Guidance for Integrating Indigenous and Local Knowledge ...• Integrating Indigenous and Local knowledge (ILK) into species assessments for The IUCN Red List of Threatened SpeciesTM

Guidance for Integrating Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) in

IUCN Red List Assessments

FINAL DRAFT FOR COMMISSION REVIEW/SIGNOFF

NOVEMBER 2017

Rebecca Cross1,2*, Sarah Doornbos1,3, Rosie Cooney1,4, Pamela Wong5, Aroha Mead6, Ken Lindeman7,8, Arun Kanagavel1,9,

Sethu Parvathy9,10, Sabrina Tomasini11,12, Bernadette Montanari1,13, Kasia Gabrys1,14, Trisha Kehaulani Watson-Sproat6

1IUCN CEESP/SSC Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group (SULi)

2University of Sydney, Australia

3WWF Netherlands

4University of NSW, Australia

5University of Toronto, Canada

6IUCN Commission for Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP)

7IUCN SSC Snapper, Sea Bream and Grunt Specialist Group (SSG)

8Florida Institute of Technology, USA

9Conservation Research Group, St Albert’s College, India

10Women in Conservation and Climate Action Network International

11University of Copenhagen, Denmark

12University of Padova, Italy

13University of Illinois, USA

14Kakadu National Park, Australia

*Corresponding Author, Rebecca Cross, [email protected]

Acknowledgements

We are extremely grateful for detailed reviews, comments, and inputs from the following people: Dena Cator, Marina

Rosales Benites de Franco, John Cheechoo, Guy Dutson, Sutej Hugu, Danna Leaman, Milton Lewis, Helene Marsh,

Vivienne Solis Riviera, Perran Ross, Sian Waters, and Anita Varghese.

ii

SUMMARY

i. Key messages

• Integrating Indigenous and Local knowledge (ILK) into species assessments for The IUCN Red List of

Threatened SpeciesTM can improve assessments through ensuring these are informed by the best

available information, including on distribution, abundance, seasonal patterns, behavioural ecology,

drivers of change, and threats. In some cases ILK may be the only source of information available.

Integrating ILK may also increase local acceptance of and engagement with conservation measures that

may follow IUCN Red List assessments.

• Working with ILK holders and integrating ILK may pose novel challenges for IUCN Red List assessors, and

involve a wide range of considerations to ensure respectful and appropriate interactions.

• This document aims to support IUCN Red List assessors by providing both General Principles, and a

Toolbox of practical considerations and approaches, to guide engagement with ILK holders and use of

ILK.

• Feedback on the use of this guidance is welcomed to help refinement and further development in future

iterations.

ii. General Principles1

• ILK is intimately connected to specific people and places, and where possible this link should be supported.

• Respect the need for equitable benefit-sharing with ILK holders as a basic tenet of respectful relationships,

and ensure this is built into strategies for engaging communities and ILK holders.

• Be open to and respect diversity in worldviews, cultures, and knowledge tools. The approaches and

concepts used by ILK holders may contrast markedly with formal science approaches – this can be an

opportunity for mutual respect and learning.

• Bring different knowledge systems (ILK and formal science2) together through dialogue and partnership

to develop shared, holistic understanding.

• Practice reciprocity in all interactions and activities with ILK holders.

• Recognise and respect that intellectual and cultural property rights need to be acknowledged and

negotiated via co-agreements.

• Ensure culturally and institutionally appropriate storage of and access to information, ensuring that ILK

holders maintain ownership and have authority over the use of this information.

1 See Chapter 2 of this document for more detailed explanation of the general principles. 2 See Chapter 1, Section 1.1 for detailed explanation on the use of these terms in this document.

iii

iii. Toolbox: Practical Considerations and Approaches

Is this box in a form that will keep

everything in the right place in

different docs? i.e. is it stable, in a formatting sense? On this page

\

Consult the peak organisation that represents the knowledge

holders and/or community, key informants, as well as any

other researchers and projects who are working in partnership

with ILK holders

Obtain relevant permissions and free prior informed consent

Design participatory methodologies for direct engagement and

to access informal networks. A direct approach should be

prioritised with interactions taking place in situ

2.How can I access

ILK holders?

1.What preparation

can I do?

Complete cultural competence training and become familiar

with cultural protocols and customs

Engage with culturally competent researchers

Conduct indirect research to identify relevant resources and

survey documented knowledge

3.What tools can I

use to build

equitable research

partnerships with

ILK holders?

Develop an MoU or agreement with the community for clarity

of expectations and protection of IP

Spend time with the community prior to collecting data

Allow ILK holders to dictate and shape the communication and

knowledge transfer process

4.What tools can I

use to facilitate

effective

communication?

Clarify ILK roles and ownership and facilitate a two-way

knowledge sharing process

Capture and retransmit information in culturally sensitive and

accessible formats and consult with ILK holders on how

information should be disseminated

Involve ILK holders and community members in information

gathering and assessment

iv

5.How can I

integrate

information from

different

knowledge

systems?

Use a mixed methods approach to capture information,

using different mediums if appropriate

Produce co-science and verify/validate ex situ information

via mutual agreement with ILK holders

Ensure validation of ILK occurs amongst ILK holders with

discrepancies resolved dialogue

Engage with community and ILK holders for data collection

and participatory mapping

Identify ILK networks which have knowledge of certain

species across different scales

Use multiple methods to triangulate and cross-check results,

including ILK holders self-assessing their information

Use a participatory process to co-analyse and scrutinise

information in partnership with ILK holders

6.How can I ensure

I obtain quality

information and

data?

7.How can I distil

information for the

IUCN Red List?

Identify data deficiencies and develop strategies for

overcoming gaps in partnership with ILK holders

Jointly evaluate the conservation status of a species and be

transparent about the implications of the status

Determine knowledge intersections in partnership with ILK

holders and document local taboos and restrictions

Jointly acknowledge ILK holders in all outputs, honour IP

agreements, and ask for feedback from ILK holders about the

knowledge co-production process

Provide resources for community monitoring and mapping of

species and maintain relationships by revisiting and updating

information based on local observations

Ensure tangible benefits for ILK holders and/or community in

the form of, for example, tailored outputs or scientific

training

8.How can I ensure

reciprocity?

1

Contents

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................... i

SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................ ii

i. Key messages ................................................................................................................................................. ii

ii. General Principles ......................................................................................................................................... ii

iii. Toolbox: Practical Considerations and Approaches .................................................................................. iii

THE GUIDANCE .................................................................................................................................................... 2

1. Introduction and background ...................................................................................................................... 2

1.1 What is Indigenous and Local Knowledge? ............................................................................................... 2

1.2 Why use ILK in IUCN Red List assessments? .............................................................................................. 3

2. General Principles ........................................................................................................................................ 9

2.1 Access ILK in a way that respects and strengthens in situ traditional knowledge systems ...................... 9

2.2 Respect the need for equitable benefit-sharing with ILK holders ............................................................. 9

2.3 Be open to and respect diversity in worldviews, working cultures, and knowledge tools ....................... 9

2.4 Bring different knowledge systems (ILK and formal science) together through dialogue ...................... 10

2.5 Practice reciprocity .................................................................................................................................. 10

2.6 Recognise and respect intellectual and cultural property rights ............................................................ 10

2.7 Ensure culturally and institutionally appropriate storage of and access to information ........................ 11

3. Tool Box of Practical Considerations and Approaches .............................................................................. 12

3.1 Developing cultural competency for cross-cultural communication ...................................................... 12

3.2 Sourcing and obtaining permission to use ILK ......................................................................................... 13

3.3 Building relationships and trust with ILK holders .................................................................................... 17

3.4 Facilitating constructive communication ................................................................................................ 18

3.5 Integrating different knowledge systems ................................................................................................ 20

3.6 Validating ILK ........................................................................................................................................... 21

3.7 Distilling ILK relevant to IUCN Red List assessments ............................................................................... 23

3.8 Maintaining relationships and reciprocity ............................................................................................... 24

4. Closing comments ..................................................................................................................................... 26

References ..................................................................................................................................................... 27

2

THE GUIDANCE

Introduction and background

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is widely recognized as the authoritative global approach for

evaluating the conservation status (extinction threat) of plant, fungi and animal species. Addition of species

to the IUCN Red List and any changes in listings are underpinned by IUCN Red List assessments. The assessment

process guidance stipulates that “all assessments must be based on data currently available for the taxon

across its entire global range; and assessors must take full account of past and present literature (published

and grey) and other reliable sources of information relating to the taxon” (IUCN Red List, 2017).

Although classifications are based on quantitative analysis, data for all criteria and subpopulations are not

always available and assessments often involve a measure of scientific expert judgment. However, all aspects

of IUCN Red List assessments are expected to follow the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (IUCN, 2001)

and the IUCN Red List Guidelines (IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee, 2017). There is nothing in

these documents that categorically precludes the use of Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) or any other

type of knowledge (some of which can be quite uncertain) as long as the same standards of data quality are

applied (see IUCN, 2001: 24-25; IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee, 2017: 18-22).

Recognition of ILK as a valid and important form of knowledge to be taken into account in environmental

decision-making and policy has grown in recent years. For example, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy

Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2015) has recognised and promoted the inclusion of

ILK in its assessments. This document introduces the “what”, “why” and “how” of integrating ILK into IUCN

Red List assessments, based on extensive consultation with members of the SSC and drawing on ILK expertise

from both the Species Survival Commission and the Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social

Policy. It then sets out both general principles for those seeking to draw on ILK in assessments, as well as

elaborating a “Toolbox” of approaches and considerations on which assessors can draw for practical guidance.

1.1 What is Indigenous and Local Knowledge?

There are many (overlapping) terms used to describe knowledge held by Indigenous peoples and local

communities: Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge (ATK), Traditional Knowledge (TK), Traditional Ecological

Knowledge (TEK), Indigenous Knowledge (IK), Indigenous Ecological Knowledge (IEK), Local Ecological

Knowledge (LEK), Tradition-Based Knowledge, Aboriginal or Indigenous Science, Community Knowledge and

Local Knowledge. Here we follow the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES,

2015) practice and use the term Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK).

A number of definitions of ILK and its analogues exist (for example, see NAFA, 2006). For the purpose of this

document, we use the IPBES (2015, 103) definition of ILK:

“A cumulative body of knowledge, practice and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed

down through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of living beings (including

humans) with one another and with their environment…[G]rounded in territory, ILK is a dynamic body

of integrated, holistic, social-ecological knowledge, practices and beliefs… ILK is often an assemblage

of different types of knowledge (written, oral, tacit, practical, and scientific) that is empirically tested,

applied and validated by local communities.”

3

We include here both knowledge held by Indigenous peoples3, as well as the knowledge held by local

communities with long-established, multi-generational traditions of managing and interacting with their

environment. Our definition would include, for instance, the knowledge held by traditional fishermen, but not

knowledge gathered from the interested public via “citizen science”. While the IPBES (2015) definition is the

most relevant for the purpose of this guidance document, we recognise that narrower definitions that

distinguish Indigenous knowledge from other forms of knowledge may be more appropriate in other contexts

(Rÿser, 2012).

ILK is based on long-term, place-based relationships with species and ecological systems. It comes in many

forms, including e.g. oral, written, song, dance, art, ritual and ceremony. One Taiwanese Indigenous

community, for example, carries out long-term ecological monitoring through regular observation and

community discussions, but does not record data in written form (S. Hugu, Pers. Comm. 2017). ILK is not a

static body of knowledge, but grows and adapts in response to changes in the natural environment (Gomez-

Baggethun & Reyes-Garcia, 2013; Reyes-Garcia et al., 2014). It is diverse and local in its nature and essence,

and can incorporate other contemporary knowledge types from e.g. formal science, media and literature

(Frazão-Moreira et al., 2009).

In this document we differentiate between ILK and “formal science”. ILK and formal science can be understood

as different ways of understanding and interpreting the world (Iaccarino, 2003): “in all cultures, humans have

gained knowledge by conceptualizing empirical observations to better understand nature, and thus interpret

and predict it” (Mazzacchi, 2006: 463). While ILK is understood by some as a form of science (Alessa et al.,

2016; Snively & Williams, 2016; Whyte et al., 2016), here we use the term formal science (or just “science”),

to refer to knowledge underpinned by a focus on analytical and reductionist methods, resulting in positivist

and materialistic understandings (Nakashima & Roué, 2002; Mazzocchi, 2006). ILK may also be underpinned

by analytical methods and positivist understandings, but may also include holistic, intuitive and spiritual

knowledge and does not differentiate between secular and sacred (Nakashima & Roué, 2002; Mazzacchi,

2006).

1.2 Why use ILK in IUCN Red List assessments?

Including ILK in IUCN Red List assessments can be important for a number of reasons:

1. It can improve the quality of assessments by enabling a greater breadth and depth of information

to be included. ILK holders often have intimate, local and temporally specific knowledge of species

and environments. This knowledge is typically obtained through long-term, repeated observations of

the natural world over multiple generations. ILK holders are frequently highly attentive and reliable

observers, particularly where life and livelihoods are often critically dependent on such knowledge. In

many contexts, ILK is what enables communities to manage resources to survive when there are no

other alternatives (Montanari, 2014).

Integrating ILK into IUCN Red List assessments can increase information relevant to species status,

including distribution, population size, habitat requirements, population dynamics, behavioural

ecology, and drivers of change (Gilchrist et al., 2005; Meijaard et al., 2011; Pillay et al., 2011; Kanagavel

& Raghavan 2012; Turvey et al., 2015; Pan et al., 2016). ILK has already contributed qualitative and

3 Indigenous peoples are defined by the United Nations as “inheritors and practitioners of unique cultures and ways of relating to people and the environment. They have retained social, cultural, economic and political characteristics that are distinct from those of the dominant societies in which they live.” (UN DSPD, 2017).

4

quantitative information to a number of IUCN Red List assessments (Varghese et al., 2012; Burgess et

al., 2015; Tomasini, forthcoming). ILK can augment and complement other knowledge, particularly

where information is sparse or lacking (e.g. Berkes 1998; 1999; Ferguson and Messier 1997; Wong,

2016) and/or enable ground-truthing of data (e.g. Ziembicki et al., 2013). In some cases, ILK may be

the only source of information available to assessors about some parameters for certain taxa

(Danielsen et al., 2014a; Wong, 2016). ILK can also contribute temporal perspectives to assessments,

with comparisons of past and present species dynamics enriching formal scientific estimates and

surveys.

A number of examples illustrate the benefits of incorporating ILK. Gilchrist et al. (2005) found that

gathering ILK on migratory bird species in the Canadian and Greenland Arctic elicited information on

dramatic population declines that had previously been undetected science. Pan et al. (2016) surveyed

ILK holders in three villages located near three natural reserves in Guizhou province, China, to collect

knowledge on the Critically Endangered Chinese giant salamander, Andrias davidianus. These surveys

revealed that while this salamander was predicted by formal science to survive in two of the natural

reserves, it was rarely sighted by villagers and was being inadequately protected due to reported local

harvesting pressure. In another case, IUCN Red List assessments carried out by the IUCN Medicinal

Plants Specialist Group have drawn on information from Indigenous and local collectors about travel

time and collection effort to help assess trends in plant population sizes and distribution. ILK holders

were also consulted for plant identification and to document local taxonomy and it was found this

information was more detailed in comparison to scientific studies based on herbarium collections and

larger scale surveys.

ILK can help pinpoint particular species in need of attention and can help link environmental change

to management action(s) (Danielsen et al., 2014a). In Canada, within national wildlife species

assessment processes, documentation of ILK has enhanced knowledge of polar bear habitat, diet,

body condition, behaviour, distribution, population size, movement patterns, denning behaviour,

interactions with other animals and humans, responses to environmental change such as loss of sea

ice, and delineations of subpopulations (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami 2012; Joint Secretariat, 2015). ILK of

polar bear management and local perspectives on the effectiveness of government conservation

efforts have also been documented (Dowsley 2009; Kotierk 2009, 2010; Joint Secretariat, 2015).

Local users who harvest a particular resource or frequently visit a certain habitat have a higher degree

of familiarity with certain species (Gilchrist et al., 2005). For example, The Snapper, Sea Bream and

Grunt Specialist Group have sought out local fishers with extensive knowledge derived through long

family traditions of fishing and invited them to become members to share knowledge and complement

the formal scientific knowledge of other members (see Box 1 below). Conversely, when species are

not used by local people, they can sometimes be lumped into a single group (i.e. not be allocated

separate names) and ILK holders and communities may have limited knowledge about them.

ILK is often location specific and bound by the geographical range which ILK holders and associated

communities consider their territory. In this way, ILK offers a rich perspective of the local context,

often more detailed at small scales than scientific investigations. In some cases, a species’ range may

fall wholly or mostly within the territory of a local community and their knowledge can be vital. For

example, it was due to the resolution of ILK that Barbary macaques in the Rif Mountains, north

Morocco, were found in canyons that connect two populations previously thought to be separated.

5

As S. Waters (pers. comm. 2016) explained, “We would not have looked in these canyons without the

information from local people.” In another case, researchers found that local Kadar communities from

the Western Ghats of India reported that the abundance of the Travancore Tortoise, Indotestudo

travancorica, was greater than the Cochin Forest Cane Turtle, Vijayachelys sylvatica. This contradicted

the most recent scientific surveys at the time, but subsequent surveys correlated and confirmed local

knowledge (see Box 2).

ILK can also contribute information on local use (e.g. Gagnon & Berteaux, 2009) by not only

documenting how livelihoods rely on certain species, but also identifying locally-acting potential

threats to species’ survival, such as unsustainable or illegal exploitation, taboos, land-clearing/habitat

destruction, deforestation, water pollution, diseases and environmental stress factors. This

information can inform IUCN Red List assessments as well as conservation action. For example,

Danielsen et al. (2014a) reported that in the case of Artic fishers and hunters, formal monitoring

programs allowed local users to not only generate data, but develop recommendations for managing

species. However, both Danielsen et al. (2014a) and Pan et al. (2016) raise the potential for conflicts

of interest in reporting where local use may be unsustainable or illegal.

6

Box 1: Why work with ILK? Some experiences in IUCN Specialist Groups working with marine

fishes.

Since the 1970s and 1980s, the literature on marine fishery research has increasingly recognized the

value of ILK (e.g., Johannes, 1981; Johannes et al., 2000), often termed traditional knowledge. By the

1990s, examples of scientists actually going to the docks, de-constructing the common fisher distrust

of scientists/managers, and productively using fisher information were occurring in several regions.

Bringing unique ILK knowledge into fishery management has been highly fruitful, for example, in the

critical realm of protecting spawning aggregations of socio-economically important species of snappers

and groupers (Sadovy & Eklund, 1998; Lindeman et al., 2000; Colin et al., 2003; Saenz Arroyo et al.,

2005; Sadovy et al., 2008; Heyman, 2011). The IUCN Snapper, Seabream and Grunt Specialist Group

(SSG SG) works on >500 species globally, almost all captured in local fisheries, and has seven regional

workgroups. The group currently includes two non-scientist professional fishermen to provide ILK

perspectives. They are both knowledgeable about the in-situ biology of key SSG SG species in ways that

complement the perspectives of scientists. Both individuals represent intergenerational coastal family

lineages (though not formally of indigenous heritage), and have considerable experience in fisheries

management.

These fishers are members of the Northwest Atlantic regional workgroup of the SSG SG, and reviewed

some of its West Atlantic snapper and grunt IUCN Red List species accounts. Both fishers made valuable

comments that differed from reviews by professional scientists. One fisher noted that some statements

in the accounts were based on too few data-sets across multiple regions, a point that was valid and not

often made by scientists. The other fisher focused on the role of the species under review as forage

and bait species, a different perspective than comments we received from scientists. The IUCN Grouper

and Wrasse SG and other marine fish SGs have scientist members who have long utilized ILK in their

research and management activities and the SSG SG is not alone in using ILK to gain information for

IUCN Red List assessments and associated work.

Source: IUCN Snapper, Seabream and Grunt Specialist Group

7

Box 2: The Tortoise and the Turtle: how ILK informed understanding of chelonians in the

Western Ghats, India

ILK has informed scientific understanding of the habitat, distribution and biology of chelonians in

present-day Kerala state, India. The Cochin Forest Cane Turtle, Vijayachelys sylvatica, was originally

described by J.R. Henderson in 1912 from museum specimens obtained from the Kadar indigenous

community in the then State of Cochin (Groombridge et al., 1984). This rainforest-dwelling turtle is

endemic to the southern Western Ghats mountains in the Western Ghats-Sri Lanka biodiversity hotspot,

and was well known to indigenous Kadar communities long before its scientific description

(Groombridge et al., 1984). Together with the Travancore tortoise, Indotestudo travancorica, which is

also locally endemic, forest-dwelling chelonians have long been utilised as food, in traditional medicine

and as pets (Bhupathy & Choudhury, 1995; Kanagavel & Raghavan, 2013). These chelonians are

embedded in the cultural beliefs and folk stories of the Kadars (Kanagavel & Raghavan, 2013), while

their shells are used as household decorative objects (Kanagavel et al., 2013).

For several decades, indigenous communities have been informally contributing to scientific research

on these two species. In 1982, J. Vijaya ‘rediscovered’ V. sylvatica after consulting with Kadar

communities (Vijaya, 1982a; Praschag et al., 2006). In pioneering studies, Vijaya recognised the

association between the indigenous communities and the chelonians and partnered with the

community to document the species in terms of abundance, distribution, habitat and feeding habits

(Vijaya, 1982b, 1984, 1989). Since then, ILK has continued to help identify locations where these species

occur (Appukuttan, 1991; Bhupathy & Choudhury, 1995; Ramesh, 2008a). For example, Appukuttan

(1991) recorded that the communities perceived V. silvatica to occur in ‘undisturbed evergreen forests

and reed thickets with sufficient humidity’; Ramesh (2008b) documented the Kadar community’s belief

that the summer showers signalled the start of the breeding season for I. travancorica; and Bhupathy

and Choudhury (1995) documented in detail the utilization of these species by numerous indigenous

communities based on ILK.

ILK has proven to be reliable in some cases when it conflicted with formal scientific understandings.

Intensive field surveys conducted by Vasudevan et al. (2010) indicated that V. silvatica was as common

as I. travancorica. However, a systematic social survey documenting local knowledge of the Kadar

communities revealed that not only did they have extensive knowledge of the two chelonians, but I.

travancorica was reported by them to be more abundant in the rainforests (Kanagavel & Raghavan,

2012). Later triangulation through additional field surveys supported this assertion (Kanagavel et al.,

2013). Social surveys gathering ILK revealed the preference of Indigenous communities for utilising I.

travancorica over V. sylvatica, possibly a result of the lower abundance of V. silvatica and social taboos

and highlighted that Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) posed an additional threat to the species due

to trampling (Kanagavel & Raghavan, 2013).

Existing research and literature on the forest-dwelling chelonians strongly suggests that where species

are utilized by indigenous communities and are a part of their traditional culture, this leads to the

formation of an extensive ecological knowledge base.

Source: Arun Kanagavel, Sethu Parvathy & Rajeev Raghavan

8

2. It can be a more cost-effective way to gain reliable species information. Accessing and integrating

ILK can lead to gaining credible species information with considerably less time and expense than

carrying out formal scientific field surveys across large landscapes, including for species that occur in

low frequencies (Anadón et al., 2009; Meijaard et al., 2011). Meijaard et al. (2011) conducted a study

to compare the cost of different survey methods of the orangutan (Pongo spp.) in Indonesia. They

found that ILK interviews were less expensive and cost US$2/km2 in comparison to helicopter surveys

(US$6-15/km2) and line transect surveys (US$10-17/km2). However, Meijaard et al. (2011) cautioned

that different survey techniques have different purposes: interviews should be complementary to

other techniques and are most cost effective when gathering information from large areas about the

abundance of easily recognisable species and threats to their survival.

3. It formally recognises ILK as part of the global knowledge base. Integrating ILK into formal scientific

assessments may further empower ILK holders by increasing their capacity to inform and participate

in national and international biodiversity-related deliberations and governance processes (Gratani et

al., 2011; Danielsen et al., 2014a; Wong, 2016). It may also help support the survival of ILK, which risks

rapidly being lost if it is not practiced, documented, or otherwise invigorated (Mistry et al., 2016).

However, it is important to note that Indigenous knowledge may be safeguarded by customary law,

and even if knowledge is shared it does not necessarily mean it can then be documented or form part

of a global knowledge base. Valuing ILK in the IUCN Red List assessment process values the knowledges

of minority groups, and can dispel myths about ILK being backwards and superstitious by showcasing

its scientific significance.

4. It can promote important community "buy-in" for conservation. Red List assessments are

independent evaluations, and should be conducted without reference to their impact on subsequent

conservation measures. However, they can and often do have an indirect impact on these measures,

and how they are conducted can affect the success of conservation efforts. Parry and Peres (2015)

and A. Varghese (pers. comm. 2016) found that using ILK in species assessments enhanced subsequent

efforts to engage the community in species monitoring, especially of highly endangered, illegally

harvested rare species requiring a high level of vigilance. The IUCN Cycad Specialist Group has

conducted monitoring to inform the assessment of Cycas circinalis in partnership with local

communities in Nilgiris, India. This involved a process whereby local community members began

informing assessors about illegal harvests, enabling them to pass this information to the local

authorities who took necessary action. A. Varghese (pers. comm. 2016) reports: “It’s been more than

5 years since and we have not seen any incidences of illegal removal of the plant”. In another case,

the community participated in order to protect their resource. The IUCN Indian Sub-Continent Plants

Specialist Group works with local communities in southern peninsular India and Sri Lanka who use

Trichopus zeylanicus, an endemic species used in herbal health tonics, to assess the local impacts of

extraction by pharmaceutical companies.

Involving ILK holders in data gathering and analysis can spur community-driven recommendations for

conserving species, community advocacy for conservation measures (Aswani & Lauer, 2006), and can

also mitigate threats and potentially improve the status of species on the IUCN Red List. One scientist

reported that when suggesting new conservation approaches "few things are better than having

respected resource-users in the village say that they were involved in and support the new

management ideas" (K. Lindeman, pers. comm. 2015).

9

General Principles

These principles provide guidance for working with ILK holders and integrating ILK into IUCN Red List species

assessments. These draw heavily on Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem

Services (IPBES) guidance for integrating ILK into biodiversity and ecosystem service assessments (2016), but

are tailored specifically for IUCN Red List assessments.

2.1 Access ILK in a way that respects and strengthens in situ traditional knowledge systems

ILK is governed, gathered, applied, tested, and renewed within specific communities and social-ecological

systems. ILK is embedded in local ecosystems and people – in ILK systems, no one person is an expert; instead

everyone has experience and knowledge is held collectively (S. Hugu, pers. comm. 2017). In general, it is

preferable, where possible, to engage in direct dialogue with in situ ILK holders to gather and validate ILK,

rather than relying on ex situ sources. Some ILK communities (in particular from New Zealand, Australia,

Canada and the USA) are now publishing their own knowledge, validated through their own processes using

diverse media including books, films, and web sites; this ex situ knowledge can make valuable contributions

to assessments. For example, Warlpiri ecological ILK in Australia has been documented using multi-media and

published online by their representative organization. In this case, Warlpiri people were heavily involved in

filming, directing, editing, translating, designing and scripting the documentation, resulting in a sense of

ownership and control over the ILK (SBS, 2016). However, other ILK existing as ex situ knowledge away from

where it originated may have been collected without the consent or validation of the ILK holders.

Understanding of ex situ knowledge is best realized through repatriation and checking information with

indigenous peoples and local communities so it can be reinterpreted, re-applied and validated (Legrady et al.,

2013).

2.2 Respect the need for equitable benefit-sharing with ILK holders

ILK holders need to be approached as equal partners in the process of generating understanding, based on

respectful dialogue and discussion to achieve the goals of the exercise and how ILK holders and their

communities can equitably benefit from sharing their knowledge. For instance, gaining access to scientific

information can be valuable to ILK holders as it can facilitate “buy-in” to local conservation, increasing

participation in decision-making and managing their resource base. Often, however, ILK holders are rarely

informed about the outcomes of assessments, or are presented the results in inaccessible formats and gain

no benefit from the exercise. Working with ILK communities requires building two-way trust and confidence

among ILK-holders and scientists. Mutual respect and trust need to be established, nurtured, and maintained;

ILK should be of equal recognition and value to science within the assessment process4 (COSEWIC, 2010).

2.3 Be open to and respect diversity in worldviews, working cultures, and knowledge tools

Recognition and respect is required for the diverse ILK socio-cultural contexts, priorities, world views and

working cultures, which may contrast markedly with many scientific approaches. Investing time is necessary

to build mutual understanding with ILK holders; this might require spending considerable time with

communities before any research is conducted. Differences may be underpinned by different ideas about what

kinds of things exist in the world: ILK holders may view all living beings and phenomena (e.g. fire, wind) as

sharing common ancestry and spirituality; while dualistic ontologies in science typically posit nature as a

passive responder to human drivers and impacts (Descola, 2014). ILK holders and communities have their own

4 See Section 3.7 for more detailed explanation on appropriate inclusion of ILK in the IUCN Red List.

10

ways of expressing and protecting ILK in order to fulfill responsibilities to family, community, and environment

(CTKW, 2014). ILK holders of different ethnicities and gender may require very different working cultures and

knowledge tools, such as observing specific cultural protocols to approach or talk to certain groups. For

instance, an approach from a woman may be more suitable when working with women in Muslim indigenous

communities; the socio-cultural norms mean it may be inappropriate for a male researcher to approach

women. Respecting and being sensitive to these differences helps provide an equitable space for constructive

dialogue and negotiation.

2.4 Bring different knowledge systems (ILK and formal science) together through dialogue

A more integrated understanding can be reached by bringing both ILK and formal science into dialogue to

catalyse synergies and address gaps. Integrating ILK and formal science via dialogue, discussion and

negotiation can result in convergence with mutual reinforcement; in gaps that raise uncertainty; and in

synergies that deliver more than the sum of parts. Sharing knowledge and bringing different knowledges

together is critical for comprehensive understanding of issues and generation of solutions, especially for

common good activities such as conservation and development. Building dialogue between ILK holders and

their communities and scientific communities should be pursued through processes that foster culturally

acceptable engagement, using effective tools and strategies to bridge knowledge systems. Bringing multiple

knowledge systems together can result in diverse outcomes for levels of confidence such as: (i) being neutral

in terms of providing a richer picture without affecting levels of confidence; (ii) raising confidence levels when

the bodies of evidence converge and support each other; or (iii) lowering confidence levels when the bodies

of knowledge do not support each other.

2.5 Practice reciprocity

Reciprocity requires that knowledge sharing is two-way, resulting in ILK contributions to IUCN Red List

assessments being developed in partnership with scientists, correctly attributed, and communicated to the

ILK community in understandable and useful forms. ILK holders and community members are only likely to

value IUCN Red List results if they are developed and presented in a way that corresponds to their

priorities/interests, and explain how the results will affect them. To illustrate, S. Hugu (an ILK holder) explained

his frustration over a lack of reciprocity in some assessments:

“A bird expert came in to our community, we didn’t know what he was talking about and were asked

to assist the research…we are meant to be informants but often we just become guides. These experts

never send the papers they generate, and if they do, we cannot understand them and what they are

talking about. Many come with questionnaires, which they pay us to answer and all of a sudden, they

have collected ‘Indigenous knowledge’. They don’t do anything with their studies for the ecosystem

and there are many problems with the questionnaires.”

2.6 Recognise and respect intellectual and cultural property rights

Intellectual and cultural rights exist in relation to tangible heritage (human and genetic resources, seeds, and

medicines), traditional and cultural expressions and practices (oral traditions, writings, dance, language,

music, and art), innovations (techniques, narratives) and individual, collective, gendered and other ownership

systems. These need to be recognised and respected in appropriate ways, including through specific provisions

within all research protocols or agreements including copyright arrangements.

11

Article 31 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples makes specific reference to the nature of

these rights:

Article 31: Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural

heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of

their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines,

knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and

traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect

and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and

traditional cultural expressions. Article 31 UN Declaration on The Rights of Indigenous Peoples5

Some countries have relevant national legislation and the World Intellectual Property Organisation is currently

drafting a legal instrument on Traditional Knowledge and associated genetic resources (A. Mead, pers. comm.

2017). In other countries, ILK and associated ILK holders and community members may lack local and/ or

national recognition and respect – ensuring intellectual property rights in these cases is equally as important,

arguably moreso when no official engagement policies or ethical frameworks exist.

2.7 Ensure culturally and institutionally appropriate storage of and access to information

Access to ILK needs to respect confidentiality, and ideally should include the development of an agreement

for knowledge transmission in accordance with culturally appropriate protocols. ILK holders and their

communities need to approve (and potentially play an active role in) whether the information can be accessed,

how it is documented, where the shared knowledge is stored, under whose custodianship it is, and how and

by whom it can be accessed. In some cases, peak bodies representing traditional communities will have

guidelines on how to do this.

5 Available at http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf

12

Tool Box of Practical Considerations and Approaches

This section provides a set of practical approaches and considerations for assessors seeking to integrate ILK in

IUCN Red List assessments. A best practice scenario, without major resource or time constraints, would likely

involve applying all the below. However, assessors need to tailor and adapt appropriate tools to fit their

approach, situation and availability of resources (while seeking to apply the general principles outlined above).

3.1 Developing cultural competency for cross-cultural communication

Considerations

Cultural competency is an important skill for cross-cultural communication, defined by the Australian National

Centre for Cultural Competence as:

‘the ability to participate ethically and effectively in personal and professional intercultural settings. It

requires being aware of one’s own cultural values and world view and their implications for making

respectful, reflective and reasoned choices, including the capacity to imagine and collaborate across

cultural boundaries. Cultural competence is, ultimately, about valuing diversity for the richness and

creativity it brings to society6.’

Culturally competent individuals have an increased awareness of and capacity to understand different world-

views, beliefs, customs and practices and have moved away from an ethnocentric lens and reduced

unconscious bias via a process of critical reflection and cultural self-assessment (Fitzgerald, 2000).

Understanding power imbalances, equity issues and social justice issues ingrained in certain cultures, peoples

and communities enhances cultural competency. Cultural competence is achieved by developing a set of

protocols in an organisation to enable professionals to work effectively and sensitively in cross-cultural

contexts (Cross et al., 1989).

Cultural competency training could be beneficial for assessors who actively engage with indigenous people

and local communities. Provision of cultural competency training differs between countries and may not be

available everywhere. In Australia, national level training can be achieved through an accredited course

offered by the Centre for Cultural Competence Australia7, while education on local protocols, customs and

taboos can be accessed via peak bodies, for example Local Aboriginal Land Councils and cultural and language

centers. Cultural competency for communicating with different cultures amongst trained scientists who do

research with indigenous communities/peoples and ILK holders is often severely lacking, but is needed to

foster constructive interactions between members of different cultures. Achieving cultural competency at

multiple scales (individually, organizationally) reinforces a commitment to respect ILK holders and ILK that is

shared and made public. However, cultural competency is an ongoing pursuit - understanding cultural

complexities and intricacies, and learning how to deal with these, directly correlates to the amount of time

assessors can spend with a community.

Practical Approaches

• Those seeking to work with ILK holders and to integrate ILK in IUCN Red List assessments could undertake

training in general cultural competence prior to engaging with ILK holders. Further, IUCN Red List assessors

could undertake specific training and education to become familiar with local protocols, customs and

taboos and understand histories and world-views of targeted ILK holders, especially Indigenous Peoples

6 For more see http://sydney.edu.au/nccc/ 7 For more see https://ccca.com.au/

13

and communities. Understanding the local political context is also recommended for adherence to

national policies on ILK. Funding ILK holders to train and advise assessors on how to approach and work

with ILK holders and communities is also an option (CTKW, 2014).

• IUCN Red List assessors can seek to identify and address ingrained assumptions and unconscious bias via

a process of critical self-reflection or self-evaluation throughout the process of gathering ILK and

integrating it into IUCN Red List assessments.

• Where possible, Indigenous or local researchers who have formal scientific training could be closely

engaged with by assessors, to help source and obtain permissions for using ILK and collaborate or lead on

assessment.

3.2 Sourcing and obtaining permission to use ILK

Considerations

ILK is often not physically documented, but rather orally transmitted or embedded in practice. Direct access

to ILK therefore often requires oral communication, and is hampered by language barriers and pervasive

electronic communications. In addition, the dialogue between scientists and ILK holders suffers from

fundamental differences in concept and language, making effective communication difficult (Goulet, 1998).

For instance, scientific taxonomy may be different from indigenous classification systems (e.g. Waddy, 1988).

Certain (sacred, protected, privileged or otherwise restricted) knowledge will be divulged if the community

chooses to share this information. Outsiders cannot demand, force nor expect ILK holders to share any

knowledge – what is shared and how is decided on by ILK holders and their communities. To access this ILK

appropriately, a trusted person may be required to act as a moderator so that cultural, language and

knowledge paradigm can be overcome.

Different or more specific knowledge may be held by different tribes, groups of people, specific families or

family members; ILK is not evenly distributed among people within a group. ILK may be scattered over many

individuals, and several studies attempting to compile ILK have noted that the breadth of knowledge from

individuals may vary (Huntington, 1998; Neis et al., 1999; Fraser et al., 2006). For example, knowledge may

vary according to age, gender and/or socioeconomic status. Understanding local social structures—which vary

across communities and cultures - will help develop social relationships and knowledge contexts to engage

appropriate and relevant individuals (IPBES, 2015; Wong, 2016). For example, in Australian Aboriginal

communities, all people hold intimate knowledge of the species/ ancestors of their totems (Laudine, 2009).

An individual can have as many as four totems, associated with nation, clan and family as well as a personal

totem. Totems are natural objects, plants and animals that are inherited through clans and family groups and

delineate a person’s roles and responsibilities to their ancestors, other people and creation. Therefore,

sourcing the right knowledge holders for a particular species can be a matter of discerning tribal networks and

family relations to find the community or individual who has the right to speak on behalf of a species/ancestor.

Other studies have found that women hold certain knowledge, for example in Niger, women were found by

Ayantunde et al. (2008) to have better knowledge of herbaceous species, while in Brazil, Voeks (2007) found

that women held the most medicinal plant wisdom.

ILK erosion or loss due to displacement or genocide of colonised peoples has resulted in loss of language,

practice and custom, fragmented social structures and the general health and wellbeing of communities

experiencing long-term societal inequity. In other cases, ILK erosion has been caused by popular ideas of

modernity and increasing participation and education in economic and social systems (Voeks, 2007). ILK is also

14

lost through out-migration of youth who leave villages to work in cities, often for economic stability. Power

imbalances and social justice issues may interfere with access to IKL holders, especially if those are controlled

by local authorities. It might even be difficult to access the communities altogether in some places. Therefore,

accessing and gathering ILK, if conducted in an appropriate way, may strengthen/ rebuild social connections

and knowledge bases rather than further exploiting them. In some cases, local people and Indigenous

communities are stigmatised due to over-exploitation of resources and local knowledge is completely

dismissed (B. Montanari, pers. comm. 2017). The IUCN Red List can play a vital role in recording and valuing

knowledges which are being lost, eroded or undervalued in a local context.

Practical Approaches

• Depending on where one works, those who undertake cultural training must also gain some knowledge of

the in-country political context; this may determine how ILK informants can be accessed and whether they

will be comfortable or not to participate and share knowledge. Many countries may have policies on ILK

meaning the IUCN Red Listing authority may have to attain formal permissions for the use of ILK.

Researchers should investigate national policies as a first priority. These exist in India, for example, where

extensive efforts have been made to develop People's Biodiversity Registers which are held and protected

by local governments and communities; any use of this knowledge has to be in consultation with the

community (Gadgil, 2004). “Access to this information has to be negotiated especially when medicinal

preparations are part of the ILK and locations of endangered and rare species are being accessed. Making

this knowledge public then requires strict adherence to national protocols as per the Biological Diversity

Act 2002" (A. Varghese, pers. comm. 2017)

• Contact the peak body representing the community and then the community administration to secure

support for the research. In some cases, this will mean going through government channels, where no

such bodies exist for Indigenous or local peoples. If the community does not understand the purpose of

the research or agree with how it is framed or being conducted, participation rates will be low (Tobias,

2009). ILK holders have the right to decline participation – not all local people have the time and capacity

to be involved in research, especially if they perceive it to be irrelevant to their situation. If the ILK holders

and associated communities do not have a representative body, consult with key informants (those whose

are associated with the ILK or ILK holders an assessor wishes to access, this could also include

anthropologists, linguists or local cross-cultural advisors) and conduct desktop/ indirect research to

identify networks/ channels to access. Accessing ILK holders and communities via appropriate channels is

important and can safeguard against the risks of partnering the wrong way with the wrong people. Using

unapproved channels to source knowledge holders could do more damage than good and lead to serious

consequences e.g. local infighting, researchers not being allowed to access areas of land or to talk to

certain key individuals or organisations. Therefore, it is more appropriate to go through existing peak

bodies or community representative organisations and programs.

• Obtaining free prior informed consent is a pre-requisite of ethical research practice with ILK holders/

communities. The IUCN Red List authority should develop an industry best practice, standardized set of

principles that each free, prior and informed consent negotiation adheres to. This ensures that ILK holders/

communities have been fully informed, have full disclosure and understand potential risks and benefits of

involvement, make a decision to participate without coercion, and recognize that consent means ongoing

engagement (Holcombe, 2009). In undermined communities, people can be cautious as they may think

that the experts/assessors are sent by the local authorities, hence not participating in or releasing

information. It is worth checking prior to engagement whether there is animosity between local

15

communities and local authorities as this could jeopardise the out sourcing of information (Setchell et al.,

2017). Providing clear information to communities on how the knowledge they share will be used, and

guaranteeing that information provided will not make them vulnerable in any way, is thus an imperative.

Determine if there are existing community protocols that document and outline procedures for obtaining

free prior informed consent or engaging with community members and outline customary obligations

associated with ‘outsiders’ sourcing and using ILK (Jukic & Collings, 2013). For example, in Peru it is a legal

requirement to obtain prior and informed consent from organisations representing Indigenous peoples

prior to engagement (M. Benites de France, pers. comm. 2016).

• Become aware of any previous attempts to document knowledge from the target ILK holders/ community.

• Attempt to access ILK using a mix of indirect and direct approaches (see below), however a direct approach

to engaging the community is strongly recommended (via recommended channels as outlined),

particularly if it can be linked with other local land management project based activities. People are likely

to be more willing to talk about plants and animals when they are actively out in nature and potentially

doing something that helps to look after the species and habitats in question.

Direct approaches:

• A direct approach (via appropriate channels) should always be aspired to if achievable, as this

acknowledges the inseparable link between ILK and ILK holders and adds confidence to the information

being collected. A direct approach involves contacting, visiting, interviewing or surveying ILK holders.

• By contacting peak bodies that represent ILK holders and scientifically trained members of indigenous or

traditional groups, these may act as ambassadors for the IUCN Red List assessment, facilitating contact

and development of communication and partnership with the ILK holders/communities. Utilising formal

networks should help assessors access the most authoritative ILK from leaders or elders who are

recognised knowledge holders for a people or community. ILK leaders and elders should be targeted as

they speak the local language/ dialect, understand the internal dynamics of a community or people and

can facilitate contact with other ILK holders. Resource users who rely on certain species for economic

subsistence should also be targeted for their intimate working knowledge. ILK holders may already have

some involvement in the co-production of science, or be scientifically trained, and possess a range of

knowledges that can contribute to assessments (for example, a suite of Indigenous knowledge, Local

knowledge and Scientific knowledge). These types of key informants are vital links for accessing ILK in

culturally appropriate and socially just ways.

• Assessors can also network with existing projects in their target location to see if they can access ILK as an

integrated part of other community-based work; snow-balling contacts this way may prove fruitful. Using

pre-existing networks which have already developed relationships with ILK holders and their communities

may be a time-saving avenue for those assessors who are limited by resources.

• Direct interactions should aim to take place in-situ, where the knowledge is held, used, reproduced and

validated (IPBES, 2016). Assessors need to ensure relevant policies are adhered to and permissions and

permits are obtained, especially if they are required to enter communities or Indigenous lands. Dialogue

with ILK holders to build mutual understanding around the aims of a IUCN Red List assessment and the

role of ILK holders as informants is essential. Access to the knowledge generated requires discussion,

agreement and time. Assessors should develop clear agreements defining terms of interaction, ownership

16

of knowledge products and distribution of knowledge (COSEWIC, 2010; Wong, 2016). Again, this may be

difficult in undermined, stigmatised and/ or illiterate communities.

• Compensation of knowledge holders may be required for giving their time and using their knowledge,

which can be in monetary form, in the form of knowledge and/or skill transferral or another tangible form.

If monetary agreements are made, ILK holders/communities should be paid appropriate and agreed upon

rates8 which pay due respect for expertise (Holcombe, 2009). However, monetary payments should be

used with caution, and perhaps as a last resort, as these can attract unauthorised/invalidated knowledge

holders to come forth. Red List assessors need to be cautious of people designated as representatives of

the community but acting for their own good, especially when money is involved. Assessors need to

determine appropriate incentives for sourcing ILK in negotiation with peak bodies, community

associations, key informants, ILK holders and/ or local communities (depending on the context).

• Informal networks should also be utilized to access ILK holders who are not traditionally sought out, for

example women, or ILK holders who live in urban areas (Thaman et al., 2013) or other regions/ nations

outside of their homeland. When accessing ILK, assessors should also be conscious of addressing social

inequities by targeting different types of ILK holders in an attempt to ensure community representation

(Castillo and Castillo, 2010). Assessors should also be aware of cultural protocols, for example, those that

place gender restrictions on addressing members of the opposite sex, sharing knowledge with the

opposite sex, and visiting certain locations. In these cases, assessors can either source appropriate

personnel to undertake surveys or train local people in collection and inventory.

• Participatory approaches to gathering ILK are preferable. Formally, these are approaches that engage

research participants as partners in the design, execution and analysis of data gathering for IUCN Red List

assessments. Useful approaches for gathering ILK involve a number of social research methods, including

semi-directive interviews (Huntington, 1998, 2000), surveys, participatory mapping exercises, informal

discussions, focus groups, participatory workshops and/or community consultations, walking workshops,

and participatory evaluations9. Using multiple-methods to gather ILK can triangulate results, which can

help with cross-checking and validating ILK. As an introductory approach, walking through the landscape

during discussions or holding ‘walking workshops’ with ILK communities can yield unanticipated insights,

additional information and prompt questions based on direct observation (Telfer & Garde, 2006). As

Malmer et al. (2017: 8) comment:

“Unlike more formal workshop settings, being outside, visiting fields and other sites enables

the participants to see experiences and innovations at first hand and exchange practical

knowledge, as well as articulate and respond to ideas. The host community decides where to

walk – in order to explore problems, reflect and bring up different experiences and

perspectives, seeking explanations, answers and possible solutions together in the landscape,

from their perspective.”

For a more time-intensive approach, a participatory rural appraisal (multiple IUCN Red List assessors

paired with local interviewers) or an ethnographic approach (spending considerable time with a

8 Negotiate rates of pay with peak bodies representing communities or community associations. 9 For more on participatory methods, please see Grenier, 1998 and Setchell et al., 2017. For more on the application of participatory mapping, please see Herlihy, 2003; Gadamus & Raymond-Yakoubian, 2015; Pert et al., 2015; Robinson et al. 2016. For more on participatory evaluation, please see Chouinard & Cousins, 2015. For more on the application of focus groups, please see Danielsen et al., 2014b.

17

community or people in-situ) could be employed. During these interactions, it is important to also gather

information on the geographical context of the knowledge, including the ILK holders’ familiarity with the

habitat and species in question (Gilchrist, 2005). The type of methodology utilized will be dependent on

the wishes and needs of the ILK holders being targeted, the time ILK holders and communities can dedicate

to the interactions and the resources available to assessors.

In cases where participatory methods are utilized, assessors may also have to pursue some knowledge

holders who may be ostracized by the community or feel that the community does not represent them,

or they may be living in remote, isolated areas. Audio-recording and video-recording knowledge with the

aim of enriching ILK knowledge databases and local community libraries should be aimed for, but may only

be appropriate in circumstances where considerable trust with ILK holders has already been achieved,

based on prior consent, and considerable resources are available. Direct approaches require an adaptive

approach to knowledge gathering, with ILK holders validating and refining knowledge extracted and

integrating it into assessments via a cyclic process.

Indirect approaches:

• Desktop research to review academic and grey literature, as well as historical media reports, is an

important precursor to a direct approach to gathering ILK. Looking for information published by ILK holders

and ILK institutions (for example, on websites) will enrich this process – some ILK holders are also involved

in publishing science, books, documentaries and artworks for global audiences (IPBES, 2015). ILK also has

its own dedicated journals, search engines, databases and networks that differ from those generally

consulted in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and economics. Relevant interactive maps and diagrams,

libraries and museums should also be accessed. ILK holders and experts should help assessors identify the

resources that are most relevant to their assessment (IPBES, 2016).

• In some cases, an indirect approach based on desktop research may be the only avenue for gathering

this knowledge, in which case validation of material will still be an important part of the process.

Consulting with relevant key informants (who are endorsed by peak representative bodies), at least where

feasible, should be a minimum requirement for accessing and validating information.

3.3 Building relationships and trust with ILK holders

Considerations

IPBES (2012) identifies several factors that need to be considered when engaging with ILK systems and their

holders. These include, among others, ethics, equity, the building of trust, social relationships, recognition and

respect for differing epistemologies, appropriate methodologies and approaches to validation, intellectual

property as well as, access and benefit-sharing. The IUCN Red List authority should develop best practice,

standardized intellectual property agreements for all assessors accessing ILK in addition to a mandated

procedure for ensuring free, prior and informed consent (CTKW, 2014). This is particularly relevant in the

context of IUCN Red Listing as decisions may impact ILK holders directly. For instance, listing of species in

threatened categories could result in the restriction of people's use for food, livelihoods or other purposes. It

may impact an illegal trade which local people depend on for their livelihoods, or affect the group dynamic,

other kinship social relations, or a network of intermediaries who control the trade. Negotiating these conflicts

of interest needs to be executed in partnership with ILK holders and community leaders, and ultimately, the

community need to agree on what information enters the IUCN Red List (as discussed in Section 3.6).

18

There should be provisions for ILK holders who decide to withdraw information or data from the assessment

during and after it has been collected, validated, distilled and distributed. Plans for storage, presentation and

distribution of information should also be decided on in negotiation with ILK holders to build transparency

into this process (in line with Principle 7 and further discussed in COSEWIC, 2010, 15-16) and ensure that data

is accessible upon the request of ILK holders and communities (Holcombe, 2009). This is particularly important

as ILK is vulnerable and unprotected outside of traditional customary systems (Jukic & Collings, 2013).

Relationship building with ILK holders also requires building trust via recognition of power imbalances (e.g.

between those collecting the ILK and those who hold it or power imbalances amongst those who hold ILK, e.g.

men vs women) and strategies for addressing these within the research methodology. Participating in a form

of cultural competence training delivered by the community via an immersion experience will help to build

mutual understanding and generate respect and understanding of cross-cultural differences. In turn,

instructing local communities in the IUCN Red List process and monitoring techniques could also help to build

trust, openness, communication and long-term relationships. In this way, ILK collectors can nourish their own

self-learning and cultural awareness as well as increasing the transparency of the IUCN Red List process for

local community members by skills transference, ultimately co-creating a safe platform for knowledge sharing

to take place.

Practical approaches

• Developing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or similar agreement with ILK holder to define

interaction, what is requested from Indigenous peoples or local communities, how they will benefit, and

ensuring alignment of expectations between researchers and ILK participants should be aspired to.

Developing these in stigmatized, illiterate communities will require the support of local associations, key

informants or community leaders and MoU’s may need to be verbally recorded. These will help guide and

provide clarity around objectives, methods, possible benefits and benefit-sharing arrangements,

protection for intellectual and cultural rights, review of drafts, arrangements for information release

(IPBES, 2015) and future engagement, particularly related to information updates.

• Some communities may prefer to work with more informal, customary or community protocols that have

to be followed, hence the importance of spending time with communities prior to conducting research.

• Participant and nature observation may be required to not only build a relationship, but to also interpret

ILK. This involves assessors spending time with ILK holders – it requires a ‘participatory’ approach that

allows ILK holders to dictate and shape the communication and knowledge transfer process.

3.4 Facilitating constructive communication

Considerations

Clear communication is necessary to allow knowledge holders to understand the nature of quantitative data

(although this will be difficult in illiterate communities). This emphasises the need to deliver the information

in creative formats that fit the cultural context (see practical approaches below), and to explain how scientific

data is collected, and how the knowledge will be used (e.g. for Red List assessments). This includes

communicating how species assessments can benefit different community members or groups, how outputs

of assessments will affect them, and how knowledge holders can shape the assessment process. Semantic

uncertainty arises when terminology and criteria are vague or consistency across different assessments is

lacking (IUCN, 2012). Uncertainty could be minimized by translating and adapting IUCN’s categories and

criteria (IUCN, 2012) according to ILK terminology and language or preferably vice versa. One could begin with

19

local terms and processes and adapt or create relevant IUCN categories and criteria accordingly, especially

where terminology does not compare or translate well.

Practical approaches

• Clarify ILK roles and ownership, and how resulting decisions will affect ILK communities. This is likely to

help mitigate potential conflicts that could arise from uncertainty on these points (Coombe, 2005; Peacock

et al., 2008; Berkes 2012). A two-way knowledge and information sharing process is necessary for building

mutual understanding, relationships and trust, which are prerequisites for opening clear and constructive

communication channels.

• For communication to be constructive, as previously iterated, assessors need to address elders and

leaders, or scientifically trained members of communities (although the latter may be difficult to source)

that can be involved in both the knowledge gathering process and the assessment process. Interpreters

can be employed not only as translators but also as research assistants, teachers, guides, and community

liaisons between community and non-community members, refining research approaches and assessment

strategies according to ethically and culturally appropriate contexts (Pearce et al., 2009). For example,

crocodilian researchers may be predisposed to sympathetic contact with ILK communities as they often

rely on them for access, local guides and field information in remote locations (P. Ross, pers. comm. 2016).

This is likely to increase confidence in the process and allow for further validation steps to be included.

Using local people to interview local people generates context rich information that would not be possible

without the assessor engaging in a long-term immersion. However, it is somewhat important to

understand local dynamics before embarking on this, as local people can also act as a barrier to knowledge

sharing if they are known to the person disclosing information – this participant may not be as candid

during these interviews, affecting the veracity of the information provided. To generate effective

communication, the method for accessing knowledge should be tailored to the needs and social structures

of the people involved and should be formed via participatory negotiation with community

representatives.

• To capture and retransmit ILK in an intercultural form, visually powerful tools such as interactive maps

and diagrams, artwork, books, film, websites, libraries, museums, and databases (with consent and

validation) might be preferred over lengthy written reports. Some of the visual and audio formats are

particularly required for illiterate communities. These forms of presenting information will be especially

effective if led by local communities. A novel example of ILK represented and communicated in an

accessible format is demonstrated by an artists’ interpretation and retransmission of ILK on herring

management in Canada via cartoonised brainstorm maps (see http://drawingchange.com/graphic-

recording-supports-science-and-traditional-knowledge/).

• Once ILK is gathered, validated and distilled into a form that can inform IUCN Red List assessments, a

communication plan/strategy with ILK holders to publicly communicate results and update information

periodically should be implemented and reviewed. If there are differences in information between ILK and

science, this may point to the need for more research. Conflicts in information should be discussed with

ILK holders and their communities, and negotiations should be pursued through dialogue. If resolution is

not achievable, IUCN Red List assessors may need to include multiple perspectives in the assessment.

20

3.5 Integrating different knowledge systems

Considerations

As previously highlighted, formal scientific knowledge and ILK have very different conceptual underpinnings.

IUCN Red List Assessments are grounded in the scientific tradition, which in general emphasises analytical

methods, focuses on the measurable, physical world, and is (putatively) objective and primarily quantitative.

ILK is generally holistic, does not usually rely on separating the subject from the observed, may make no

distinction between the empirical and sacred, yields qualitative and quantitative data that may be highly local

and produces context-specific observations and understandings (Mazzocchi, 2006). However, ILK can also

provide novel data and insights unknown to science. Most ILK involves an ecosystem approach that focuses

on interactions between species and other species, humans and the environment, from which understanding

of specific species can be derived. The ILK that can be integrated into IUCN Red List assessments will only ever

represent a small part of a very deep knowledge system. S. Hugu (pers. comm. 2017) elucidates:

“In Taiwan they are monitoring the whole ecosystem and habitat using science and deriving a meta

interpretation, whereas local and tribal people use long-term ecological monitoring via fishing, hunting

and gathering. How can these two types of systems, which are two very different models, be

integrated? They are not comparable. Taiwan has forests and our knowledge is in our community-

habitat – it is holistic, it is connected to all life, animals, plants, people, the curve of a wave, etc. ILK

can come in song, in movement, in practice – it can’t always be written down.”

Co-science is produced when natural phenomena are examined and understood through both ILK and science.

The production of co-science during direct engagements will reinforce a commitment to finding synergies and

integrating different knowledges, especially when discrepancies arise. Co-science may be generated through

discussion, with mutual observations or findings and clarifications of knowledge gaps realised by both parties.

Indigenous academics and scientists (particularly in New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the US) have

published widely on ILK from within their own cultural contexts and are a key resource for producing co-

science. If the IUCN Red List assessor is undertaking an immersive experience in the field, co-science can be

generated through observation of a species or ecosystem, co-mapping and co-monitoring (Telfer & Garde,

2006). IUCN Red List assessments should, where possible, employ a community-based, iterative process where

knowledge is validated and evaluated by ILK holders (Poe et al., 2014). These processes might align with

science or scientifically driven data collection.

Practical approaches

• Integrating ILK into a IUCN Red List assessment will benefit from a mixed methods approach that

deals with both qualitative and quantitative information. This may require collecting information

using multiple mediums (e.g. voice recordings, film, maps, monitoring data etc). Assessors may

need to document more information than that which ends up in the IUCN Red List assessment,

including cultural understandings and rules about resource use.

• Producing co-science through interactions is a worthwhile aspiration. Decisions on which

knowledge to utilize for IUCN Red List assessments can be made not by assessors alone, but rather

via a collaborative process with ILK holders. Documenting local taxonomy can be an essential

activity for integrating ILK into the IUCN Red List.

• Assessors will also need to verify and validate any ex-situ ILK information acquired through

desktop research and other indirect approaches.

21

• Identifying ILK ‘networks’ of knowledge about a certain species to gather multiscalar data may be

helpful for certain species. For example, migratory birds that are global navigators will generate

ILK in multiple locations with multiple sources pertaining to one species (Gilchrist et al., 2005).

3.6 Validating ILK

Why does ILK need validation?

As with scientific information, ILK is also subject to inaccuracies and biases. ILK inaccuracies arise when species

are misidentified, when ILK itself is incorrect, purposely misreported or exaggerated to impress ILK collectors

and due to retrospective bias (Gilchrist et al., 2005; McKelvey et al., 2008; O’Donnell et al., 2010). In some

cases, communities may refer to the same species using different names depending on which part of the plant

they use and for what purpose. This can lead to inaccurate species data and leads to further errors while

estimating population trends or distribution.

Considerations

Identifying key knowledge holders with the ability to distinctly identify the species in focus (Anadón et al.,

2009) is critical to the validation process; ensuring information is gathered from the most authoritative sources

and therefore the most accurate (however determining the most authoritative voices may be difficult) (Davis

& Wagner, 2003; Anadón et al., 2009). The extent and depth of ILK varies with every ILK holder and the species

concerned (Gilchrist et al., 2005). Knowledge holders can be respected characters within communities who

have been seen “living the knowledge” (IPBES, 2015), and can be identified and recruited by community

members (Pearce et al., 2009; Poe et al., 2014). Conversely, key ILK holders may also be ostracized and isolated

from the community. Key informants might comprise respected leaders, elders, and/ or women who have

responsibility for maintaining and transmitting certain knowledge, as well as hunters, gatherers,

agriculturalists, farmers, fishers, craft-makers, artists, medicine practitioners, and seniors with knowledge of

past and/ or rare events (IPBES 2015).

Species that are distinct, can be easily identified by communities and those that have a local name should

largely be selected to increase the accuracy of the resulting ILK (Anadón et al., 2009; Pillay et al., 2011). Species

that are utilized, highly distinct or in constant association with indigenous communities also have better ILK

associated with them (Gilchrist et al., 2005).

Some scientists and wildlife managers suggest that contributions from ILK systems should not be accepted and

incorporated into environmental decision-making without undergoing some degree of scrutiny (Davis &

Wagner, 2003; Ellis, 2005; Gilchrist & Mallory, 2007). To be tested and validated using the criteria deemed

appropriate by science, ILK often undergoes a process that Agrawal (2002) coined “scientisation”. This process

involves distinguishing the descriptive from the analytic, the anecdotal from the systematic, and the mythic

from the factual by testing and validating relevant knowledge using scientific criteria such as replicability,

rationality, rigour, and universality, effectively stripping the knowledge of most characteristics that make it

Indigenous or Local (Agrawal, 1995; Simpson, 2001). For others, ILK is avoided all together and viewed as an

unreliable source for informing robust scientific assessments (Meijaard et al., 2011). Scientists commonly

misperceive ILK to be mystical, superstitious and out of touch with reality as it “reflects the moral, ethical and

spiritual dimensions…with which practitioners of rationalist scientific traditions are most uncomfortable”

(Ford & Martinez, 2000: 1).

Meaningful integration of ILK into IUCN Red List assessments requires novel approaches to reconcile these

issues and evaluate data to ensure quality, without losing their value. Tengö et al. (2013) differentiate between

22

integration of knowledge, parallel approaches to developing synergies across knowledge systems and co-

production of knowledge. They promote a fourth option of a “multiple evidence-based peer-review process”,

taking into account that different criteria of validation should be applied to data and information originating

from different knowledge systems. IUCN SSC’s Medicinal Plant SG has successfully integrated ILK on trends in

population sizes and distribution based on travel time and collection effort into IUCN Red List Assessments by

using the CAMP (Conservation Assessment and Management Planning) workshop format for IUCN Red List

assessments (D. Leaman, pers. comm. 2015).

The knowledge provided by ILK holders may only partially fulfill the requirements of the assessment process.

It is important to remember that ILK often has geographical limitations and that use (or lack of use) of a species

can affect the accuracy of information provided. For example, Thompson and Millar (2007) found that ILK

holders in Canada from multiple tribes had good knowledge of a fish species when it was abundant, but were

unsure whether or not the fish was a migratory species and the direction it migrated in. Gilchrist et al. (2005)

gathered ILK on four migratory birds in the Canadian and Greenland Arctic and found that the breadth and

quality of information varied greatly between regions, communities, species and individuals, and

recommended attaining an adequate sample size to increase confidence in data.

There may be discrepancies in information from multiple authoritative ILK knowledge holders. Employing

participatory methods for generating dialogue and negotiations between ILK holders can help resolve these

differences. If differences cannot be resolved, the perspectives of multiple ILK holders may need to be

accommodated for in the IUCN Red List assessment.

Practical approaches

• Validation of ILK should first occur amongst ILK knowledge holders who determine validation criteria.

ILK validation can be executed during a participatory process, where information is scrutinized and

analysed by authoritative knowledge holders as it is collected and assembled. If there are no

authoritative local people, knowledge may need to be validated via participatory dialogue in

participatory workshops. Discrepancies between information transmitted by ILK knowledge holders

can be resolved by generating dialogue and discussion between different knowledge holders.

• Aspects of co-science could also be integrated into this part of the process, with ILK holders conducting

surveys of species and mapping out distributions with assessors via a participatory approach. Or a

community mapping exercise could be employed, whereby different ILK holders map distributions

that are consequently overlaid to form one map.

• Social science strategies that can be employed to aid with validation of ILK include using multiple

methods to triangulate and cross-check results; using social network analysis to identify the social

relevance and representativeness of ILK holders, as well as knowledge pathways (this could also be a

participatory process) can help determine the adequacy of the sample size and the level of confidence

in data; participatory mapping exercises to determine the extent of the geographical context that

informs ILK; or, as mentioned above, participatory workshops for evaluation of knowledge gathered.

ILK holders should also be consulted with to enable self-determination of validation techniques.

• ILK can then be cross-compared with scientific assessment to identify congruencies and

inconsistencies. This can be done via a participatory workshop (depending on resource availability), or

can be conducted ex situ and then presented/delivered to the community for scrutiny and co-analysis.

23

Via negotiation, discrepancies could be resolved through this process and could instigate ongoing

community and scientific monitoring processes.

3.7 Distilling ILK relevant to IUCN Red List assessments

Considerations

ILK of a species is often described in the context of other environmental factors such as climate, hydrological

cycles, biodiversity and habitat. As most Indigenous groups worldwide attribute particular traits, behaviours,

personalities, histories, beliefs, songs and stories to particular species, assessors will gather much contextual

information. The spiritual links between environment, human health, well-being and prosperity and the

multiple ways in which ILK is communicated, mean that assessors will also receive information in a number of

mediums and forms. IUCN Red List assessors can document the breadth of information provided, using

multiple mediums, and distil key information that is validated and most relevant to the IUCN Red List.

Communities that hold ILK may also have formal or informal systems for monitoring their resources. They may

have detailed knowledge of the threats that face certain species (as in the case of the illegal Cycad harvesters

mentioned on page 8) and could potentially offer solutions to these threats.

IUCN Red List assessors should also be prepared to encounter confidential information that is imparted by ILK

holders to improve the assessor’s understanding of a particular species or to initiate an assessor to the

landscape. Sensitivities need to be built into this process, especially where a species may be sustaining the

economy of a local community and information disclosure could disrupt livelihoods. This information may

need to be kept out of the public record and omitted in professional communications, or may go one step

further with the knowledge receiver disallowed from ever sharing the knowledge. Red List assessors may need

to delineate between these types of information with ILK holders throughout the knowledge collection

process. Assessors must respect ILK holders and the communities’ choice to share or not to share ILK (CTKW,

2014). This will ensure that protocols are adhered to and ILK holders are afforded the right to determine the

use of their intellectual and cultural property. Acknowledging the cultural relevance and importance of a

species that is being assessed is critical, especially when Red List status may in practice potentially impact the

ability of local people to harvest the species.

Practical approaches

• As ILK is holistic, stemming from complex creation stories and cosmologies and intimately connected

to a particular environment, landscape or species, certain information must be distilled for integration

into quantifiable aspects of assessments. Casimirri (2003) has conceptualised where relevant

information sits in a web of ILK (see Figure 1). Accessing these intersections is a critical step in

integrating knowledges; conceptualizing and identifying intersections should be executed and

evaluated in partnership with relevant ILK holders.

• A separate section within the assessment could be included to record whether the particular species

has ILK associated with it or not. If ILK is associated with the species, then its associated local names,

related Indigenous community(ies) and any further information that has already been recorded could

be compiled comprehensively as a part of the assessment process. Moreover, whether the species

resembles others in the same locality should be mentioned along with the identities of the

morphologically similar species. This would enable filtering of species that would have more accurate

ILK.

24

• Species associated with ILK that are categorised as ‘Data Deficient’ could be ‘green-lighted’ for ILK

based surveys to record relevant information cost-effectively and quickly that would greatly affect the

conservation plans formulated for the species.

• Where possible and deemed necessary, especially in the case of species categorised in Threatened

categories, ILK expert knowledge workshops could be organized with the ILK holders/ communities to

jointly evaluate the conservation status of the species. Transparency is required to inform ILK holders

and communities about the potential implications of categorising a species in a certain category,

especially if the information may be used to restrict local use of a resource. The mapping of species

distribution with the assistance of local survey maps, threat assessment and identification of critical

habitats could assist greatly in formulating appropriate conservation strategies which have the

additional support of local communities. Additionally, it may also lead to the selection of a more

appropriate IUCN Red List category that could be different from a strictly expert research based

evaluation.

Figure 1: Conceptualisation of relevant ILK within an ILK web (Source: Casimirri, 2003: 2)

3.8 Maintaining relationships and reciprocity

Considerations and practical approaches

If a direct approach for accessing ILK is employed, there is a need to formalize the relationship for future

follow-up of ILK and community-monitoring/mapping. It is recommended (as previously stated) that an MoU

or research engagement protocol be developed between assessors and ILK holders (or the community/

association which represents ILK holders) to formalize mutual understanding, strengthen communication and

articulate the nature of future collaboration. An MoU respects the wishes and needs of IPLCs and integrates

these into an agreement that protects the rights and interests of ILK holders, by outlining guidelines for

reciprocity and defining intellectual and cultural property. This type of agreement could also facilitate access

to ILK for future assessors and access to scientific training for IPLCs via the establishment of a formal

partnership.

25

The collation, validation and inclusion of ILK into an assessment should strive to be iterative and participatory;

resulting outputs (where possible) should be co-crafted by the community. This would ensure evaluation and

dissemination of results were produced in locally/ culturally appropriate forms (IPBES 2015: 103). The range

of communication mediums should also be considered; having accessible, visual and translated outputs may

be more suitable. In some cases, providing hard copies may be more fitting to the local situation (IPBES, 2015).

Acknowledging ILK contributors in all outputs is essential, and the potential to co-author academic papers with

ILK holders and communities post-assessment should be explored (M. Benites de Franco, pers. comm. 2016;

Huntington, 2006).

ILK holders, in addition to assessors, could be engaged to evaluate the overall process, including the

effectiveness of IUCN Red List assessor engagement, validation processes and distribution methods and

mediums, allowing ILK holders to shape consequent efforts to access ILK. These evaluations should define

parameters for success of assessments from multiple perspectives/ knowledge systems (CTWK, 2014), but are

only possible if the community agrees to partake in this exercise.

ILK holders/ communities should also (where possible) determine inclusion boundaries for intellectual and

cultural property, and understand what protections their agreements afford their knowledge. Knowledge

provided in confidence or sensitive information should be omitted from all outputs. ILK holders should also

determine the distribution of knowledge, where the knowledge is stored and in what form, and how it will be

secured. ILK holders should also have the ongoing ability to access and review information divulged to

assessors, and to withdraw information at any time. A number of formal and informal options for protecting

ILK could be considered, including release forms, patents, copyright, trademarks, secrecy, confidentiality

agreements and treaty settlement processes (Holcombe, 2009; IPBES, 2015). Assessors also have a

responsibility to document and report abuses and exploitations of knowledge, to representative organizations,

peak bodies or other appropriate channels, if voiced by ILK holders.

To achieve a reciprocal relationship, a benefit ensuing from disclosure of ILK needs to be returned to the

community and should be embedded in this type of knowledge-seeking venture. This could be a tangible

benefit, in the form of scientific training provided to IPLCs to encourage engagement in citizen science and

future monitoring programs (a service that could be monetarily compensated for). Providing resources for

community members to engage in the development of their own indicators and mapping techniques or to

help communicate ILK would further strengthen this process. For example, Telfer and Garde (2006) explain

how ILK, in the form of digital videos, collected during their assessment of the Australian Rock Kangaroo, was

returned to the communities involved who consequently developed it into a digital bilingual storybook and

teaching resource.

Receiving scientific validation of ILK and associated practices could provide intangible benefits to IPLCs. Having

mainstream data could help determine or strengthen access and benefit-sharing schemes, co-management

arrangements, rights to sustainable-use, management and ownership (Ballard et al., 2008). It could aid with

the development of enterprises and other commercial activities such as eco-tourism. This science could also

equip the local people with arguments in global conservation debates; evidence could be used for lobbying

for the protection of species and ecosystems, or to gain access to national/ international conservation funding.

Scientists could also share scientific knowledge with ILK holders on potential future risks and threats, such as

climate change and associated sea level rises. This could mobilise ILK and generate dialogue between ILK

holders and decision-makers before decisions are made.

26

IUCN Red List assessors, where applicable, could make recommendations to governance bodies about the

participation of ILK holders in mitigating threats to species and managing sustainable use. An ILK information

tab could also be added to the IUCN Red List assessment, with an indication of the worth or value of a species

from this perspective. This value could be associated with a species’ local uses (e.g. for food, fibre and other),

their perceived power or potency (e.g. medicinal healing properties, high in vital vitamins), and their role in

cultural traditions, rituals and creation stories, however it could be counter-beneficial to include this

information if unsustainable use/ over exploitation is an issue. The role of local taboos, restrictions on resource

use and how restrictions are enforced locally are also important to document (Lingard et al., 2003; Bobo et al.,

2015). ILK versions of species distributions and trends could also be included in this tab if the assessment is

limited or if too many divergent ILK versions are found. While this information may not directly inform the

IUCN Red List process, it does inform those who access the IUCN Red List (e.g. Governments, researchers,

scientists, etc), reduces discrimination of information, and respects the ILK transferred.

Ultimately, assessors should aim to cultivate collaborative partnerships with local communities and ILK holders

via the mutual goal of sustainable-use, conservation and protection of species.

Closing comments

Integrating ILK and formal science in IUCN Red List assessments presents new challenges at both conceptual

and practical levels. However, it also offers important benefits. Globally, ILK is increasingly recognised as an

important source of knowledge about species and ecosystems. Integrating ILK into species assessments can

improve (and has improved) their quality, but sourcing, validating and translating knowledge into IUCN Red

List assessments requires commitment, resources and time.

This guidance represents an initial step toward greater recognition and integration of ILK in IUCN Red List

assessments. However, this is a new frontier for the integration of formal science and ILK, and is only an initial

step in what must be an iterative and ongoing learning process. Operationalisation of this guidance should be

accompanied by mechanisms for feedback and learning to identify the extent to which these key principles,

approaches and considerations are being implemented in practice and what lessons can be learnt from this

implementation.

The process of developing this guidance raised far-reaching and fundamental issues concerning the relations

between power and knowledge within and beyond IUCN. Social processes of knowledge production and use

are inherently political, and ILK holders have raised questions about for whom the IUCN Red List is produced.

For whose needs is it produced (and why not theirs)? Whose knowledge is considered valid and is reflected in

decision-making? Who is the knowledge used for, and who is it used against? What tangible benefits can

communities expect as a result of sharing their knowledge? These are questions for the IUCN and others to

consider as there is more movement towards greater recognition of, respect for, and inclusion of ILK holders

in conservation assessment and conservation practice.

For ILK holders, ILK is bound up with rights to use, manage and conserve land and biodiversity, responsibilities

to care for all life, and institutions that underpin local governance. The historical exclusion of Indigenous and

local people from natural resources, and governance of those resources, has eroded local rights and

responsibilities and consequently, ILK (Scherl & Edwards, 2007). While the IUCN Red List cannot directly

address social justice issues in conservation, it can be operationalized in a way that not only recognises ILK,

27

but highlights the need to recognise and respect Indigenous peoples' and local community’s rights to maintain

that knowledge through securing their interrelationship with their traditional territories and areas.

References

Agrawal, A. 1995. Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and Change

26(3): 413–440

Agrawal, A. 2002. Indigenous Knowledge and the Politics of Classification. International Social Science Journal

54(173): 287-297

Alessa, L., Kliskey, A., Gamble, J., Fidel, M., Beaujean, G. and Gosz, J. 2016. The role of Indigenous science and local

knowledge in integrated observing systems: moving toward adaptive capacity indices and early warning systems.

Sustainability Science 11(1): 91-102

Anadón, J. D., Giménez, A., Ballestar, R., and Pérez, I. 2009. Evaluation of local ecological knowledge as a method

for collecting extensive data on animal abundance. Conservation Biology 23(3):617-625

Appukuttan, K.S. 1991. Cane Turtle and Travancore Turtle - a survey report. KFRI, Peechi, India, pp 21

Aswani, A. and Lauer, M. 2006. Incorporating fishermen’s local knowledge and behavior into geographical

information Systems (GIS) for Designing marine protected areas in Oceania. Human Organization 65(1): 81-102

Ayantunde A.A., Briejer, M., Hiernaux, P., Udo, H.M.J. and Tabo, R. 2008. Botanical knowledge and its differentiation

by age, gender and ethnicity in Southwest Niger, Human Ecology, 36:881-889

Ballard, H. L., Fernandez-Gimenez M.E., and Sturtevant, V.E. 2008. Integration of local ecological knowledge and

conventional science: a study of seven community-based forestry organizations in the USA. Ecology and Society

13(2): 37

Berkes, F. 1998. The nature of traditional ecological knowledge and the Canada-wide experience. Terra Borealis

1:1–3

Berkes, F. 1999. Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and resource management. Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania, USA, Taylor and Francis

Berkes, F. 2012. Sacred Ecology. Third Edition, New York, US, Routledge

Bhupathy, S. & B.C. Choudhury (1995). Status, Distribution and Conservation of the Travancore Tortoise

Indotestudo forstenii in the Western Ghats. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 92: 16–21

Bobo, K.S., Aghomo, F.F.M. and Ntumwel, B.C. 2015. Wildlife use and the role of taboos in the conservation of

wildlife around the Nkwende Hills Forest Reserve, South-west Cameroon. Journal of Ethnobiology and

Ethnomedicine 11(2)

Burgess, G.H., Sherrill-Mix, S.A. and Kyne, P.M. 2015. Somniosus microcephalus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened

Species 2015: e.T60213A48917268

Casimirri, G. 2003. Problems with integrating traditional ecological knowledge into contemporary resource

management, paper submitted to the XII World Forestry Congress, 2003, Quebec City, Canada. [online]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/ARTICLE/WFC/XII/0887-A3.HTM [accessed May 2016]

28

Castillo, F.A. and Castillo, M.N.A. 2010. Gender and traditional knowledge: seeing blind spots, redressing inequities

for women in (Eds.) Subramanian, S.M. and Pisupati, B. Traditional Knowledge in Policy and Practice: approaches

to development and human well-being. Tokyo, Japan, United Nations University Press

Chouinard, J.A. and Cousins, J.B. 2015. The journey from rhetoric to reality: participatory evaluation in a

development context. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 27(1): 5-39

Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup (CTKW). 2014. Guidelines for Considering Traditional Knowledges

in Climate Change Initiatives. [online] http://climatetkw.wordpress.com/ [accessed July 2016]

Colin, P. L., Y. J. Sadovy, and Domeier, M.L. 2003. Manual for the study and conservation of reef fish spawning

aggregations. Special publication no. 1. Version 1.0. Society for the Conservation of Reef Fish Aggregations, San

Diego, California

Coombe, R. J. 2005. Protecting Cultural Industries to Promote Cultural Diversity: Dilemmas for International Policy-

Making Posed by the Recognition of Traditional Knowledge in K. Maskus and J. Reichman (eds) International Public

Goods and Transfer of Technology Under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UK. pp. 559-614

COSEWIC 2010. COSEWIC Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge (ATK) Process and Protocols Guidelines. Government

of Canada. [online] URL: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/committee-status-

endangered-wildlife/aboriginal-traditional-knowledge.html [accessed June 2017]

Cross, T., Bazron, B., Dennis, K., and Isaacs, M. 1989. Towards A Culturally Competent System of Care, Volume I.

Washington, DC, Georgetown University Child Development Center, CASSP Technical Assistance Center

Danielsen, F., Topp-Jørgensen, E., Levermann, N., Løvstrøm, P., Schiøtz, M., Enghoff, M. and Jakobsen, P. 2014a.

Counting what counts: using local knowledge to improve Arctic resource management. Polar Geography. 37(1): 69-

91

Danielsen, F., Jensen, P.M., Burgess, N.D., Coronado, I., Holt, S., Poulsen, M.K., Rueda, R.M., Skielboe, T., Enghoff,

M., Hemmingsen, L.H., Sørensen, M. and Pirhofer-Walzl, K. 2014b. Testing Focus Groups as a Tool for Connecting

Indigenous and Local Knowledge on Abundance of Natural resources with Science-Based Land Management

Systems. Conservation Letters 7(4): 380-389

Davis, A. and Wagner, J.R. 2003. Who knows? On the importance of identifying “experts” when researching local

ecological knowledge. Human Ecology 31(3): 463-489

Descola, P. 2014. Modes of being and forms of predication. Journal of Ethnographic Theory 4: 271-280

Ellis, R. 2005. Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in

second language acquisition 27(2):141-172

Ferguson, M. A. D., and Messier, F. 1997. Collection and analysis of traditional ecological knowledge about a

population of Arctic tundra caribou. Arctic 50:17-28

Ford, J. and Martinez (O'odham/Chicano), D. 2000. Traditional Ecological Knowledge. Ecosystem Science, and

Environmental Management. Ecological Applications, 10: 1249–1250

Fraser, D.J., Coon, T., Prince, M.R., Dion, R. and Bernatchez, L. 2006. Integrating Traditional and Evolutionary

Knowledge in Biodiversity Conservation: a Population Level Case Study. Ecology and Society 11(2):4

29

Frazão-Moreira, A., Carvalho, A.M. and Martins, E. 2009. Local ecological knowledge also ’comes from books’.

Anthropological Notebooks 15(1):27-36

Gadamus, L. and Raymond-Yakoubian, J. 2015. Qualitative Participatory Mapping of Seal and Walrus Harvest and

Habitat Areas: Documenting Indigenous Knowledge, Preserving Local Values, and Discouraging Map Misuse.

International Journal of Applied Geospatial Research 6(1): 76-93

Gadgil, M. (2004) People’s Biodiversity Register, Sahyadri enews, Issue 15. [online]

http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/biodiversity/sahyadri_enews/newsletter/issue15/index.htm [accessed August 2017]

Gagnon, C.A. and Berteaux, D. 2009. Integrating traditional ecological knowledge and ecological science: a question

of scale. Ecology and Society 14(2): 19

Gilchrist, G., Mallory, M. and Merkel, F. 2005. Can Local Ecological Knowledge Contribute to Wildlife Management?

Case Studies of Migratory Birds. Ecology and Society 10(1):20

Gilchrist, G. and Mallory, M.L. 2007. Comparing Expert-Based Science With Local Ecological Knowledge: What Are

We Afraid of? Ecology and Society 12(1): r1

Gómez-Baggethun, E. and Reyes-García, V. 2013. Reinterpreting change in traditional ecological knowledge. Human

Ecological Interdisciplinary Journal 14(4): 643-647

Gratani, M., Butler, J.R.A., Royee, F., Valentine, P., Burrows, D., Canendo, W.I. and Anderson, A.S., 2011. 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. Ecology and Society 16

Grenier, L. 2014. Working with Indigenous knowledge: a guide for researchers, International Development Research

Centre, Ottowa, Canada

Groombridge, B., E.O. Moll and Vijaya, J. 1984. Rediscovery of a rare Indian turtle. Oryx 17: 130–134

Harmsworth, G.R. and Awatere, S. 2013. Indigenous Māori knowledge and perspectives of ecosystems. Dymond.

J.R. (ed.) Ecosystem services in New Zealand – conditions and trends. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, New Zealand

Herlihy, P.H. 2003. Participatory Research Mapping of Indigenous Lands in Darién, Panama. Human Organization:

Winter 2003, 62 (4): 315-331

Heyman, W.D. 2011. Elements for building a participatory, ecosystem-based marine reserve network. The

Professional Geographer, 63(4):475-488

Holcombe, S. 2009. Guidelines for Indigenous Ecological Knowledge Management (including archiving and

repatriation). A report commissioned by the Natural Resources Management Board (NT), ANU College of Law

Research Paper No. 10-26

Huntington, H. P. 1998. Observations and utility of the semi-directive interview for documenting traditional

ecological knowledge. Arctic 51:237-242

Huntington, H.P. 2000. Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and applications. Ecological

Applications 10(5): 1270-1274

Huntington, H.P. 2006. Who are the authors when traditional knowledge is documented? Arctic, 51 (3): iii-iv

30

Iaccarino, M. 2003 Science and culture. EMBO Reports 4: 220–223

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami 2012. Workshop Report: Gathering and Use of ATK in Polar Bear Management and Decision

Making. Department of Environment and Wildlife, Canada

IPBES. 2012. Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. [online] URL: www.ipbes.net

[accessed March 2017]

IPBES. 2015. Guide on production and integration of assessments from and across all scales. [online] URL:

https://www.ipbes.net/work-programme/guide-production-assessments [accessed May 2016]

IPBES. 2016. IPBES Plenary, Work on Indigenous and Local Knowledge Systems. Fourth Session Kuala Lumpur 22-

28 February 2016. [online] http://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/IPBES-4-7_EN.pdf [accessed June

2016]

IUCN. 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (Version 3.1). Prepared by the IUCN SSC. [online]

http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/redlistcatsenglish.pdf [accessed March 2017]

IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. 2017. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria

(Version 13). Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee of the IUCN SSC. [online]

http://cmsdocs.s3.amazonaws.com/RedListGuidelines.pdf [accessed March 2017]

IUCN Red List. 2017. Assessment Process. [online] http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/assessment-

process [accessed February 2017]

Johannes, R. E. 1981. Working with fishermen to improve coastal tropical fisheries and resource management.

Bulletin of Marine Science 31: 673–680

Johannes, R. E., M. M. R. Freeman, and Hamilton, R.J. 2000. Ignore fishers’ knowledge and miss the boat. Fish and

Fisheries 1:257–271

Joint Secretariat. 2015. Inuvialuit and Nanuq: A Polar Bear Traditional Knowledge Study. Joint Secretariat, Inuvialuit

Settlement region, Canada [online] http://www.wmacns.ca/pdfs/394_polar-bear-tk-report-low-res.pdf [accessed

June 2017]

Jukic, E. and Collings, N. 2013. Community protocols for environmental sustainability: A guide for policymakers,

UNEP [online] http://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/8360 [accessed May 2017]

Kanagavel, A., and Raghavan, R. 2012. Local ecological knowledge of the threatened Cochin forest cane turtle

Vijayachelys silvatica and Travancore Tortoise Indotestudo travancorica from the Anamalai Hills of the Western

Ghats, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(13): 3173-3182

Kanagavel, A. and Raghavan, R. 2013. Hunting of endemic and threatened forest-dwelling chelonians in the Western

Ghats, India. Asian Journal of Conservation Biology 2(2): 172-177

Kanagavel, A., Rehel, S.M. and Raghavan, R. 2013. Population, ecology, and threats to two endemic and threatened

terrestrial chelonians of the Western Ghats, India. ISRN Biodiversity2013

Kimmerer, R.W. 2013. Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants.

Minneapolis, US, Milkweed Editions

Laudine, C. 2009. Aboriginal Environmental Knowledge: Rational Reverence. Surrey, UK, Ashgate

31

Legrady, G., Scott K. and Duran, R.J. 2013. The James Bay Cree Visual Ethnographic Digital Online Cultural Atlas.

International Conference on Culture and Computing (Culture and Computing 2013): 129-130

Lindeman, K. C., R. Pugliese, G. T. Waugh, and Ault, J.S. 2000. Developmental patterns within a multispecies reef

fishery: management applications for essential fish habitats and protected areas. Bulletin of Marine Science

66:929–956

Lingard, M., Raharison, N., Rabakonandrianina, E., Rakotoarisoa, J. and Elmqvist, T. 2003. The Role of Local Taboos

in Conservation and Management of Species: The Radiated Tortoise in Southern Madagascar. Conservation and

Society 1(2): 223-246

Malmer, P., M. Tengö, M. Belay Ali, M.J. Cadalig Batang-ay, M. Farhan Ferrari, G.G. Mburu, S. Mitambo, C. Phokha

and Trakansuphakon, P. 2017. International exchange meeting for mobilisation of indigenous and local knowledge

for community and ecosystem wellbeing. Hin Lad Nai, Chiang Rai province, Thailand. 13 – 15 February 2016.

Workshop report. Stockholm, Sweden, SwedBio at Stockholm Resilience Centre

Mazzocchi, F. 2006. Western science and traditional knowledge: Despite their variations, different forms of

knowledge can learn from each other. EMBO Reports 7(5): 463–466

McKelvey, K.S., Aubry, K.B. and Schwartz, M.K. 2008. Using anecdotal occurrence data for rare or elusive species:

the illusion of reality and a call for evidentiary standards. BioScience 58: 549-555

Meijaard, E., Mengersen, K., Buchori, D., Nurcahyo, A., Ancrenaz, M., Wich, S., Atmoko, S.S.U., Tjiu, A., Prasetyo, D.,

Nardiyono, Hadiprakarsa Y., Christy, L., Wells, J., Albar G., and Marshall, A.J. 2011. Why don’t we ask? A

complementary method for assessing the status of great apes. PLoS One 6: e18008

Mirima Dawang Woorlab-gerring. 2013. Miriwoong Seasonal Calendar. Kununurra, Australia, Mirima Dawang

Woorlab-gerring Language Centre

Mistry, J. and Berardi, A. 2016. Bridging indigenous and scientific knowledge. Science 352(6291): 1274-1275

Mittermeier, R.A. 2012. Language diversity is highest in biodiversity hotspots. Huffpost,

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-mittermeier/language-diversity_b_1507563.html [accessed August

2017]

Montanari, B. 2014. Aromatic, Medicinal Plants and Vulnerability of Traditional Herbal Knowledge in a Berber

Community in the High Atlas Mountains of Morocco. Plant Diversity and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences

36 (3): 388-402

National Aboriginal Forestry Association (NAFA). 2006. Definitions of Traditional Knowledge. [online]

http://nafaforestry.org/forest_home/documents/TKdefs-FH-19dec06.pdf [accessed March 2017]

Nakashima, D.J. and Roué, M. 2002. Indigenous knowledge, peoples and sustainable practice. In Timmerman, P.

(ed) Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change. 5: Social and Economic Dimensions of Global Environmental

Change, Chichester, UK, Wiley, pp 314–324

Neis, B., Schneider, D.C., Felt, L., Haedrich, R.L., Fischer, J. and Hutchings, J.A. 1999. Fisheries assessment: what can

be learned by interviewing resource users? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:1949-1963

O’Donnell, K.P., Pajaro, M.G. and Vincent, A.C.J. 2010 How does the accuracy of fisher knowledge affect seahorse

conservation status? Animal Conservation, 13, 526-533

32

Pan, Y., Wei, G., Cunningham, A. A., Li, S., Chen, S., Milner-Gulland, E. J., & Turvey, S. T. (2016). Using local ecological

knowledge to assess the status of the Critically Endangered Chinese giant salamander Andrias davidianus in Guizhou

Province, China. Oryx, 50(02), 257-264

Parry, L. and Peres, C. 2015. Evaluating the use of local ecological knowledge to monitor hunted tropical forest

wildlife over large spatial scales. Ecology and Society, 20(3):15

Peacock, E., Orlando, A., Sahanatien, V., Stapleton, S., Derocher, A.E. and Garshelis, D.L. 2008. Foxe Basin Polar Bear

Project. Interim Report. Iqaluit: Government of Nunavut, Department of Environment

Pearce, T.D., Ford, J.D., Laidler, G.J., Smit, B., Duerden, F., Allarut, M., Andrachuk, M., Baryluk, S., Dialla, A., Elee, P.,

Goose, A., Ikummaq, T., Joamie, E., Kataoyak, F., Loring, E., Meakin, S., Nickels, S., Shappa, K., Shirley, J. and Wandel,

J. 2009. Community collaboration and climate change research in the Canadian Arctic. Polar Research 28(1): 10-27

Pillay, R., Johnsingh, A.J.T., Raghunath, R. and Madhusudan, M.D. 2011. Patterns of spatiotemporal change in large

mammal distribution and abundance in the southern Western Ghats, India. Biological Conservation 144: 1567-1576

Pert, P.L., Hill, R., Maclean, K., Dale, A., Rist, P., Schmider, J., Talbot, L. and Tawake, L. 2015. Mapping cultural

ecosystem services with rainforest aboriginal peoples: Integrating biocultural diversity, governance and social

variation. Ecosystem Services 13: 41-56

Poe, M.R., Norman, K.C. and Levin, P.S. 2014. Cultural dimensions of socioecological systems: key connections and

guiding principles for conservation in coastal environments. Conservation Letters 7(3):166-175

Praschag, P., Schmidt, C., Fritzsch, G., Müller, A., Gemel R. and Fritz U. 2006. Geoemyda silvatica, an enigmatic turtle

of the Geoemydidae (Reptilia: Testudines), represents a distinct genus. Organisms Diversity & Evolution6(2): 151-

162

Ramesh M. 2008a. Preliminary survey of Indotestudo travancorica (Testudinidae) at the Indira Gandhi Wildlife

Sanctuary, southern India. Hamadryad 33: 118–120

Ramesh, M. 2008b. Relative abundance and morphometrics of the Travancore tortoise, Indotestudo travancorica,

in the Indira Gandhi Wildlife Sanctuary, southern Western Ghats, India. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 7: 108-

113.

Reyes-García, V., Aceituno-Mata, L., Calvet-Mir, L., Garnatje, T., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Lastra, J.J., Ontillera, R.,

Parada, M., Rigat, M., Vallès, J., Vila, S. and Pardo-de-Santayana, M. 2014. Resilience of traditional knowledge

systems. Global Environmental Change 24: 223-231

Robinson, C.J., Maclean, K., Hill, R. Bock, E. and Rist, P. 2016. Participatory mapping to negotiate indigenous

knowledge used to assess environmental risk. Sustainability Science 11(1):115-126

Rÿser, B. 2012. Indigenous and traditional knowledge. Encyclopedia of Sustainability, Volume 5. Reprint [online]

http://www.centerfortraditionalmedicine.org/uploads/2/3/7/5/23750643/rcr_indigenous_peoples_and_tradition

al_knowledge_birkshire_vol_5_encyclopedia_of_sustainability_2012_ryser.pdf [accessed June 2016]

Sadovy, Y., and A. M. Eklund. 1999. Synopsis of biological information on Epinephelus striatus (Bloch, 1972), the

Nassau grouper, and E. itajara (Lichtenstein, 1822) the jewfish. Technical report National

Sadovy de Mitcheson, Y., Cornish, A., Domeier, M., Colin, P. L., Russell, M., and Lindeman, K.C. 2008. Reef fish

spawning aggregations: a global baseline. Conservation Biology 22(5):1233-1244

33

Saenz-Arroyo, A., Roberts, C. M., Torre, J., and Carino-Olvera, M. 2005. Using fishers’ anecdotes, naturalists’

observations and grey literature to reassess marine species at risk: the case of the Gulf grouper in the Gulf of

California, Mexico. Fish and Fisheries 6:121–133

Special Broadcasting Service (SBS). 2016. Traditional owners make digital storybook. [online]

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/11/22/traditional-owners-make-digital-storybook [accessed July 2017]

Scherl, L.M. and Edwards, S. 2007. Tourism, indigenous and local communities and protected areas in developing

nations, in (Eds.) Bushell, R. and Eagles, P.F.J., Tourism and Protected Areas: Benefits Beyond Boundaries.

Oxfordshire, UK, CAB International

Setchell, J.M., Fairet, E., Shutt, K., Waters, S. and Bell, S. 2017. Biosocial conservation: integrating biological and

ethnographic methods to study human-primate interactions. International Journal of Primatology 38: 401-426

Simpson, L. 2001. Aboriginal peoples and knowledge: Decolonizing our processes. Canadian Journal of Native

Studies 21(1):137–148

Snively, G. and Williams, W.L. 2016. Knowing Home: Braiding Indigenous Science with Western Science. British

Columbia, Canada, University of Victoria

Suzuki, D. 1997. The Sacred Balance: Rediscovering our place in nature. Greystone Books, Vancouver, Canada

Tengö, M., Malmer, P., Brondizio, E., Elmqvist, T., and Spierenburg, M. 2013. Discussion paper: The Multiple

Evidence Base as a framework for connecting diverse knowledge systems in the IPBES. Discussion paper 2012-­­06-

­­04. Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC), Stockholm University, Sweden.

Telfer W.R. and Garde, M.J. (2006) Indigenous Knowledge of Rock Kangaroo Ecology in Western Arnhem Land,

Australia. Human Ecology 43(3): 379-406.

Thaman, R., Lyver, P.O.B., Mpande, R., Perez, E., Cariño, J., and Takeuchi, K. (eds) 2013. The Contribution of

Indigenous and Local Knowledge Systems to IPBES: Building Synergies with Science. Paris, France, IPBES Expert

Meeting Report, UNESCO/UNU.

Thompson, A. and Millar, N. 2007. Traditional knowledge of fish migration and spawning patterns in the Tsiigehnjik

(Artic Red River) and Nagwichoonjik (Mackenzie River) northwest territories, Gwich’in Renewable Resource Board

Report 07-01. [online]

http://www.grrb.nt.ca/pdf/fisheries/Thompson%20and%20Millar%202007%20(GRRB%2007-01)%20-

%20fish%20TK%20in%20the%20Arctic%20Red%20and%20Mackenzie%20rivers.pdf [accessed June 2017]

Tobias, T. 2009. Living Proof: The Essential Data-collection Guide for Indigenous Use-and-Occupancy Map Surveys.

Vancouver, Canada, Union of BC Indian Chiefs.

Tomasini, S. Forthcoming. Local knowledge in IUCN Red Listing Europe’s medicinal and vascular plants. Conservation

and Society

Turvey, S.T., Trung, C.T., Quyet, V.D., Nhu, H.V., Thoai, D.V., Tuan, V.C.A., Hoa, D.T., Kacha, K., Sysomphone, T.,

Wallate, S., Hai, C.T.T., Thanh, N.V. & Wilkinson, N.M. (2015) Interview-based sighting histories can inform regional

conservation prioritization for highly threatened cryptic species. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52, 422–433.

34

Ulluwishewa, R., Roskruge, N., Harmsworth, G. and Antaran, B. 2008. Indigenous knowledge for natural resource

management: a comparative study of Māori in New Zealand and Dusun in Brunei Darussalam, Geojournal 73(4):

271-284

United Nations Division for Social Policy and Development (UN DSPD). 2017. Indigenous peoples at the UN. [online]

https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/about-us.html [accessed November 2017]

Varghese, A., et al., 2012. Harvest, use, and ecology of Cycas circinalis L.-a case study in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve

Area, Western Ghats, India. Proceedings of Cycad 2008, The 8th International Conference on Cycad Biology, Panama

City, Panama, 13-15 January 2008. New York, Botanical Garden Press.

Vasudevan, K., B. Pandav & V. Deepak (2010). Ecology of Two Endemic Turtles in the Western Ghats. Wildlife

Institute of India, Dehradun, India.

Vijaya, J. (1982b). Rediscovery of the Forest Cane Turtle (Heosemys silvatica) of Kerala. Hamadryad 7: 2–3.

Vijaya, J. (1982a). Rediscovery of the Forest Cane Turtle Heosemys (Geomyda) Silvatica (Reptilia, Testudines,

Emydidae) from Chalakudy forests in Kerala. Journal of the Bombay National History Society 79: 676–677.

Vijaya, J. (1984). Cane Turtle (Heosemys silvatica) study project in Kerala. Hamadryad 9: 4

Vijaya, J. (1989). Kadars – People of the forest. Hamadryad 14(1): 10 posthumous

Voeks, R.A. 2007. Are women reservoirs of traditional plant knowledge? Gender, ethnobotany and globalization in

northeast Brazil, Singapore. Journal of Tropical Geography, 28: 7-20

Waddy, J.A., 1988. Classification of Plants and Animals from Groote Eylandt Aboriginal Point of View. North Australia

Research Unit, Darwin

Whyte, K.P., Brewer II, J.P. and Johnson, J.T. 2016. Weaving Indigenous science, protocols and sustainability science.

Sustainability Science 11(1): 25-32

Wong, P. (2016) Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Practice and IUCN Red List Assessments: Guidelines and

Considerations for Integration. Working Paper 2. IUCN, The Social Science for Conservation Fellowship Programme

Working Paper Series

Ziembicki, M.R., Woinarski, J.C.Z. and B. Mackey. 2013. Evaluating the status of species using Indigenous knowledge:

Novel evidence for major native mammal declines in northern Australia. Biological Conservation 157, 78–92.