master in Innovation, Development and Change
University of Bologna

Submitted by

Ricardo A. Contreras

Professors Angela Carpi & Marina Timoteo

May 31, 2008

 Index

Abstract 3

Statement of the Problem and Research Question 4

Problem Background 4

Theoretical Background 5

Cognitive Anthropology, Human Ecology and Linguistic Anthropology Methods 8

Discussion 14

Conclusion 16

References 19

2
 Abstract

The issue of indigenous livestock breeding is approached as a knowledge system

and selected as an example to describe how a development issue may be approached from

both a Western-, official and a non-Western customary law viewpoints. The need for

identifying a practical and multi-conceptual framework that helps students of legal systems

and development ‘navigate’ between Western- and non-Western legal systems is

highlighted. In order to achieve this very complex task, a conceptual framework that

utilizes research methods employed by practitioners of cognitive anthropology, human

ecology and linguistic analysis is identified.

3
Statement of the Problem and Research Question

The purpose of this paper is to examine the way in which anthropology's research

tools can help students of comparative legal systems and development understand and

compare the differences and/or similarities between Western and non-Western legal

systems using a specific issue as an example: Livestock breeding knowledge. I’ve chosen

this issue partly because it is a contentious issue (as determined by review of relevant

literature on the subject) that can be framed using concepts introduced during our course

on Legal Systems and Development. Another reason is that I deem this issue relevant to a

larger scope of discourse on economic development. My focus for this paper is on

indigenous people's knowledge of traditional breed conservation (which is passed on from

one generation to the next) and recent legal threats posed by transnational corporations’

efforts at using intellectual property rights to lay claim to livestock breeding techniques

and production as their intellectual property right (Gura, 2008). Can anthropological

research methods help bridge the gap between these two apparently discordant systems?

Thus, this topic will serve as this essay’s conceptual backdrop against which I will pursue

to answer the following research questions:

Can anthropology’s research tools help identify a conceptual framework to understand

differences and similarities between a non-Western, traditional body of knowledge such
as livestock breeding and its Western-based counterpart?

Problem Background

The industrialization of livestock production is centered on a narrow choice of

breeds and “is viewed as the single largest threat to the world’s farm livestock diversity”

(Gura, 2008). Intellectual property rights over livestock genetic stock and breeding

4
strategies are becoming important issues too, since a growing range of livestock breeds

with potentially important commercial genetic characteristics “are in the hands of

marginalized communities” (Köhler-Rollefson, 2000). Transnational corporations are

increasingly showing commercial interest to lay claim to both selected aspects of long-

standing practices about livestock breeding and specific genetic characteristics of domestic

livestock. This is not without surprise, as locally developed livestock breeds may be

resistant to disease and drought, for example, and may not require special feed or

veterinarian care to survive under precarious environmental conditions. The genetic

characteristics that either make specific livestock breeds resistant to disease, allow them to

survive under harsh ecosystem conditions, or both, have become commercially attractive to

large transnational corporations for obvious economic reasons.

Theoretical Background

This research essay rests on the premise that knowledge about traditional livestock

breeding (and the genetic heritage locally developed over many generations) is connected

to the larger socio-cultural heritage that characterizes specific cultural groups around the

world, such as in pastoralist societies (The Life Initiative, 2003). Livestock breeding

knowledge is a product of a people’s culture deemed useful and perhaps even prestigious

by some (just as studying classical music among selected members of Western societies

would be). I propose, therefore, that livestock breeding and the knowledge developed from

it belong to a larger cultural identity postulate (a legal postulate under the concept of legal

pluralism) among indigenous peoples who depend on it for their survival and social

organization. Having accepted that livestock breeding (and the body of knowledge that is

developed) is a cultural activity, we can link indigenous ‘rules’ and customs about

livestock breeding to Masaji Chiba’s three levels of a legal system (Rouland, 1994):

5
 1. Official law or the set of laws sanctioned by a legitimate authority of a nation or
country – Livestock breeding knowledge is an economic commodity in
industrialized nations and protected by internationally sanctioned intellectual
property laws
2. Unofficial law or the set of rules not sanctioned by the legitimate authority of a
nation or country, but practiced by social groups who share a tacit agreement about
this set of rules and which can be used to “modify the official one” – the Code
Pastoral of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania is a perfect example of a set of rules
used to modify Mauritania’s legal code and which built upon traditional rules and
Islamic (Sharia) law. It granted mobility rights and access to grazing resources to
nomadic tribes while recognizing nomadism as a cultural system in that country
(Wabnitz, 2007)
3. Autonomous legal postulates (systems of cultural and identity values, for example)
that serve the function of adding legitimacy to both official and unofficial laws. It
is important to note that legal postulates serve as the basis that “enables a
population to maintain their cultural identity in law” (Timoteo, 2008) – I propose
that indigenous livestock breeding knowledge serves the function of an
autonomous legal postulate that helps pastoralist cultures keep their cultural
identity

Traditional livestock breeding and the selection rules that guide indigenous

breeders represent the cultural and knowledge product of the defined cultural group (or

subgroup within a larger society) that practices it. This situation constitutes an example of

a social activity that occurs at the “unofficial law” level. That is to say, this human activity

occurs within “the context of multiple and semiautonomous social fields” (Griffiths, 1986).

The ‘multiple and semiautonomous social fields’ may refer to the culture-specific concepts

used by an ethnic minority on the use and selection of specific breeds (i.e., sheep, goats,

cattle), its economic importance to the social group, the selection practices that favor

specific physical or behavioral traits on livestock, the use of their immediate ecosystem or

physical environment, or even the religious background of the people that favor the

breeding of a particular livestock variety, etc. This situation fits well with Griffiths’

definition about what constitutes legal pluralism – ‘multiple and semiautonomous social

fields’ because it deals with (breeding) rules may not be necessarily sanctioned by a

6
state’s official legal system even though these rules do influence people’s behaviors and

choices about where and how they live and how they relate to one another. In short,

knowledge about livestock breeding constitutes part of a society’s culture (i.e., the Maasai

people in Southern Kenya) that may (or not) be officially sanctioned by official law but

which do influence the way people live in certain parts of the world, including their

economic impact in that region.

From the point of view of anthropological discourse, Brush (1993) suggested two

schools of thought that have related the concept of intellectual property for traditional or

indigenous knowledge (I assume this can be extended to indigenous knowledge about

livestock breeding). These are the formation of an understanding about indigenous

knowledge systems through detailed ethnographic research about indigenous cultures and

the attention to the marginalizing effects suffered by ethnic groups, including minorities, at

the hands of dominant powers (i.e., European colonialism in Africa) that has led to “ open

debates about human rights for indigenous peoples.”

Indigenous (or traditional) livestock breeding knowledge can be related to

Griffith’s definition of legal pluralism. Griffith’s legal pluralism states that social actions

are ‘dynamic’ and occur within the ‘context of multiple, overlapping and semi-autonomous

social fields (i.e., family, community, religious and economic life, politics, culture, etc).

There is research evidence that livestock breeding selection decisions used by traditional

breeders take into account multiple social layers and that such selection processes are not

random or just the act of nature (Rege et al, 2006). A brief definition of “culture” is

appropriate too. I borrow from the cultural anthropologist Clifford Geertz’s interpretation

about what culture is. Culture, according to him, “denotes an historically transmitted

pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in

7
symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their

knowledge about and attitudes toward life” (Geertz, 1973). I would like to add that this

system of “inherited conceptions…by means of which men communicate… and develop

their knowledge toward life” can be extended to any body of knowledge conceived

collectively by a social group bound together by geographic origin, linguistic

characteristics, history and physical environment (to name a few) and which we can

loosely refer to as a people’s cultural heritage. Indigenous knowledge can be seen,

therefore, as part and parcel of a people’s cultural legacy, in general, and which includes

the specific body of knowledge conceived and transmitted by peasant societies to select

and breed livestock, in particular. Please note that we need to assume that such Indigenous

knowledge has been developed over many generations and that no single ‘legal entity’ or

person owns it as his or her individual private property.

In researching a relevant conceptual framework for this issue, I found that the

concepts and methods of legal pluralism, cognitive anthropology, human ecology and

linguistic analysis are useful to lay a theoretical framework for understanding livestock

breeding as a cultural construct from both a non-Western and Western approach. This

conceptual framework will be useful to arrive at an understanding about the potential

way(s) in which both non-Western (non-scientific, oral, qualitative-oriented and guided by

‘legally pluralistic’ rules in many cases) and Western-oriented traditions (scientific,

quantitative-oriented and guided by legally centralistic commercial rules) might

collaborate.

Cognitive Anthropology, Human Ecology and Linguistic Anthropology Methods

Cognitive anthropology and human ecology are social sciences with specific

theoretical frameworks and research methods. In order to see what they are and how each

8
discipline can help shed some understanding on the issue at hand (Western –based versus

traditionally-based livestock breeding knowledge), I will present a brief description for

each.

Cognitive Anthropology:

This branch of anthropology is interested in understanding the nexus between

psychological and cultural processes to define the cultural reality of a geographically

localized group (Spradley, 1972). The core of this discipline is identifying and analyzing

qualitative themes and patterns, especially linguistic analysis and the naming of objects or

physical phenomena, that will emerge from structured interview data (Bernard, 1994) by

indigenous or native informants and which will give shape to locally conceived ‘native’

knowledge about their cultural reality. Atran (1987) argued that cognitive anthropology’s

contribution to the quest to add legitimacy to indigenous peoples’ understanding of nature

(indigenous biological knowledge) is demonstrating the “historical affinity” and “structural

similarities” between indigenous and Western knowledge systems. This social science

contribution is important for elevating indigenous knowledge to the same status as Western

scientific knowledge about nature and, therefore, worthy of the same protections under

officially sanctioned laws (i.e., Intellectual Property Rights).

Cognitive anthropology has built upon prior ethno-botanic research to examine “the

structure of folk knowledge” (Brush, 1993). The discipline’s focus on culturally specific

knowledge such as taxonomic systems allowed it to demonstrate the “structural similarity”

between Western and non-Western knowledge systems, thanks in part to its emphasis on

linguistic research methods. This approach for analyzing indigenous ways of classifying

the world provides field evidence that non-Western indigenous knowledge systems are

guided by social rules created by people to adapt to their physical environment while

9
giving cultural meaning to the activities ‘coordinated’ by such rules (i.e., indigenous

livestock breeding carries specific cultural meaning to the people who practice it). If so,

this may constitute an example of an autonomous legal postulate (under Chiba’s Theory)

that informs both the unofficial and official legal systems and gives legitimacy to it. A

classic example is the impact of the Code Pastoral (signed into law in 2004) of the Islamic

Republic of Mauritania upon that country’s legislature. Wabnitz (2007) summarizes the

effect of the Code Pastoral:

The Code Pastoral recognizes the traditional common property regime for
nomads on pastoral lands, classified as public domain (Art 9, 13) and
validates use-rights, a shift from exclusive ownership rights. The law is
pragmatic, having been drafted by herders themselves, in defense against
the increasing rangeland of farmers. It builds on traditional rules and
Islamic law (Sharia). Thus the right to mobility (Art. 10) and access to
pastoral resources (Art. 11) have priority. The motives of the legislation
declare nomadism “comme vecteur d’un systeme de valeur culturelle”.

According to Wabnitz, its forty six articles “define the Code’s objectives, legal and

customary notions and help lay down basic principles and rights and provide for realistic,

self-executory conflict resolution procedures.” The code also allows for appeals to state

tribunals if needed. We see how customary law regarding use of grazing lands by nomadic

tribes was ‘promoted’ to work at the same level as that of official laws in Mauritania

because of economic interests on the part of the State. For instance, nomadic livestock

breeding was estimated to account for 75% of Mauritania’s agricultural output, although it

was supported by only 10% of that country’s agricultural budget in the 1990’s (Wabnitz,

2007). It can be inferred that the state of Mauritania sees economically advantageous to

support and protect indigenous livestock activities, and, by extension, the body of

knowledge developed by traditional livestock breeders.

10
Human Ecology:

People seek order in the world around them by observing physical and social

phenomena while ignoring others or by grouping some together and excluding others

(McGee et al, 2004). Cognitive anthropologists argue that each culture (i.e., each socio-

cultural group) has developed its own system of classification to understand their

immediate environment and be able to interact with it. People perceive and organize

phenomena, such as flora and fauna, physical events, behaviors and emotions according to

specific taxonomies that represent their perception of reality. This, in turn, allows people

to interact with their environment. Human ecology assumes that people interact with

natural resources at multiple levels and within defined ecosystems (i.e., the rangelands

where livestock keepers take their livestock to graze). This discipline helps us understand

people’s interactions with their environment and consider this people-environment

interface as a system. Human ecology’s theoretical framework is interested with the

biological, social, and physical aspects of people and considers it to be within their

ecosystem context. This context includes nature and the social reality as constructed by

people within a particular cultural milieu (Bubolz et al, 1993). We can see, then, how

important is to account for the ecosystem-people interaction as an organizational system of

rules (i.e., the identity postulate, customary laws) to be able to understand that indigenous

livestock breeding is not a random, low-level activity. Instead, it must be given serious

thought regarding how it is structurally related, as a system, to its Western-oriented

counterpart and should be treated as such. The state of Mauritania recognized its economic

importance and acted to recognize and elevate it via officially sanctioned laws.

11
Linguistic Analysis:

It is actually the work of linguistic anthropologists who contributed to the notion

that every culture possesses its own ‘worldview’ that makes sense to members of that

culture, just as every member of a culture speaks a language intelligible to members of that

group. It is useful to consider, for clarification, the emic (or insider’s) perspective used by

linguistic anthropologists to focus on the intrinsic and meaningful cultural distinctions

shared by members of a given social group (Lett, 2008). It is extremely helpful to think in

terms of phonemic analysis to see why this comparison is not only useful but necessary.

Lett elaborates that phonemic analysis focuses on the intrinsic phonological differences

that are meaningful to speakers of any given language. Therefore, an indigenous corpus of

knowledge about livestock breeding, for example, contains an intrinsic set of significant

meanings that are comprehended by member-practitioners within the culture where this

knowledge system was developed. The Western-based scientific approach for livestock

breeding, on the other hand, represents the etic (from phonetic analysis) side of it. Etic

related constructs (in this case, the scientifically organized body of knowledge used by

industrial livestock breeders) are equivalent to a linguistic analysis expressed in terms of

the conceptual classifications that are regarded as meaningful and appropriate by scientific

observers. An etic construct of reality can be labeled etic “if and only if it agrees with the

epistemological principles deemed appropriate by science (i.e., constructs must be precise,

logical, comprehensive, replicable, and observer independent)” (Lett, 2008).

Other Useful Conceptual Frameworks:

Vayda (1983) suggests that human ecologists may identify either theoretically or

practically significant research findings related to temporary or permanent social

phenomen. Vayda’s definition of this social science suggests focus on either “significant

12
human activities or people-environment interactions” and their explanation by relating

them to a wider socio-cultural context. Finally, he proposes to place within context human

interactions by using a “rationality principle and comparative knowledge” of contexts.

Other human ecology scholars (i.e., Catton and Dunlap) decided to create a new paradigm

of human ecology: the New Ecological Paradigm (Wikipedia, 2008). Their definition

proposes that physical and biological facts act as independent variables that influence or

modulate social structure and other social phenomena, as would be the case of pastoralist

societies whose social behaviors and social structure are influenced by their physical

milieu and represent an adaptation to their environment. Ultimately the importance of

applying human ecology research tools towards the understanding of indigenous

knowledge structures rests in the scholars’ ability to generate theoretical principles that

focuses upon people’s adaptive nature of their knowledge (it is dynamic and changing to

new circumstances) and their focus on their habitat to adapt and survive. The argument

that indigenous classifications about flora, fauna and other physical phenomena contain an

inherent structure (Brush, 1993) strengthens the idea that traditional systems of knowledge

(i.e., livestock breeding techniques) are systematic and utilitarian too. Their taxonomical

value about a social group’s immediate habitat (and all that is contained within such as

local flora and fauna) can be compared to the inherent value attributed in the West to

scientific knowledge: knowledge is an economic commodity, depending on the eye of the

beholder.

13
Discussion

Scholars in anthropology use a specific research set of tools, including participant

observation and key informant interviews to objectively characterize the ‘indigenous’ or

emic knowledge system applicable to the society or culture observed. Practitioners of

cognitive anthropology have critically examined this method and proposed changes on the

method of analysis to compare different cultural systems. For example, post-structuralists

propose that all bodies of knowledge are socially constructed so that the focus of analysis

should be on processes that grant legitimacy to certain hierarchies of knowledge and

power, either at the local or global ‘system of knowledge’ level (Nygren, 1999).

The potential conflict between the Western concept of intellectual property rights

(as laid out in the TRIPS agreement, for example) and pastoral societies’ indigenous

knowledge for livestock conservation is an example of a cultural and legal issue that can be

conceptualized and framed using both anthropological and legal pluralism theoretical

frameworks. The premise that specific livestock genetic pools or techniques used in

livestock breeding can be patented makes sense from a Western viewpoint, as knowledge

is tied to economic production and comparative advantages and can be treated as a scarce

commodity. This fact has generated a debate “about legal and regulatory frameworks for

the sustainable use of farm animal genetic resources” (The Life Initiative, 2003). This

situation and the legal disputes that it can give rise to, I believe, is amenable to being

framed using the conceptual tools learned during our MiDIC’s Legal Systems and

Development course. For example, legal centralism is embodied in the World Trade

Organization’s TRIPS agreement regulations on intellectual property rights (in this case,

about livestock breeding techniques, genetic material and data, etc), while ‘legal

14
postulates’ and customary law can be exemplified, in this case, by an indigenous society’s

livestock breeding knowledge and their cattle breed(s).

It is a fact of life that many pastoral societies in African and Asia (i.e., Maasai

people, Erithrean pastoralists, Kyrghiz people) still depend on indigenously bred livestock

and possess self-acquired knowledge about breeding processes (a form of tacit breeding

protocol developed over many generations) denotes that this indigenous knowledge can be

managed and protected under intellectual property right laws. One obvious difference is

that this knowledge (and the cattle bred out of it) has existed for centuries, if not millennia,

outside of the Western concepts of intellectual property rights, until very recently.

Any claims to or the products generated by it, such as genetic materials, by

international business corporations should be approached under economic regulations so

that indigenous keepers (whose cultural heritage contributed to its development in the first

place) of commercially attractive breeds can be justly represented by trade organizations.

Indigenous livestock keepers around the world have developed, over thousands of years,

geographically specific animal breeds to fit specific ecological systems; livestock keepers

share knowledge about selecting their breeds without the use of any trade patents. Their

breeds, for example, are dependent on specific habitat conditions both to survive and thrive

(Tvedt, 2006); this is the direct result of complex selection processes exerted by

Indigenous livestock breeders.

We see that intellectual property is an important concept in this discussion and

embodies many potential trade issues that can be analyzed and interpreted using the

research methods described elsewhere in this essay. Since many livestock breeds with

genetic traits of possible commercial potential are bred and maintained by ethnic

communities around the world, a deeper understanding of the indigenous knowledge

15
system(s) that gave rise to both their livestock genetic pool and breeding strategies. For

instance, Massai sheep breed has been identified as resistant to intestinal parasites, a

genetic characteristic of commercial value for the sheep industry in industrialized countries

(Köhler-Rollefson, 2000).

Conclusion

It has been argued that both the traditional, indigenous knowledge about breeding

and the specific habitats where livestock breeding occurs are an inherent part of the

cultural and physical patrimony of specific ethnic groups around the world, many of them

living in the margins of mainstream society. It has been demonstrated that both the

breeding technique developed over many generations and the physical environment where

this occurs play an integral role in influencing the careful selection process to generate a

specific animal breed.

Any given indigenous breed’s characteristics is not the result of natural adaptation

alone, but a deliberately planned series of decisions (i.e., a ‘cultural’ algorithm for

livestock breeding) so that the end result is an animal breed with carefully chosen

characteristics and meeting culturally and environmentally appropriate goals. For

example, Kohler-Rollefson and Singh (2006) describe a participatory approach (the LIFE

approach) to documenting livestock genetic resources in India:

1. Social and cultural context: livestock breed relationship with the community,
breeding institutions, local perceptions about the origin of the breed, local
terminology and ethno-taxonomy (a research tool used by cognitive
anthropologists)
2. Ecological and production context: breeding area, local soil types and
classification, local farming system, seasonal forage calendar, preferred grazing
species (methods used by human ecologists)
3. Livelihood significance (types of products): range of products and uses, production
performance, reproductive performance of breed

16
 4. Management of the gene pool: local preferences (breeding goal), special
characteristics, breeding mechanisms, identification of top breeders
5. Breed Population: population estimate, population trend
6. Chances for sustainable use and conservation: interest in revival and conservation
by the local community (may involve legal issues)
7. Baseline data to monitor social impact of livestock breeding

An indigenous breed represents a body of knowledge that spans centuries (if not

millennia), is directly dependent on a specific habitat and goes beyond “the conceptual

boundaries of animal science” (Kratli, 2006). Consider, then, the controversy stirred by

the transnational US based Monsanto Company in 2005 regarding a patent for pig breeding

selection and crossbreeding (application WO 2005/015989); this transnational company

basically is attempting “to patent careful selection of parentage and crossbreeding,

elements of farming that have existed since the birth of agriculture and human civilization”

(Natural News, 2005). The far-reaching controversy over this livestock breeding protocol

patent application by Monsanto gives rise to the legal question whether transnational

corporations are utilizing international trade laws and bodies (TRIPS, Convention on

Biological Diversity, World Intellectual Property Organization, World Trade Organization)

to lay claim to knowledge that has existed collectively for millennia in order to privatize,

control and profit from it, and equally important, how ethnic communities can legally

protect both their indigenously developed knowledge systems for livestock breeding and

(now) commercially desirable livestock genetic stock.

To conclude, the role that anthropology (including its sub-discipline, legal

anthropology) can play on informing, documenting and understanding the nexus between

Western and non-Western legal systems is important and needed at this time. The

complexity involved in analyzing even a single issue (i.e., livestock breeding) and how it is

related to both Western oriented intellectual property rights and non-Western, indigenously

17
developed knowledge systems was, hopefully, illustrated with this research paper. Legal

anthropology, in particular, can contribute to the understanding of the “legal dimension” in

indigenous people’s lives and should be concerned with shedding a deeper understanding

of the social and legal relations between non-Western ethnic communities and their

countries’ governments that follow Western-styled legal systems, including any actual

legal disputes that arise between ethnic communities and governments (or their legal

designees) (Novikova, 2005). The research methods presented in this research essay have

as their goal to combine both “normative and process analysis methods” in order to

understand the human condition as it relates to people’s social and physical realities. It

was also discussed that people’s interaction with their environment (i.e., their culture and

all cultural traits and outputs) is linked to their culture. This interaction, in turn, is what

gives rise to knowledge systems that are indigenously conceived and developed. Livestock

breeding by ethnic groups who practice it as part of their livelihood is one such example of

this interaction and should be considered a knowledge system that must be protected under

both the customary and official laws of each country where these indigenous knowledge

systems exist, just as its industrial, scientific, Western-oriented counterpart is. I conclude,

then, that both non-Western and Western legal systems can and should work together

under specific conditions and for dealing with specific issues that involve issues of

economic interest and cultural survival to both nation-states and ethnic communities

around the world (as the Code Pastoral legislated in Mauritania demonstrated that can be

done).

18
 References

Atran, S (1987). Origin of the Species and Genus Concepts: An Anthropological

Perspective. Journal of the History of Biology, Vol. 20, pp 195-279

Bernard, H R (1994). Chap. 11: Structured interviewing, in Research Methods in

Anthropology. 2nd Ed. Pp. 237-255. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Brush, S (1993). Indigenous Knowledge of Biological Resources and Intellectual Property

Rights: The Role of Anthropology. American Anthropologist, Vol. 95 (3): 653-
686.

Bubolz, M. M., and Sontag, M. S. (1993). "Human Ecology Theory." In Sourcebook of

Family Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach, ed. P. Boss, W. J. Doherty,
R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, and S. K. Steinmetz. New York: Plenum Press.

Black, M & Metzger, D (1965). The Ethnography of Law. American Anthropologist,

New Series, Vol. 67, No. 6, Part 2., pp. 141-165. American Anthropological
Association, Blackwell Publishing. Retrieved from the internet May 05, 2008
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/668843

Geertz, C (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. Retrieved on
May 07, 2008 from http://www.pctii.org/cyberj/cyberj1/yong.html

Köhler-Rollefson, I (2000). Indigenous Knowledge of animal breeding and breeds: Issue

Paper on People and Biodiversity. Prepared for the German Agency for Technical
Cooperation (GTZ, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit).
Retrieved on May 21, 2008 from http://www.ilri.org/html/koehl.pdf

Kohler-Rollefson, I and Singh-Rathore, H (2006). Documentation of animal genetic

resources: the LIFE method. LEISA Magazine (2006, March). Retrieved on May
30, 2008, from http://www.leisa.info/index.php?url=magazine-
list.tpl&p[source]=ILEIA

Gura, S (2008, January). Livestock breeding in the hands of corporations. Seedling,

January 2008 Issue. Retrieved on May 08, 2008 from http://www.grain.org/front/

Kratli, S (2006). Indigenous Knowledge on Animal Breeding: is there breeding outside

science? Presented at the Livestock biodiversity, indigenous knowledge, and I
ntellectual property rights Conference, Bellagio, Italy, 27 Mar-2 Apr 2006.
Sponsored by the League for Pastoral Peoples and Endogenous Livestock
Development (www.pastoralpeoples.org) and the Rockefeller Foundation.
Retrieved May 05, 2008 from
http://www.pastoralpeoples.org/bellagio/presentations.htm

19
Lett, J (2008). Emic/Etic Distinctions. Professor James Lett Web Page at Indian River
College. Retrieved on May 21, 2008 from http://faculty.ircc.cc.fl.us/faculty/jlett/
Article%20on%20Emics%20and%20Etics. htm

McGee, R, Jon, R and Warms, R L (2004). Anthropological Theory: An Introductory

History. New York: McGraw Hill. In “Overview of Cognitive Anthropology”
(Web Page), e-Museum at the Minnesota State University at Mankato. Retrieved
on May 24, 2008 from
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/anthropology/Cognitive%20Frame.html

Mattei, U (1997). The Competitive Relationship among Sources of Law, Chapter 5.

Comparative Law and Economics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Retrieved from the internet April 25, 2008 from
http://books.google.com/books?id=e81ZgIWThCMC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&
dq=legal+formants+&source=web&ots=tvV7zOhUTk&sig=WJtKDYhbv51-
a9yUF3H2HevI0iQ&hl=en#PPA104,M1

Novikova, N (2005). The Concept of Legal Anthropology. Institute of Ethnology and

Anthropology, Russian Academy of Sciences. Retrieved May 07, 2008 from
http://jurant.iea.ras.ru/en/

Nygren, A (1999). Local Knowledge in the Environment-Development Discourse: From

dichotomies to situated knowledges. Critique of Anthropology 1999; Vol. 19;
267-288. Retrieved on May 08, 2008 from
http://coa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/3/267

Rege, J E O, Nyamu, AM and Sendalo, D, eds (2006). Livestock genetic diversity-

characterization and conservation, Parallel Session 3, pp. 268-269. The role of
biotechnology in animal agriculture to address poverty in Africa: Opportunities
and challenges. Proceedings of the 4th All Africa Conference on Animal
Agriculture & the 31st annual meeting of Tanzania Society for Animal
Production, Arusha, Tanzania, 20–24 September 2005. TSAP (Tanzania Society
for Animal Production), Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and ILRI (International
Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.

Rouland, N & Planel P (1996). The Development of Legal Anthropology, Chapter 1.

Legal Anthropology. London: Athlone Press. Retrieved April 25, 2008 from
http://books.google.com/books?id=5gLNDs-
G_u8C&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=Chiba%
27s+theory&source=web&ots=oWggvWusJp&sig=aNA_5YkenC8oqrGSrTWeU
pvzZ8w&hl=en#PPP1,M1

Spradley, J P (1972). An ethnographic approach to the study of organizations, in

Complex Organizations and Their Environments. MB Brinkerhoff and PR Kunz,
Eds. Pp. 94-105. Dubuque, IA: William. C. Brown Publisher

20
The Life Initiative (2003). International Meeting of Indigenous Livestock Breeding
Communities, Kenya, 27th-30th October, 2003. Retrieved from the internet on
May 02, 2008, from http://lifeinitiative.net/index.php/archives/2003/12/01/karen-
1/

Timoteo, M (2008). Lecture Notes from Legal Systems and Development course,
February 2008. Master in Innovation, Development and Change (MiDIC),
University of Bologna, Faculty of Law.

Tvedt, M W (2006). Current Patent Law as it Applies to Animal Genetic Resources and
Breeding Practices. Presented at the Livestock biodiversity, indigenous
knowledge, and intellectual property rights Conference, Bellagio, Italy, 27 Mar-2
Apr 2006. Sponsored by the League for Pastoral Peoples and Endogenous
Livestock Development (www.pastoralpeoples.org) and the Rockefeller
Foundation. Retrieved May 06, 2008 from
http://www.pastoralpeoples.org/bellagio/presentations.htm

Vayda, AP (1983). Progressive contextualization: Methods for research in human

ecology. Journal of Human Ecology. Vol. 11, Number 3, September 1983.
Retrieved May 21, 2008 from
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p666h42218624877/?p=c25dbfc2209f4f9aa
bc2c8c714a59e5a&pi=0

Veracity, D (2005, September 09). Monsanto attempts to claim patent ownership of pigs.
Natural News. Retrieved on May 06, 2008 from
http://www.naturalnews.com/011581.html

Wabnitz, H W (2007). The Code Pastoral of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania: Return
to the Sources: Revival of Traditional Nomads' Rights to Common Property
Resources. Retrieved on May 26, 2008 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=906985

Wikipedia (2008). Human Ecology. Retrieved on May 20, 2008 from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_ecology

21