Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Member profile
Browse all members

Dr. vipindas puthiyaveedu

Member since
Organization: Community Agrobiodiversity Center, M S Swaminathan Research Foundation
Country: India
Field(s) of expertise:
I am working on:
Changing Human Wildlife Interaction and homestead cultivation of indigenous communities in the Western Ghats of Kerala, India

Vipindas P is a chief minister's Navakaerala Post Doctoral fellow at Community Agrobiodiversity Center of M S Swaminathan Research foundation. He has over a decade of experience in development sector in the area of Livelihood and Nutrition security of Adivasis/ Indigenous communities  of Wayand, South India. Paralely, he also associated with different collaborative research study in the area of food and nutrition security  jointly done by IGIDR, NIN, MSSRF and Texas university, University of  Cambridge.

 

This member contributed to:

    • Greetings from M S Swaminathan Research Foundation, India!

      We would like to submit to the theme on Community engagement for inclusive rural transformation and gender equality based on our project on the Home Nutrition Garden implemented among indigenous communities of Wayanad, Kerala, India. The effort was supported by the SEED division of the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India. The document was prepared by Dr. Vipindas and Dr. Anamika Ajay and reviewed by Dr. Rangalakshmi Raj and Dr. Shakkeela V from our institute.

      Please see the attachment for details.

      Best Regards,

      Vipindas, PhD

      Post Doctoral Fellow

      M S Swaminathan Research Foundation

       

      See the attachments:

    • Dear All

      Greetings from M S Swaminathan Research Foundation India!

      We would like to submit to the  consultation on, Conserving, strengthening and promoting Indigenous peoples' food and knowledge systems and traditional practices for sustainable food systems based on our experience in engaging with indigenous communities of South India. On behalf of the institute, the report was jointly prepared by Dr. Sabu K U and Dr. Vipindas P.

      The experiences shared here are rooted in the work of the Community Agrobiodiversity Center (CAbC) of the M S Swaminathan Research Foundation, India, a community-embedded research center with twenty-seven years of experience addressing food and nutrition insecurities among indigenous communities (Adivasis) of the Western Ghats region in Southern India. CAbC has pioneered community-based participatory projects, collaborating closely with tribal communities to identify and implement sustainable solutions to their food and nutritional challenges. Key contributions of the Center include the participatory documentation of uncultivated food crops traditionally used by indigenous communities, research on gendered roles in wild food collection, and the scientific validation and nutritional profiling of wild edibles, traditional rice varieties, and neglected uncultivated foods such as roots, tubers, leafy greens, and legumes. These efforts have enriched the understanding of the Adivasi food basket and its role in enhancing food security and dietary diversity. To ensure the preservation and promotion of these resources, CAbC has established on-farm conservation plots for these critical crops. Additionally, the Center has supported the local self-governance department of the Government of Kerala in preparing People’s Biodiversity Registers, thereby safeguarding the eroding oral traditions and traditional knowledge systems of these communities. Through its participatory and community-centered approach, CAbC continues to contribute to sustainable solutions for addressing the complex food and nutrition challenges faced by tribal populations in the region.

      1.Do you agree with the guiding principles indicated above?

      Yes, the guiding principles are inclusive and holistic  

      2.Should the objectives include mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples food and knowledge systems, and lessons learned from them, for the benefit of all, or solely for the benefit of Indigenous Peoples as rights holders?

      he question of whether the objectives should include mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples' food and knowledge systems for the benefit of all, or solely for the benefit of Indigenous Peoples as rights holders, presents a significant dilemma. On one hand, the vast repository of indigenous food and knowledge systems holds invaluable lessons for addressing global challenges such as food insecurity, climate change, and biodiversity conservation, offering potential benefits for humanity as a whole. On the other hand, these systems are integral to the identity, autonomy, and livelihoods of indigenous communities, who have nurtured and safeguarded them for generations. In this context, it is critical to prioritize the autonomy of indigenous communities and ensure that any decision is rooted in their voices and consent. Mainstreaming must not occur at the expense of their rights, nor should it result in the exploitation or misappropriation of their knowledge systems. Instead, the process must center on equitable partnerships, where indigenous communities are active decision-makers and primary beneficiaries. Any benefits derived from mainstreaming must directly contribute to strengthening their livelihoods, preserving their cultural heritage, and empowering them to define the terms of how their knowledge is shared and utilized. Furthermore, safeguards must be put in place to ensure the sustainable use of these resources, preventing overexploitation and enabling effective regeneration for future generations. Awareness generation and the implementation of robust regulatory mechanisms at the grassroots level are essential to achieving this balance. Ultimately, the decision-making process must uphold the principles of justice, equity, and sustainability, with indigenous communities leading the way in determining how their knowledge and food systems are shared and integrated into broader frameworks

      3. What are the challenges related to Free, Prior and Informed Consent and Access and Benefit Sharing when widely promoting and/or mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples food and knowledge systems?

      The key challenges in this process are rooted in the unequal power dynamics between indigenous communities and program-implementing institutions, including researchers. These power imbalances often lead to scenarios where indigenous communities may feel coerced or inadequately informed, undermining the essence of true participatory decision-making. A significant challenge lies in the historical context of systemic exploitation and marginalization faced by indigenous communities. This has resulted in a deep mistrust of external entities, including researchers and organizations seeking to engage with them. This lack of trust can hinder the establishment of genuine partnerships required for effective FPIC and equitable ABS. Furthermore, indigenous communities often lack the institutional support and resources necessary to fully understand and negotiate the complexities of ABS agreements, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation. Bridging this gap requires a commitment to fostering transparent, trust-based relationships, ensuring capacity-building within the communities, and promoting a rights-based approach that places indigenous voices at the centre of all decisions. To address these challenges, CAbC, with its decades-long engagement with indigenous communities in the Western Ghats, has developed a community-embedded approach that prioritizes their autonomy and fosters trust. By ensuring participatory decision-making and community-led governance, CAbC places indigenous voices at the center of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) and Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) processes. Through transparent discussions, capacity-building initiatives, and equitable benefit-sharing arrangements, the Center addresses power imbalances and helps overcome historical mistrust, creating a model of engagement that safeguards indigenous rights while promoting their well-being.

      4. How can the report ensure the inclusion of marginalized groups, sustainability, and protection against commercialization risks for Indigenous Peoples' food and knowledge systems?

      Larger market-linked commercialization of Indigenous Peoples' food and knowledge systems poses risks to sustainability, including overexploitation of resources, loss of biodiversity, and reduced access for indigenous communities themselves due to market-driven forces. To mitigate these risks, the report should emphasize the implementation of protective legal measures, such as granting patent rights or community intellectual property rights over indigenous food and knowledge systems. These rights would ensure that the benefits derived from commercialization are equitably shared with indigenous communities while safeguarding their cultural heritage. Additionally, the report should advocate for the establishment of regulatory frameworks to monitor commercialization practices, prevent exploitation, and promote the sustainable use of these resources. Efforts should also be made to strengthen the communities' capacity to engage with markets on their own terms, ensuring that their needs and priorities remain central. This balanced approach would help protect against the risks of over-commercialization while fostering the inclusion of marginalized groups and promoting sustainability.

      5. How should oral knowledge and traditions be documented and referenced in the development of the report?

      Co-production of knowledge is essential, as Indigenous communities are the custodians of their oral knowledge and traditions. To document and reference this knowledge effectively, participatory methods should be prioritized. These include the creation of photo stories by community members to visually capture and narrate their lived experiences, practices, and traditions. Other participatory approaches, such as community-led video documentation, oral history interviews, and participatory mapping, can also be employed. These methods ensure that the documentation process is inclusive, respects the autonomy of indigenous communities, and authentically represents their perspectives. Such participatory documentation not only preserves oral traditions but also fosters a sense of ownership and ensures ethical representation in the report.

      6. What dimensions linked to Indigenous Peoples’ agency, e.g., in governance issues, could be addressed?

      Indigenous Peoples’ agency in governance issues can be addressed by drawing from the Community Agrobiodiversity Center’s (CAbC) extensive experience in fostering community-led governance. CAbC has actively worked to strengthen indigenous communities' role in local governance structures, such as supporting the preparation of People’s Biodiversity Registers, which empower communities to document and protect their traditional knowledge and resources. Through participatory initiatives, CAbC has facilitated the inclusion of indigenous voices in decision-making processes, ensuring that their self-determination and cultural heritage are respected. The Center’s efforts to build the capacity of indigenous communities to engage with external stakeholders, including government bodies and researchers, have enhanced their ability to advocate for their rights and manage their resources. By promoting community-led governance models and equitable benefit-sharing arrangements, as well as safeguarding intellectual property rights over traditional knowledge, CAbC has demonstrated the importance of empowering Indigenous Peoples to govern their own knowledge systems and resources. These experiences highlight the critical need to place indigenous agency at the center of governance frameworks to ensure sustainability and equity.

      7. Are there important/relevant policy papers and instruments missing from the foundational documents list?

      8. Could you please indicate relevant references that should be taken into account?

      United Nations (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

      Convention on Biological Diversity (2011). Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization.

      Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples.

      Dutfield, G. (2006). Protecting Traditional Knowledge: Pathways to the Future.

      FAO (2009). Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems: Insights on Sustainability and Resilience from the Front Line of Climate Change.

       

      9. What best practices, ethical standards, and strategies for addressing climate change should be highlighted in the report? 

      There are different climate-smart practices followed by Indigenous communities, such as mixed cropping systems, crop-livestock integration, crop rotation, conservation of indigenous crop varieties that withstand extreme weather events, and sustainable natural resource management of settled agriculturist indigenous communities of southern India. Scientifically proved aspects of these year-old traditions can be highlighted in the report.

      10. Which best practices or strategies to promote cross-cultural understanding should be highlighted in the report?

      To promote cross-cultural understanding, the report should emphasize participatory approaches that give Indigenous Peoples an equal voice in decision-making and knowledge-sharing. Cultural sensitivity training for stakeholders, community-led documentation of traditions, and platforms for dialogue and storytelling are essential strategies. Facilitating reciprocal cultural exchange programs, creating safe spaces for dialogue, and incorporating legal safeguards to protect indigenous knowledge can foster trust and mutual respect. By prioritizing these practices, the report can build equitable and respectful partnerships that bridge cultural divides and promote shared understanding.

      11. Are the previous legal documents such as Prior and Informed Consent, enough in light of this evolution of thinking about Indigenous People’s knowledge, or do they need to be revised?

       Prior and Informed Consent frameworks, while essential in protecting Indigenous Peoples’ rights, often fall short in addressing the deeper power imbalances and epistemic injustices highlighted by post-colonial theories. These frameworks are primarily procedural, ensuring consent is obtained, but they rarely address the structural inequities and historical marginalization that Indigenous Peoples face. Post-colonial thinkers emphasize the need to move beyond procedural compliance toward frameworks that actively decolonize knowledge systems, recognize Indigenous epistemologies, and prioritize Indigenous Peoples as co-creators of knowledge rather than passive subjects of research. A revised approach should incorporate a transformative agenda that not only seeks consent but also builds equitable partnerships, respects Indigenous sovereignty over their knowledge systems, and ensures that benefits derived are determined by and for Indigenous communities. This includes rethinking how knowledge is documented, shared, and utilized, ensuring that these processes reflect Indigenous worldviews and values. The evolution of thinking in this space demands a shift from mere legal compliance to a rights-based, justice-oriented framework that centers Indigenous Peoples as primary actors in all decisions concerning their knowledge.

      -end-