Why the Word 'Traditional' Is a Trap
COP30 day 7 of 30: How to replace "Traditional Knowledge"
Welcome to day 7 of your 30-Day Series
Over the next 30 days, we’re building from LCIPP mechanics through Indigenous participation frameworks to COP negotiating tactics. By day 30, you’ll understand how Indigenous Peoples move from values to operative text at the world’s largest climate negotiations. Today we’re talking about why the words we fight for in negotiations matter so much.
Ok, so the platform’s full name is: Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform on Traditional Knowledge
I don’t like the name.
Aside from local communities, we don’t like two words: “traditional knowledge.”
Not because we’re pedantic.
Because words create legal frameworks.
And legal frameworks determine power.
The Problem With “Traditional”
When you hear “traditional knowledge,” what comes to mind?
Old. Rusty. Dusty. Historical. Museumpiece.
It implies knowledge that was valuable. Past tense.
Here’s the reality: Indigenous knowledge is still being developed, still being practiced, still being maintained, and still evolving.
It’s not a relic. It’s living knowledge.
The Alternative: “Knowledge of Indigenous Peoples”
When you say “knowledge of Indigenous Peoples” instead of “traditional knowledge,” you do two things:
You emphasize that the knowledge is still in development. It’s not frozen in time. It’s dynamic. It adapts. That’s present tense.
You add the rights element. “Knowledge of Indigenous Peoples” explicitly connects knowledge to rights-holders. It says: This knowledge belongs to someone. Those people have rights. You can’t just take it.
Contrast that with “traditional knowledge,” which can be interpreted as knowledge in the “global commons” or knowledge that anyone can access.
One framing protects ownership and control. The other opens the door to appropriation.
The Legal Implications
Scenario 1: Traditional Knowledge
A researcher documents “traditional knowledge” about medicinal plants. The knowledge gets published. A pharmaceutical company uses it to develop a drug. The company patents the drug. The community gets nothing.
Legally, the company can argue: “This was traditional knowledge in the public domain.”
Scenario 2: Knowledge of Indigenous Peoples
A researcher wants to document knowledge of Indigenous Peoples about medicinal plants. The researcher must:
Seek free, prior, and informed consent from the Indigenous community
Negotiate terms for how the knowledge will be used
Establish benefit-sharing agreements
Recognize the community’s ownership and control
See the difference? It’s not just semantics.
It’s the difference between exploitation and consent.
How We Navigate This
Within the UNFCCC, the term is “traditional knowledge.” We have to work with it. But we’re strategic:
We emphasize the rights framework. Every time we talk about traditional knowledge, we reference UNDRIP Article 31: “Indigenous Peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their traditional knowledge.”
We push for “knowledge of Indigenous Peoples” in new contexts. Whenever new documents are being drafted, we advocate for the more protective language.
Before You Go
Please, don’t accept harmful language because “everyone uses it.” “Traditional knowledge” sounds neutral until States argue it’s public domain. Words create legal openings. Choose them like you’re writing a contract, because you are.
That’s why I’m being super detailed as language shapes legal frameworks. Legal frameworks shape power. Power shapes outcomes. That’s why we fight about words. From “populations” to “Peoples,” from “stakeholders” to “rights-holders”, every word matters.
Fight about words before you have to fight about rights.
Tomorrow we’ll talk about three warnings for the next generation, the database will return, the FWG will drift, and papers will pile. See the patterns before they trap you.
See you next time.
P.S.: What’s one term that sounds neutral but actually undermines your position?