Working with Indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people

Hill, Rosemary; Adem, Çiğdem; Alangui, Wilfred V.; Molnár, Zsolt; Aumeeruddy‐Thomas, Yildiz; Bridgewater, Peter; Tengö, Maria; Thaman, Randy; Yao, Constant Yves Adou; Berkes, Fikret; Cariño, Joji; Cunha, Manuela Carneiro da; Diaw, Mariteuw Chimère; Dı́az, Sandra; Figueroa, Viviana Elsa; Fisher, Judith; Hardison, Preston; Ichikawa, Kaoru; Kariuki, Peris; Karki, M.; Lyver, Phil O'b.; Malmer, Pernilla; Masardule, Onel; Yeboah, Alfred A. Oteng; Pacheco, Diego; Pataridze, Tamar; Pérez, Edgar Selvin; Roué, Michèle-Marie; Roba, Hassan G.; Rubis, Jennifer; Saito, Osamu; Xue, Dayuan

doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006

Cited by 249 publications

(218 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

194

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Even though the systematic literature reviews used by the GA were open to multiple sources of evidence (Tengö et al., 2014), and online calls for references and case studies were useful for opening up the process beyond initial experts' knowledge, the GA still faced a number of challenges in ensuring that different knowledge systems were engaged in a transparent, equitable and legitimate manner (Hill et al., 2020). Understanding of the depth and breadth of ILK is still insufficient, and there are major documentation gaps that may result in the exclusion of important ILK in peer‐reviewed studies (Cámara‐Leret & Dennehy, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There have been many calls to better incorporate ILK into global science‐policy processes (Ford et al., 2016; Turnhout, Bloomfield, Hulme, Vogel, & Wynne, 2012; Usher, 2000), as well as concerns about the challenges and efficacy of doing so (Hill et al., 2020; Nadasdy, 1999). Reasons for including ILK have included the need for more comprehensive data (Moller, Berkes, Lyver, & Kislalioglu, 2004) and as a mode for inclusion, participation and respect for IPLC (Maffie, 2009).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This mandate lent itself to inclusion of ILK, as the GA was not restricted to peer‐reviewed literature, as other assessment processes have been (Ford et al., 2016). IPBES as a whole has been working on a more systematic approach to ILK and inclusion of IPLC across all their work products (Hill et al., 2020), and the GA approached ILK through several steps, outlined below: Setting up an ‘ILK Authors Liaison group’ at the first lead author meeting. These self‐selected group members (27 in total) were experts ranging across ecological and social disciplines and were tasked with oversight of ILK content in each chapter and links between chapters. Devising key ILK‐related questions to provide a common reference across chapters.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As part of its mandate, IPBES has in its assessment processes worked with Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK), defined as ‘knowledge and know‐how accumulated across generations, which guide human societies in their innumerable interactions with their surrounding environment’ (Thaman et al, 2013). IPBES has also encouraged Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLC) to be key stakeholders and contributors across their products (which have so far included methodological, thematic, regional and global assessments), as they are creators and holders of ILK, as well as impacted by policymaking around nature (Hill et al, 2020; see Box 1).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Working with Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) in large‐scale ecological assessments: Reviewing the experience of the IPBES Global Assessment

McElwee

Fernández‐Llamazares

Aumeeruddy‐Thomas

et al. 2020

Journal of Applied Ecology

Self Cite

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There have been calls for greater inclusion of Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) in applied ecosystems research and ecological assessments. The Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Global Assessment (GA) is the first global scale assessment to systematically engage with ILK and issues of concern to Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC). In this paper, we review and reflect on how the GA worked with ILK and lessons learned. The GA engaged in critical evaluation and synthesis of existing evidence from multiple sources, using several deliberative steps: having specific authors and questions focus on ILK; integrating inputs from ILK across all chapters; organizing dialogue workshops; issuing calls for contributions to identify other forms and systems of knowledge; and encouraging IPLC to be key stakeholders and contributors. We identify content areas where attention to ILK was particularly important for questions in applied ecology. These include: (a) enriching understandings of nature and its contributions to people, including ecosystem services; (b) assisting in assessing and monitoring ecosystem change; (c) contributing to international targets and scenario development to achieve global goals like the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the Sustainable Development Goals and (d) generating inclusive and policy‐relevant options for people and nature. However, challenges in engaging different knowledge systems were also encountered. Policy implications. The Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Global Assessment (GA) demonstrated the importance of Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC) to global biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management. Initiatives seeking to engage Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) can learn from the experience of the GA. Successfully bringing ILK into assessment processes and policy arenas requires a deliberate framework and approach from the start that facilitates recognition of different knowledge systems, identifies questions relevant at various scales, mobilizes funding and recognizes time required and engages networks of stakeholders with diverse worldviews. In turn, fostering inclusion of ILK and partnering with IPLC can help future assessments understand how natural and cultural systems co‐produce each other, identify trends of change through diverse biocultural indicators and improve sustainable development goals and policies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Working with Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) in large‐scale ecological assessments: Reviewing the experience of the IPBES Global Assessment

McElwee

Fernández‐Llamazares

Aumeeruddy‐Thomas

et al. 2020

Journal of Applied Ecology

Self Cite

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Collaboration with Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) holders through participatory approaches can provide a channel for honoring diversity and productive engagement with knowledge holders in other sectors. Prioritizing engagement with ILK produces a best practice model and policy for respectful and collaborative engagement (Hill et al 2020 ). Encouraging the exchange of knowledge between a range of different knowledge holders can facilitate the transfer of experience where similar sustainability challenges arise.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder participation in IPBES: connecting local environmental work with global decision making

Krug

Sterling

Cadman

et al. 2020

Ecosystems and People

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services(IPBES) strengthens the science-policy interface by producing scientific assessments on biodiversity and ecosystem services to inform policy. IPBES fosters knowledge exchange across disciplines, between researchers and other knowledge holders, practitioners, societal actors and decision makers working at different geographic scales. A number of avenues for participation of stakeholders across the four functions if IPBES exist. Stakeholders come from diverse backgrounds, including Indigenous Peoples and local communities, businesses, and non-governmental organization. They represent multiple sources of information, data, knowledge, and perspectives on biodiversity. Stakeholder engagement in IPBES seeks to 1. communicate, disseminate, and implement the findings of IPBES products; 2. Develop guidelines for biodiversity conservation within member countries; and 3. create linkages between global policy and local actors – all key to the implementation of global agreements on biodiversity. This paper reflects on the role of stakeholders in the first work programme of IPBES (2014–2018). It provides an overview of IPBES processes and products relevant to stakeholders, examines the motivation of stakeholders to engage with IPBES, and explores reflections by the authors (all active participants on the platform) for improved stakeholder engagement and contributions to future work of the platform.

show abstract

Human Dimensions: Traditional Ecological Knowledge—Finding a Home in the Ecological Society of America

Newman

2021

Bulletin Ecologic Soc America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Working with Indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people

Cited by 249 publications

References 45 publications

Working with Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) in large‐scale ecological assessments: Reviewing the experience of the IPBES Global Assessment

Working with Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) in large‐scale ecological assessments: Reviewing the experience of the IPBES Global Assessment

Stakeholder participation in IPBES: connecting local environmental work with global decision making

Human Dimensions: Traditional Ecological Knowledge—Finding a Home in the Ecological Society of America

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About