Exploring linkages between Cultural Diversity and Biological Diversity
Experts Meeting on
Safeguarding the Transmission of
Local & Indigenous Knowledge of Nature
14, 15 April 2005
Auditorium, Aichi Prefectural University, Nagoya, Japan
DRAFT WORKING DOCUMENT
April 2005
1. UNESCO PROGRAMME CONTEXT
The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD, Johannesburg, 2002) brought to the
fore today’s most pressing needs, as well as obstacles to be overcome in order to attain
sustainable development. Several new directions emerged from the Summit. One of these is
the relationship between biological diversity and cultural diversity, and its essential role in
sustainable development. As globalization continues to erode natural and cultural resources at
an alarming rate, biodiversity and cultural diversity are being irretrievably lost. To address
this urgent concern, a high-level roundtable on “Cultural Diversity and Biodiversity for
Sustainable Development” was jointly convened at the WSSD by UNESCO and UNEP1. As
follow-up to this event and the WSSD, UNESCO has launched, for the biennium 2004-2005,
a new Main Line of Action on Reinforcing Linkages between Cultural Diversity and
Biodiversity for Sustainable Development, applying an interdisciplinary and intersectoral
approach that combines the perspectives of the Culture Sector and the Natural Sciences Sector.
This initiative reinforces the foundations laid by the World Conference on Science (Budapest
1999), jointly convened by UNESCO and the International Council for Science, at which a
special thematic session on ‘Science and Other Systems of Knowledge’ debated the tensions
and synergies between science and traditional knowledge in the sustainable development
arena. UNESCO’s project on Local and Indigenous Knowledge Systems (LINKS) emerged
from this debate with the dual mandate of empowering local and indigenous peoples in
biodiversity governance, and strengthening the transmission and dynamism of indigenous
knowledge within local communities.
Biological and cultural diversities are mutually reinforcing and interdependent. Natural
systems cannot be understood, conserved and managed without recognizing the human
cultures that shape them. Cultures cannot be divorced from their natural milieu that is the
“Cultural Diversity and Biodiversity for Sustainable Development”, 3 September 2002, Johannesburg on the
occasion of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. The report of the meeting is available at
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001322/132262e.pdf
1
source of inspiration, creativity and sustenance. Ecological and social systems are intimately
interconnected and co-evolve together. While the interrelationship between nature and culture
has been a subject of academic investigation since at least the 1950s (e.g. Conklin’s
groundbreaking ethnoecology of the Hanunoo of the Philippines), its emergence on the
international scene dates from the 1990’s. The Convention on Biological Diversity (adopted
in 1992) provides an important impetus by bringing to the fore the role of indigenous peoples
and of local & indigenous knowledge in conserving biodiversity. Today, increasing attention
is being paid to the culturally-diverse ways in which people and nature interact and the
intrinsic value of these interactions for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of
natural resources.
As such, UNESCO seeks to broaden our visions of sustainable development by exploring the
interrelationship between Cultural Diversity and Biodiversity, and most notably the mediating
role of local knowledge of nature.
2. LOCAL AND INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE OF NATURE
Local, Indigenous or Traditional?
Today innumerable terms abound, vying for space in a vast and often confusing arena of
jargon. Should we speak of local knowledge, traditional ecological knowledge, indigenous
knowledge, or even indigenous science? Older terms such as folk knowledge, folk science
may have lost their sheen, but others are still with us such as ethnobotany, ethnozoology or
ethnoecology. And there are advocates for farmers’ or fishers’ knowledge. This plethora of
terms can only leave us with one certainty, that each and every one has its limitations and
none will suffice in all circumstances2. The debate over a preferred terminology has long been
exhausted without achieving consensus, and it would be fruitless to debate this matter further.
Somewhat arbitrarily then, we choose in this document to speak of local & indigenous
knowledge, preferring to avoid ‘traditional’ because it obscures the dynamic and adaptive
nature of knowledge. At the same time, we acknowledge the restrictive nature of
‘indigenous’, evoking indigenous peoples in particular, and accept that juxtaposing ‘local’ (as
non-indigenous communities also harbour impressive sets of knowledge of nature) resolves
this problem only in part, and raises other concerns. Throughout this document we will use
interchangeably the adjectives local, indigenous or local & indigenous.
While there is no universally agreed upon term, we can nevertheless establish for the purposes
of our discussions a working definition (while acknowledging the many grey zones that
remain). Local and indigenous knowledge refers to:
The Convention on Biological Diversity, for instance refers to the “knowledge, innovations and practices of
indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles …” (Article 8j). The African Model
Legislation for the Protection of the Rights of Local Communities, Farmers and Breeders, and for the Regulation
of Access to Biological Resources (OAU Model Law, 2000) uses the term “community knowledge” or
“indigenous knowledge” and understands it as “accumulated knowledge that is vital for the conservation and
sustainable use of biological resources and/or which is of socio-economic value, and which has been developed
over the years in indigenous/local communities”. WIPO, which has established in 2000 the Intergovernmental
Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, but stops short
of defining the term “traditional knowledge”, only underlining its complex nature that encompasses know-how,
innovation, information, practices and skills as well as cultural expressions and folklore such as songs, chants,
oral traditions, motives and designs.
2
2




The knowledge about the natural world that is possessed and developed by peoples
with continuing close ties to their natural milieu.
This ‘knowledge’ also encompasses know-how, and thus practice, as well as being
part and parcel of a larger cognitive system of explanation and meaning which is
anchored within a distinctive worldview. It therefore remains continuous with and
inseparable from values, ‘beliefs’ and spirituality.
While accumulated over time and transmitted from one generation to the next, at
the same time local & indigenous knowledge is dynamic and evolving - reconstituted, re-created and revised by each succeeding generation of knowledgeholders.
If we can declare it to be held collectively, we must also recognise that a good part
of this knowledge may also be gender specific, and certain kinds of knowledge
may be the privileged possession of select individuals (e.g. healers, midwives,
shaman etc.) or specific subgroups of a community.
In general, the knowledge which concerns us here, is that of oral cultures, where transmission
is by word or by observing and doing, rather than in written form. A comprehensive approach
to local and indigenous knowledge, with language as one important vehicle of transmission, is
therefore required.
Indigenous knowledge and science are often opposed, and we have all seen lists of
characteristics that presumably set one apart from the other. Such polarized representations
are more indicative then accurate, and it is too often forgotten that science, also anchored
within a specific Occidental worldview, bears the weight of its own cultural representations,
values and beliefs and of course, has its own tumultuous conceptual history. Historians and
philosophers of science are the first to question the representation of science that scientists
themselves prefer to put foremost - that of a rational, objective and detached (and therefore
superior) reflection on the world. For our purposes, it is important to note that it is also this
representation of the objectivity of science that is repeated in classrooms around the world.
Indigenous knowledge, on the other hand, has generally been excluded from formal education.
The message to young students, including indigenous youth, has always been clear, whether
explicit or implicit – local know-how, indigenous understandings are not really ‘knowledge’.
Grudgingly acknowledged to be of cultural value, but more often relegated to the realm of
belief or even superstition, when push comes to shove, local and indigenous knowledge is cast
aside, and only science and rational (i.e. Occidental) thought are put forward as building
blocks for their future.
Local and indigenous knowledge – international debates
Since the 1990’s, local and indigenous knowledge has been increasingly present in
international debates. This is due to a incongruous mix of factors such as its potential role in
biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of natural resources 3; demands by indigenous
3
The important role of local & indigenous knowledge in biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of natural
resources is recognized namely in Article 8 (j) of the Convention on Biodiversity as well as in the Declarations
of the two Summits on Sustainable Development, which took place in Rio (1992) and in Johannesburg (2002).
Annex III (Resolution 3/91 – 1991) of the FAO International Undertaking of Plant Genetic Resources underlines
the value of “local rural technologies” in the conservation and utilization of plant genetic resources.
3
peoples to have a greater word in resource access and use; concerns about bioprospecting and
biopiracy; technological innovation in particular in the field of biotechnology including
pharmaceutics and agriculture4; and the trade interests that arises from these innovations5.
In current contexts, “promoting” local and indigenous knowledge often implies its wider
application to fulfil technological, environmental and economic interests. What need to be
“protected” are the proprietary rights of knowledge holders, which may be transgressed by
unwarranted granting of patents to third parties. The issues of who should have access to
knowledge and how benefits can be equitably shared, are subjects of hot debate. Solutions
being proposed include:
-
Incentive measures that promote a more equitable status for local and indigenous
knowledge, comparable to that of science and technology.
Establishment of codes of ethics/conduct for the respect of ownership of traditional
knowledge 6;
Use/adaptation of existing Intellectual Property Rights Systems to recognize collective
ownership 7;
4
There are no official statistics on the numbers of technological innovations/ inventions that are directly or
indirectly derived from indigenous knowledge (but see for example footnote 5). Several cases demonstrate that
an important number of patented “innovations” were derived from or directly relate to traditional practice.
Amongst such examples is the case of an American company – International Plant Medicine – who obtained a
patent for a “new and distinct variety of plant” of medicinal value under the name of Da Vine in 1986. In actual
fact, this plant, ayahuasca, was well known to the peoples of the Amazonian region who had been using it for
healing ceremonies for many generations. Similar cases involve the patenting of the neem tree and of turmeric
(subsequently rejected once India provided written evidence of ancestral medicinal use). According to OECD’s
Compendium of Patent Statistics 2004, biotechnology along with ICT has contributed substantially to the sharp
increase in the level of patent activities across the world. It would be interesting to know how many of these
patents are actually based on or inspired from local & indigenous knowledge.
5
According to UNCTAD, traditional medicine or herbal medicine based on traditional knowledge (including
food supplements, aromatic oils, cosmetics and body care) represents US$ 60 billion world market (Systems and
National Experience for Protecting Traditional Knowledge, Innovations and Practices: Background Note by the
UNCTAD Secretariat, TD/B/COM.1/EM.13/2, August 2000). Following the trend, the Trade Related Aspects of
Intellectual Properties (TRIPS), a WTO agreement set into forth in 1995, has added a numbers of new areas of
intellectual property rights namely pharmaceutical patents, new plant varieties and biotechnology in addition to
other traditional areas of intellectual properties covered under WIPO conventions.
6
Amongst international instruments that give guidelines, principles or codes of ethics for the conduct of
research in local & indigenous communities are: Draft Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of the
Heritage of Indigenous Peoples (Working Group on Indigenous Peoples, Commission on Human Rights);
International Code of Conduct for Plant Germplasm Collecting and Transfer (FAO); African Model Legislation
for the Protection of the Rights of Local Communities, Farmers and Breeders, and for the Regulation of Access
to Biological Resources (OAU Model Law, Organization of African Unity); Guidelines for establishing and
strengthening local communities and indigenous peoples’ participation in the management of wetlands
(RAMSAR). In 1985, UNESCO in cooperation with WIPO elaborated a Model Provision for National Laws on
the Protection of Expressions of Folklore against Illicit Exploitation and Other Prejudicial Actions.
7
Despite their limitations in meeting the need of local & indigenous knowledge holders, existing Intellectual
Properties laws (patents, trademarks, geographical indications, industrial designs and trade secrets) have been
used to protect local knowledge from certain forms of misuse and misappropriation. Some countries, however,
have endeavored to adapt existing intellectual property systems to the needs of local & indigenous knowledge
holders or even to develop sui generis exclusive rights for the indigenous knowledge. During 1998 and 1999,
WIPO conducted a fact-finding mission in 28 countries in order to identify IP related needs of traditional
knowledge holders (“Intellectual Property Needs and Expectations of Traditional Knowledge Holders: WIPO
4
-
Creation of databases on local and indigenous knowledge indicating the original
knowledge holders8;
Prior and informed consent of local communities including the establishment of
licence or contract between knowledge holders and a third party wishing to use that
knowledge9.
While the aforementioned initiatives bring recognition and value to local and indigenous
knowledge and knowledge holders, they are also vulnerable to the same critique. In viewing
knowledge as a tool for biodiversity conservation or as product for economic gain (whether as
heritage for tourism or pharmaceutical for sale), indigenous knowledge is inevitably
instrumentalized and commoditised, and thus divorced from its original socio-cultural context.
UNESCO Perspectives on Local & Indigenous Knowledge
UNESCO prones an integrated and comprehensive approach to the issue of local and
indigenous knowledge, one that embraces its complex multi-dimensional nature.
Protecting local indigenous knowledge is a matter of basic human rights and fundamental
freedom that defend, amongst others, the right of each individual to freely exercise cultures or
the cultural life of his/her choice. The ultimate objective of UNESCO’s undertaking is thus to
enable local and indigenous communities to exercise the knowledge and practice of their
choice thereby to define the development path of their own. It is therefore important that the
knowledge remains alive, active and evolving within the community and for the community
itself.
Local and indigenous knowledge has been sustained, adapted and evolved within a
community through the process of transmission from one generation to another. While there
are several possible responses, sustaining the intergenerational transmission of local and
indigenous knowledge within its community of origin is crucial for its protection and
promotion.
Report on Fact-finding missions, 1998-1999”). The international debate on the Intellectual Property of local &
indigenous knowledge continues within the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and
Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore established in 2000.
8
As a part of the debate on Article 27.3 (b) of the TRIPS Agreement concerning the patentability or nonpatentability of plan and animal inventions, Doha Declaration in 2001 asked that the discussion be broadened to
include the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity and the
protection of traditional knowledge and folklore. Two concerns were mainly expressed concerning the
protection of traditional knowledge: unwarranted granting of patent to third parties other than traditional
knowledge holders; lack of prior informed consent of the concerned local communities for the use of their
traditional knowledge. Solutions put forward were: development of databases on traditional knowledge,
searchable on the Internet with a view to assisting patent offices in identifying patentable and non-patentable
subject; use of existing Intellectual Property Right systems; sui generis system of protection; requirement for the
patent applicants to disclose the traditional knowledge used in their patent application, to provide evidence that
they have obtained prior and informed consent from the relevant authorities of the countries of origin and have
entered into appropriate benefit-sharing arrangement; Bilateral contacts between traditional knowledge holders
and persons/companies wishing to access and use that knowledge (The Protection of Traditional Knowledge and
Folklore – Summary of Issues Raised and Points Made, 8 August 2002, WTO, IP/C/W/370).
9
See footnote 8.
5
Providing cornerstone for the above vision are the UNESCO Universal Declaration on
Cultural Diversity (2001) and the International Convention for the Safeguarding of the
Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003). The former regards cultural diversity as a living and thus
renewable treasure that contributes to the sustainable development of humanity. The latter,
which provides a set of guidelines for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage 10
defines the notion of “safeguarding” as “measures aimed at ensuring the viability of
intangible cultural heritage”, which includes, in addition to “identification”, “documentation”,
“preservation” – traditional means of safeguarding -, the notion of “promotion”,
“transmission” and “revitalization” of such heritage.
Some examples of UNESCO Actions
Taking advantage of its intersectoral structure, UNESCO has developed a series of activities
in relation to the protection and the promotion of local & indigenous knowledge from various
fronts11.
The Education Sector, following the Report of the Delors Commission on Education for the
Twenty First Century: Learning: The Treasure Within (UNESCO 1996) that drew attention to
the specific needs of indigenous peoples in education policy, has been providing support for
the use of mother tongue and indigenous languages within the education system12.
The Social and Human Sciences Sector has established a database on best practices relating to
indigenous knowledge with a view to encouraging decision-makers and researchers to
incorporate indigenous knowledge in their project proposals and in all activities involving
local communities13.
The Natural Sciences Sector has been involved in the recognition of indigenous knowledge
and its role in managing the environment. This theme was given prominence at the World
Conference on Science, the WSSD and most recently at the International Conference on
Biodiversity: Science and Governance 14. Activities of the Man and the Biosphere Programme
(MAB) lay the groundwork for sustainable management of natural resources by integrating
local communities into protected area management15. MAB, in cooperation with the World
Heritage Centre is also carrying out a project on “Sacred Sites – cultural integrity and
biological diversity”.
10
Intangible Cultural Heritage, according to the Convention includes: (a) oral traditions and expressions,
including language as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage (b) performing arts (c) social practices, rituals
and festive events; (d) knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; (e) traditional
craftsmanship.
11
See also UNESCO Website: Action in favor of Indigenous Peoples, www.unesco.org/culture/indigenous
12
Their recent initiatives include: Experts Seminar on Indigenous Education in the 21st Century (October 2004).
13
Best Practices on Indigenous Knowledge: http://www.unesco.org/most/bpindi.htm
14
Information can be found under Events at www.unesco.org/links
15
http://www.unesco.org/mab/index.htm
6
The Communication Sector has been working to ensure the place of indigenous languages and
local contents within the new communication technologies. The stress is laid in particular on
the development of indigenous media at local and international levels namely through the (i)
promotion of the access of indigenous peoples to the dominant media; (ii) support to
indigenous peoples to develop their own media; and (iii) training in communication and
journalism.16
The Culture Sector promotes the rights of local & indigenous communities to their knowledge
and cultural expressions as a part of its larger efforts for cultural pluralism, understood as
peaceful interaction amongst individuals and groups from different cultural backgrounds17.
The Sector is also working to safeguard endangered languages and the intangible heritage of
indigenous peoples as expressions of their identity, while fostering their creativity and sense
of innovation.
Finally, as a part of UNESCO’s intersectoral actions for poverty reduction, the project Local
and Indigenous Knowledge Systems (LINKS) in a Global Society was launched in 2002. The
project, which allies the strength of all UNESCO Sectors, aims at empowering local and
indigenous knowledge holders in biodiversity governance, and seeks to dynamise the
transmission of indigenous knowledge in local and rural communities18.
3. CONSULTATIVE MEETING OF EXPERTS
Purpose of the meeting
The two-day consultative meeting of experts will focus specifically upon the question of local
and indigenous knowledge transmission. The overall objective of the meeting is to provide
input to UNESCO’s programme strategy with respect to Cultural Diversity and Biodiversity
for Sustainable Development, and to refine the priorities and methods of the Local and
Indigenous Knowledge Systems (LINKS) project on strengthening ties between elders and
indigenous youth. More specifically, the meeting intends to identify approaches and
measures in support of the intergenerational transmission of local & indigenous knowledge to
be included in the Organisation’s future actions.
Strengthening the transmission of indigenous knowledge invites us primarily to address the
following questions: (i) What are the particularities of local and indigenous knowledge and
its modalities of transmission in various cultural groups? 19 (ii) What factors promote or
Among the initiatives are: “ICTs for Intercultural Dialogue: Developing communication capacities of
indigenous peoples (ICT4ID – on going), International Forum on Local Cultural Expression and Communication
jointly organized with the Culture Sector (Santo Domingo, November 2003)
16
Amongst major events are the Symposium “Towards a Constructive Pluralism” (Paris, UNESCO, 1999)
which addressed the issue of minority groups identity within pluralistic societies; International Symposium;
Indigenous identities: oral, written expressions and new technologies” (Paris, UNESCO – CNRS, May 2001)
17
18
For further information: www.unesco.org/links
19
The question of knowledge transmission relates to the following three aspects: knowledge holders/receivers
(who are they, who is to inherit their knowledge, what is their social status?); contents (what elements of
knowledge and which aspects of nature?); context (in the family, on the land/sea, or the classroom? “One-on-
7
impede knowledge transmission? (iii) What is the influence of formal schooling on these
processes?; (iv) What strategies and policies need to be defined?
By observing interactions between culture and nature and the specificity of local and
indigenous knowledge, the meeting will examine factors that impact on the transmission
process of such knowledge with particular focus on the role of indigenous languages, formal
school system and other public policies. Current strategies and efforts being made to
maintain or revitalize local and indigenous knowledge transmission will be analysed along
with their benefits and limits, thereby exploring alternative solutions. Finally, the meeting
will identify main areas of concern and priority with a view to providing UNESCO with
advices on the actions to be pursued in short and medium term.
Speakers
15 speakers were selected with a view to addressing the issues from a number of
complementary perspectives that could be offered by: indigenous representatives,
anthropologists, linguists; conservation biologists, specialists of formal and non-formal
education; NGOs and other practitioners, etc. (See Annex 1 for the list of participants)
Sessions Structure and Key Questions
The two-day meeting is structured in five sessions that will address several issues related to
the transmission of local & indigenous knowledge:
Session 1: Ecosystem - social system interaction and local knowledge transmission
-
What are the dynamics of social system - ecosystem interaction?
In what manner do these interactions and related knowledge contribute to biodiversity
conservation and the sustainable use of natural resources?
How important is the continuing transmission of local & indigenous knowledge to the
maintenance of social and ecological integrity?
Session 2: Indigenous knowledge transmission: characteristics, threats and challenges
-
What are the characteristics of local & indigenous knowledge transmission
(stakeholders, contents, contexts, processes)?
What is the role of indigenous language in the transmission of such knowledge?
How important are non-linguistic modes of transmission?
In the current context of rapid globalization, what are the challenges faced by
communities in sustaining knowledge transmission?
What actions have been taken by local communities and State authorities to address
these challenges?
one” or as a group?) and process (how is it transmitted? By teaching, observing, trial and error? On which
occasions?). Knowledge transmission is affected, when one or many of these aspects are altered. It is important
to comprehend in a holistic manner the factors that impact upon knowledge transmission.
8
Session 3: Policy Challenges for Local Knowledge Transmission
-
-
What public policies (cultural, educational, environmental etc…) have addressed or
impacted on the sustainable transmission of local & indigenous knowledge? What are
their merits and limits?
What is the status of local & indigenous language and knowledge within the formal
education system?
What specific policy frameworks could be proposed to favour local & indigenous
knowledge transmission?
Session 4: From Policy to Practice – challenges and lessons learned
-
What efforts are currently being made to maintain or revitalize knowledge
transmission processes?
What are the best ways to promote local languages and traditional knowledge of the
community?
How can indigenous knowledge holders, local language speakers and their
communities be best involved in these processes?
What are the major obstacles and challenges facing current initiatives?
Session 5: General Debate – identifying key concerns, priorities and follow-up action
-
What are today’s most pressing needs (research and/or action) to better comprehend:
 the diverse processes of indigenous knowledge transmission?
 the impact of changing social and environmental contexts?
 factors contributing to consolidation or erosion?
-
What approaches/methods to reinforce or revitalize local and indigenous knowledge
transmission:
 show promise and merit closer examination?
 have proven their worth and should be applied elsewhere?
 have failed and should be avoided?
-
What balance should be struck between local and national languages, between
indigenous and ‘international’ knowledge, and how might this balance vary with age
group, individual aspirations and socio-economic opportunities, environmental and
social contexts, local and national requirements etc.
-
How to strengthen indigenous knowledge transmission inside and outside school?
 How to bring local content into the classroom?
 How to move learning out of the school, and back into the community?
 What are the changing roles of teachers, local knowledge holders, parents, the
community?
-
What are the main barriers to changing education to better accommodate indigenous
knowledge? (Ministries of education, teachers, parents, indigenous youth themselves?)
9
-
What networks might be usefully established or reinforced to give support to these
processes of change?
(See Annexes 2 and 3 respectively for the programme and the abstracts of presentations)
Working Methods
Each session will be followed by discussion at the end of all presentations. In addition to
questions and answers, general debate will take place in Session 5. Rapporteurs of each
session are requested to present the key issues raised in their sessions at the beginning of
Session 5 (5’ each). Participants are then invited to debate openly, combining the issues and
perspectives of the previous sessions.
Expected Output of the Meeting
The proceedings of the meeting will be published in English and Japanese. For this purpose,
speakers are to submit a full paper of 15-20 pages, based on their presentations and
incorporating relevant elements of discussion by 15 June 2005.
Secretariat of the Meeting
Japan Centre for Area Studies, Osaka National Museum of Ethnology (Japan):
 Ken-ichi Abe
 Noriko Iizuka
 Wil de Jong
UNESCO:
 Moe Chiba, Division of Cultural Policies and Intercultural Dialogue, Culture Sector
 Sabine Kube, Endangered Languages Programme, Intangible Heritage Section, Culture Sector
 Anahit Minasyan, Endangered Languages Programme, Intangible Heritage Section, Culture
Sector
 Douglas Nakashima, Head, Local and Indigenous Knowledge Systems (LINKS) cross-cutting
project, Natural Sciences Sector
 Annette Nilsson, cross-cutting LINKS project, Natural Sciences Sector
 Susanne Schnuttgen, Division of Cultural Policies and Intercultural Dialogue, Culture Sector
Aichi Prefectural University, Nagoya, Japan
 Dr Tetsuya Inamura - Professor
10