Figure 1. Weaving together Indigenous and Western knowledges
(©Jessamy Gee)
In Figure 1 we highlight some fundamental differences between
bio-cultural knowledges and western science that contribute to
difficulties in merging them, yet if woven together thoughtfully and
respectfully can strengthen concepts of modern science. Our diagrammatic
tree has two sides and three aspects of knowledge difference that
include a) change indicators and understanding patterns, b) responsive
action and c) sustainable management. We explain these aspects below and
use case studies to illuminate how bio-cultural knowledges can improve
marine research.
Knowledge of indicators of change and understanding patterns :
Western sciences often create data that is free of cultural context,
reliant on linear time and dismissive of oral histories (Mackenzie et al
2017) to measure change through, for example, report cards and spatial
variability of fish stocks. Indigenous peoples and local communities,
however, regard a holistic view as a more important measure of marine
resources and their health. In the Canadian North, for example,
Indigenous intergenerational observations of change and decline in local
area species are filling gaps in scientific assessments undertaken at
regional levels. Holistic responses that gauge animal wellness, such as
fat levels and changed behaviours through toxicity, are understood not
through specific causes, but a range of socio-ecological parameters that
are seasonally dependent, culturally-based and flexible to external
influences (Berke, Berkes & Fast 2007). Furthermore, oral histories of
species, such as yelloweye rockfish, from western Canada have extended
baseline data by decades and indicated size and population decline
through a range of non-Indigenous behaviours previously unconnected
through discrete data collection (Eckert et al 2018).
Knowledge in responsive actions :
Western conservation agendas often privilege decisions that reinforce
the human-nature dualism, while simultaneously viewing Indigenous
peoples and local communities’ rights and responses as a threat to
dominant paradigms (Dale & Natcher 2014). Adaptation, as a conservation
response, for Indigenous peoples and local communities include
autonomous and cooperative decision-making, which are also an arena for
asserting human rights away from Western superiority (von der Porten et
al 2016). For example, Alaskan Indigenous communities are
self-determining the institution of new whaling seasons as an autonomous
response to climate change, while the harvesting of invasive crab
species is a means to re-engage traditional family practices of food
gathering (Huntington et al 2017). In Okinawan islands, south-west
Japan, local communities work with immigrant fishers to infuse fishery
economies with cultural connections and reciprocity-based behaviours
that lessen conflict, enable social cohesion and advance shared
governance of marine resources (Sugimoto 2016).
Cooperative decisions for adaptation often draw together Indigenous and
non-Indigenous partners. In Tasmania, Australia, Indigenous peoples have
invested in developing kinship ties with the government for mutual
benefit and resulting in increased access rights to fisheries
(tebrakunna country and Lee 2019). The Sámi peoples of Finland
have also repaired relationships with scientists, alongside fish stocks
and habitats, to improve cultural self-esteem, revive salmon-spawning
sites and jointly publishing outcomes in prestigious journals (Mustonen
& Feodoroff 2018).
Knowledge in sustainable management :
Science assists to entrench Western economies of capital and industry
into sustainable management, where unequal private enterprise rights
contribute to diminishing Indigenous peoples and local communities’
rights to manage resources for common good. However, Indigenous forms of
governance are based upon collectives of communities and knowledges, and
the generational obligations of individuals to contribute to group and
territory benefit. In the Pacific, Indigenous governance of communal
conservation areas is becoming the rule rather than the exception, where
in Fiji alone 10,000 km2 of waters are under community
management. Bio-cultural knowledges, here, operate to conserve marine
areas through valuing sacredness, taboo zones, no-take areas and
seasonal closures to improve stocks and catch rates, recovery of
vulnerable species and integrate cultural practices into marine
management (Govan et al 2009). While Indigenous groups work to maintain
sustainability and health of marine resources within their own
territories, they act cooperatively for broad-scale resolution of
issues, such as sharing resources and solutions, working with outside
institutions and imparting bio-cultural knowleges as a daily, lived
experience of cultural practice that extends to other spheres of life,
such as health, education and employment.
Indigenous bio-cultural knowledges can also influence government policy
and initiatives, where the use of moku – the geographical,
cultural and spiritual determinants of territory boundaries – in
Hawai’i has led to the restoration of depleted fisheries according to
those cultural practices, such as no-take areas (Freidlander et al
2017). In Aotearoa New Zealand, the Sustainable Seas National
Science11https://sustainableseaschallenge.co.nz/ (the
‘Challenge’) program seeks to influence, at a national scale, how Māori
bio-cultural knowledges are able to effect change in marine and
fisheries management, policy and practice through, for example, leading
and co-designing research themes.
Conclusion : These examples show where Indigenous peoples and
local communities hold bio-cultural knowledges that can contribute to
the makings of a modern science – the top of our figural tree. Western
science is only one part of the toolkit for Indigenous peoples and local
communities to conserve marine environments and sustain fisheries.
Bio-cultural knowledges, underpinned by oral histories, wisdom of lived
experiences and flexibility towards adaptation, contest the frameworks
of linear and perfectly predictable modelling (Dessai & Hulme 2004).
Yet what is required is for science to meet halfway in working together
and conceive where cultural practices can create respectful
co-productions of knowledge (Silvano & Valbo-Jørgensen 2008). A
reciprocal collaboration between both knowledge streams could create a
new vision for resilient seascapes.
Co-productions of knowledge share several important and fundamental
attributes. Both are constantly verified through repetition and
verification, inference and prediction, empirical observations and
recognition of pattern events (Matsui, 2015). However, holistic
overviews that frame bio-cultural knowledges require moving away from
the illusion that they are mutually aligned with science and focus
instead on the value of competing frameworks that strengthen the
ground-truthing process. There is a need for ethical and culturally
sensitive approaches in legitimising and validating bio-cultural
knowledges away from the constraints of science in perfectly predicted
outcomes. To mutually validate and integrate bio-cultural knowledges
into effective marine and fisheries management requires equitable
relationships through respectful dialogue (Davidson-Hunt & O’Flaherty
2007, Robson et al 2009).
The responsibility of conserving and sustaining resources falls upon
many shoulders in society. Multidisciplinary research into marine and
fisheries management and governance is an emergent field, yet barriers
still exist for Indigenous and local participation. In the spirit of
partnership, it is crucial for managers and researchers to undertake
negotiations at the cross-cultural interface, and while not always
straightforward, they are pivotal to building the platforms for ethical
research and management. Co-developing sustainable agendas with
Indigenous peoples and local communities’ bio-cultural knowledges is
becoming harder to ignore. Without these ancient worldviews, global
marine and fisheries governance and management cannot progress to a
state of fullness or richness, nor can science be satisfied it has the
only answers.
References:
Berkes, F., Berkes, M.K., & Fast, H. Collaborative integrated
management in Canada’s North: the role of local and traditional
knowledge and community-based monitoring. Coastal Management,35(1), 143-162, (2007).
Dale, C., & Natcher, D. What is old is new again: the reintroduction of
indigenous fishing technologies in British Columbia. Local
Environment , 20(11), 1309-1321, (2015).
Davidson-Hunt, I. J., & O’Flaherty, R. M. Researchers, indigenous
peoples, and place-based learning communities. Society & Natural
Resources , 20, 291-305, (2007).
Dessai, S. & Hulme, M. Does climate adaptation policy need
probabilities?. Climate policy , 4, 2-22, (2004).
Eckert, L.E., Ban, N.C., Frid, A., & McGreer, M. Diving back in time:
extending historical baselines for yelloweye rockfish with Indigenous
knowledge. Aquatic Conservation, 28(1), 158-166, (2018).
Friedlander, A.M. et al. Human-induced gradients of reef fish declines
in the Hawaiian Archipelago viewed through the lens of traditional
management boundaries. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater
Ecosystems , 28(1), 146-157, (2017).
Garnett, S.T. et al. A spatial overview of the global importance of
Indigenous lands for conservation. Nature Sustainability, 1,
369-374, (2018).
Govan, H. et al. Community Conserved Areas: A review of status &
needs in Melanesia and Polynesia . ICCA regional review for CENESTA
/TILCEPA /TGER/IUCN/ GEF-SGP, (2009).
Khusniati, M., & Sudarmin, P. Local wisdom-based science learning model
through reconstruction of Indigenous science to improve student’s
conservationist character. Journal of Turkish Science Education ,
12(3), 16-23, (2017).
Mackenzie, K., Siabato, W., Reitsma, F., & Claramunt, C.
Spatio-temporal visualisation and data exploration of Traditional
Ecological Knowledge/Indigenous Knowledge. Conservation and
Society , 15(1), 41-58, (2017).
Matsui, K. Problems of defining and validating Traditional Knowledge: A
historical approach. The International Indigenous Policy Journal,6(2), 1-25, (2015).
Mustonen, T., & Feodoroff, P. Skolt Sámi Atlantic Salmon collaborative
management of Näätämö watershed, Finland as a case of Indigenous
evaluation and knowledge in the eurasian arctic. New Directions
for Evaluation, 159, 107–119, (2018).
Noble, M. et al. Culturally significant fisheries: keystones for
management of freshwater social-ecological systems. Ecology and
Society, 21(2), 22, (2016).
Nursey-Bray, M. et al. Science
into policy? Discourse, coastal management and knowledge.Environmental Science & Policy , 38, 107-119, (2014).
Robson, J. P. et al. Building communities of learning: indigenous ways
of knowing in contemporary natural resources and environmental
management. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand,39, 173-177, (2009).
Silvano, R. A., &
Valbo-Jørgensen, J. Beyond fishermen’s tales: Contributions of fishers’
local ecological knowledge to fish ecology and fisheries management.Environment, Development and Sustainability , 10, 657, (2008).
Sugimoto, A. Fish as a ‘bridge’ connecting migrant fishers with the
local community: findings from Okinawa, Japan. Maritime Studies,15(1), doi.org/10.1186/s4015
(2016).
tebrakunna country and Lee, E. ‘Reset the relationship’:
decolonising government for Indigenous benefit. Cultural
Geographies , 26(4), 415-434, (2019).
von der Porten, S., Lepofsky, D., McGregor, D., & Silver, J.
Recommendations for marine herring policy change in Canada: Aligning
with Indigenous legal and inherent rights. Marine Policy 74,
68-76, (2016).