See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343283271

Working with Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) in large‐scale ecological

assessments: Reviewing the experience of the IPBES Global Assessment

Article in Journal of Applied Ecology · July 2020

DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.13705

CITATIONS READS

0 514

16 authors, including:

Pamela D. McElwee Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey University of Helsinki
63 PUBLICATIONS 1,063 CITATIONS 69 PUBLICATIONS 872 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Yildiz Aumeeruddy-Thomas Daniel Babai

French National Centre for Scientific Research Hungarian Academy of Sciences
74 PUBLICATIONS 1,423 CITATIONS 32 PUBLICATIONS 429 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

NSF SEES Fellows: Linking rural smallholder soil and water management practices to sea level rise vulnerability in tropical deltas View project

SECOCO : Ecosystem services, social interdependencies and collective action View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sandra Diaz on 29 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Received: 20 December 2019 | Accepted: 9 June 2020

DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.13705

INFORMING DECISION-MAKING WITH

INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL KNOWLEDGE AND SCIENCE
Review

Working with Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) in

large-scale ecological assessments: Reviewing the experience
of the IPBES Global Assessment

Pamela McElwee1 | Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares2 | Yildiz Aumeeruddy-Thomas3 |

Dániel Babai4 | Peter Bates5 | Kathleen Galvin6 | Maximilien Guèze7 | Jianguo Liu8 |
9 10 11,12 13
Zsolt Molnár | Hien T. Ngo | Victoria Reyes-García | Rinku Roy Chowdhury |
14 15 16 17
Aibek Samakov | Uttam Babu Shrestha | Sandra Díaz | Eduardo S. Brondízio
1
Department of Human Ecology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA; 2Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS), Faculty of Biological
and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; 3Center for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology, Biocultural Interactions Team, UMR
5175, University of Montpellier, CNRS, UPV, IRD, EPHE, Montpellier, France; 4Institute of Ethnology, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy
of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary; 5IPBES Technical Support Unit for Indigenous and Local Knowledge, Section for Small Islands and Indigenous Knowledge,
UNESCO, Paris, France; 6Department of Anthropology and Geography, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA; 7United Nations Environment
Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK; 8Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA; 9Centre for Ecological Research, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Vácrátót, Hungary; 10Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany; 11Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats
(ICREA), Barcelona, Spain; 12Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB), Barcelona, Spain; 13Graduate School
of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA, USA; 14Aigine Cultural Research Center, Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic; 15Global Institute for Interdisciplinary
Studies, Kathmandu, Nepal; 16Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal (IMBIV) and Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales, Universidad
Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina and 17Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

Correspondence
Pamela McElwee Abstract
Email: pamela.mcelwee@rutgers.edu 1. There have been calls for greater inclusion of Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK)
Funding information in applied ecosystems research and ecological assessments. The Intergovernmental
Swedbio; International Indigenous Forum Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Global
on Biodiversity; Forest Peoples Programme;
University of Helsinki; Helmholtz Centre for Assessment (GA) is the first global scale assessment to systematically engage with
Environmental Research; Finnish Ministries ILK and issues of concern to Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC).
of the Environment and Foreign Affairs
In this paper, we review and reflect on how the GA worked with ILK and lessons
Handling Editor: Helen Wheeler learned.
2. 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; organ-
izing dialogue workshops; issuing calls for contributions to identify other forms
and systems of knowledge; and encouraging IPLC to be key stakeholders and
contributors.
3. We identify content areas where attention to ILK was particularly important for
questions in applied ecology. These include: (a) enriching understandings of na-
ture and its contributions to people, including ecosystem services; (b) assisting in
assessing and monitoring ecosystem change; (c) contributing to international tar-
gets and scenario development to achieve global goals like the Aichi Biodiversity

J Appl Ecol. 2020;00:1–11. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jpe© 2020 British Ecological Society | 1

2 | Journal of Applied Ecology McELWEE et al.

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.
4. Policy implications. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Global Assessment (GA) demonstrated the im-
portance of Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC) to global biodi-
versity 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, mobi-
lizes 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 indi-
cators and improve sustainable development goals and policies.

KEYWORDS

biodiversity targets, ecosystem services, Global Assessment, Indigenous and local knowledge,
IPBES, monitoring, social-ecological assessments, sustainable development

1 | I NTRO D U C TI O N
BOX 1 Who are IPLC? Why are they important?
The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity
IPLC are ‘individuals and communities who are, on the
and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is charged with conducting regu-
one hand, self-identified as Indigenous and, on the other
lar policy-relevant assessments on the status, trends and future of
hand, are members of local communities that maintain in-
biodiversity and ecosystems and their contributions to people. As
tergenerational connection to place and nature through
part of its mandate, IPBES has in its assessment processes worked
livelihood, cultural identity and worldviews, institutions
with Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK), defined as ‘knowledge
and ecological knowledge’ (IPBES, 2019). Using ILK and
and know-how accumulated across generations, which guide human
other forms of knowledge, IPLC have shaped the ecolo-
societies in their innumerable interactions with their surrounding
gies, conservation initiatives and resource economies of
environment’ (Thaman et al., 2013). IPBES has also encouraged
vast regions of the world, as IPLC either control, use, man-
Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLC) to be key stake-
age or co-administer an estimated ~38 million km2 (at least
holders and contributors across their products (which have so far in-
25%–28% of the world's land area; Garnett et al., 2018).
cluded methodological, thematic, regional and global assessments),
as they are creators and holders of ILK, as well as impacted by poli-
cymaking around nature (Hill et al., 2020; see Box 1).
The IPBES Global Assessment (GA) is the first ecological as- assessment processes and policy arenas requires a deliberate frame-
sessment to systematically incorporate ILK at the global scale (Díaz work and approach that facilitates recognition of different knowledge
et al., 2019; IPBES, 2019). Therefore, experiences from the GA's at- systems.
tempts to bridge knowledge systems will likely be relevant to other
assessments. As authors who contributed to the GA, our goal in this
paper is to critically evaluate the successes and challenges of working 2 | M ATE R I A L S A N D M E TH O DS
with ILK and the benefits of doing so. To do this, we discuss method-
ological steps taken for the GA and then outline key findings of the 2.1 | Developing an approach to ILK in the GA
report that were enhanced by ILK. We conclude with lessons learned,
particularly around methodological and epistemological challenges, There have been many calls to better incorporate ILK into global science-
while emphasizing the global relevance of ILK to ecosystem manage- policy processes (Ford et al., 2016; Turnhout, Bloomfield, Hulme, Vogel, &
ment and assessment. We highlight that successfully bringing ILK into Wynne, 2012; Usher, 2000), as well as concerns about the challenges and
McELWEE et al. Journal of Applied Ecology | 3

future (2030–2050) trends in living nature and its contributions to

BOX 2 Questions related to ILK guiding the GA people. As in other assessments, the overall methodological approach
was based on critical evaluation, review and synthesis of existing evi-
1. What have been the contributions of ILK, practices and
dence from multiple sources, including both published scientific and
innovations to the sustainable use, management and
grey literature (e.g. I/NGO reports). This mandate lent itself to inclu-
conservation of nature and nature's contributions to
sion of ILK, as the GA was not restricted to peer-reviewed literature,
people at regional and global scales?
as other assessment processes have been (Ford et al., 2016). IPBES as
2. What are the most important features, pressures and
a whole has been working on a more systematic approach to ILK and
factors related to and/or enabling or constraining these
inclusion of IPLC across all their work products (Hill et al., 2020), and
contributions, as well as impacting present and future
the GA approached ILK through several steps, outlined below:
quality of life of IPLC?
3. What policy responses, measures and processes can
1. Setting up an ‘ILK Authors Liaison group’ at the first lead au-
contribute to strengthen and improve the institutions
thor meeting. These self-selected group members (27 in total)
and governance of nature and its contributions to peo-
were experts ranging across ecological and social disciplines
ple with regard to IPLC?
and were tasked with oversight of ILK content in each chapter
and links between chapters.
2. Devising key ILK-related questions to provide a common refer-
efficacy of doing so (Hill et al., 2020; Nadasdy, 1999). Reasons for including ence across chapters.1 The liaison group formulated 27 chapter-
ILK have included the need for more comprehensive data (Moller, Berkes, specific questions related to (a) the contributions of ILK to the
Lyver, & Kislalioglu, 2004) and as a mode for inclusion, participation and re- sustainable use of nature at different scales; (b) the pressures and
spect for IPLC (Maffie, 2009). However, both ILK and science come from challenges related to ILK and IPLC; and (c) policy responses to im-
distinct types of knowledge systems (or ‘the agents, practices and institu- prove nature governance with regard to IPLC (see Appendix S1).
tions that organize the production, transfer and use of knowledge’; Cornell 3. Developing a comprehensive and systematic literature review of
et al., 2013), which are often asymmetrical in terms of power and can be both peer-reviewed and other works, including identification of
incommensurable. Therefore, researchers have been encouraged to seek databases, keywords and additional contributing authors2 who
opportunities to collaborate and connect knowledge systems resulting in could write on specific issues related to ILK (see Appendix S2).
co-produced outcomes (Bohensky & Maru, 2011; Raymond et al., 2010; 4. Issuing a special online call for additional contributions, informa-
Tengö et al., 2017). tion, authors, networks and organizations to find other forms and
One solution proposed has been the multiple evidence base systems of knowledge. The call was issued after the assessment
approach, which explicitly recognizes the complementarities between of literature had begun, and was open for five months in English,
scientific evidence and ILK (Tengö, Brondízio, Elmqvist, Malmer, & Spanish and French and included a translation tool to facilitate
Spierenburg, 2014; Tengö et al., 2017). Both knowledge systems share wide diffusion. It was distributed through IPBES networks and
some characteristics, including observation of empirical changes in those of the lead authors (e.g. listserves). This resulted in the iden-
nature, collection of longitudinal data and use of experiments to test tification of 1,199 additional relevant documents in 16 languages
ideas (Berkes, Colding, & Folke, 2000; Thornton & Scheer, 2012). Yet (including some indigenous languages, although about 83% were
at the same time, ILK emerges from very different epistemological in English); 20% of the documents were considered ‘grey litera-
contexts than formal science, which creates challenges for integration ture’ (e.g. reports, policy briefs, manuals) and there was wide geo-
and aggregation (Raymond et al., 2010). The GA made the assumption graphic distribution (Figure S1).
that different types and dimensions of ILK, while locally based, are 5. Encouraging IPLC participation, including review of drafts and
manifested in regional landscapes and ecosystems, and thus can be through dialogue workshops. In total, eight different dialogues
globally relevant when assessed in systematic ways (Brondízio & Le were held and reached over 250 people at different stages of
Tourneau, 2016; Garnett et al., 2018). The GA approach accepted that, writing the assessment. The aim of the dialogues was to share in-
while some types of ILK can be synthesized and aggregated together, formation about the GA with IPLC representatives while it was
other types should be recognized as context-specific and place-based ongoing and receive guidance and feedback on the content of the
evidence on their own (Díaz et al., 2018). Three key questions on ILK assessment. Dialogues were organized as shorter side events to
and IPLC guided the GA throughout the process (see Box 2).

1
This was in contrast to the previous pollination assessment where one chapter was
dedicated to biocultural diversity, pollinators and their sociocultural values, much of
2.2 | Implementing the methodological approach to which was derived from ILK. IPBES Regional Assessments also used ILK across chapters
ILK in the GA and organized consultations with IPLC as part of the process (e.g. Roué & Molnar, 2017).
2
Contributing authors are volunteers who contributed specific texts to the GA and who
were recruited for their particular expertise. Lead authors on the GA were nominated by
The GA was conducted from 2016 to 2019 and aimed to critically as-
governments or other representative organizations and served throughout the writing
sess the state of knowledge on past (since 1970s), present and possible process.
4 | Journal of Applied Ecology McELWEE et al.

ecosystems composing wild and domesticated species (Garibaldi

BOX 3 The Arctic ILK Dialogue: An example of & Turner, 2004; Molnár, 2017). These practices are often based on
guidance from IPLC to the GA ILK-derived principles such as health of the land, caring for coun-
try and reciprocal responsibility (Sangha & Russell-Smith, 2017).
A 2-day IPBES Consultation Meeting was held in Helsinki
The GA also followed a recent IPBES decision to use the con-
(6–7 June 2018) to bring together holders of Arctic ILK with
cept of nature's contributions to people (NCP) rather than ‘ecosystem
researchers to review, evaluate and provide additional infor-
services’ based on a more comprehensive understanding of human-
mation to the Second Order Draft. The meeting, funded by
nature interactions and a wider range of values, including those
the Government of Finland, was attended by 23 participants,
embedded in ILK (Díaz et al., 2018; Pascual et al., 2017). Eighteen
including nine indigenous representatives (chosen based on
categories of NCP were assessed, and ILK from all regions of the
their involvement in the work of the Arctic Council), 10 IPBES
world contributed to understanding the co-produced nature of many
experts and five resource people from Finnish institutions.
realized NCP (that is, those potential NCP derived from nature that
All participants were provided with materials and data from
are effectively co-produced with the help of anthropogenic assets;
every chapter. Each session of the workshop was structured
Table 1). Table 1 shows a few indicative NCP, even though all 18 were
around two parts: an introduction where an IPBES expert
assessed using different types of ILK, with some being more compre-
briefly presented the main findings of a specific chapter, fol-
hensive than others; for example, NCP 12 relates to food provisioning,
lowed by an open discussion chaired by an indigenous rep-
with well-demonstrated examples of ILK perspectives on agrodiver-
resentative for feedback and/or criticism. The consultation
sity and human health, while the assessment of other NCP (such as
engaged numerous topics such as the ability of Arctic indig-
regulation of climate) was less able to use ILK-based evidence.
enous peoples to manage transboundary biodiversity, effec-
tive management strategies and the contributions of Arctic
IPLC to reach global goals. A set of 66 reviewer comments
were then formally submitted as part of the external review
3.2 | Using ILK to assess and monitor status and
process on behalf of the Dialogue participants.
trends in nature

A number of IPLC use indicators of ecosystem change derived from

ILK; such indicators can be considered biocultural, as they con-
existing meetings where IPLC were present, panels at conferences sider jointly nature and human quality of life (Caillon, Cullman, &
attended by IPLC or as longer workshops specifically focused on Verschuuren, 2017; Sterling et al., 2017). These biocultural indicators
the GA (see Box 3; also see Table S1). reflect a holistic approach to material and immaterial dimensions of
nature adapted to particular economic, ecological and cultural environ-
ments (Berkes, 2012; Molnár, 2017). These observations often cover
3 | R E S U LT S : I LK I N TH E G A remote and less studied habitats and regions that present difficulties
for scientific monitoring (Huntington, Fox, Berkes, & Krupnik, 2005).
ILK emerged as a particularly useful source of information for the GA ILK can thus help generate understanding of diverse phenomena, rang-
in several key areas, many of which are of relevance to applied ecolo- ing from habitat disturbance, culturally important species and drivers of
gists and future ecological assessments. While this is not an exhaustive change (Garibaldi & Turner, 2004; Tam, Gough, Edwards, & Tsuji, 2013).
list of all ILK used in the GA, we highlight these areas below as being The GA reviewed over 100 papers and reports on IPLC indicators,
representative of how the GA combined different knowledge systems. compiling more than 321 unique indicators that are locally developed,
tested and relevant, many used for decades or longer (Mantyka-
Pringle et al., 2017; TEBTEBBA, 2008; Turner & Clifton, 2009); since
3.1 | Using ILK to enrich concepts of nature and the GA was published, hundreds more have been documented (see
assess nature's contributions to people Table 2). These indicators of nature were synthesized by grouping
them according to selected Essential Biodiversity Variables and
The concept of ‘nature’ formed a key part of the GA, defined as mapped against major ecosystem types. Notably, most ILK-based
‘all the living components of the natural world’, and is analogous indicators reviewed showed negative trends (Table 2).
to many ILK-derived concepts like ‘Mother Earth’, ‘Pachamama’
(Andes) or ‘Country’ (Australia). Views of nature include ideas of
whether humans are separate from or an integral part of their 3.3 | Using ILK to shape target-setting and
environment, the latter being a concept widely shared among achievements toward global goals
IPLC (McElwee et al., 2018). Literature was reviewed on the co-
production of benefits from nature, particularly IPLC practices The GA assessed global progress on key biodiversity and sustain-
that enhance biodiversity and ecological functioning, such as land able development goals, like the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (ABTs),
management for ecosystem heterogeneity and creation of new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and targets of major
McELWEE et al. Journal of Applied Ecology | 5

TA B L E 1 Contributions of ILK to understanding and managing selected NCP

Key NCP Discussion of how ILK or IPLC relate Examples of ILK-derived indicators

NCP 2: Pollination ILK informs management practices that enhance pollinator Timing of flowering signals and honey harvest-times
and dispersal of activity can indicate pollinator health
seeds and other There are many totemic and/or spiritual relationships between Narratives of specific pollinators and the species
propagules people and pollinators represented in ILK they prefer can provide indicators for monitoring
ILK has helped revitalize practices of beekeeping in some areas. Pollinator behaviour and population size can be used
Many IPLC have introduced hives into agroforestry systems as indicators of ecosystem health
Lower use of pesticides among many IPLC fosters pollinator Nomenclature and vernacular taxonomy can inform
health about the diversity of pollinators
NCP 9: Regulation Many IPLC use ILK to predict extreme events and adapt to their Observation and monitoring of multiple factors to
of hazards and impacts, including using oral and other traditions to pass on anticipate extreme events, including behaviour of
extreme events knowledge about frequency, impacts and warning signs animals
Ways to manage ecosystems to reduce hazards
NCP 12: Food and Many food systems derive from long-standing crop selection Nomenclature and list of species (both wild and
feed and domestication of local landraces and varieties based on cultivated) that are important for diet and health
ILK Narratives and practices regarding cultivation
Knowledge transmission in ILK often includes the importance practices and techniques that enhance agrodiversity
of biotic interactions for producing food, such as connections Nomenclature and classification may provide clues
between plants, animals, fungi or soil microorganisms identifying species or varieties that are genetically
Food is produced and consumed through social networks and distinct
is influenced by cultural and spiritual dimensions in different Reference to specific species in narratives and oral
IPLC traditions in places where those species no longer
Quality and diversity of food available to IPLC is globally exist indicate extinctions and can be used to
decreasing because of changes in food systems monitor trends

NCP 14: Medicinal, ILK has helped identify and name new species Nomenclature, classification and lists of medicines
biochemical, and ILK has helped identify sources of new drugs for development indicate diversity of health practices and
genetic resources through bioprospecting biodiversity
ILK about place–based medical systems provides IPLC with Knowledge of plant distribution within ecosystems
locally available and effective products and landscapes
There have been trends towards a rapid rate of loss of medicinal Knowledge of threats and drivers of change (e.g.
plants for IPLC at the global level quantities traded and overexploited species)

NCP 15: Learning Nature has highly influenced artistic expression, education and Depictions of nature symbolized within art, theater,
and inspiration skills among IPLC language and other forms of artistic or cultural
Identity, learning and inspiration combine attention to natural expression
and cultural factors through concepts like sense of place Declines in transgenerational learning and language
Sacred sites are important both for learning and inspiration but losses
also for the conservation of biodiversity
Learning and inspiration contributes to resource management,
e.g. learning from songlines in Aboriginal Australia
Children's direct relationship with nature is crucial for learning.
Disruption of transgenerational learning processes among
IPLC is related to loss of languages, loss of co-produced
habitats and socio-cultural disruption

Note: References for the examples above can be found in Table S2.

biodiversity-related conventions such as the Ramsar Convention 3.4 | ILK in scenarios and pathways
and others. The analysis included documenting IPLC contributions to
achieving targets and how progress (or lack of it) might affect them. The GA made use of scenarios to understand changes to nature,
The review suggested that IPLC and ILK have made important contri- NCP and good quality of life, relying on two types of scenarios (ex-
butions, although these are not always acknowledged (Table 3). Given ploratory and intervention).3 However, in both cases, most global
the holistic nature of ILK, IPLC can aid in the identification of trade- scenario archetypes do not directly address ILK and IPLC. For
offs and synergies between goals, such as how expansion of terrestrial
3
protected areas (ABT11) may have unintended consequences on IPLC Exploratory scenarios examine a range of plausible futures, based on potential
trajectories of drivers, and are used for high-level problem identification and agenda
quality of life (SDG 3; Agrawal & Redford, 2009). However, despite setting. Intervention scenarios are those that evaluate alternative policy or management
the contributions noted in Table 3, evidence suggests there is a gap options, and can include either ‘target-seeking’ or ‘policy-screening’ analysis:
target-seeking scenarios are pathways to achieve one or more specific goals (e.g. ABTs or
between indicators defined in global policies and those that are locally
SDGs), while policy-screening (also known as ‘ex-ante scenarios’) are scenarios used to
important or derived from ILK (Zorondo-Rodríguez et al., 2014). evaluate the effects of alternative policy or management options (IPBES, 2016).
6 | Journal of Applied Ecology McELWEE et al.

TA B L E 2 Indicators of trends in nature

Total ILK Direction
developed, tested and used by IPLC and
Trends in ecosystems indicators Examples of indicators of trends
based on ILK
Decreasing resource 74 Distance needed to walk to 83% are
availability hunt. negative
Length of harvest season
Daily catch
Declines in wild species 283 Abundance of culturally 56% are
populations significant species negative
Decreases in health 88 Behaviour of animals 80% are
conditions of wild animals Colour of fat of harvested negative
animals
Arrival of new pests/alien 25 Increased pest occurrence 95% are
species negative
Shifting species compositions 59 Changing proportion of 81% are
within landscapes palatable and unpalatable negative
plants on rangelands
Appearance of new species

Note: These indicators are locally based contextualized indicators that are often difficult to upscale;
references for the examples above can be found in Table S2.

TA B L E 3 ILK and IPLC contributions to

Implications for IPLC if target
global goals
Target/goal Role for ILK not met

ABT 2 Using ILK and IPLC worldviews, some Without recognition of ILK
(Biodiversity countries (e.g. Bolivia, New Zealand) values, IPLC rights may be
values) recognize the rights of ecosystems to violated
exist, reproduce and thrive
ABT 8 Local observations enable IPLC to monitor, IPLC remain largely
(Pollution) map and report pollution unsupported in their struggles
against polluting operations
and face challenges in
receiving compensation

ABT 9 IPLC perspectives, worldviews and Introduced species impact

(Invasive alien interpretations influence reactions IPLC livelihoods and cultures
species) to new species. ILK has helped to in dynamic and sometimes
strategically manage impacts contradictory ways.
Management strategies that
ignore this complexity risk
aggravating social impacts
and being locally unpopular
ABT 15 IPLC have played an active role in restoring The failure to restore
(Restoration) ecosystems. Some restoration has relied degraded ecosystems in
on ILK to select which ecosystems should areas inhabited by IPLC
be restored and how threatens their cultural
well-being and undermines
access to important NCP
SDG 13 ILK can help understand climate change IPLC are disproportionately
(Climate impacts on biophysical and socioeconomic affected by lack of action on
action) systems. Knowledge co-produced between climate change, exacerbating
science and ILK can result in climate their vulnerability
mitigation and adaptation strategies that
are better adapted to highly variable local
conditions

SDG 14 (Life in ILK can identify marine species at risk Deterioration of marine
oceans) of extinction. IPLC have also enhanced ecosystems affects food
recovery, conservation and sustainability security and social and
of marine and freshwater fisheries and spiritual integrity of many
ecosystems IPLC

Note: References for the examples above can be found in Table S2.
McELWEE et al. Journal of Applied Ecology | 7

TA B L E 4 Existing and potential integration of ILK in scenarios

Type of scenario assessed Actual inclusion of ILK Potential benefit for scenarios from use of ILK

Exploratory Limited to sources used in meta-analysis ILK frequently embodies long-term social-ecological
knowledge and can be invaluable to informing,
interpreting and improving long-range projections
and future scenarios, as well as better understanding
of uncertainty
Target-seeking Limited to particular scenarios (e.g. 1 of 2 critical ILK includes approaches on how to share information
pathways for sustaining freshwater ecosystems is and adaptive practices to manage transitions,
through increasing groundwater recharge, wetlands including practices such as storytelling
and alternative storage techniques, some of which
employ ILK)
Policy-screening Some relevance at global level, but restricted to ILK can helpfully inform local policy development
specific policies like recognition of land tenure or pathways for sustainable future by providing
IPLC-managed protected areas indications of important local values

Note: References for the examples above can be found in Table S2.

TA B L E 5 Policy instruments, use of ILK and involvement of IPLC

Degree to which ILK is represented Degree to which IPLC are involved in

Key policy in policy (High, Medium, Low) and policy making (High, Medium, Low)
instruments examples and through what processes Regional trends

Payments for Low to Medium Medium to High Higher involvement of IPLC in Latin
environmental Values for determining IPLC often highly engaged in America, with more secure tenure
services (PES) benefit-sharing benefit-sharing rights. Little involvement in Africa
Identification of key ecosystem
services
Reduced emissions Low to Medium Low to Medium Higher involvement of IPLC in Latin
from deforestation Community-based monitoring State recognition of IPLC land rights America
and degradation have led to some successful local
(REDD+) REDD + projects. Some IPLC
advocacy at global fora
Marine protected Medium Medium to High High involvement of IPLC in Oceania
areas Fishing quotas for recovery IPLC have been involved in and certain parts of the Arctic
Identification of key species policymaking for specific MPAs,
including based on customary tenure
Sustainable wildlife High Medium to High Mostly implemented in terrestrial
management Monitoring of populations (e.g. early IPLC have benefited from ecosystems in Africa and coastal/
detection of animal health) compensation policies marine ecosystems in the Arctic
Invasive Alien Low Low Mostly implemented in Australia,
Species removal Baseline and risk assessments IPLC prevent, detect and eradicate IAS Canada and New Zealand
policies in their territories but rarely included
in policy design
Ecological Medium Medium Involvement of IPLC in Southeast
restoration Culturally important species for IPLC have initiated or been involved in Asia, New Zealand and Mexico
programs restoration local restoration projects
Pollution reduction Low to Medium Medium Mostly implemented in the Arctic,
policies Monitoring of pollution impacts and IPLC have advocated for expulsion North America and some parts of
biomonitoring of polluting activities from their the Amazon Basin
territories

Note: References for the examples above can be found in Table S2.

intervention scenarios, few exist at the scale and scope needed, so Regional and local exploratory scenarios that were analysed did oc-
the GA primarily used sustainability-oriented exploratory scenarios casionally incorporate information from ILK and IPLC; for instance,
as substitutes. These scenarios are global but are constructed on the Participatory Scenario Planning has been used to address and inte-
basis of meta-analyses of local studies and IPBES Regional grate the priorities of distinct stakeholder groups in local studies and
Assessments, relying primarily on expert knowledge, thus ILK and projects (Butler et al., 2016; Oteros-Rozas et al., 2015). Available
IPLC perspectives were incorporated in only a few examples. target-seeking and policy-screening scenarios to compare
8 | Journal of Applied Ecology McELWEE et al.

alternative policy options intended to alter the future state of nature and do not create new data, it is not possible to achieve a perfectly
and NCP also showed limited direct uses of ILK, although some did representative balance of evidence across all regions of the world, al-
include specific policies related to IPLC (Table 4). though it is a useful process to identify knowledge gaps. Future as-
sessments will need to pay attention to, and develop ways of dealing
with, the underrepresentation of ILK literature; in our case, the online
3.5 | Using ILK and IPLC involvement to generate call for additional resources did in fact generate evidence we had not
options for decision-makers found in the peer-reviewed literature.
It was also challenging to balance the need for large-scale synthe-
The GA was mandated with identifying policy options available to sis of ILK with the attention to contextualized knowledge, often rep-
achieve global targets and to improve management of nature and resented through specific local case studies. For example, in assessing
NCP. Literature reviews included assessments of how ILK has been indicators of ecosystem change, it was difficult to reconcile the gener-
used in policy formulation, which has varied widely, as well as how alizable indicators most used in scientific monitoring (often expressed
IPLC influence policy processes. For example, IPLC have managed to as percentages of population change or through spatial analysis) and
exert substantial influence in several state-centred policymaking pro- those derived from ILK, where data are often non-quantitative, devel-
cesses (Shawoo & Thornton, 2019), and increasingly some countries oped within oral traditions and based on interconnectedness (Berkes
and subnational governments are adopting biocultural approaches to & Berkes, 2009; Huntington et al., 2005; Turner & Clifton, 2009). This
policy that include ILK in the formation of ‘knowledge governance’ is why IPBES has stressed the need to use a gradient of complemen-
structures (Manrique, Corral, & Pereira, 2018). However, there is wide tary approaches, ranging from generalizing to context-specific through
variation in which policies incorporate ILK or involve participation of a multiple evidence base crossing spatial and temporal scales (Díaz
IPLC (Table 5). Moreover, IPLC still face numerous challenges and bar- et al., 2015, 2018). For the GA, this meant a variety of inputs, ranging
riers, including a lack of holistic planning approaches able to make use from systematic reviews of local case studies, regional consultations
of the multifaceted nature of ILK and lack of formal informational and with IPLC representatives and aggregated geospatial data at the global
participatory mechanisms (Cariño, 2005). level, among others.

4 | D I S CU S S I O N 4.2 | Logistical needs for assessments

Significant knowledge has been produced by both formal science Inclusion of ILK in assessments requires extra money and time, a
and ILK on varied aspects of environmental change, which combined commitment from the start (such as in conceptual frameworks and
lend multiple lines of evidence on the nature, scope and attribution methodologies) and use of networks to ensure engagement and sup-
of such impacts at local to global levels. However, seeking com- port from IPLC for elements that can be co-produced (e.g. see Hill
plementarities between multiple knowledge systems is not always et al., 2020). Yet the benefits of such investments can be large; for
straightforward or without problems. Below we discuss some of the example, ILK-based indicators about nature proved to be highly use-
key challenges, lessons learned and policy relevance of the use of ful to help link changes in natural systems with direct and indirect
ILK in the GA. drivers and impacts on local livelihoods, which has been a challenge
for science-based indicators alone (Caillon et al., 2017).
Improving future assessments requires expansion of the peer-
4.1 | Challenges to incorporating ILK in assessments reviewed literature, including more collaborative and co-produced
studies with IPLC (Reyes-García & Benyei, 2019; Tengö et al., 2014;
Even though the systematic literature reviews used by the GA were Thorton & Scheer, 2012). Mutual trust and collaboration are keys
open to multiple sources of evidence (Tengö et al., 2014), and on- to improving co-production of ecological research (Adams et al.,
line calls for references and case studies were useful for opening up 2014; Cámara-Leret & Dennehy, 2019) as is inclusivity and re-
the process beyond initial experts' knowledge, the GA still faced a flexivity in research design (Parsons, Fisher, & Nalau, 2016). In
number of challenges in ensuring that different knowledge systems other words, ILK and science can co-construct common research
were engaged in a transparent, equitable and legitimate manner (Hill agendas for the benefits of both nature and IPLC (Armitage,
et al., 2020). Understanding of the depth and breadth of ILK is still Berkes, Dale, Kocho-Schellenberg, & Patton, 2011). Examples of
insufficient, and there are major documentation gaps that may result this include the work of the NGO SwedBio, which has used the
in the exclusion of important ILK in peer-reviewed studies (Cámara- Pollination Assessment produced by IPBES in 2016 to engage IPLC
Leret & Dennehy, 2019). For example, there is considerable regional in thinking through lessons learned for agricultural management
unevenness in existing literature, with more ILK documented from (Malmer et al., 2019).
the Arctic and less from other major areas like sub-Saharan Africa and Co-production would be particularly useful in areas where the
Eastern Europe (although there was some literature found for every GA identified gaps in use of ILK, namely around scenarios and future
major region). Because assessments only review existing publications forecasts concerning nature, NCP and quality of life. Future global
McELWEE et al. Journal of Applied Ecology | 9

scenarios could incorporate more ILK through use of more local and cultural systems co-produce each other, identifying trends of
participatory target-seeking scenarios, and these could be used to change through diverse biocultural indicators and improving the
better formulate global goals, given that many of the existing tar- implementation of sustainable development goals and policies.
gets and goals do not necessarily reflect the heterogeneity of IPLC The process carried out in the GA has also contributed to side
and their priorities and worldviews. Yet to be effective, such partic- benefits of capacity building for authors and strengthening connec-
ipatory approaches must engage IPLC from the very beginning and tions between IPBES and IPLC networks. Further, acknowledging
throughout the process, construct scenarios that truly represent ILK different value systems in decision-making has the potential for im-
and local priorities and deal with power differences among stake- proving power asymmetries and equity issues in both science prac-
holders (Oteros-Rozas et al., 2015). tice and policy implementation. Lessons learned from the GA can
enable better future assessments and solutions through evaluation
of a diversity of often distinct knowledge systems and interlinkages
4.3 | Translating ILK into policy contexts between culture and nature, achieved through combining overall
synthesis with context-specific perspectives. The GA has shown
The GA demonstrated the global importance of IPLC to biodiver- the usefulness of a multifaceted and systematic approach to nature
sity and ecosystem management, particularly given how much of the assessments that not only identifies where ILK can inform existing
world's important conservation lands are under use, management, understandings of ecosystem health and human well-being, but also
and ownership by them (Garnett et al., 2018). However, the GA also identifies the challenges and opportunities for engaged knowledge
concluded that general trends of loss of ILK, declines in nature and production in the future.
NCP used by IPLC, and challenges to political rights and customary
lands have all challenged decision-making by IPLC (IPBES, 2019). Use AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S
of multiple knowledge systems and engagement of IPLC are path- We thank all the representatives of IPLC who have contributed to
ways to improving ecological policy, but require convincing decision- enrich and strengthen the GA. We would also like to thank co-chair
makers that they can benefit from these inputs. Josef Settele, and the continued support of the IPBES Secretariat,
The evidence provided in the GA can help make the argument in particular Executive Secretary Anne Larigauderie and her team,
that inclusion of IPLC capabilities and social-cultural values are crit- the IPBES Task Force on ILK, the ILK TSU, the ILK Authors' Liaison
ical for both ecosystem assessments and achieving policy goals for Group and Multidisciplinary Expert Panel and Bureau is appreci-
human well-being, such as the SDGs. For example, in one case study ated. We also thank institutions that funded and supported ILK
reviewed from Australia, customary management of tropical savan- Dialogues, including Swedbio, International Indigenous Forum
nas provided food and medicine, cultural practices and other NCP on Biodiversity, Forest Peoples Programme, the University of
that enabled the Indigenous traditional owners to maintain their Helsinki, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research and the
knowledge and skills, resulting in a wide range of benefits (healthy Finnish Ministries of the Environment and Foreign Affairs. P.M.
lives, early childhood development, pride and self-respect, ability thanks Dean Robert Goodman of the School of Environmental and
to pass on ILK to the next generation), but which were mostly ig- Biological Sciences for additional support for her involvement with
nored by natural resource policies (Sangha & Russell-Smith, 2017). IPBES.
The other numerous examples in the GA of positive benefits from
a biocultural approach, as well as negative examples of policies that AU T H O R S ' C O N T R I B U T I O N S
have failed to improve livelihoods or ecological health when IPLC All authors were involved in the GA, either as Co-Chairs, Coordinating
and ILK are ignored, were aimed at improving decision-makers' ev- Lead Authors, Lead Authors, Fellows, or Contributing Authors. P.M.
idence bases, given constraints on IPBES assessments making spe- led the writing team, with the help of A.F.-L. and E.S.B., and all au-
cific policy recommendations. thors contributed critically to the writing and gave final approval for
publication.

5 | CO N C LU S I O N S DATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y S TAT E M E N T

Data have not been archived because this article does not use data.
The GA has demonstrated the validity of working with different
knowledge systems, and the IPBES strategy to integrate ILK and ORCID
activities to engage IPLC can be useful for other assessments. Pamela McElwee https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3525-9285
Indeed, we believe all ecological surveys, monitoring and large- Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7813-0222
scale assessments could benefit from reciprocal engagement in Kathleen Galvin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9003-8365
co-producing knowledge or identifying complementarities be- Jianguo Liu https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6344-0087
tween multiple knowledge systems (Tengö et al., 2014, 2017). Zsolt Molnár https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5454-4714
As we have noted, ILK has particular relevance for ecological as- Victoria Reyes-García https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2914-8055
sessments in several key areas, including defining how natural Eduardo S. Brondízio https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9376-8366
10 | Journal of Applied Ecology McELWEE et al.

REFERENCES Garnett, S. T., Burgess, N. D., Fa, J. E., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Molnár,
Z., Robinson, C. J., … Leiper, I. (2018). A spatial overview of the global
Adams, M. S., Carpenter, J., Housty, J. A., Neasloss, D., Paquet, P. C.,
importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nature Sustainability,
Service, C., … Darimont, C. T. (2014). Toward increased engagement
1, 369–374. https://doi.org/10.1038/s4189​3-018-0100-6
between academic and indigenous community partners in ecologi-
Hill, R., Adem, C., Alangui, W., Molnár, Z., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., …
cal research. Ecology and Society, 19, 5. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-
Xue, D. (2020). Working with Indigenous, local and scientific knowl-
06569​-190305
edge in assessments of nature and nature's linkages with people.
Agrawal, A., & Redford, K. (2009). Conservation and displace-
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 43, 8–20.
ment: An overview. Conservation and Society, 7, 1. https://doi.
Huntington, H., Fox, S., Berkes, F., Krupnik, I. (2005). The changing
org/10.4103/0972-4923.54790
Arctic: Indigenous perspectives. In ACIA (Ed.), Arctic climate impact
Armitage, D., Berkes, F., Dale, A., Kocho-Schellenberg, E., & Patton,
assessment (pp. 61–98). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
E. (2011). Co-management and the co-production of knowledge:
IPBES. (2016). The methodological assessment report on scenarios and
Learning to adapt in Canada's Arctic. Global Environmental Change,
models of biodiversity and ecosystem services (S. Ferrier, K. N. Ninan,
21, 995–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloen​vcha.2011.04.006
P. Leadley, R. Alkemade, L. A. Acosta, H. R. Akçakaya, L. Brotons,
Berkes, F. (2012). Sacred ecology. New York, NY: Routledge.
W. W. L. Cheung, V. Christensen, K. A. Harhash, J. Kabubo-Mariara,
Berkes, F., & Berkes, M. (2009). Ecological complexity, fuzzy logic, and
C. Lundquist, M. Obersteiner, H. M. Pereira, G. Peterson, R. Pichs-
holism in indigenous knowledge. Futures, 41, 6–12. https://doi.
Madruga, N. Ravindranath, C. Rondinini, & B. A. Wintle, Eds.). Bonn,
org/10.1016/j.futur​es.2008.07.003
Germany: Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional eco-
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
logical knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications,
IPBES. (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report
10, 1251–1262. https://doi.org/10.2307/2641280
on biodiversity and ecosystem services (S. Díaz, J. Settele, E. Brondízio,
Bohensky, E., & Maru, Y. (2011). Indigenous knowledge, science, and
H. Ngo, M. Guèze, J. Agard, … C. Zayas, Eds.). Bonn, Germany: IPBES
resilience: What have we learned from a decade of international
Secretariat.
literature on ‘integration’? Ecology and Society, 16, 6. https://doi.
Maffie, J. (2009). ‘In the end, we have the Gatling gun, and they have
org/10.5751/ES-04342​-160406
not’: Future prospects of indigenous knowledges. Futures, 41, 53–65.
Brondízio, E., & Le Tourneau, F. (2016). Environmental governance for all.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futur​es.2008.07.008
Science, 352, 1272–1273. https://doi.org/10.1126/scien​ce.aaf5122
Malmer, P., Tengö, M., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Woodward, E.,
Butler, J., Bohensky, E., Suadnya, I., Yanuartati, Y., Handayani, T., …
Crawhall, N., Hill, R., … Tahi, B. (2019). Dialogue across Indigenous, local
Sutaryono, Y. (2016). Scenario planning to leap-frog the Sustainable
and scientific knowledge systems reflecting on the IPBES Assessment
Development Goals: An adaptation pathways approach. Climate Risk
on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production. Stockholm, Sweden:
Management, 12, 83–99.
SwedBio at Stockholm Resilience Centre.
Caillon, S., Cullman, G., & Verschuuren, B. (2017). Moving beyond the
Manrique, D., Corral, S., & Pereira, N. (2018). Climate-related displace-
human-nature dichotomy through biocultural approaches: Including
ments of coastal communities in the Arctic: Engaging traditional
ecological well-being in resilience indicators. Ecology and Society, 22,
knowledge in adaptation strategies and policies. Environmental
27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09746​-220427
Science and Policy, 85, 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Cámara-Leret, R., & Dennehy, Z. (2019). Information gaps in indig-
envsci.2018.04.007
enous and local knowledge for science-policy assessments.
Mantyka-Pringle, C. S., Jardine, T. D., Bradford, L., Bharadwaj, L.,
Nature Sustainability, 2, 736–741. https://doi.org/10.1038/s4189​
Kythreotis, A. P., Fresque-Baxter, J., … Lindenschmidt, K.-E. (2017).
3-019-0324-0
Bridging science and traditional knowledge to assess cumulative im-
Cariño, J. (2005). Indigenous peoples' right to free, prior, informed
pacts of stressors on ecosystem health. Environment International,
consent: Reflections on concepts and practice. Arizona Journal of
102, 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.02.008
International & Comparative Law, 22, 19–39.
McElwee, P., Fernández-Llamazares, A., Thorpe, M., Whyte, K.,
Cornell, S., Berkhout, F., Tuinstra, W., Tàbara, J. D., Jäger, J., Chabay, I.,
Middleton, B., Reid, K., … Moldawer, A. (2018). Indigenous ecolo-
… van Kerkhoff, L. (2013). Opening up knowledge systems for better
gies. In D. Gibson (Ed.), The Oxford bibliography of ecology. New York,
responses to global environmental change. Environmental Science &
NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/OBO/97801​
Policy, 28, 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.008
99830 ​060-0199
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., …
Moller, H., Berkes, F., Lyver, P., & Kislalioglu, M. (2004). Combining
Zlatanova, D. (2015). The IPBES conceptual framework—Connecting
science and traditional ecological knowledge: Monitoring popu-
nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14,
lations for co-management. Ecology and Society, 9, 2. https://doi.
1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002
org/10.5751/ES-00675​- 090302
Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R. T.,
Molnár, Z. (2017). ‘I see the grass through the mouths of my animals’ –
Molnár, Z., … Shirayama, Y. (2018). Assessing nature's contribu-
Folk indicators of pasture plants used by traditional steppe
tions to people. Recognizing culture, and diverse sources of knowl-
herders. Journal of Ethnobiology, 37, 522–541. https://doi.org/
edge, can improve assessments. Science, 359, 270–272. https://doi.
10.2993/0278-0771-37.3.522
org/10.1126/scien​ce.aap8826
Nadasdy, P. (1999). The politics of TEK: Power and the ‘integration’ of
Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio, E., Ngo, H., Agard, J., Almuth, A., … Zayas,
knowledge. Arctic Anthropology, 36, 1–18.
C. (2019). Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to
Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., Daw, T. M., Bohensky, E. L., Butler, J.
the need for transformative change. Science, 366(6471), eaax3100.
R. A., Hill, R., … Vilardy, S. P. (2015). Participatory scenario planning
https://doi.org/10.1126/scien​ce.aax3100
in place-based social–ecological research: Insights and experiences
Ford, J. D., Cameron, L., Rubis, J., Maillet, M., Nakashima, D., Willox, A.
from 23 case studies. Ecology and Society, 20(4), art32. https://doi.
C., & Pearce, T. (2016). Including indigenous knowledge and experi-
org/10.5751/ES-07985​-200432
ence in IPCC assessment reports. Nature Climate Change, 6, 349–353.
Parsons, M., Fisher, K., & Nalau, J. (2016). Alternative approaches to
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclim​ate2954
co-design: Insights from indigenous/academic research collabora-
Garibaldi, A., & Turner, N. (2004). Cultural keystone species: Implications
tions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 20, 99–105.
for ecological conservation and restoration. Ecology and Society, 9, 1.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.07.001
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00669​- 090301
McELWEE et al. Journal of Applied Ecology | 11

Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., … IPBES: Building synergies with science. IPBES Expert Meeting Report,
Yagi, N. (2017). Valuing nature's contributions to people: The IPBES UNESCO/UNU. Paris, France: UNESCO.
approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 7– Thornton, T., & Scheer, A. (2012). Collaborative engagement of local
16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006 and traditional knowledge and science in marine environments: A
Raymond, C. M., Fazey, I., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Robinson, G. M., & review. Ecology and Society, 17, 8. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04714​
Evely, A. C. (2010). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for en- -170308
vironmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, Turner, N., & Clifton, H. (2009). ‘It's so different today’: Climate change
1766–1777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvm​an.2010.03.023 and indigenous lifeways in British Columbia, Canada. Global
Reyes-García, V., & Benyei, P. (2019). Indigenous knowledge for conser- Environmental Change, 19, 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloen​
vation. Nature Sustainability, 2, 657–658. https://doi.org/10.1038/ vcha.2009.01.005
s4189​3-019-0341-z Turnhout, E., Bloomfield, B., Hulme, M., Vogel, J., & Wynne, B. (2012).
Roué, M., & Molnár, Z. (2017). Knowing our lands and resources: Indigenous Conservation policy: Listen to the voices of experience. Nature, 488,
and local knowledge of biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe 454–455. https://doi.org/10.1038/488454a
and Central Asia. Paris, France: UNESCO. Usher, P. (2000). Traditional ecological knowledge in environmen-
Sangha, K., & Russell-Smith, J. (2017). Towards an Indigenous ecosys- tal assessment and management. Arctic, 53, 183–193. https://doi.
tem services valuation framework. A north Australian example. org/10.14430/​arcti​c849
Conservation and Society, 15, 255–269. https://doi.org/10.4103/ Zorondo-Rodríguez, F., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Demps, K., Ariza-
cs.cs_16_156 Montobbio, P., Garcia, C. A., & Reyes-García, V. (2014). What defines
Shawoo, Z., & Thornton, T. (2019). The UN local communities and quality of life? The gap between public policies and locally defined
Indigenous peoples' platform: A traditional ecological knowl- indicators among residents of Kodagu, Karnataka (India). Social
edge-based evaluation. Wires Climate Change, 10, e575. https://doi. Indicators Research, 115, 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1120​5-
org/10.1002/wcc.575 012-9993-z
Sterling, E. J., Filardi, C., Toomey, A., Sigouin, A., Betley, E., Gazit, N., … Zorondo-Rodríguez, F., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Demps, K., Ariza-
Jupiter, S. D. (2017). Biocultural approaches to well-being and sus- Montobbio, P., Garcia, C. A., & Reyes-García, V. (2014). What defines
tainability indicators across scales. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1, quality of life. In (Eds.), Social Indicators Research. Social Indicators:
1798–1806. https://doi.org/10.1038/s4155​9-017-0349-6 Cambridge, UK.
Tam, B., Gough, W., Edwards, V., & Tsuji, L. (2013). The impact of climate
change on the well-being and lifestyle of a First Nation community
in the western James Bay region. The Canadian Geographer, 57, 441–
456. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2013.12033.x S U P P O R T I N G I N FO R M AT I O N
TEBTEBBA Foundation. (2008). Indicators relevant for indigenous peoples: Additional supporting information may be found online in the
A resource book. Baguio City, Philippines: TEBTEBBA Foundation. Supporting Information section.
Tengö, M., Brondízio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., & Spierenburg, M.
(2014). Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced eco-
system governance: The multiple evidence base approach. Ambio, 43,
How to cite this article: McElwee P, Fernández-Llamazares Á,
579–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1328​0 -014-0501-3
Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C. M., Spierenburg, M., Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, et al. Working with Indigenous and
Danielsen, F., … Folke, C. (2017). Weaving knowledge systems in local knowledge (ILK) in large-scale ecological assessments:
IPBES, CBD, and beyond – Lessons learned for sustainability. Current Reviewing the experience of the IPBES Global Assessment.
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 17–25. https://doi.
J Appl Ecol. 2020;00:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-
org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005
Thaman, R., Lyver, P., Mpande, R., Perez, E., Cariño, J., & Takeuchi, K. (Eds.). 2664.13705
(2013). The Contribution of indigenous and local knowledge systems to

View publication stats