How we know biodiversity: institutions and knowledge-policy relationships

Indigenous Participation and the Incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge and Perspectives in Global Environmental Governance Forums: a Systematic Review

“…A total of 31 papers discussed the hierarchies of knowledge that are embedded in GEG processes; these discussions often explored the hierarchy between "western" scientific knowledge and Indigenous knowledge where western scientific knowledge is often framed as holding more value than Indigenous knowledge (e.g., Adeyeye et al, 2019;Hughes & Vadrot, 2019;Obermeister, 2018;Parks, 2018). In many cases, Indigenous and local knowledge must compete for legitimacy with and within western systems; GEG organizations privilege "global kinds of knowledge" which is often described as knowledge that can be broadly applied and is decontextualized (Denton, 2017;Gustafsson et al, 2019;Hill et al, 2020;Hulme, 2010;Obermeister, 2015;Raina & Dey, 2020;Suiseeya, 2014). In this way, localized knowledge held by Indigenous communities can be overlooked for its place-based nature.…”

“…A common concern discussed in the reviewed papers around knowledge was ways in which Indigenous knowledge is being included, articulating the boundaries between including Indigenous knowledge as supplementary, integrating Indigenous knowledge into decision-making processes and therefore "universalizing" the knowledge, or bridging Indigenous knowledge with western scientific knowledge in a way that keeps it distinct but retaining legitimacy and recognition (e.g., Hill et al, 2020;Hulme, 2010;Kovacs & Pataki, 2016;Tengo & Brondizio, 2014;Obermeister, 2015;Rathwell et al, 2015;Smith & Sharp, 2012). The boundaries between western and Indigenous knowledge continue to be fraught with difficulties that posit the knowledge systems as being "incommensurable" and still requiring the legitimization of Indigenous knowledge through scientific methods of validation and verification (e.g., Gustafsson et al, 2019;Lofmarck & Lidskog, 2017;Kuyper et al, 2017;Obermeister, 2015;Obermeister, 2018;Raina & Dey, 2020;Rathwell et al, 2015;Tengo et al, 2017). With this being said, platforms such as IPBES are striving to apply boundary work 4 to discover and develop ways to synthesize knowledge coming from different systems in a way that allows for a multiplicity of perspectives, definitions and ways of describing key terms such as biodiversity, and without ignoring distinctions between different knowledge types (e.g., Montana, 2017;Obermeister, 2015;Raina & Dey, 2020;Tengo et al, 2017).…”

“…The boundaries between western and Indigenous knowledge continue to be fraught with difficulties that posit the knowledge systems as being "incommensurable" and still requiring the legitimization of Indigenous knowledge through scientific methods of validation and verification (e.g., Gustafsson et al, 2019;Lofmarck & Lidskog, 2017;Kuyper et al, 2017;Obermeister, 2015;Obermeister, 2018;Raina & Dey, 2020;Rathwell et al, 2015;Tengo et al, 2017). With this being said, platforms such as IPBES are striving to apply boundary work 4 to discover and develop ways to synthesize knowledge coming from different systems in a way that allows for a multiplicity of perspectives, definitions and ways of describing key terms such as biodiversity, and without ignoring distinctions between different knowledge types (e.g., Montana, 2017;Obermeister, 2015;Raina & Dey, 2020;Tengo et al, 2017). In the context of IPBES, boundary work is applied through the creation of boundary objects and through boundary organizations that serve as mechanisms to share and translate knowledge: "Knowledge brokerage is key to foster common understandings, and is supported by use of boundary objects (such as jointly produced maps, pictures or conceptual frameworks)" (Tengo et al, 2017).…”