Untitled - Api-fellowships.org

180 Panel 4Collective Memories, Jargons, Rituals and Perceptions: Toward a BroaderScope and General Recognition of Pengetahuan Lokal in DisasterPreparednessBenigno C. BalgosIntroductionPengetahuan lokal (local knowledge) is referred to bythe United Nations International Strategy for DisasterReduction (UNISDR) as “sets of methods and practicesdeveloped by a group of people from an advanceunderstanding of the local environment, which hasformed over numerous generations of habitation”.The disaster risk reduction (DRR) communityconsiders the Boxing Day Tsunami of 2004 to be theimpetus for recognizing local knowledge as crucial todeveloping the adaptive capacity of the vulnerablecommunities. The incident has been deemed one ofthe worst disasters in contemporary history in terms ofmagnitude, lives claimed, and damage to propertiesBaumwoll (2008) observed that within the DRRcommunity, there is no unified definition of localknowledge. In fact, across DRR literature, differentterms are being used to connote community-basedknowledge in DRR (i.e., indigenous knowledge, localwisdom, and local knowledge). The divergence innomenclature, as well as the nonexistence of anintegrated definition, is a testament to the fact that thediscourse is ongoing.Alternatively, some interests groups have ventured onputting meaning to the concept of local knowledgeand on delineating its contours, depending on thegroups’ political interest. Consequently, there arecertain types of local knowledge that aredisenfranchised and overlooked in the prevailingliterature.Upon reviewing the existing literature on localknowledge in DRR, the researcher chose to extensivelyuse the works of Mercer (2009) and Dekens (2007aand 2007b). This is precisely because the two recentlylooked into the concept and linked it to contemporarydisaster issues.Contentions on Local KnowledgeTaking on a more scientific and technical approach inlooking at local knowledge, Mercer (2009) holds thatnot all types of local knowledge are significant inreducing disaster risk. She points to a tendency toromanticize the concept and recommends choosingonly relevant local knowledge that can be effectivelyused in minimizing the impacts of disasters.In the current debate on the significance of the role oflocal knowledge in enhancing adaptive capacity duringdisasters, the “usability” of certain community-basedknowledge and practices has also been the primarypoint of divergence between the DRR community andthe Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) community(Venton et al., 2008).In complete contrast, the more integrative and allinclusiveapproach of Dekens (2007a) posits theexistence of several types of local knowledge used indisaster preparedness, namely: (1) technical knowledge;(2) environmental and agricultural knowledge; (3)knowledge about development project; and, (4) socioculturaland historical knowledge. Among these,Dekens (2007a, 22) reveals that only technicalknowledge is mostly associated with disastermanagement, while socio-cultural and historicalknowledge, however significant, have beenmarginalized in the literature.Chakrabarti et al. (2009) held that critics of localknowledge as an important resource adaptive capacitycenter their arguments on: (1) its difficulty of itstransfer because of its being context and culturespecific;and, (2) its lack of intensive documentation.To address these concerns, the publication IndigenousKnowledge and Disaster Risk Reduction: Policy Notereveals that research and documentation can be used toadvance the significance of local knowledge in policies.The policy note declares that through research anddocumentation, unchronicled practices will bedocumented and eventually converted to intoThe Work of the 2010/2011 API Fellows