Placing diverse knowledge systems at the core of transformative climate research

We argue that solutions-based research must avoid treating climate change as a merely technical problem, recognizing instead that it is symptomatic of the history of European and North American colonialism. It must therefore be addressed by decolonizing the research process and transforming relations between scientific expertise and the knowledge systems of Indigenous Peoples and of local communities. Partnership across diverse knowledge systems can be a path to transformative change only if those systems are respected in their entirety, as indivisible cultural wholes of knowledge, practices, values and worldviews. This argument grounds our specific recommendations for governance at the local, national, and international scales. As concrete mechanisms to guide collaboration across knowledge systems, we propose a set of instruments based on the principles of consent, intellectual and cultural autonomy, and justice. We recommend these instruments as tools to ensure that collaborations across knowledge systems embody just partnerships in support of a decolonial transformation of relations between human communities and between humanity and the more-than-human world

Intangible Cultural Heritage, Diverse Knowledge Systems and Climate Change

Human cultural diversity is reflected in many different ways of knowing, being, and doing, each with specific histories, positionalities, and connections to ecosystems, landscapes, and the world. Such diversity results in plural knowledge systems. This white paper describes the characteristics and complexity of knowledge systems in the context of climate change. It notes the deficiencies of action to date on climate change, which has largely rested on scientific knowledge, and discusses the importance of drawing on other knowledge systems, particularly Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge. This paper synthesises evidence highlighting that Indigenous knowledge systems and local knowledge systems are dynamic, contemporary, and actively applied worldwide. Although Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge systems continue to be politically marginalised, the recognition of their role in climate governance is essential. We consider plural knowledge systems and the interactions and potential collaborations between them, with a goal of informing how they can most constructively, equitably, and inclusively be conceptualised and addressed when discussing and generating knowledge about and responses to climate change

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

Working with indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) is vital for inclusive assessments of nature and nature's linkages with people. Indigenous peoples' concepts about what constitutes sustainability, for example, differ markedly from dominant sustainability discourses. The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services (IPBES) is promoting dialogue across different knowledge systems globally. In 2017, member states of IPBES adopted an ILK Approach including: procedures for assessments of nature and nature's linkages with people; a participatory mechanism; and institutional arrangements for including indigenous peoples and local communities. We present this Approach and analyse how it supports ILK in IPBES assessments through: respecting rights; supporting care and mutuality; strengthening communities and their knowledge systems; and supporting knowledge exchange. Customary institutions that ensure the integrity of ILK, effective empowering dialogues, and shared governance are among critical capacities that enable inclusion of diverse conceptualizations of sustainability in assessments

The IPBES Conceptual Framework - connecting nature and people

The first public product of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is its Conceptual Framework. This conceptual and analytical tool, presented here in detail, will underpin all IPBES functions and provide structure and comparability to the syntheses that IPBES will produce at different spatial scales, on different themes, and in different regions. Salient innovative aspects of the IPBES Conceptual Framework are its transparent and participatory construction process and its explicit consideration of diverse scientific disciplines, stakeholders, and knowledge systems, including indigenous and local knowledge. Because the focus on co-construction of integrative knowledge is shared by an increasing number of initiatives worldwide, this framework should be useful beyond IPBES, for the wider research and knowledge-policy communities working on the links between nature and people, such as natural, social and engineering scientists, policy-makers at different levels, and decision-makers in different sectors of society

Including indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment reports : post-print version

Link to published version provided.Assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) play a critical role in producing global knowledge on climate change. This is not a value-neutral role. As Indigenous issues have been underrepresented in previous IPCC assessments, this review analyzes how Indigenous content is covered and framed in Assessment Report 5 Working Group II (WGII). The development of culturally relevant and appropriate adaptation policies requires a more robust, nuanced, and appropriate inclusion and framing of Indigenous issues in future assessment reports. The article outlines how this can be achieved

Intangible cultural heritage, diverse knowledge systems and climate change : a white paper commissioned for the International Co-Sponsored Meeting on Culture, Heritage and Climate Change

Unidad de excelencia María de Maeztu CEX2019-000940-MMany sources acknowledge the importance of drawing on different ways of knowing to address complex global problems, such as climate change. Recent research on plural knowledge systems to address climate change has focused primarily on three categories of knowledge: Indigenous knowledge, local knowledge, and scientific knowledge. These knowledge systems are widely represented in peer-reviewed research on climate change and in reports and documents by Indigenous organizations and NGOs. The importance of drawing on plural knowledge systems has been discussed in reports by UNESCO, the IPCC, IPBES and other organizations, with a notable increase of attention in recent years. "Knowledge system" is the most commonly used related term in these reports, but other terms-particularly, "ways of knowing"-have also been used. A number of sources have called for a transformational shift to full recognition and the inclusion-based on mutual recognition and respect-of plural knowledges in international assessments and policy frameworks, though gaps remain for putting this into practice. Recent research has emphasized diversity within Indigenous, local, and scientific knowledge, as well as the differences between these knowledge systems. Though their histories have at many points been separate, there are prior encounters and engagements that can illuminate current relationships between these knowledge systems. These earlier connections vary from efforts by colonial powers to eradicate Indigenous knowledge and the often unstated appropriation of Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge to more productive collaborations, sometimes to advance Indigenous peoples and local communities. The acknowledgment of Indigenous knowledge systems in particular has been growing rapidly in peer-reviewed literature and reports by Indigenous organizations, international agencies, NGOs, and other bodies. This work provides coverage of Indigenous knowledge in all regions of the world. The literature on local knowledge, though also growing, is not as extensive. Some work points to the overlaps between Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge, and the difficulties, in some cases, of distinguishing between them. Indigenous, local, and scientific knowledge systems include both intangible elements (such as languages, concepts, beliefs, values, worldviews, and spirituality) and tangible elements (including objects, structures, landscapes, and organisms). This combination of intangible and tangible can support an engagement with the broad fields of culture (often, but not exclusively, associated with the intangible) and of heritage (where tangible elements have a more prominent role). Relatedly, recent research has emphasized a variety of forms of action as essential elements of knowledge systems; in this view, ways of knowing are also ways of being, ways of doing and making, and ways of relating and caring. A number of sources challenge the dichotomies that make a distinction between tangible and intangible or knowledge and action, proposing instead models in which these elements are seen as mutually constitutive. These sources note that in many cases, tangible and intangible elements are deeply interconnected, so that erecting a distinction between them can be arbitrary, or a misreading. Indigenous, local, and scientific knowledge systems are keenly aware of the importance of actions to address climate change at present and in the future, though these systems differ in their diagnosis of causes, as well as the pathways that should be taken in order to address these causes. The legacy of colonialism and persistent inequality also block efforts to draw on plural knowledge systems to understand and address climate change from different perspectives. Many Indigenous Peoples and local communities continue to suffer social, political, and economic discrimination (often including violence and displacement from their territories) and are most affected by environmental and climate change. The collaboration of Indigenous, local, and scientific knowledge systems is widely recognized to enhance the effectiveness of climate action. Such collaboration is compatible with maintaining the autonomy and distinctiveness of each knowledge system, and the careful design of governance mechanisms can assure the autonomy of each system while promoting their joint efficacy. Such collaborations are different from integration, the latter being a process whereby these knowledge systems are merged or hybridized into a new form. Terms such as "braiding" and "weaving" may express an interrelationship that preserves distinctiveness. The two key dimensions which support the viability and success of collaborations between knowledge systems are fullness and justice. Fullness refers to the epistemic dimension. For example, are all components of knowledge systems (observations, worldviews, practices, values) included in the collaboration? Justice refers to the ethical dimension. For example, do all holders of knowledge systems participate equitably and fairly in the processes of establishing collaborations? Do they share equitably and fairly the positive and negative outcomes of the collaborations? Are they fully recognized within the collaborations? Finally, are the necessary conditions for their engagement (full rights to their territories and languages) present? These dimensions are not separate and additive, but rather reciprocal; each is necessary for the other. Mutual recognition and respect are also key factors for successful collaborations. A number of specific tools have been developed to protect different knowledge systems, such as Free, Prior, Informed Consent (FPIC) for Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge, intellectual property rights for all knowledge systems, Indigenous data sovereignty, and other legal mechanisms, such as customary law. Formal recognition by state agencies is an important precondition to full recognition, though in some cases its effects are limited or even negative (for example, leading to surveillance and paternalistic or authoritarian control). In recent years, some studies have begun to specify the forms and nature of successful collaborations between knowledge systems, noting in particular their diversity. Studies from several regions have shown that effective collaborations often develop over a number of years or even generations, rather than on the shorter time-frame of individual projects. Some studies emphasize the value of drawing on plural knowledge systems to identify problems and possible approaches to construct solutions. Studies also indicate the need to incorporate mechanisms that guarantee fullness and justice. COP26 in Glasgow represents an advance, marking stronger recognition of Indigenous Peoples and local communities within international climate negotiations and support for collaboration between knowledge systems, though much remains to be done. The parties at COP26 agreed on a number of points which specify significant details about the need for and form of such collaborations. Nonetheless, Indigenous scholars and organizations remain marginal to key negotiations and full intercultural recognition has not been achieved. Addressing these gaps can promote the transformational change that many have called for