Why we need traditional knowledge in ecosystem restoration

Ecosystem restoration policies and initiatives are mostly based only on Western science and ecological knowledge. But partnership with indigenous people and local communities and their Traditional Ecological Knowledge is proving to be of great value.

Several decades ago, the practice of ecosystem restoration emerged to address the dramatic decline of the many diverse ecosystems on earth. A much younger practice than nature conservation, ecosystem restoration is now acknowledged as fundamental for the protection and restoration of nature. The UN declared 2020 – 2030 the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration and at the same time the grassroots movement, powered by organisations like Ecosystem Restoration Camps, has been growing worldwide.

Many ecosystem restoration policies and initiatives are based only on Western science and ecological knowledge. However, indigenous people and local communities often have unique knowledge of the local ecosystem, its the animals and plants, seasonal changes and other dynamics. Partnership between western and traditional ecological knowledge has proven to be of great value. And beyond restoration benefits, this type of knowledge can also help us reflect on our worldviews and offer ways to restore our relationship to the land itself.

“…reconnecting people and the landscape is as essential as reestablishing proper hydrology or cleaning up contaminants.
It is medicine for the earth.”

Robin Wall Kimmerer, Braiding Sweetgrass

With 75% of the earth’s ecosystems substantially degraded, transformative changes are needed to restore and protect nature globally (IPBES, 2019). The practice of nature conservation has existed for over a century, however the field of ecological restoration emerged more recently. Many examples exist of mutually beneficial interactions between humans and nature throughout history (Posey, 1985; Douterlungne et al., 2010; Martin, 2017). However, only in the 1970s ecological restoration was described as a natural science (Martin, 2017). The SER defines ecological restoration as “the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed.” (SER primer, 2004; Davis, 2004). Ecological restoration is now a fundamental element of conservation and sustainable development (Davis and Slobodkin, 2004; The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration, 2004; Martin, 2017). The Aichi Biodiversity Targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity included the goal to restore 15% of globally degraded ecosystems in target 15 (Aichi Biodiversity Targets, 2020). And as recently as January 2021, the UN Decade of Ecosystem Restoration launched with the aim to halt the degradation and restore ecosystems worldwide (UN Decade on Restoration, no date).

What is Traditional Ecological Knowledge?

Traditional Ecological Knowledge, also known as TEK, is the unique cultural knowledge of a people. It has been defined in the early 1990s as the knowledge that is passed orally, as well as in practical teachings across generations, informed by cultural memories and reciprocity [4]. Concepts similar to TEK are IK (Indigenous Knowledge), TKW (Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom), and LEK (Local Ecological or Environmental Knowledge). This unique knowledge has allowed human cultures to adapt to their environment over millennia, and includes in-depth knowledge of local species, ecological relationships and ecosystem functions, as well as unique human cultures [5].

Mostly indigenous people have kept this knowledge alive, and it is part of their social and spiritual view of the world. It is the kind of knowledge that is only understood when it is known with our minds, bodies, emotion and spirit [4]. TEK it is considered complementary to scientific ecological knowledge, but there is not enough dialogue between these worlds, and the challenges that arise from the differences between the knowledge systems [4].

Traditional Ecological Knowledge in ecosystem restoration

The value of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) is increasingly recognised in both nature conservation and ecological restoration (Uprety et al., 2012; Reyes‐García et al., 2019; Aichi Biodiversity Targets, 2020). TEK acknowledges that Indigenous People and Local Communities (IPLC) often have unique knowledge of the local ecosystem and its dynamics, and that TEK and Scientific Ecological Knowledge (SEK) are complimentary (Uprety et al., 2012; Reyes‐García et al., 2019). TEK often provides value with highly localised, qualitative ecological data, based on long term observations (Kimmerer, 2000; Uprety et al., 2012; Wehi, Beggs and McAllister, 2019). Partnering with IPLC is also crucial, because they are directly impacted by restoration policies and practices (Reyes‐García et al., 2019).

Partnership with IPLC has been successful when it comes to planning, executing and monitoring of ecological restoration projects (Reyes‐García et al., 2019). Their knowledge can provide value in selection of priority sites for ecological restoration (Uprety et al., 2012). It can also support the construction of historical reference ecosystems, especially when there is insufficient historical information (Wehi, 2009). TEK supports the selection of species, land management practices, and management of invasive species (Kimmerer, 2000; Douterlungne et al., 2010; Uprety et al., 2012). In addition, traditional monitoring methods are based on observations over long time periods, with large sample sizes, and low-cost, and can be effective and efficient in combination with SEK (Moller et al., 2004). It has been suggested that some types of TEK can be globally relevant, whereas others should be recognized as specific to the local context (McElwee et al., 2020). However, not all traditional knowledge is ecologically wise, and some doubt the scientific validity of TEK (Uprety et al., 2012). There are also concerns about the unethical use of TEK, for example by separating the knowledge from its cultural context (Kimmerer, 2000; Uprety et al., 2012).

References

Aichi Biodiversity Targets (2020). Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/ (Accessed: 25 March 2021).
Bernard, H. R. (2006) Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Rowman Altamira.
Davis, M. A. and Slobodkin, L. B. (2004) ‘The Science and Values of Restoration Ecology’, Restoration Ecology, 12(1), pp. 1–3. doi: 10.1111/j.1061-2971.2004.0351.x.
Douterlungne, D. et al. (2010) ‘Applying Indigenous Knowledge to the Restoration of Degraded Tropical Rain Forest Clearings Dominated by Bracken Fern’, Restoration Ecology, 18(3), pp. 322–329. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00459.x.
International Society of Ethnobiology (2006). International Society of Ethnobiology Code of Ethics (with 2008 additions). http://ethnobiology.net/code-of-ethics/
Kimmerer, R. W. (2000) ‘Native knowledge for native ecosystems’, Journal of Forestry, 98(8), pp. 4–9.
Ludwig, D. and El-Hani, C. N. (2020) ‘Philosophy of Ethnobiology: Understanding Knowledge Integration and Its Limitations’, Journal of Ethnobiology, 40(1), pp. 3–20. doi: 10.2993/0278-0771-40.1.3.
Martin, D. M. (2017) ‘Ecological restoration should be redefined for the twenty-first century’, Restoration Ecology, 25(5), pp. 668–673. doi: 10.1111/rec.12554.
McElwee, P. et al. (2020) ‘Working with Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) in large-scale ecological assessments: Reviewing the experience of the IPBES Global Assessment’, Journal of Applied Ecology, 57(9), pp. 1666–1676. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13705.
Moller, H. et al. (2004) ‘Combining Science and Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Monitoring Populations for Co-Management’, Ecology and Society, 9(3). Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26267682 (Accessed: 25 March 2021).
O’Reilly, K. (2005) Ethnographic Methods. Psychology Press.
Posey, D. A. (1985) ‘Indigenous management of tropical forest ecosystems: the case of the Kayapó indians of the Brazilian Amazon’, Agroforestry Systems, 3(2), pp. 139–158. doi: 10.1007/BF00122640.
Reyes‐García, V. et al. (2019) ‘The contributions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to ecological restoration’, Restoration Ecology, 27(1), pp. 3–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12894.
The ISE Code of Ethics (no date) International Society of Ethnobiology. Available at: https://www.ethnobiology.net/what-we-do/core-programs/ise-ethics-program/code-of-ethics/ (Accessed: 31 March 2021).
The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration (2004). Available at: https://www.ser-rrc.org/resource/the-ser-international-primer-on/ (Accessed: 10 March 2020).
UN Decade on Restoration (no date). Available at: https://www.decadeonrestoration.org/ (Accessed: 25 March 2021).
Uprety, Y. et al. (2012) ‘Contribution of traditional knowledge to ecological restoration: Practices and applications’, Écoscience, 19(3), pp. 225–237. doi: 10.2980/19-3-3530.
Wehi, P., Beggs, J. and McAllister, T. (2019) ‘Ka mua, ka muri: the inclusion of mātauranga Māori in New Zealand ecology’, New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 43(3). doi: 10.20417/nzjecol.43.40.