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

Abstract

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.

Convergences and divergences between scientific and Indigenous and Local Knowledge contribute to inform carnivore conservation

“…In this article, we draw on IPBES Conceptual Framework that embraces different knowledge systems or “agents, practices and institutions that organize the production, transfer and use of knowledge” (McElwee et al 2020 ). On the one hand, we use the term ILK that is widely used in science-policy circles (e.g., IPBES 2019 ), and is defined as “knowledge and know‐how accumulated across generations, which guide human societies in their innumerable interactions with their surrounding environment” (McElwee et al 2020 ). Yet, we acknowledge that what can be considered as knowledge is still heatedly debated (Raymond et al 2010 ), for instance, the local experience with one’s surroundings can be considered as knowledge or perception (see Yeh 2016 for a discussion).…”

Creating Synergies between Citizen Science and Indigenous and Local Knowledge

“…As an example, this may include the knowledge of the presence or absence and perceived health of species of particular importance—for example, as a source of food or income in local environments. However, different knowledge systems may emphasize—for example, different indicators to be observed—specific attributes of the environment that may be qualitative rather than quantitative (e.g., trends in the abundance of resources rather than absolute figures) and easily observed as part of everyday practice (Tengö et al 2014 , Sterling et al 2017 , McElwee et al 2020 ).…”

“…The IPBES has taken great steps forward in developing guidelines for effective dialogues and an inclusive approach for engaging with ILK in its assessments (Hill et al 2020 ). The global assessment provides an interesting case for moving the practices forward through relevant standards and safeguards (McElwee et al 2020 ).…”

How to diminish the geographical bias in IPBES and related science?

“…The IPBES stakeholder network can be a key component of capacity building work. New avenues to override barriers need to be developed and used. For example, dialogue workshops organized by the GA to bring in indigenous and local knowledge turned out to be an effective way of mobilizing knowledge and experts from underrepresented subregions (McElwee et al., 2020). Anti‐brain drain schemes, where the best nationals are invited back to the home country, can improve the scientific communities in less developed countries (e.g., https://mta.hu/english/momentum-program-of-the-hungarian-academy-of-sciences-106052). To improve regional balance two major strategies can be adopted: to increase the activity of countries already heavily participating in IPBES work further, or to involve new countries from the given region.…”