Is Validation of Indigenous Ecological Knowledge a Disrespectful Process? A Case Study of Traditional Fishing Poisons and Invasive Fish Management from the Wet Tropics, Australia

Abstract

Despite the growing recognition of the contribution that indigenous ecological knowledge (IEK) can make to contemporary 'western' science-based natural resource management (NRM), integration of the two knowledge systems has not reached its full potential in Australia. One explanation is that there is an implicit requirement for IEK to be validated by western scientific knowledge (SK), which has stalled its application and perpetuated the primacy of SK over IEK. Consequently, there is little experience of IEK validation, indigenous peoples' perspectives of the process, and no formal frameworks to achieve mutual and equitable validation of both IEK and SK. In this paper we assess the opportunities and limitations of validation processes using a case study of traditional fishing poisons for invasive fish management in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area of Australia. The study was conducted within a coresearch approach between the Aboriginal holders of the IEK, who are among the paper's authors, and science-based biologists. We jointly carried out scientific laboratory trials that demonstrated that fishing poisons are effective at immobilizing invasive tilapia. Retrospective interviews with indigenous coresearchers showed that they did not find the experience of validation disrespectful, but instead empowering and necessary for their IEK to be understood and appreciated by scientists and included in NRM. Based on our experiences and knowledge of socialization theory we present a framework for the potential future design of collaborative validation processes to facilitate the integration of IEK into mainstream NRM, and the acceptance of SK within indigenous communities in Australia

Integrating Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Fisheries Management in the Torres Strait, Australia: the Catalytic Role of Turtles and Dugong as Cultural Keystone Species

“…This would encourage the contemporary extent and characteristics of TEK to emerge. In addition, forums should enable the mutual testing and validation of TEK and SMK in the Torres Strait, an important step in knowledge integration (Gratani et al 2011) that so far is not evident in fishery management processes.…”

“…Power dynamics are recognized to be highly influential in the comanagement process, and the balance within forums can determine the extent of knowledge integration and social networking , Doubleday 2007, Nadasdy 2007). Such dynamics are particularly evident in the interface between TEK and SMK, where modes of communication and mistrust can impede negotiation between indigenous and government actors (Moller et al 2004, Davidson-Hunt 2006, Foale 2006, Carter and Hill 2007, Gratani et al 2011). In the Torres Strait it has also been recognized that logistical costs often prevent CFG representatives from attending PZJA meetings (PZJA 2008, Australian Senate 2010, potentially influencing the balance of power during decision making.…”

A Typology of Indigenous Engagement in Australian Environmental Management: Implications for Knowledge Integration and Social-ecological System Sustainability

“…We recognize that both the concept of IEK and approaches to integration are highly contested. Scientists call for greater efforts in the definition and validation of the integrity of IEK knowledge claims, and some Indigenous groups have also sought validation of their IEK knowledge claims by science (Evans et al 2009, Gratani et al 2011. Other Indigenous people resist scientific efforts to integrate with IEK as a result of concerns that power relations embedded in IEK projects will further marginalize their interests (Smith 1999, Agrawal 2002, Davis and Ruddle 2010.…”

Investigating Stakeholder Perceptions of Fish Decline: Making Sense of Multiple Mental Models

“…To improve the ability of stakeholders and managers to generate solutions that have a higher likelihood of making a positive impact that complements the needs of the different stakeholders [8,10,12], information sharing must occur in a trusting and respectful environment. It can be challenging for stakeholders with different knowledge cultures to accept new knowledge (e.g., scientists accepting and assimilating knowledge into their own mental models from fishers and vice versa) [62], However, strong social capital (e.g., trust, reciprocity and networks of relationships) and fair decision-making processes (i.e., procedural equity) can help overcome these challenges, facilitating cooperation and collaboration between stakeholders, even if stakeholders are not in complete agreement [63][64][65]. Changes to how stakeholders interact and how governance motivates interactions are thus needed to improve stakeholder communications to better co-manage fish populations.…”