4 Fabien Girard et al.
In recent years, much effort has been undertaken to document and appraise
the role of IPLCs in shaping the ecologies and resource of vast regions of the
world, for instance, in the management of forests, soil fertility, grasslands, mountains, watersheds, and coastal areas (IPBES, 2019). Furthermore, there is now
ample evidence that farmer-managed seed systems have been instrumental in
building viable and diverse crop types over millennia and that they continue to
provide more than 70% of the seeds used around the world today (McGuire &
Sperling, 2016).
In addition, after centuries of disregard or contemptuous treatment,
Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK), also referred to as Traditional E cological
Knowledge (TEK) or simply TK, has recently stirred up a great deal of interest from conservation biologists, ecologists, “sustainability” scientists, and, of
course, geographers, anthropologists, sociologists, and political scientists. TEK
refers to
[…] the worldviews, knowledge, practices, and innovations embedded in
the relationship between people and nature, as expressed in local knowledge about the natural world, techniques and technologies of resource
management, as well as in local institutions governing social relations and
relationship to nature.
(IPBES, 2019, p. 37)
TEK is placed-based, is embodied in social structures, and has a holistic dimension. In contrast to the way it was previously commonly pictured as backward,
static, and self-contained, it is now commonly described as open and hybrid,
dynamically evolving, as IPLCs appropriate new forms of knowledge and interact
with animals, plants, and land (Berkes, 2012, p. 7; Berkes & Berkes, 2009, p. 7).
These significant changes in perspective have contributed decisively towards
IPLCs being recognised as major actors in the struggle against climate change
(IPCC, 2015, pp. 758, 765–766) and the erosion of biodiversity (Secretariat of
the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2020, p. 115). The IPBES’ most recent
Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services underlines, in
singularly forceful fashion, that:
While local in action, IPLC management of nature and biodiversity provides contributions to the larger society, in rural and urban areas alike,
including the provisioning of food, fibers, material, and medicine to local
and to export markets, and the management of agrobiodiversity of major
regional and global crops. In many regions IPLC lands contribute to the
conservation of watersheds that supply large regional populations.
(IPBES, 2019, p. 42)
Traditionally owned or occupied IPLCs’ landscapes are home to much of the
world’s biodiversity (Brondizio & Tourneau, 2016); and evidence is mounting
In recent years, much effort has been undertaken to document and appraise
the role of IPLCs in shaping the ecologies and resource of vast regions of the
world, for instance, in the management of forests, soil fertility, grasslands, mountains, watersheds, and coastal areas (IPBES, 2019). Furthermore, there is now
ample evidence that farmer-managed seed systems have been instrumental in
building viable and diverse crop types over millennia and that they continue to
provide more than 70% of the seeds used around the world today (McGuire &
Sperling, 2016).
In addition, after centuries of disregard or contemptuous treatment,
Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK), also referred to as Traditional E cological
Knowledge (TEK) or simply TK, has recently stirred up a great deal of interest from conservation biologists, ecologists, “sustainability” scientists, and, of
course, geographers, anthropologists, sociologists, and political scientists. TEK
refers to
[…] the worldviews, knowledge, practices, and innovations embedded in
the relationship between people and nature, as expressed in local knowledge about the natural world, techniques and technologies of resource
management, as well as in local institutions governing social relations and
relationship to nature.
(IPBES, 2019, p. 37)
TEK is placed-based, is embodied in social structures, and has a holistic dimension. In contrast to the way it was previously commonly pictured as backward,
static, and self-contained, it is now commonly described as open and hybrid,
dynamically evolving, as IPLCs appropriate new forms of knowledge and interact
with animals, plants, and land (Berkes, 2012, p. 7; Berkes & Berkes, 2009, p. 7).
These significant changes in perspective have contributed decisively towards
IPLCs being recognised as major actors in the struggle against climate change
(IPCC, 2015, pp. 758, 765–766) and the erosion of biodiversity (Secretariat of
the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2020, p. 115). The IPBES’ most recent
Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services underlines, in
singularly forceful fashion, that:
While local in action, IPLC management of nature and biodiversity provides contributions to the larger society, in rural and urban areas alike,
including the provisioning of food, fibers, material, and medicine to local
and to export markets, and the management of agrobiodiversity of major
regional and global crops. In many regions IPLC lands contribute to the
conservation of watersheds that supply large regional populations.
(IPBES, 2019, p. 42)
Traditionally owned or occupied IPLCs’ landscapes are home to much of the
world’s biodiversity (Brondizio & Tourneau, 2016); and evidence is mounting