Indigenous Latin America Series, 2 Indigenous Knowledge, Local Knowledge, and Climate Change Interconnections for Policy and Practice ©️ 2025 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work was commissioned by The World Bank and is an external contribution to the Indigenous Latin America Series. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Attribution — Zent, Stanford. 2025. Indigenous Knowledge, Local Knowledge, and Climate Change: Interconnections for Policy and Practice. Indigenous Latin America Series, 2. Washington, DC: World Bank. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. editors Germán Freire Tamires da Silva Graphic Design Rec Design Copyedit and proofread John Dawson Photos: Rony Eloy and Mre Gavião/Brazil’s Ministry of Indigenous Peoples: Fulni-ô People. (Cover) Jessica Belmont/World Bank: Photos from the World Bank’s Dedicated Grant Mechanism for Indigenous Peoples and local communities in Mexico and visits to Ipetí-emberam, Guna Yala and the Wounaan Community in Panama. Fabio Rodrigues-Pozzebom/Agência Brasil Acknowledgements: The author would like to thank Germán Freire for the initial stimulus to do a report on this topic and for his constant support throughout the process from start to finish, including numerous suggestions regarding style and content; Laurie Kutner for retrieving the original data set from the Web of Science which appear in Figure 1.1; Erick Zent for help with designing graphic elements shown in Figure 3.3; Egleé Zent, Les Sponsel, and Álvaro Sepúlveda for comments on a previous written draft; Benoît Bosquet and other attendees of an oral presentation on this report at WB headquarters in June 2024 for sharing their thoughts on the matter; and John Dawson for a thorough proofread and several sharp observations. However, no one else but the author is responsible for any errors, omissions or confusions. Stanford Zent (PhD, Columbia University) is an anthropologist and leading expert on traditional ecological knowledge. He has conducted long-term fieldwork among the Huottöja, Jotï, and Eñepa peoples of the Venezuelan tropical forest since 1984 and has published widely on ethnoecology, biocultural conservation, and Amazonian ethnology. Much of his work has a collaborative and applied orientation, aligning research with community interests. This encompasses projects dealing with community-based mapping, local language documentation, biocultural heritage conservation, traditional ecological knowledge transmission, appropriate development, food security, and health care. He is an emeritus researcher in the Anthropology Center of the Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Research (IVIC) in Caracas, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. iv FOREWORD Indigenous and local knowledge–the wisdom and practices of Indigenous Peoples and local communities–is broadly seen today as a critical component of effective climate mitigation and adaptation. In effect, the world’s climate and conservation community is increasingly turning to indigenous knowledge to inform policies and programs (IPCC 2022a). Forests managed by Indigenous Peoples not only store vast amounts of carbon, but they also have lower rates of deforestation than other lands, including protected natural areas. This is particularly apparent in the Amazon, where roughly 45 percent of the remaining intact forest lies within indigenous territories. These forests hold about 30 percent of Latin America’s tropical forest carbon (FAO and FILAC 2021), and the IPCC reports that deforestation rates on indigenous lands are roughly half those elsewhere. In practice, Amazon indigenous territories lost only about 0.3 percent of their forest carbon from 2003–2016 (versus up to 3–4 percent in other areas). These findings underscore that land stewardship guided by indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) can achieve significantly higher carbon retention and forest protection than conventional approaches. For generations, indigenous communities have engaged in careful ecological monitoring–tracking plant cycles, river flows, and wildlife–and they were often the first to notice changes in their local climate. However, systematic scientific study of ILK in the context of climate change is relatively recent. As noted in this report, only in the early 2000s did researchers start exploring how indigenous knowledge could be integrated into adaptation efforts. Since then, peer-reviewed literature on ILK and climate has v grown steadily, but gaps remain. Much valuable ILK is not captured in written form or conventional databases. This report therefore reviews two decades of scientific publications on ILK and climate change–with a focus on Latin America and the Amazon–to identify emerging patterns, lessons and research needs, without attempting to “assess” ILK itself. Climate change itself now poses an urgent threat to indigenous knowledge systems. Rising temperatures, extreme weather, and habitat shifts are already disrupting the environments that Indigenous Peoples rely on. Communities are being displaced by floods, drought or fires, breaking the cultural continuity of their knowledge. Alarmingly, ILK (like the biodiversity it protects) is disappearing rapidly. United Nations reports warn that an indigenous language–and the unique worldview it carries–vanishes every two weeks (UNPFII 2019a). With each language lost, “the world loses a wealth of traditional knowledge” (idem). The ecological research analyzed in this report confirms that the simultaneous loss of species and cultural knowledge can trigger a rapid collapse of local knowledge networks. Such loss not only erodes cultural heritage but also extinguishes local climate solutions before they can be shared. These trends make it imperative to integrate ILK into development and climate policy, to help safeguard both people and ecosystems from future change. This report finds that the literature on ILK and climate tends to revolve around three complementary approaches: • Knowledge integration: Bridging indigenous and scientific knowledge systems. This includes co‑producing climate data and models that incorporate local observations (for example, participatory monitoring, citizen science and joint mapping of climate impacts). The goal is to build shared understanding, using the strengths of both knowledge types. • Justice and equity: Embedding indigenous rights and values in climate action. This means recognizing community land and resource rights, ensuring free prior and informed consent, and addressing social inequities. vi Climate strategies based on justice and equity seek to benefit Indigenous Peoples, respect their worldviews, and prevent further marginalization. • Collaborative action: Fostering true partnership with indigenous communities. This includes community‑driven adaptation projects, co- management of natural resources, and capacity building. Collaborative action emphasizes local leadership and respects indigenous institutions, so that climate measures are locally owned and culturally appropriate. These categories often overlap in practice. Together they reflect a broad shift toward inclusive climate governance: bringing Indigenous Peoples and local communities into decision-making, valuing their knowledge as legitimate, and sharing power in implementation. Throughout our report, we draw on both Latin American examples and global experiences to highlight these themes. The World Bank is already working along these lines. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the Bank’s Amazonia Viva initiative explicitly seeks nature-smart and inclusive economic opportunities that put Amazonian communities front and center of our development agenda. Our multi- country climate strategy (2021–2025) likewise emphasizes equity, local partnerships and community engagement in climate and nature actions. In every region, the World Bank is committed to protecting indigenous and local community’s rights and promoting inclusion in climate solutions. Embedding ILK in projects and policies is consistent with the Bank’s pledge to advance the rights and well‑being of Indigenous Peoples, especially under our Climate Action Plan and the upcoming Amazonia Bond issuances. As an institution grounded in evidence, the World Bank is publishing this science-based review for several reasons. First, to inform evidence-driven policy: governments and development agencies need reliable information on what ILK contributes to climate resilience, and where more knowledge is needed. Second, to strengthen partnerships with Indigenous Peoples and local communities: by highlighting successful practices and gaps alike, we can support meaningful dialogue and co‑production of solutions vii with indigenous communities. Third, to promote climate strategies that are equitable and effective: by showcasing that ILK-based approaches often outperform conventional practices, we aim to encourage policies that align with local realities and cultural values, and are cost effective.  The report focuses primarily on Latin America and the Caribbean, where indigenous stewardship is particularly impactful, but the findings have broader relevance. The report identifies critical data gaps–much traditional knowledge remains under-documented and not reflected in scientific databases–and calls for participatory research and community- led monitoring to fill them. Throughout, we stress that future knowledge must be co-created with indigenous and local communities, respecting their methodologies and priorities. Ultimately, healthy forests, resilient ecosystems and viable livelihoods in the face of climate change depend on combining all sources of wisdom. By bringing indigenous and local knowledge into the heart of climate action, we honor both scientific rigor and cultural heritage. The World Bank stands ready to support governments and partners in this task, knowing that an inclusive, knowledge- informed path is key to achieving climate and development goals for all. Benoît Bosquet Regional Director for Planet Latin America and the Caribbean Region viii ABBREVIATIONS AR assessment report GHG greenhouse gas ILK indigenous and local knowledge ILO International Labour Organization IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPLC indigenous people and local community [used adjectivally] IPLCs Indigenous Peoples and local communities Mha million hectares PV participatory video TVM traditional veterinary medicine UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ix Photo: Jessica Belmont/World Bank x CONTENTS Foreword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter 1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 IPLC Vulnerabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 IPLC Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 IPLC Contributions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Rising Valuation of ILK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Scope and Purpose of This Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Preliminary Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Gaps and Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Chapter 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Conceptual Understandings and Policy Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Chapter 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Contributions of ILK to Climate Change Policy and Action. . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Seasonal Calendars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Weather Forecasting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Local Observations of Climate Change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Social Memories of Climate in the Past. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Comparing ILK- and Scientific Knowledge-Based Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 xi Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Evidence of Successful Forest Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Reasons for Stewardship Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Potential Outscaling of ILK-based Land Use Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 IPLCs Are Active Responders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Adaptive Capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 ILK as a Learning Tool. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Role of ILK in Adaptation Is Context Specific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Chapter 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Impacts of Social and Ecological Change on ILK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Desynchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Psychological and Social Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Displacement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Climate and Other Causes of Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Sociocultural Impacts of Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Erosion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Possible Causes and Conditioning Factors of Erosion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Visibilizing ILK Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Overlapping Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Chapter 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 xii BOXES BOX 1.1 Perspectives on ILK–Scientific Knowledge Synergies: Integration . . 27 BOX 1.2 Perspectives on ILK–Scientific Knowledge Synergies: Justice. . . . . 30 BOX 1.3 Perspectives on ILK–Scientific Knowledge Synergies: Collaborative Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 BOX 1.4 Key Questions Framing This Investigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 BOX 2.1 Examples of Ethnoclimatological Knowledge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 BOX 3.1 Seasonal Calendars of the Jotö. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 BOX 3.2 Weather Forecasting Systems: Examples from Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Ethiopia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 BOX 3.3 Local Observations of Recent Weather or Climate Changes and Their Impacts on Human Lives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 BOX 3.4 Social Memories of Historical Climatic Conditions and Environmental Changes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 BOX 3.5 Outcomes When Comparing ILK and Scientific Knowledge Assessments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 BOX 3.6 IPLC Sustainable Land Use Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 BOX 3.7 Examples of IPLC Adaptations to Climate Change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 xiii BOX 3.8 Examples of IPLC Vulnerability or Difficulty Adapting to Climate Change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 BOX 3.9 Novel Applications of ILK Stimulated by Climate Stress. . . . . . . . . . 99 BOX 3.10 Reports of Successful Folk Experiments from around the World. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 BOX 4.1 Reported Cases of Traditional Climatic Indicators, Calendars and Institutions “Out of Sync” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 BOX 4.2 Impacts of Displacement on Language, Culture, Lifescape, and Heritage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119 BOX 4.3 Environmental Change and ILK Erosion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 BOX 4.4 Revitalizing Old Knowledges with New Technologies and Applications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 xiv FIGURES FIGURE 1.1 Number of Scientific Publications per Year with the Key Words “climate change (CC)” + “traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) / indigenous knowledge (IK) / local knowledge (LK) / indigenous and local knowledge (ILK)”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 FIGURE 1.2 Average Relative Frequency of Case Studies or Thematic Mentions by Geographic Region in a Sample of Literature Review Publications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 FIGURE 2.1 Basic Properties of Indigenous and Local Knowledge. . . . . . . . . 44 FIGURE 3.1 Contributions of ILK to Action on Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . 53 FIGURE 3.2 Jotö Seasonal Calendar Representation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 FIGURE 3.3 Sustainable Land Use Technologies found in ILK Systems. . . . . 82 TABLES TABLE 1.1 Indigenous, Traditional, and Local Knowledge Mentions in IPCC Working Group II Assessment Reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 TABLE 1.2 Recognition of Significance of IPLCs and ILK for Climate Change Policy and Action in UNFCCC Processes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 TABLE 3.1 Jotö Socio-productive Calendar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Photo: Fabio Rodrigues-Pozzebom/Agência Brasil xv Photo: Jessica Belmont/World Bank xvi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) are often depicted as highly vulnerable to the environmental and human impacts of anthropogenic climate change. At the same time, they are increasingly recognized as prominent contributors toward global efforts to combat climate change. In particular, their intergenerational, place-based knowledge systems contain much valuable information about climate variability and local environments, and collectively their trove of knowledge and know-how constitutes a strategic resource for developing more effective climate assessment, mitigation, and adaptation capabilities. This report examines the interconnections between indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) and climate change for policy and practice purposes. It looks at how ILK can contribute to strategies for dealing with anthropogenic climate change and its impacts, and how such changes may exert influences on the utility and vitality of ILK systems moving forward. A great deal of scientific research and policy-minded discourse in recent decades has been dedicated to the significance of IPLCs and their knowledge systems – both strengths and limitations – for the advancement of applied climate science and appropriate climate 1 mitigation and adaption actions. At the same time, there has been some modest progress with respect to the participation of indigenous people and local community (IPLC) actors and the incorporation of ILK in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) policy processes. However, opinions diverge regarding the specific roles or applications that ILK should have. Three basic positions or approaches are identified here: (a) integration, which advocates the integration of parts of ILK with the latest advances of scientific knowledge; (b) justice, which insists on the crucial protagonism of IPLCs for climate action, foregrounding justice, equity, inclusion, and diversity considerations; and (c) collaborative action, which puts emphasis on local community members collaborating with scientists and other stakeholders at various stages of the research and development process. Critical observers note that the progressive discourse in favor of greater integration and participation of IPLC experts has not been matched by actual measures to make this happen on the ground. Their participation in climate governance mechanisms at the international and national levels is judged to be marginal and largely symbolic. Despite the recent proliferation of empirical research and data on how IPLCs are being impacted by climate- induced environmental changes, and in turn how they are using their traditional, place-based knowledge to deal with such changes, the great diversity of these interactions from one place to the next and the great complexity of factors involved make it difficult to reach simple or uniform conclusions. Questions remain in regard to several important issues: vulnerability of IPLCs to climate change, their proper role in climate policy and practice processes, the vitality and value of ILK systems in the face of rampant social and ecological change, the opportunities for and limits to making better use of ILK, the factors that influence adaptive success, the identification of good (and bad) practices, and the possibilities and methods needed to achieve effective knowledge integration. A review of the available literature and public information was undertaken in order to assess and summarize the current state of evidence and findings on this topic. “IPLCs” is an inclusive term that groups together Indigenous Peoples and 2 local communities into a single category.1 They are similar in the sense of manifesting close relationships to the land and natural resources and displaying unique cultural characteristics, but distinct in terms of their social place in larger society, sense of common descent and identity, ancestral ties to certain territories, and international legal status. The boundaries between them are not always clear and both groups possess intimate, site-specific environmental knowledge and therefore can make important The holistic contributions to climate mitigation and adaptation efforts. character of ILK, meaning that ILK is another compound expression that has no universal different parts are definition. Although each knowledge system is unique, they connected to other share more or less the following basic properties: place parts in intricate ways, should be and culture specific, rooted in tradition and repetition, kept in mind and inherited from past generations, adapted to local natural caution exercised environments, integrated with other aspects of culture, when considering capable of incorporating new information, and fundamentally individual parts practical in orientation. In terms of content and function, ILK in isolation from encompasses a huge variety of cognitive and behavioral their natural operations, including classification systems and associated context. knowledge of environmental components (for example, plants, animals, ecotopes, land forms, water bodies, soils, and minerals), resource management practices, social institutions, spiritual beliefs, ritual practices, and worldview. The holistic character of ILK, meaning that different parts are connected to other parts in intricate ways, should be kept in mind and caution exercised when considering individual parts in isolation from their natural context. 1 The author is aware of the tensions involved in the use of the abbreviation IPLC over the past year, but much of the literature on which this document is based precedes the discussions within the United Nations and other forums. There are three major action areas in which ILK can make specific contributions to global climate action: assessment, mitigation, and adaptation. Most or all IPLCs have developed their own assessment systems, consisting of calendars, ethno-environmental indicators, readings of seasonal variability and longer- term cycles, and social memories of historical climatic Forestlands conditions and events. They also manifest unique and are especially detailed observations on recent climate change, its causes, important for mitigation because and impacts on human lives (such as livelihood). The they actively complementary use of ILK and scientific knowledge to sequester and conduct climate change assessments will potentially provide store large a more well-rounded grasp of the emerging impacts and their amounts of drivers. ILK perspectives typically consist of many variables, carbon, modulate qualitative measurement, high resolution, and knowledge- temperature sharing networks, while scientific knowledge operates on and rainfall at the basis of few variables, quantitative measurement, low microclimatic resolution, and modeling based on seasonal or annual scales, and averages. There are three basic outcomes when comparing provide other key ILK and scientific knowledge assessments: (a) confirmation, ecosystem services. (b) contradiction, and (c) complementarity. Confirmation serves to validate the accuracy and reliability of information coming from different sources, and to evaluate the scale and consistency of climate variables and their ecological impacts across different contexts. Contradiction implies basic cognitive differences over what parameters change and how much they change, the effects on or risks they pose for people, the types of adaptive response needed, and notions of causality. Exposing these differences is useful for improving communication and exchanging information between scientists and ethnoscientists. Complementarity entails the combination of distinct types of data and information in a complementary fashion. This type of 4 result has contributed to the expansion or improvement of scientific models of climate change by adding insights on spatial and temporal dimensions, as well as variables that had previously escaped scientific attention. IPLCs are major contributors to climate mitigation efforts by virtue of their role as forest managers. Forestlands are especially important for mitigation because they actively sequester and store large amounts of carbon, modulate temperature and rainfall at microclimatic scales, and provide other key ecosystem services. There is much solid evidence showing that IPLCs are very effective land managers. For example, 36 percent of the world’s “intact forests,” which by definition are biodiverse and carbon rich, are found on indigenous territories, while in the Amazon basin, location of the world’s biggest rainforest, that figure rises to 45 percent. Forests managed by indigenous communities are subject to lower rates of deforestation or degradation than those found under other landholders or even in protected natural areas. Deforestation rates on indigenous territories with secure land tenure rights are significantly lower than those on indigenous territories without such rights. Despite the strong evidence attesting to their ability to sustainably use and manage forests and other natural ecosystems, especially when backed by formal land tenure rights, the vast majority (over 80 percent) of IPLCs do not possess such rights. The superior performance of IPLCs as custodians of forestland can be traced to two general attributes that give them a natural advantage—their eco-technological intelligence and their cultural values. Adaptation to environmental change is an exceedingly variable, particularistic, and dynamic process. Atmospheric processes occurring at a global or macro scale interact with physical, biological, and socioeconomic variables at lower scales to produce many different environmental and human impacts at the local level. Adaptive response to environmental change is mediated by culture, which multiplies the diversity of situations. Experts agree that adaptation initiatives compatible with the local culture, knowledge, and practices are generally better received by the host communities and hence more sustainable over time, yet national adaptation plans rarely acknowledge IPLCs or take into account ILK systems. IPLCs are not passive victims of climate change but 5 rather active responders and innovators. There are many documented cases where local groups have adapted successfully to anthropogenic climate change and its environmental impacts. At the same time, there are many reports of IPLCs struggling to adapt successfully or choosing maladaptive pathways. Assessments of the adaptive behaviors of IPLCs or the significance of ILK for climate change adaptation tend to focus on the issue of adaptive capacity. Different conceptual models for understanding how community- based adaptive capacity is constructed have been proposed. Economic- based proposals focus on the portfolio of livelihood assets that groups have access to, including human capital, physical capital, financial capital, natural capital, social capital, and cultural capital. An alternative set of proposals point to intangible cultural elements, such as knowledge, experimentation, learning ability, agency, diversity, social cohesion, collective action, and institutions. Whether categorized as an economic asset or a cultural property, ILK is frequently highlighted as a key resource for maintaining ecological resilience. A wide range of adaptation practices based on the experimentation or novel application of ILK in contemporary climate-stressed settings have been empirically documented. Some of the general strategies used in different places and regions include resource and habitat diversification; livelihood flexibility; incremental modifications (such as timing, spacing, or techniques) to traditional subsistence activities; adoption of new crops and varieties; water management (such as ponds, irrigation, aqueducts, or wetlands protection); fire prevention; climate-appropriate housing; use of new materials for local manufactures; revised transport systems; living shoreline barrier construction; ecosystem restoration; and disaster risk reduction. In general, the evidence reviewed here suggests that ILK plays a considerable role in building adaptive capacity in contemporary climate- stressed contexts, but that role is also highly variable and contextual. 6 One encounters a great diversity of adaptive profiles, ranging from higher to lower resilience, and of specific contributions of community-based knowledge to these profiles. While ILK makes a big difference to adaptive outcomes, this does not mean that it should be considered infallible. The diversity and complexity of the adaptive process argues for a local-level, multivariate approach to understanding the capabilities and needs of a particular population or community, and how best to assist them. A particular knowledge system While it may be reasonable and important to assign may become a more prominent role to IPLCs and their traditional desynchronized, knowledge systems in contemporary agendas to or “out of phase,” counteract environmental change, it is also important as a result of drastic, rapid, or to recognize that social or ecological change can have nonlinear change. strong and deleterious impacts on ILK, which therefore The pace and affect its apparent usefulness. Climate change may be degree of change directly implicated in such impacts, but other powerful may outstrip the drivers are usually involved as well. In any case, they normal capacity of represent challenges for an ILK-centric approach to people to develop climate action. Three processes are described here: effective adaptive (a) desynchronization, (b) displacement, and (c) erosion. responses. A particular knowledge system may become desynchronized, or “out of phase,” as a result of drastic, rapid, or nonlinear change. The pace and degree of change may outstrip the normal capacity of people to develop effective adaptive responses. Aspects of climate ILK that are especially affected by anomalous environmental change include (a) indicators, (b) calendars, and (c) resource-regulating institutions. Changes in the behavior of key environmental indicators may impair people’s ability to forecast the weather and plan their work activities accordingly. The perception that reigning cultural knowledge and practices cannot guarantee well-being and security often leads to a crisis of faith in the existing social and cultural order, prompting people to reject the old ways in favor of new and exotic ones. This break with tradition disproportionately affects the younger generation. Adaptive responses themselves may lead to the debilitation or invalidation of certain aspects of ILK, especially when they result in departures from traditional practices or livelihoods upon which much of ILK is based. A given knowledge system becomes displaced when it is removed or separated from its customary place. This occurs under two basic modalities: (a) knowledge holders are forced to move away from their heritage homelands; or (b) knowledge holders lose access to or control over their customary territory or habitat, even though they remain in place. Besides uprooting the population, displacement has a major impact on people’s culture, society, and identity. Given that ILK is largely a place-based system of knowledge, separation from its natural context has negative consequences for the utility, vitality, and continuity of such knowledge. Territorial dispossession or separation undermines the emotional attachment and moral commitment to protect the territory and to preserve traditional knowledge and practices. Aspects of expressive culture, such as historical narratives, folklore, song, dance, rituals, art and aesthetics, food preparations, clothing, spiritual beliefs, environmental ethics, and worldview, depend on continuity of place and therefore will likely be difficult to maintain intact when removed from that context. A knowledge system is subject to erosion when it undergoes significant loss or decline of valuable information content, richness, and complexity. Although ILK is inherently dynamic and mutable in response to shifting environmental conditions, erosion implies a more serious subtraction that increases vulnerability and limits options. Many of the small-scale, time-honored ILK systems throughout the world are currently endangered or vulnerable to erosion or devitalization under the hegemonic influence of globalization, modernization, and other contemporary forces of change. This degenerative process has been documented by many different studies all over the world. Even though it can be considered a global trend, no two cases look alike. A great variety of political, economic, technological, social, and ecological drivers have been identified as 8 fueling this complex process. One of them is environmental change, especially where natural capital has been degraded. Climate change is widely believed to be yet another risk factor for ILK erosion and endangerment, particularly to the extent that it threatens the maintenance of traditional livelihoods and lifestyles. This development affects primarily children and adolescents, who are still in their active learning years, and represents an obstacle to efforts to recover or revitalize local knowledge systems. Given the ongoing threats to ILK vitality, it is important to consider that climate action should also include integrated measures to conserve and strengthen such knowledge systems where needed. In conclusion, the evidence reviewed here shows that much progress has been made in regard to promoting recognition and reaching a better understanding of connections between ILK and anthropogenic climate change, which are relevant for policy and practice applications, notably in the fields of assessment, mitigation, and adaptation. One of the main lessons learned is that the best way to maximize the value and effectivity of ILK in terms of climate action is to pay special attention to the particulars of context and application (that is, context matters). However, much work still remains to be done and concrete measures should be taken in the short rather than the long term to further this agenda. The findings of this report point to eight recommendations, as follows. 1. Promote a respect- and rights-based approach. The voices of IPLCs and their allies maintain that the best way to ensure the integration of their unique perspective and expertise in global climate governance processes is to dismantle the structures of colonialism that are still entrenched in many countries. This would require that such rights be formalized through national laws, institutions, and policy instruments. 2. Advance IPLC land rights and security. Expanding the role of IPLCs as effective stewards of a large portion of the world’s forestlands will require that advances be made with respect to their collective land rights and security. National governments should be strongly encouraged to legalize IPLC land tenure rights with concrete measures and provide adequate protection or enforcement. 9 3. Stimulate collaborative assessment and action processes. The coproduction of knowledge entails bringing together different stakeholders—political decision-makers, program managers, climate scientists, end user groups, others—with distinct experiences, expertises, and perspectives to work together to solve climate challenges. The process is often context and participant specific but can be facilitated by effective “boundary agency,” which involves developing institutional mechanisms designed to facilitate communication, translation, and mediation across social and epistemological boundaries. 4. Support community-based adaptation and development initiatives. In keeping with a rights-based approach, support should be focused on strengthening local institutions and organizations, especially with respect to fortifying social cohesion, economic cooperation or coordination, division of labor, and norms and rules regarding resource use and regulation. 5. Identify and address threats to ILK vitality and utility. While ILK is undoubtedly a valuable resource in the fight against harmful climate change, the vitality and utility of many local knowledge systems are under threat from ongoing processes of desynchronization, displacement, or erosion. In order to assess and support ILK systems, it will be necessary to carry out a competent assessment of the present state and trend of vitality in a given place. In the event that a positive diagnosis is obtained, an appropriate course of action should be designed and developed in consultation with the community, taking into account the particularities of the social-ecological context. 6. Develop new indicators. More locally applicable indicators are needed to obtain a better comprehension of the great diversity of climate- related impacts and how they affect people’s experiences and well- being. The topics for which additional indicators may be needed are adaptive capacity, learning resources, local language and knowledge vitality, traditional occupations, land tenure and resource rights, food security, disaster preparedness, social networks, and well-being. 10 7. Expand empirical research. Despite the considerable amount of writing and information available on this topic, there is still an acute need for more research and documentation to be done, especially regarding how ILK is being deployed for climate assessment, mitigation, and adaptation purposes in rea-life settings. The needs fall into at least two categories: (a) site-specific, detail-oriented biocultural ethnography; and (b) multisite comparisons, using a more structured research design to test covariate relationships. 8. Improve information management. The data and information available on the interconnections of IPLCs, ILK, and climate change is voluminous but also very fragmented and dispersed. An online database or clearinghouse that provides easy access to the abundant public record on the topic would facilitate greater access to and use of the available information. Another proposed tool for better information access would be a crowd-sourced online platform that could be used for storing and sharing narratives about climate change and its impact in different places around the world. 11 Photo: Fabio Rodrigues-Pozzebom/Agência Brasil 12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Anthropogenic climate change and its environmental fallout constitute an existential challenge for humankind and other life forms on a scale arguably never seen before. By now, the vital signs of a changing planet are too well studied and documented to be denied: higher mean surface temperatures, warmer and more acidic oceans, shrinking cryosphere and rising sea levels, more extreme weather events such as severe drought or floods, stronger storms, bigger wildfires, coastal erosion, damaged coral reefs, changes in plant and animal life cycles or distributions, mass extinction of species, decimated wildlife populations, and more (WMO 2024). The impacts on human health and well- being are less accessible to direct measurement but are still substantiated by piles of evidence: increase in heat-related death and illness; more injuries and loss of life by natural disasters; millions of displaced people; rising food insecurity in some regions and certain income groups; diminishing freshwater supplies; greater risk of vector- and waterborne diseases; environmental stress-related mental health issues, including a new one called “ecological grief”; crop failure; loss of livelihoods; unpredictable weather; infrastructure and property damage; social disruption and conflict; exacerbation of socioeconomic inequalities; and countless cultural 13 repercussions (Barnes et al. 2013; Sahu et al. 2023). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was created at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit), Rio de Janeiro, 1992, precisely to manage this crisis, and despite several decades of high-level meetings, accords, and protocols, there is little evidence to show that these efforts have come close to reversing or slowing down the alarming trends alluded to above. In response to these shortcomings, Social inequality there is a swelling chorus of erudite voices calling for a is part of the radical paradigm shift in the ways that humanity relates to fabric of many of the natural world (Ripple et al. 2017; Tsioumanis 2020; WEF these societies, 2024). In order to achieve this monumental transformation and consequently toward sustainability and climate-smart governance, nothing certain individuals, less than a broad-based, all-hands-on-deck effort is required, especially women, with active cooperation from the different sectors of society: children, and the government, the scientific community, business, labor groups, elderly, are more young people, media, and civil society actors (IPCC 2023). exposed to the negative impacts Among the actors being enlisted to make creative contributions toward this titanic battle against the elements are Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs). This may seem ironic at first glance because these people are widely considered to be very vulnerable to the ravages of climate change and historically they have been marginalized from mainstream society and its techno-economic development. Yet it is precisely their vast experience of coping with climatic variability over long time periods and their home-grown information technologies, commonly referred to as indigenous and local knowledge (ILK), that are now coveted and sought after as valuable tools for building a more climate-resilient future. Development scholars and practitioners may be generally aware of this topic but are not well versed in the main arguments and issues, or some of the complexities 14 surrounding them. This report is intended as a succinct information source mainly for this type of audience. It examines the nexus of ILK and climate change for policy and practice purposes, looking at the connections in both directions: how ILK can contribute to strategies for dealing with climate change and its social and ecological impacts, and how these impacts in turn may affect the integrity and functionality of ILK systems moving forward. IPLC Vulnerabilities In view of the immensity and intensity of climate change impacts, it appears as though no one is left untouched but some people are clearly more affected than others. IPLCs are said to be on the front line of this momentous ecological transition due to their subsistence-based, natural resource- dependent livelihoods. They also tend to inhabit marginal land areas and climate-sensitive biomes, such as the circumpolar region, coastlines, arid or semi-arid areas, high mountain zones, small islands, and tropical forests. Their vulnerability is magnified by pervasive poverty, marginality, poor health conditions, ethnic discrimination, and remoteness. Social inequality is part of the fabric of many of these societies, and consequently certain individuals, especially women, children, and the elderly, are more exposed to the negative impacts (Kronik and Verner 2010a; Nakashima et al. 2012). Meanwhile, climate change is not the only powerful environmental disturbance that IPLCs face; they also have to contend with a multitude of other social, political, economic, technological, ecological, and demographic pressures derived from development or modernization processes. Key drivers of change include commercial agricultural, industrial, or mining expansion, land encroachment, population growth, integration into the market economy, technological introductions, Western biomedicine, formal education, language shift, religious conversion, changed values, and access to mass media. Climate change adds another layer or combines with these forces to exacerbate the pressure on IPLCs and their distinctive lifeways. Besides the loss of traditional lands, habitats, resources, and livelihoods, environmental change often has a devastating impact on IPLC sociocultural 15 systems, especially ethno-ecological knowledge, food habits, social structures, cultural symbols, values, spiritual beliefs, ritual practices, and sense of identity. In due consideration of such impacts, IPLCs are frequently depicted as being highly vulnerable to the stresses and strains associated with climate change (IPCC Working Group II 2007; Galloway McLean 2009; Kronik and Verner 2010a; Ford et al. 2016; Norton-Smith et al. 2016). IPLC Capabilities Despite the received wisdom of critical vulnerability of IPLCs in the contemporary world, there is an emergent counternarrative that these people are eminently resilient and capable of adjusting to shifting circumstances and, moreover, should be recognized as crucial actors in global efforts to combat climate change. In particular, their intergenerational, place-based knowledge systems, commonly referred to as indigenous and local knowledge (ILK), are touted as a strategic collective resource for developing more effective climate control and response capabilities. This proposal seems justified when we consider that IPLCs typically manifest intimate material and spiritual connections with the natural world and an intricate understanding of its many diverse components and their interrelationships. Furthermore, they actively create and maintain many healthy ecosystems through their customary resource use and manipulation behaviors. General properties of ILK systems considered to be directly relevant for coping with shifting environmental conditions include a broad spectrum of resources, diverse economic portfolio, capability of reading environmental signs and detecting changes fairly quickly, social memory of long-term climatic fluctuations and cycles, relative food sovereignty, and strong social networks and relations that promote cooperation, risk sharing, and disaster relief. In short, IPLCs possess a wealth of relevant knowledge and know-how that should be incorporated into the science and policy of global climate change (Salick and Byg 2007; Salick and Ross 2009; ILO 2017; Nakashima et al. 2012; Nakashima, Krupnik, and Rubis 2018; Vinyeta and Lynn 2013; Ford et al. 2020). 16 IPLC Contributions Some of the main justifications for incorporating ILK into climate initiatives include the following. • Information. ILK systems constitute rich repositories of information about specific local environments, including biodiversity, ecological interactions, edaphic and topographic features, weather and climate, astronomy, and environmental fluctuation and change over long time periods; such information is especially valuable where scientific data are lacking (Kanani 2006; Salick and Byg 2007; Savo et al. 2016; Reyes- García, Fernández-Lamazares et al. 2016; Chanza and Musakwa 2022). • Experience. As a result of their extensive front-line experience, IPLCs have acquired many first-hand insights into climate variability and change, the impacts on ecosystems and people, and strategies for dealing with them (Salick and Byg 2007; Berkes 2008; IIPFCC 2009). • Monitoring. Incorporating the perceptions and observations of IPLCs with respect to ongoing environmental changes in different places augments overall information-gathering and monitoring capabilities (Riedlinger and Berkes 2001; Cabalzar 2018; Brattland et al. 2019; Brondízio et al. 2021; Hernández et al. 2022). • Forest management. IPLCs employing traditional knowledge and resource practices have an outstanding track record of sustainably using and managing healthy forests, which are crucial resources for carbon storage and sequestering (Stevens et al. 2014; Veit 2021; FAO and FILAC 2021). • Adaptability. IPLC knowledge–belief–practice systems are closely attuned to environmental conditions and alterations, and therefore are inherently resilient and adaptable in the face of environmental change (Gadgil, Berkes, and Folks 1993; Berkes 2008; Nakashima, Rubis, and Krupnik 2018). • Ethics. ILK systems offer pertinent models and principles for building more climate-friendly environmental ethics that may be suitable for the global community at large (for example, close attachment to place, caring ecocentric values, sustainable lifestyles) (Berkes 2008; Brondízio et al. 2021; IWGIA 2022; Zent and Zent 2022). 17 Rising Valuation of ILK Some idea of the growing appreciation of ILK for climate action can be illustrated by looking at the way it has been represented in academic and policy discourses in recent years. On the academic side, one can observe an exponential growth of scientific research and publications on the topic, especially during the past 15 years. An indicator of this trend is obtained by counting the number of publications containing the combination of phrases “climate change” and “indigenous/local/traditional (ecological) knowledge” on the Web of Science reference and citation platform (figure 1.1). Since 2005, the annual output of publications has increased 100-fold. Before 2008, the total number of publications on this combined topic was less than 40, whereas after that the number is greater than 2,500. FIGURE 1.1 NUMBER OF SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS PER YEAR WITH THE KEY WORDS “CLIMATE CHANGE (CC)” + “TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE (TEK) / INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE (IK) / LOCAL KNOWLEDGE (LK) / INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL KNOWLEDGE (ILK)” 18 Source: Web of Science. A similar trajectory is apparent when comparing the periodic reports produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Working Group II (table 1.1). The IPCC is the official scientific arm of the UNFCCC; Working Group II is the division within the IPCC that deals with “impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.” Each Working Group produces a comprehensive assessment report every five to eight years, which summarizes the current state of science and understanding about climate change. The Working Group II assessment report is the report that engages most with IPLC and ILK issues. In the group’s First and Second Assessment Reports (1990 and 1995 respectively), there is no mention of indigenous or traditional knowledge whatsoever. The silence is broken in the Third Assessment Report (2001), but there is still scant recognition of the value of ILK, and more attention is given to the vulnerability of IPLCs maintaining traditional lifestyles and their alleged lack of adaptive capacity in the face of climate change (rated as medium to high confidence). This general attitude of nonrecognition starts to change in the Fourth Assessment Report in 2007, with 90 mentions of ILK in regard to weather forecasting, mitigation, adaptation, and sustainability research (IPCC Working Group II 2007). A featured section within the report describes different case studies of how ILK is being used to adapt to climate change (Parry et al. 2007). The Fifth Assessment Report (2014) contains over 200 references to indigenous, traditional, and local knowledge, including a concise statement declaring it to be a “major resource for adapting to climate change (robust evidence, high agreement).” Among the recommendations for climate change risk management, we find “strengthening of traditional indigenous knowledge systems and practices” and “co- production of more robust solutions that combine science and technology with indigenous knowledge” (IPCC 2014a). The status and prominence of ILK grows to nearly 800 mentions in the Sixth Assessment Report (2022), where it is highlighted in reference to various roles and applications, including its value in analysis and policy decision making (IPCC 2022a). 19 TABLE 1.1 INDIGENOUS, TRADITIONAL, AND LOCAL KNOWLEDGE MENTIONS IN IPCC WORKING GROUP II ASSESSMENT REPORTS Assessment No. of Year Key messages report mentions AR1 1990 0 No mention. AR2 1995 0 No mention. AR3 2001 7 “Europeans [in Australia and New Zealand] have much to learn from traditional indigenous knowledge about land management.” AR4 2007 90 “Incorporating indigenous knowledge into climate-change policies can lead to the development of effective adaptation strategies that are cost- effective, participatory and sustainable.” AR5 2014 > 200 “Indigenous, local, and traditional knowledge systems and practices, including Indigenous Peoples’ holistic view of community and environment, are a major resource for adapting to climate change (robust evidence, high agreement).” AR6 2022 ~ 800 “This report recognizes the value of diverse forms of knowledge such as scientific, as well as Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge in understanding and evaluating climate adaptation processes and actions to reduce risks from human- induced climate change.” AR = assessment report. 20 This rhetorical makeover is mirrored by greater recognition and participation in official UNFCCC processes and institutions (table 1.2). Notable advances include (a) receiving observer status (Indigenous Peoples’ organizations) at the seventh session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in 2001; (b) creation of the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Climate Change in 2008; (c) creation of the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform in 2015; and (d) creation of the Facilitative Working Group of the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform in 2018. TABLE 1.2 RECOGNITION OF SIGNIFICANCE OF IPLCS AND ILK FOR CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY AND ACTION IN UNFCCC PROCESSES Year Instrument Type of recognition or significance 1992 UNFCCC There is no mention of IPLCs or ILK whatsoever. 1997 Kyoto Protocol Acknowledges the contributions of Indigenous to the UNFCCC Peoples in preventing global warming, in particular through forest management, but not their right to participate directly in discussions or decisions that directly affect the people and their territories. 2001 Indigenous Indigenous Peoples’ organizations are admitted Peoples’ as an official constituency of the UNFCCC, organizations with the right to have a formal channel of communication with the secretariat and other constituencies, and to attend the annual Conference of the Parties as observers. 2007 United Nations Landmark text on the rights of Indigenous Declaration on Peoples, which has influenced subsequent the Rights of policies endorsed by the United Nations. It Indigenous Peoples notes that respect for indigenous knowledge, cultures, and traditional practices contributes to proper management of the environment. 21 Year Instrument Type of recognition or significance 2008 International Intended to give Indigenous Peoples a common Indigenous voice and a venue for making contributions Peoples’ Forum to and expressing concerns in discussions on Climate about climate change and sustainability. Change created 2015 Paris Agreement on Calls upon the Parties to respect and promote Climate Change the rights of Indigenous Peoples when taking climate action; exhorts the Parties to develop adaptation strategies “based on and guided by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional knowledge, knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local knowledge systems.” 2015 Local Communities Intended to be a working caucus of and and Indigenous for IPLCs within the UNFCCC process to Peoples Platform promote exchanges of experiences and good practices, build capacity for engagement, and bring together diverse ways of designing and implementing climate change actions. 2018 Facilitative Established to further operationalize the Local Working Group Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform and facilitate implementation of its functions. 2021 Glasgow Leaders’ Highlights the importance of forest conservation Declaration on for achieving the Sustainable Development Forests and Goals and the Paris Agreement; goes Land Use on to state that meeting those goals will require support for smallholders, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities who depend on forests for their livelihoods and have a key role in their stewardship. 22 Scope and Purpose of This Report In view of the rising attention and valuation given to ILK in the context of climate change policy matters, the Sustainable Development for the Latin America and the Caribbean Region section at the World Bank commissioned the present study to make an exploratory yet evidence-based assessment of the ILK–climate change nexus. The information summarized thus far would suggest that the impacts are mutual but not necessarily equal or balanced, with the connections perceived as both real and potential. The study consisted of an extensive review of the literature and broader media coming from a variety of public sources. These included scientific (peer-reviewed) publications, academic theses, technical reports sanctioned by the IPCC, other reports by independent policy-minded organizations, policy and legal documents, web pages of environmentalist and indigenous organizations, press clippings, conference and forum statements, presentation outlines, interview transcripts, and video recordings. A conscious effort was made to extend the search beyond the exclusive reach of indexed journal articles or official policy papers in order to capture a broad range of perspectives. However, the majority of materials consulted were indeed scientific publications, mainly because they are usually evidence based and are more readily available. Because the study was largely exploratory in purpose, a nonprobabilistic, snowballing approach to source selection was used here, going from one paper and its reference list to another in an opportunistic fashion. The objective of the written report is to provide a concise overview of the main conceptual and practical issues, including the caveats and criticisms, surrounding the ILK–climate change connection. It is intended for an audience that is not expected to have any previous command of the topic but is looking for a little more detail and nuance than a general policy brief. Emphasis is placed on giving examples, shown mainly in the boxes, from different biocultural settings to flesh out the conceptual points and provide a glimpse of the richness and variability of ILK systems operating in distinct social-ecological contexts around the world. 23 Preliminary Findings One preliminary finding is that the amount of material available on this topic is astronomical, which both facilitates and complicates an undertaking of this kind. Much of this material is quite recent and the growth curve is still trending upward. The vast majority of works have appeared since 2000, and the past 15 years in particular have witnessed a phenomenal output. One consequence of this is that conceptual and empirical perspectives on the issues are also evolving rapidly. Another finding is that the case study reports of ILK–climate change interconnections are exceedingly diverse and context dependent. In many cases, the specific research topics and methods are not directly comparable. In view of such diversity, the task of extracting general patterns or conclusions is not simple or straightforward. The evidence syntheses attempted so far are mainly systematic or scoping reviews using search engines such as the Web of Science, which is based on indexed literature only. Such reviews are limited to the counting of key words supplemented by selective observations from the list of publications. Individual case studies criss-cross the globe but the coverage is very uneven. A rough idea of this pattern can be obtained by calculating the frequency distribution of case studies or thematic mentions by geographic region. To perform this calculation, we took a small sample of literature review publications in which the frequencies per region were already reported and then computed the average relative frequencies for the entire sample (figure 1.2). The results show that the amount of research carried out in Latin America lags considerably behind that of other developing regions. The data found outside the indexed universe may tell a different story, but from all appearances more basic research and data collection from this region is sorely needed. 24 FIGURE 1.2 AVERAGE RELATIVE FREQUENCY OF CASE STUDIES OR THEMATIC MENTIONS BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION IN A SAMPLE OF LITERATURE REVIEW PUBLICATIONS 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Africa Asia Australia Europe Latin North & Pacific America America Sources: Savo et al. 2016; Klenk et al. 2017; Petzold et al. 2020; Taylor, Poleacovschi, and Perez 2023; Chanza, Musakwa, and Kelso 2024. Looking past the numbers to the qualitative content, there is a very wide consensus that ILK is highly valuable and can make significant contributions toward climate policy and action at multiple scales. In particular, one idea that reverberates across many different authors and communication contexts is the importance of creating synergies across diverse knowledge systems, especially involving the combination of ILK with scientific knowledge (Nakashima et al. 2012; Vinyeta and Lynn 2013; Barnes et al. 2013; Gómez-Baggethun, Corbera, and Reyes-García 2013; FAO, ABI, and CIAT 2021). The general justification for a hybrid knowledge framework is that culturally distinctive, place-based expertise adds empirical observations and conceptual interpretations that are different from and potentially complementary to a scientific point of view. Given the mounting effects of climate change, and the manifold risks and 25 uncertainties associated with them, there is a growing need for cooperation and exchange among multiple points of view. Putting together the information coming from alternative epistemic positions will ostensibly provide a more well- rounded grasp of the emerging impacts and their drivers, possible solutions or barriers, and effective versus ineffective practices (Tengö et al. 2014). At the same time, opinions diverge regarding how best to build effective synergies. Three basic positions or perspectives can be identified, which are labeled here as (a) integration, (b) justice, and (c) collaborative action. Integrationists stress that useful parts of ILK should be added and combined with the latest advances of scientific knowledge in order to produce the best available knowledge, defined as the most accurate, reliable, relevant, usable, and acceptable set of information available for making well-informed decisions. Justice advocates insist on recognizing IPLCs as crucial protagonists for climate action, defending their civil and collective rights in the fullest sense possible, inserting these concerns directly into policy instruments, opening spaces for their inclusion and equitable participation in all decision-making processes affecting them, and facilitating their self-determination and capacity for endogenous development. Collaborative action focuses on knowledge coproduction as a mutual social learning endeavor in which local community members, scientists, and other stakeholders bring their respective perspectives and expertises and work together actively during all stages of the research and development process. Most policy recommendations can be subsumed or linked to at least one of these, but it should be emphasized that subtler distinctions could be made within each one and the different positions are not mutually exclusive. More information on each of these perspectives, including basic tenets, challenges, and examples, are shown in boxes 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3. 26 BOX 1.1 PERSPECTIVES ON ILK–SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE SYNERGIES: INTEGRATION Basic tenets. The integrationist perspective highlights the fact that IPLCs possess much invaluable knowledge and experience on climatic variability and its effects on local social-ecological systems, and calls for the active use and incorporation of this intellectual resource into applied climate research and policy making. Ideally, integration is conceived as a process of cross-fertilizing ILK and scientific knowledge to produce new, enriched, more capable knowledge forms. This implies the mutual exchange and incorporation of components from one knowledge system into another through a validation process appropriate to each one. However, in practice, due to political and epistemological power differentials, the exchange is usually one-sided, with elements of ILK that pass the test of scientific verification more commonly being appropriated and added to the global body of scientific knowledge than the reverse direction (Folke et al. 2005; Alexander et al. 2011; Vinyeta and Lynn 2013; Hiwasaki et al. 2014; Tengö et al. 2014). Under this practice, ILK is treated fundamentally as a source of data and information relevant for basic understanding of climate change dynamics, environmental impact and risk assessments, adaptation strategies, sustainable development, and land management. To the extent that it is still unknown to science, it constitutes a field of study with the primary aim of data extraction and scientific discovery. Extracted data are codified, stored in databases, compared to scientific benchmarks, analyzed for generalizable lessons, and potentially transferred to other similar contexts. 27 Photo: Mariana Kaipper Ceratti/World Bank Primary applications include improving basic science, environmental monitoring capabilities, and adaptation planning (Reid et al. 2006; Bohensky and Maru 2011; Brewer and Warner 2015; Klenk et al. 2017). Challenges. The main challenges faced by this approach include how to bridge the gaps between different scales, contexts, concepts, epistemologies, and languages; how to uphold universal standards of confidence and reliability without disrespecting particular IPLC sensibilities; how to achieve the goals of transferability and integration without violating epistemological integrity or authenticity; how to raise the profile and participation of ILK in global science and policy without exploiting it; how to make science more accessible or relevant to local stakeholders; and how to be more inclusive in engagements with community members (Reid et al. 2006; Davis and Ruddle 2010; David-Chavez and Gavin 2018; Reyes-García et al. 2023). 28 Examples. One of the first major efforts to create synergies from different knowledge systems was the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA 2005). Some 300 scientists, experts, and representatives of Indigenous Peoples collaborated to develop a comprehensive assessment of the ongoing changes and their consequences for ecosystems, animals, and people. Until recently, much of the IPCC-sponsored literature reflected this position. Even while expanding recognition of ILK and its role in global climate discourse, such recognition was brief, nondescript, uncritical, and disengaged, and the IPCC continues to be dominated by a science first paradigm (Ford et al. 2016). Another pertinent example is the European Union-funded Local Indicators of Climate Change Impacts project, whose aim is to compile IPLC reports of climate change impacts and adaptations from around the world (LICCI 2024). The research design consists of (a) application of a standardized protocol for the collection of cross-culturally comparable data; and (b) creation of a network of researchers who use this protocol (Reyes- García et al. 2019; Reyes-García et al. 2023). Finally, there is a swell of literature reviews and analyses that compare ILK and scientific reports with an eye to scientific classification or verification (Reyes-García, Fernández- Lamazares et al. 2016; Savo et al. 2016) or that synthesize general themes and trends in ILK–climate change case studies (Petzold et al. 2020; Taylor, Poleacovschi, and Perez 2023; Chanza, Musakwa, and Kelso 2024). 29 BOX 1.2 PERSPECTIVES ON ILK– SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE SYNERGIES: JUSTICE Basic tenets. The justice approach highlights the protagonism of IPLCs for achieving more effective climate action and considers that the best way to potentiate this role is by advancing their civil and collective rights to the fullest extent possible, as ratified by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other international guidelines. It insists that the narrative of IPLCs as mere victims of climate change only perpetuates their marginalization and discriminatory treatment, and instead counters that they deserve to be recognized as strategic agents of conservation and potential leaders of mitigation and adaptation initiatives. Their leadership is underpinned by their carbon-negative lifestyles, expertise on local ecologies, long experience coping with environmental fluctuations and transitions, and ecocentric value systems. Emphasis is placed on their vital role as stewards of carbon-rich natural ecosystems, which justifies securing and expanding their land rights through legislation, registration, enforcement, local capacity building, and economic support. The aim of building climate resilience is further served by the recognition of other key rights and protections: self- determination, prior consultation, just transition, cultural distinctiveness and preservation, ethno-education, political representation, and inclusion and participation in high-level policy making. This position forms part of a larger agenda that targets the remaining structures of colonization and capitalism as the root causes of climate change, and seeks to dismantle such barriers by nurturing the praxis of social and ecological justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (Stevens et al. 2014; Docip 2015; FIAY 2015; Etchart 2017; ILO 2017; Comberti et al. 2019; IIPFCC 2019; IWGIA 2022). 30 ILK is depicted as the interface between interdependent sociocultural and ecological systems that is largely responsible for producing sustainable outcomes and should be valued on its own terms as an incomparable and holistic entity that is inextricably tied to dynamic practices, social institutions, values, identities, and worldviews. Respect for knowledge sovereignty and integrity is observed and interventions are focused mainly on supporting ILK preservation or broader cultural survival mechanisms (Raygorodetsky 2011; Tengö et al. 2014; Shawoo and Thornton 2018; Camacho-Villa et al. 2021; Junqueira et al. 2021). Challenges. Problem areas that crop up here include how to overcome the entrenched legacy of colonialism in view of the competing interests and deep-seated prejudices of other societal factions; how to maintain cross- scale credibility while insisting on its incommensurability and inscrutability; how to convince national governments to remake their sociopolitical systems or make the investments needed to put this vision into practice; and how to separate realistic from unrealistic claims and expectations when expedient but questionable rhetoric, such as the eco-savage trope, is employed to guide policy decisions (Bhambra and Newell 2022; Davis and Ruddle 2010). 31 Photo: Fabio Rodrigues-Pozzebom/Agência Brasil Examples. The most recent Sixth Assessment Report of Working Group II reflects the growing influence of a justice perspective in the official IPCC discourse. Here we find several recurrent recommendations featuring justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion themes, such as rights-based decision-making approaches, inclusive and equitable climate governance mechanisms, diverse knowledge and values, multicultural planning, recognition of the inherent rights of IPLCs, and community-based climate literacy (IPCC 2023). A justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion vision is also articulated in the Amazonia 80x25 Declaration, sponsored by the Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin (COICA) and allied nongovernmental organizations. The proposal calls upon the Amazonian countries to urgently implement measures to protect 80 percent of the Amazon biome by the year 2025 in order to avoid reaching a point of environmental no return. The recommended measures include prioritizing the recognition and expansion of indigenous territories, the implementation of cogovernance arrangements with strong indigenous participation, and the financial support required to guarantee the rights of Indigenous Peoples (Quintanilla, Guzmán León, and Josse 2022; COICA 2024). 32 BOX 1.3 PERSPECTIVES ON ILK–SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE SYNERGIES: COLLABORATIVE ACTION Basic Tenets. Collaborative action combines integration and justice concerns, seeking to blend useful aspects from diverse knowledge systems while stressing equality and inclusiveness of participation. Also referred to as knowledge “coproduction” or “participatory action,” it involves collaboration among local community members, scientists, and potentially other stakeholders at various stages of the research and development process, each party bringing their unique perspective and expertise. In specific social learning settings, team members work together to identify environmental problems and possible solutions, and then put them into practice. Ideally, the results are monitored and evaluated, and the goals and practices revised accordingly in an iterative fashion through ongoing dialogue and reflection. In order to function well, the participants should have a high level of respect for and trust in each other, and this often requires long periods of time to develop. The nature of the collaboration between people and knowledge systems may be particularistic in each case and thus may not be easily transferred from one context to another (Berkes et al. 2006; Armitage et al. 2011; German et al. 2012; Zent and Zent 2023). ILK and scientific knowledge are viewed as distinct but not opposed fields of knowledge, each with its own methods and concepts, which are potentially interactive and synergetic. Besides their familiarity with the local climate and natural environment, ILK holders provide their own unique take on sociopolitical dynamics, constraints and opportunities, people’s vulnerabilities and capacities, and which external agents may hinder or help them. It is expected that the experience should contribute to the capacity building 33 and empowerment of the local participants as well as better diversity awareness among other participants. Use of this approach is more common in scenarios where people are struggling to comprehend environmental changes, making adaptation decisions, or pursuing development objectives (Naess 2013; Shaffer 2014; Tengö et al. 2014; Klenk et al. 2017). Challenges. The first major challenge is that each situation is different, so there are no standard methods on how to carry out collaborative action. Some other hurdles encountered are as follows: how to cross social and epistemological boundaries, which implies effective, two- way (or more) translation; how to find common ground among the competing interests of different stakeholders; how to sustain contact and collaboration over long time periods; and how to disentangle the conflation of scientific ideas about climate with ILK (Cash, Borck, and Patt 2006; Reid et al. 2006; Rudiak-Gould 2011; Howarth et al. 2022). Examples. The popularity of this approach to climate research and action has grown considerably in recent decades and one can find brief reports of its application at different sites around the world (Galloway McClean 2009; IFAD 2016). The proliferation of collaborative projects in Africa stands out, perhaps because of the extensive “adaptation gap” on the continent (Tschakert and Dietrich 2010). For example, the Center for International Forestry Research and other research and development organizations have used this type of outreach to stimulate community-based initiatives for sustainable development and adaptation to climate change among different rural populations across Africa (German et al. 2012; Bele, Sonwa, and Tiani 2013; Shaffer 2014). Although reports of long-term collaborations and their tangible outcomes are relatively rare, thus suggesting that few projects last very long, it is possible to find some notable exceptions. The Pacific Northwest Tribal Climate Change Network was established in 2009 by partners from various Native American and Alaska Native tribes, the University of Oregon, the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, and other public and private entities. The network serves as an ongoing means to exchange information on climate change policy, programs, research, grants, and other matters of mutual interest (Vinyeta and Lynn 2013; University of Oregon 2024). 34 Gaps and Questions Despite the commendable progress that has been made, a large number of stakeholders from across the scientific, policy, and activist communities express concern about the persistent gap between the rhetoric and the reality of IPLC engagement in global climate science and policy (Salick and Ross 2009; Adger et al. 2011; Baer and Reuter 2015; Petzold et al. 2020). For example, IPLC participation in climate governance mechanisms at the international and national levels is often judged to be marginal and symbolic (Belfer et al. 2019; Comberti et al. 2019; Heckenberger 2021; Quintanilla, Guzmán León, and Josse 2022). They still have only observer status at the meetings of the Conference of the Parties, and therefore are excluded from high-level policy discussions and cannot vote on decisions arising from climate negotiations (Shawoo and Thornton 2018). IPLCs and their knowledge systems continue to be ignored for the most part in policy formulation at the national level, as reflected in the low level of recognition observed in the Paris Agreement- mandated national adaptation plans and nationally determined contributions to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Seena 2019; Shea and Thornton 2019; Carmona et al. 2022; WWF 2021). Notwithstanding the broad appeal of ILK–scientific knowledge integration, there are relatively few concrete cases one can point to where distinct climatic knowledge has been successfully combined in an equitable way and then applied toward adaptation interventions with verifiable results (Chanza and de Wit 2013; David-Chavez and Gavin 2018; Krupnik, Rubis, and Nakashima 2018; Leal Filho et al. 2022). There have been long debates over how to operationalize and measure key concepts such as sustainability, vulnerability, resilience, adaptation, and risk, without apparent consensus in sight (Adger 2006; Ford et al. 2020). While there has been a great profusion of empirical research and data in recent years on how IPLCs are being impacted by global changes and processes, and in turn how they are using their traditional, place-based knowledge to deal with such changes, the great diversity and context-embedded nature of these interactions defy simple conclusions or uniform solutions. Thus for example the question of enablers of or barriers to adaptive capacity may be context specific (Eriksen et al. 2011). 35 Questions remain in regard to several important issues: the vulnerability or autonomy of IPLCs in the context of climate change, their proper role in climate policy and practice processes, the vitality and value of ILK systems in the face of rampant social and ecological change, the opportunities and limits for making better use of ILK, the factors that influence adaptive success, the identification of good (and bad) practices, the criteria and BOX 1.4 KEY QUESTIONS FRAMING THIS INVESTIGATION • Are IPLCs more vulnerable or more resilient to climate stress than other populations? • Do IPLCs need more assistance or more autonomy? • What role should IPLCs play in the climate policy-making process? • How is ILK affected by social and environmental change, and how is this being compounded by climate change? • Given the rapid pace of change in many places, to what extent is traditional knowledge still a valid and vital template for mitigation and adaptation? 36 methods needed to achieve effective knowledge integration, and the types of data that are needed for better assessment and integration (box 1.4). A synthetic yet critical review of a relevant portion of the evidentiary record is undertaken here in order to assess the current state of understanding on this topic and extract general lessons and guidelines for engaging IPLCs and their unique intellects to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing planet. • How is ILK being used for climate change mitigation? for climate change adaptation? • What are the positive factors (or drivers) leading to the successful use of ILK for adaptation to climate change? What are the negative factors (or barriers)? • What types of support, if any, are needed to fortify IPLCs and their biocultural heritage? • How can ILK and scientific knowledge be effectively integrated or combined? To what extent are they even compatible, not just epistemologically but also politically? • What needs to happen to facilitate meaningful dialogue and collaboration? • What kinds of data and information are presently available, and what kinds are lacking, in order to assess the current state and progress of this agenda? 37 Photo: Stanford Zent/World Bank 38 CHAPTER 2 CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS In view of the evolving importance and use values attached to IPLCs and their knowledge systems for climate action, it is crucial to clarify how these working concepts are understood and what assumptions associated with the mobilization of ILK in intercultural contexts flow from them. In this section, we explore definitions and conceptual constructs with respect to the key terms used in this report, notably IPLCs, ILK, and related terms. These are complex concepts with variable interpretations that are often taken for granted or misrepresented in global climate policy discourses. The lack of conceptual transparency regarding their meaning and use sometimes leads to cognitive disconnects that stifle consensus building and coordinated action among the different stakeholders. 39 Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) IPLCs is an inclusive concept that groups together Indigenous Peoples and local communities into a single category. It has become standard practice to use this compound term in environmental policy discourse in recent years because of the similarities between the two groups, especially in regard to their relationships to the land and natural resources. At the same time, there are some notable differences that should be kept There is no in mind. For example, Indigenous Peoples have special universal definition rights under international law, such as the International of Indigenous Labour Organization (ILO) Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Peoples, which is Convention, 1989 (No. 169) (ILO 1989), the United understandable Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples given the enormous (2007), and the legal framework of a growing number diversity of of countries (see IWGIA 2020 for some examples). sociocultural, political, and There is no universal definition of Indigenous Peoples, historical which is understandable given the enormous diversity of situations in which they are found. sociocultural, political, and historical situations in which they are found. However, most operational definitions identify a few core traits that they share to a lesser or greater degree: (a) social, cultural, and economic conditions that distinguish them from the dominant society; (b) self-identification as ethnically distinct and similar recognition by others; (c) a sense of common descent from or affiliation with the original inhabitants of an area; (d) collective ancestral ties to certain territories; and (e) historical continuity with preinvasion or precolonial societies (UNPFII 2022; World Bank 2023). Many Indigenous Peoples also speak a local language that is different from the official one (UNESCO–IESALC 2022). 40 The majority of Indigenous Peoples worldwide live in rural areas, but they are increasingly migrating to urban areas, both voluntarily and involuntarily (UNPFII 2007). In Latin America, about half of the indigenous population now lives in urban areas (World Bank 2015). Wherever they live, Indigenous Peoples stand out as a marginal population from demographic, economic, and political standpoints, but also as a prominent one in terms of their contribution to cultural heritage and ecosystem health. They comprise only 4–6 percent of the world’s population (300 million to 500 million, depending on the census method used), but occupy 25 percent of the total land area. Their territories harbor a disproportionately high fraction of the natural (very low human intervention) areas (37 percent), least inhabited anthropogenic biomes (67 percent), and terrestrial ecoregions (79 percent) (Toledo 2001; Garnett et al. 2018; Forest Peoples Programme et al. 2020).2 Based on this and other pertinent evidence, it is widely assumed that they are the custodians of a major fraction of the world’s remaining biodiversity (Sobrevila 2008; FAO 2017; IPBES 2019; Forest Peoples Programme et al. 2020). They also account for the lion’s share of cultural diversity (around 5,000 distinctive cultural groups) and speak at least two thirds of the living languages (over 4,000) (UNPFII 2019a; FAO and FILAC 2021). On the socioeconomic side, they make up 15 percent of the poor and 19 percent of the extreme poor, have life expectancies up to 20 years lower than nonindigenous peoples, consistently receive the lowest public investments in basic services and infrastructure, and face multiple barriers to participating fully in the formal economy (World Bank 2023). Nonindigenous local communities do not have special rights under international or national laws, nor are they recognized as a distinctive population segment in national censuses or official statistics. Their cultural and historical roots in 2 It is often cited that 80 percent of global biodiversity is held under indigenous management, but this claim has recently been challenged as a “baseless statistic” due to lack of reliable evidence as well as unresolved ambiguities in regard to the definition, total amount, measurement, and mapping of biodiversity (Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2024). In any case, there is a strong consensus that the amount of biodiversity under their care is major, albeit not precisely specifiable at this time. 41 particular territories are usually not as deep as those of Indigenous Peoples, but as their residence in a single place extends beyond a few generations, the complexity of their knowledge and resource practices approximates those of neighboring Indigenous Peoples (Voeks 2009; Athayde et al. 2021). Although they may not be differentiated socially from the general population, they do often have their own peculiar cultural traits and traditions. Like Indigenous Peoples, they live in rural areas or have rural origins, maintain community- based (that is, communal or customary) tenure and access arrangements to the land and natural resources, exhibit close social and cultural ties to their home territories, and have a strong sense of within-group social solidarity and shared identity (WWF 2021; Brondízio et al. 2021). The diversity of this population segment is less well known and they are less commonly the subjects of research investigations than Indigenous Peoples (Athayde et al. 2021). Empirically speaking, the distinction between Indigenous Peoples and local communities is not always clear due to ongoing processes of population migration, interethnic contact and mixing, intercultural exchange, and ethnogenesis. They both occupy a similar ecological niche and play fundamental roles in the conservation of biological and cultural diversity around the world. Moreover, they share the crucial trait of possessing sophisticated, site-specific ethno-ecological knowledge acquired through intergenerational experiences, and therefore can make vital contributions to climate mitigation and adaptation initiatives. Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) Much like the concept of IPLCs, ILK is a compound expression that defies precise definition. A variety of terminologies have been used to fill this slot: indigenous knowledge, indigenous technical/ecological knowledge, local (people’s) knowledge, folk science/knowledge, traditional knowledge, traditional ecological/environmental knowledge, ethnoecology or ethnoecological knowledge, ethnoscience, native wisdom/expertise, farmers’/fishers’/hunters’ knowledge, and citizen science. The definitions ascribed to each one vary somewhat according to the constituent word selection, but they also share 42 enough core meaning to be used similarly in a variety of communication contexts (Ellen and Harris 2000; Nakashima and Roué 2002). In recent IPCC reports, indigenous knowledge is defined as “culturally distinctive ways of knowing associated with long histories of interaction with their natural surroundings,” while local knowledge refers to “understandings and skills developed by individuals and populations specific to the places where they live” (IPCC 2019a). Traditional knowledge has been described as the knowledge, innovations, and practices developed over very long time periods, transmitted from generation to generation and adapted to the local culture and environment (UNPFII 2019b). The subset of traditional knowledge focused on environmental components and ecological relationships is often called traditional environmental knowledge, traditional ecological knowledge, or indigenous/local ecological knowledge (Williams and Baines 1993). Ethnoecology conveys “indigenous perceptions of ‘natural’ divisions in the biological world and plant-animal-human relationships within each division” (Posey et al. 1984). Folk science is the “common wisdom in a given culture,” grounded in common sense or lay understandings and explanations of the natural and social worlds (Keil 2012). Any one of these terms can be found in the policy-driven literature dealing with climate change, the choice depending on the specific context. However, in recent years it has been customary to use the compound of ILK to reflect awareness of the great diversity of knowledge-holding groups and their distinct situations. In this text, we use all of these terms in an interchangeable fashion. Short and simple definitions such as these are unable to capture the immense breadth, diversity, complexity, and versatility of this knowledge form. What ILK is and entails conceptually, and how it differs from scientific knowledge, has been pondered at length by numerous scholars working in this field of study and there is an extensive literature devoted to the subject (Johnson 1992; DeWalt 1994; Agrawal 1995; Antweiler 1998; Aikenhead and Ogawa 2007; Sillitoe 2007). Although opinions diverge somewhat on this, several essential properties of ILK are widely recognized: (a) specific to a particular people, place, and culture; (b) firmly rooted in tradition and repetitive engagement but also capable of incorporating new information; (c) handed down across 43 generations through customary modes of transmission; (d) adapted to fit local social and ecological conditions; (e) collectively held and deployed by communities or populations; (f) practical in the sense of being oriented toward the satisfaction of objectives such as subsistence, health, housing, and spiritual well-being; and (g) holistic, which is to say integrated with other aspects of culture (figure 2.1) (Williams and Baines 1993; Grenier 1998; Ellen and Harris 2000). Given the atomistic and subjective nature of ILK, it is reasonable to question whether attempts to define the universal characteristics from an objective standpoint are even valid or useful at all (Whyte 2013). FIGURE 2.1 BASIC PROPERTIES OF INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL KNOWLEDGE place-specific: tied to specific areas, cultures, environments adaptive: intergenerational: tailored to fit local transmitted from social-ecological generation to conditions and generation by processes traditional means knowledges, practices, beliefs, values, worldviews collective: dynamic: cumulative product of information is countless individual continuously being experiences, added or discarded observations and as needed practical: experiments geared to use and manipulation of the natural environment to satisfy human wants and needs 44 Part of the reason ILK is hard to pin down is because it is so all-encompassing; its composition is multidimensional and multilayered, its use is multifunctional and multicontextual. It embraces an astonishing variety of cognitive and behavioral operations, manifesting in forms ranging from the empirical to the imaginary, the mundane to the sacred, and the explicit to the tacit (Nakashima et al. 2012). A great deal of environmental wisdom is encoded in the language and transmitted through verbal communication (Maffi 2005; Athayde et al. 2021). This may include formal representations, such as the vocabularies and classification systems used to categorize perceptually salient environmental components, including plants, animals, fungi, ecotopes, soils, minerals, landforms, water bodies, atmospheric phenomena, and celestial objects (Berlin 1992; Zent 2009). Other types of verbal knowledge are less structured but rich in informational content. Examples of this are the natural and life history traits associated with each named folk biological group, the use values or activity signatures attached to each one, the perceived ecological relationships between them, and the collective sense of place (for example, toponyms, meanings attached to places, related stories and histories) (Hunn 1989; Ellen 1993; Feld and Basso 1996; Johnson and Hunn 2010). To the extent that the knowledge is put into practice through material action it constitutes know- how or embodied skill, much of which may be nonverbal and is learned by observation and imitation. Basic subsistence tasks depend heavily on competent experience and skill for effective planning and execution, notably food production and processing, tool and craft manufacture, healing and disease prevention, and housebuilding and other types of construction (Ingold 2000). In a more general sense, traditional resource management systems are seemingly undergirded by unconscious scripts for action that are inherited from past generations but improvised to better fit changing conditions (Alcorn and Toledo 1998; Zent 2013). Aspects of ILK are commonly embedded in a society’s social structure in the form of customary norms, roles, and relationships, especially the 45 Photo: Julio César Casma/World Bank institutional arrangements that govern access to and use of the land and natural resources, labor organization and property rights, population distributions and movements, exchange and cooperation mechanisms, leadership, and conflict management (Berkes 2008). ILK typically has a strong ideological component, such as a people’s cosmovision or conception of the universe, beliefs about the invisible or spirit world, or faith in the value and power of altered states of consciousness (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1976; Rodd 2008). Of particular importance from an ecological standpoint are the values and moral judgments that people hold toward nature, which in turn shape their use and management of it. Such notions are conveyed via ceremonial observances, ritual acts, food taboos, myths, proverbs, stories, games, and cultural symbols (Anderson 1996; Prasetyo 2023; Ives et al. 2024). Some types of local knowledge are inseparable from aesthetic expressions such as song, dance, poetry, dress, ornamentation, arts and crafts, and architecture (Zent and Zent 2023). The different layers or parts of ILK merge and connect with each other in myriad and intricate ways, which is to say it is holistic. One implication of this is that elements perceived as separate in terms of a Western mindset, such as ecology and religion, work and art, health and morality, and predation and social relations, are integrated in thought and practice (Hunn 1993; Athayde et 46 al. 2021). Berkes (2008) proposed an integrative model for understanding traditional ecological knowledge, consisting of four basic spheres or levels of integration. From least to most encompassing, they are (a) empirical knowledge of plants, animals, soils, and landscape; (b) a resource management system that relies on empirical knowledge but also includes appropriate practices, tools, and techniques; (c) social institutions that organize group activities, regulate resource access and use, and frame processes of social memory and learning; and (d) worldview or belief system that shapes One implication broader environmental perceptions and interpretations. In of this is that view of its integral makeup, anyone working on traditional elements perceived knowledge documentation or development projects for as separate in applied purposes should be aware of the risks of taking or terms of a Western utilizing parts of the knowledge system in isolation from mindset, such as ecology and the other parts. Removing bits and pieces of knowledge religion, work from their natural context will necessarily alter them. and art, health and morality, and The ensemble of knowledge, beliefs, and practices dealing predation and with weather phenomena (for example, temperature, social relations, moisture, wind, clouds, storms), hydric regime, solar and are integrated lunar cycles, seasonal variations and indicators, multiannual in thought cycles, and longer-term climatic processes or episodes and practice make up an important part of ILK that could be considered a separate cognitive domain – ethnoclimatology – but actually cuts across many of the other topics and types mentioned above (Strauss 2017; Dias Alves et al. 2018). Until recently, this type of knowledge was an overlooked part of ILK studies, even though it is crucially important for many aspects of life in traditional, natural resource-dependent societies (Orlove et al. 2010). Consider the practical significance of knowing the answers to the questions posed in box 2.1. BOX 2.1 EXAMPLES OF ETHNOCLIMATOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE • When is the best time to burn the swidden field? • What are the best seeds to plant at a given time at a given place? • When will the maize crop be ready to harvest and by when should it all be harvested? • When is the best time to collect [x] tree fruit for food? • When should tree trunks for house poles be cut down, according to the visible shape and movement of the moon? • When and where can certain game animals be found? • What will happen if the [x] flowers are late or early this season? • How can you tell when one season is ending and the next one beginning? • What hazardous or extreme weather events might be expected at a given time? • What types of insects or birds or flowers will be abundant during a given season or year? 48 • How much rain is expected and how soon will it begin, based on the wind or cloud movement, color of the sky, behavior of animals or plants, or temperature changes? • How can we predict the weather during the coming week, month, or year? • How high and far do the flood waters reach every year, 10 years, 100 years? • What animal behaviors predict an earthquake or a tsunami? • What can we do to make the rains start? • How is the weather different now than the way it used to be? • What can we do to cope with changing weather and environmental conditions? 49 Photo: Jessica Belmont/World Bank 50 CHAPTER 3 CONTRIBUTIONS OF ILK TO CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY AND ACTION One of the challenges of turning proposals for ILK inclusion into actionable products is finding specific and appropriate applications. There are three major action areas in which ILK can make specific contributions: assessment, mitigation, and adaptation (figure 3.1). Climate change assessments aim to identify, characterize, analyze, and project the impacts of climate-induced environmental changes on people, communities, ecosystems, natural resources, economic activities, public health, and other areas of interest, as well as the associated risks (NRC 2007). Impact assessments entail measurements of the changing values of environmental parameters and an analysis of the relationships between change variables in order to identify the drivers or stressors. Risk assessments weigh the current or expected costs, benefits and risks associated with alternative courses of action for decision-making purposes (IPCC 2022a). 51 Mitigation refers essentially to interventions intended to reduce or prevent the emission of GHGs and thereby slow global warming. Toward this end, it contemplates pathways for curbing or reversing the tendencies of environmental processes and components that act as the drivers of climate change, such as fossil fuel consumption, or the effects, such as conversion of forest into grassland (IPCC 2014a). In human systems, adaptation refers to adjustments in ecological, social, or economic systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli and their effects. Such adjustments are made for the purpose of If little or no avoiding harm, moderating the damages, or taking action is taken to advantage of beneficial opportunities (IPCC 2014b). mitigate the drivers of climate change, These domains are not totally separate, as actions and more drastic and outcomes in one area often affect those in other areas. costly investments For example, the cognition of what parameters change, on the adaptation side will likely what may be causing the change, and what the impacts be required down are constitute crucial inputs for decisions on mitigation or the line. adaptation measures. If little or no action is taken to mitigate the drivers of climate change, more drastic and costly investments on the adaptation side will likely be required down the line. As people strive to cope with environmental challenges through adaptive behaviors, experiencing failures or successful outcomes along the way, they often learn more about the agents and the impacts themselves. From IPLC standpoints, assessment, mitigation, and adaptation may all seem to be parts of the same process of anticipating the future (Guido et al. 2021; Ullman and Kassam 2022). 52 FIGURE 3.1 CONTRIBUTIONS OF ILK TO ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE Assessment: identification and Mitigation: characterization of interventions impacts of climate intended to reduce change on or prevent the social-ecological emission of GHGs systems and associated risks Adaptation: process of adjusting to actual or expected climate and its effects Assessment Informal assessments of dynamic environmental features are a common part of daily life in natural resource-dependent societies. The ability to accurately read certain key environmental signs and signals is a necessary skill for maintaining food security and resource productivity, avoiding danger and disaster, and navigating risk. Virtually all IPLCs who maintain relative cultural and economic independence have their own weather or climate assessment systems. Basic elements of these systems include intra-annual seasonal calendars, ethno-environmental indicators, and weather forecasting. IPLC resource managers also manifest site-specific, culturally inscribed observations 53 and ideas on recent climate change, its causes, and impacts on human lives (such as livelihood, health, and safety). Some groups maintain social memories of historical climatic conditions and events from the distant past. Seasonal Calendars Empirical evidence shows that all people around the world divide the year into seasons but they do so in countless distinctive ways (Orlove 2003). In subsistence-based societies, the perception of seasonal change is based mainly on the observation of ethno-environmental indicators, which are usually known physical or biological components of the local environment (for example, first snow of the year, frequent thunderstorms, lake ice thaw, plant phenology, bird migration, insect outbreaks, star constellations) (Zuma-Netshiukhwi, Stigter, and Walker 2013; Kassam and Bernardo 2022). The number and type of indicators chosen for this purpose vary considerably from one group to the next, reflecting differences in biogeography, ecosystems, language, culture, history, livelihood, and other factors. Rural indigenous or peasant populations, in particular, tend to have unique calendars that serve as guides for organizing population movements, resource pursuits, social activities, and ritual events over an annual cycle (Rozzi et al. 2023). This type of mental device is especially important for groups who dwell in a diversified and dynamic resource landscape. The Jotö people of the Venezuelan Amazon, for example, draw upon their expert knowledge of plant and animal behaviors to mark different seasonal periods and make plans for carrying out distinct subsistence tasks. Some details of their seasonal classification system are provided in box 3.1. 54 BOX 3.1 SEASONAL CALENDARS OF THE JOTÖ The Jotö are a native tropical forest people of the Venezuelan Amazon who established first contact with the outside world in 1969. Up until then, they lived in small, nomadic settlements and depended primarily on foraging to meet their subsistence needs. In the years and decades following contact, they have been exposed to missionaries, schools, and western trade goods but still inhabit a remote location and maintain a subsistence economy based on swidden horticulture, hunting, gathering, and fishing. A drawing of their seasonal round adapted to the months of the Gregorian calendar is shown in figure 3.2, with translations provided in table 3.1. The calendar was prepared by local schoolteacher Tito Jono at the community of Kayamá in February 2024 for school planning purposes. Since the school calendar is designed to fit in with the subsistence system, the present calendar also mentions prominent work activities realized at different times throughout the year. FIGURE 3.2 JOTÖ SEASONAL CALENDAR REPRESENTATION 56 TABLE 3.1 JOTÖ SOCIO-PRODUCTIVE CALENDAR Jotö season name Month and ethnoecological Activities indicator January jtuwä – the hotness (hot balo naö – clear new garden and dry conditions) jkyo balebö – hunt and gather malawa dau – make curare poison February mujká bu – botón jwaöli jobe – curassow tree flowering hunting (mating calls) jwana – blowgun inner tube harvest yuluwá – blowgun outer tube harvest nuwe baö – house building March jkabanö – cicada mojto jlai –fishing buzzing maena jkaö – honey harvest April jtabali jwai – kapok balo budi – burn new gardens tree fruiting May jinö – bachaco ant jawa lödö – plant food crops nuptial flights balo wae – weed gardens June o baya – beginning mojto waibi – fish migration harvest of rain July o emo – big rain jkyo abekö – camping August jkawale bu – pequi jkyo abekö – camping tree flowering janö ju – hunting mojto jlai – fishing 57 Jotö season name Month and ethnoecological Activities indicator September jnema du – peach inimo jwaö – school year begins palm fruit mature jtamu jkwaö – maize harvest October jluwe – cicada buzzing ju jkwe – hunting November jkyo jkai – forest drying janö ju – hunting (leaves falling) December aenö mame – holy time jyeu wai – ceremonial feasts (Christmas period) (drinking beverages) The names and illustrations appearing in the upper box under the month name in figure 3.2 reflect some of the primary indicators of seasonal transition, such as trees fruiting or flowering, insect swarms and signature atmospheric conditions (rain, clouds, sunshine). In the lower box, some of the main economic tasks carried out at that time of year are listed. For example, February corresponds to the flowering period of the botón tree (Tachigali guianensis). Jotö hunters know that curassows (Crax alector, Mitu tomentosa) are mating at this time and their predawn mating calls tip off their locations and make them easy to hunt. In April, the kapok tree (Ceiba pentandra) is bearing fruit and people should be burning newly slashed swidden plots before the rainy season begins. In May, the virgin queens of bachaco ants (Atta sp.) embark on their nuptial flights, and diligent gardeners will plant and weed the new gardens. In August, when the pequi tree (Caryocar microcarpum) comes into flower and the heavy rains are letting up, many people take a break from the new garden chores and go off to camp and forage in the deep forest. The calendar that most people carry in their heads is much more elaborate than the one shown here and does not correspond so neatly with the monthly divisions. 58 Weather Forecasting Weather forecasting is another aspect of traditional climate knowledge in which ethno-indicators figure prominently. Forecasts can range from hours to days to weeks to months ahead but rarely surpass a year (Orlove, Chiang, and Cane 2002; Iticha and Husen 2018). Common classes of natural phenomena used for this purpose include sky visuals (such as, color, rainbow), star and moon appearances, temperature fluctuations, wind and cloud patterns, COMMON CLASSES OF precipitation events, and unusual plant or animal behaviors NATURAL PHENOMENA (Roncoli, Ingram, and Kirshen 2002; Kanani 2006; Dinsa et USED FOR [WEATHER al. 2017). Of course, the individual indicators selected for FORECASTING] .. observation and the specific interpretations of them vary a INCLUDE SKY VISUALS great deal across locations. High-resolution knowledge of (SUCH AS, COLOR, this kind can complement and enrich scientific forecasting RAINBOW), STAR AND but the promise of integration also raises questions about MOON APPEARANCES, accuracy and compatibility (Roncoli 2006; Orlove at al. 2010; TEMPERATURE Mekonnen et al. 2021). In addition to empirical observation FLUCTUATIONS, WIND of natural phenomena, many ILK forecasting systems rely AND CLOUD PATTERNS, on religious, magical, or ritual techniques that may not pass PRECIPITATION EVENTS, AND UNUSUAL scientific tests of validation (Camacho-Villa et al. 2021). For PLANT OR ANIMAL instance, various East African pastoralist groups have long BEHAVIORS. established traditions of reading the intestines of butchered animals to foretell the weather and other future events. Even though the empirical validity of this technique has been questioned, especially in light of more extreme climate variability, it is still a thriving practice (Saitabau 2014; Ayal et al. 2015; Ng’asike 2019). However, it should be kept in mind that the transferability and acceptance of weather forecast information across scales and epistemological contexts is preferably bidirectional: from local to scientific and from scientific to local systems (Tengö et al. 2014). Better understanding of ILK-based forecasting perspectives can facilitate appropriate translation, and thereby better uptake, of scientific forecasts to local practitioners (Roncoli 2006; UNESCO 2018; Webber 2019). The focus of forecasting tends to be on atmospheric or environmental variables that directly affect matters of human concern (Orlove et al. 2010). The ability to predict upcoming weather, especially rainfall patterns (timing, distribution, amount, duration), is especially important among agriculturalist and pastoralist groups in environments where variability is high. Crucial economic decisions (for example, what crop species or varieties to plant; when and where to plant crops or move herds) and social decisions (for example, how to adjust settlement arrangements, when to hold social gatherings) depend on these predictions (Roncoli, Ingram, and Kirshen 2002). It is not uncommon for a group to have more than one forecasting technique. The elaboration of the forecasting system reflects the degree of fluctuation and uncertainty, the potential exposure or sensibility of the people, the longevity of cultural experience dealing with such variability, and the presence of effective institutional mechanisms for disseminating or sanctioning the information (Iticha and Husen 2018; Balehegn and Balehey 2019; Mekonnen et al. 2021). Brief descriptions of two forecasting systems, from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Ethiopia, are presented in box 3.2. IN ADDITION TO EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION OF NATURAL PHENOMENA, MANY ILK FORECASTING SYSTEMS RELY ON RELIGIOUS, MAGICAL, OR RITUAL TECHNIQUES THAT MAY NOT PASS SCIENTIFIC TESTS OF VALIDATION 60 BOX 3.2 WEATHER FORECASTING SYSTEMS: EXAMPLES FROM BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA AND ETHIOPIA In the high mountain paramo ecosystem of the Venezuelan Andes, the resident Paramero people use different ethno-environmental indicators to predict or retrodict the timing, types, intensities, and locations of precipitation. Water from the sky in the form of mist, rain, hail, and snow is a matter of constant concern for work and safety. When the niguáz bird (Turdus serranus) chirps urgently, a rainstorm will soon erupt. A coming hailstorm is announced by the frailejon ’e indio (Ruilopezia bromelioides) and chirique (Coespeletia spicata) plants folding in their leaves. If beetles (Scybalocanthon sp.) come out in the morning, it will rain in the afternoon. A lunar halo means the following day will be dry and clear, whereas a solar halo foretells wet and cloudy conditions. A waxing quarter moon coincides with rain. The sudden onset of fog is followed by humid mist. A patch of huesito’e páramo (Thamnolia vernicularis) lichens reveals where humid clouds touched down days earlier. These are all short- term weather indicators. A handful of the Paramero elders also practice a variation of the longer-term forecasting technique called pinta or cabañuelas, wherein sky conditions and experiments with salt sprinklings are observed during the first days of the new year. The results of these observations are then used to predict weather conditions during the succeeding months of the year and to plan certain cultivation or herding activities (Zent et al. 2024). 61 Photo: Julio César Casma/World Bank The Borana of southern Ethiopia are a pastoralist people who depend on competent weather forecasting to keep their herds safe and healthy. They display an elaborate forecasting system that consists of at least four distinct roles or techniques. Ayantu elders predict specific seasonal and future climate conditions by observing the moon, star alignments, winds, clouds, rainbows, lightning, and animal behaviors. The Uchu are trained specialists who read the entrails of cattle and small ruminants to anticipate when, where, and how much rain will fall (or not fall). The Waragu are herders who take notice of certain behaviors of their livestock. The Arga-Dhageti, or “time experts,” predict major drought or flood events based on their recall of historical timing, solar eclipse cycles, and the eight-year age set cycle (Iticha and Husen 2018). 62 Local Observations of Climate Change There is ample evidence in the recent literature that IPLCs are active and astute observers of ongoing climate change and its environmental effects at the scale of human landscapes (ethnographic examples presented in box 3.3). As with the perception of more short-term and fast-onset environmental changes, they rely on their intimate familiarity with the local environment, sensitive or novel ethno-environmental indicators in particular, as a main line of evidence. A recent meta-analytical survey of the literature catalogued a total of 746 local indicators of climate change from 98 case studies, corresponding to changes in meteorological variables (such as precipitation, temperature, winds), impacts on physical systems (such as hydrological system, cryosphere), biological systems (such as morphology, abundance, distribution, migration of plant and animal species), and socioeconomic systems (such as agriculture, forests) (Reyes-García, Fernández- Lamazares et al. 2016). The types and items of environmental phenomena named as indicative of climate change vary from group to group according to geography and economic focus, and between individuals or households by gender, age, occupation, and levels of dependence on the immediate environment (LICCI 2024). IPLC perspectives on such changes tend to be holistic in the sense of highlighting connections and interactions between different impacted components of the surrounding context (Laidler 2006; Marin 2010). BOX 3.3 LOCAL OBSERVATIONS OF RECENT WEATHER OR CLIMATE CHANGES AND THEIR IMPACTS ON HUMAN LIVES • The Dayaks of Borneo began to sense changes in climate when bird species that had never been seen before started to show up on a regular basis and certain traditional medicinal plants could no longer be found (IUCN 2008). • The environmental impacts of climate change noticed by indigenous (Nenets, Komi) reindeer herders of the Barents region, Russian Federation, include more frequent snow refreezing events, less predictable wind direction, the drying out of lakes, and an increase in shrub growth. These changes have infringed upon their land use patterns, caused the loss of suitable pasture areas, forced them to alter migration routes and campsites, and increased labor input and economic costs (Rees et al. 2008). • The Inuit of eastern Greenland observe that thinner ice and thicker snow on the fjords by early spring pose an uncertain danger for ice travel and thus have made fishing for ocean perch at this time of year no longer possible (Buijs 2010). 64 • Residents of Kiribati islands report that the intrusion of salt water into vital freshwater lenses and drinking wells is increasingly common due to the rising tides, with deleterious impacts not only on freshwater availability but also on cultivated crops and fruit trees (Kuruppu and Liverman 2010). • Villagers in humid tropical Cameroon identified the following aspects of climate change as damaging for their traditional agricultural and gathering activities: drought in the rainy season and too much rain in the dry season, prolonged periods of dry and cold wind, dry season too hot, more crop invasion by pests and weeds, and violent wind that damages fruit production (German et al. 2012). • Farmers in Boeny, Madagascar, identify two major shifts in the climate: (a) progressively shorter rainy seasons (from six to seven months in 1970–1980 to two to three months in 2008); and (b) general increase in temperature. These changes have forced them to make changes in rice cultivation schedules and resulted in lowered crop yields (German et al. 2012). • In the Peruvian southern Andes, local farmers and herders highlight shorter rainy seasons, warmer days, and colder nights as noticeable climatic changes in the region, and point to their negative impact on agrarian resources such as soils and livestock. For example, more intense but irregular rainfall degrades the soil, increases the likelihood of pests, and produces ponds of stagnant water that affect livestock health. Wetlands are also impacted, resulting in less water being available and more pests at different altitudinal ranges (Postigo 2014). • Toads are considered to be a key indicator of ecosystem health and fertility among subsistence farmers of the Peruvian altiplano. For example, the presence of toads augurs a good place to plant crops as well as the soon onset of the rainy season. The relative disappearance of toads in the 65 THE DAYAKS OF BORNEO BEGAN TO SENSE CHANGES IN CLIMATE WHEN BIRD SPECIES THAT HAD NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE STARTED TO SHOW UP ON A REGULAR BASIS AND CERTAIN TRADITIONAL MEDICINAL PLANTS COULD NO LONGER BE altiplano environment in recent years is commonly cited by local farmers as visible proof that climate change has occurred and the environment has suffered fertility decline (Saylor, Alsharif, and Torres 2017). • From the perspective of livestock farmers of the Argentine Patagonia, climate-related changes taking place within the last generation are manifested in both the biophysical realm (for example, greater heat, lower humidity, sparser and parched vegetation cover) and the sociocultural realm (for example, family and community conformation, migration, well-being). In regard to the former, the degraded forage can be detected in the increased wear of their animals’ dentition, caused by a greater chewing load (Castillo and Ladio 2018). • Mayan farmers of the Yucatan peninsula report that changes in the weather in recent decades, especially drought, hurricanes, pest attacks, delay of first rains, and irregular rainfall, have had a strong impact on milpa farming (including reduced yields, decreased milpa area, loss of crops and varieties, and concomitant food insecurity) and played a role in the abandonment of traditional cultivation methods, weather forecasting practices, and associated ceremonies (Camacho-Villa et al. 2021). 66 IPLCs are not neutral observers of climate change; rather, they are embedded members of the social-ecological systems they are observing. Therefore, they tend to notice changes that directly affect them, their lifestyles, and their well-being. Their perceptions and evaluations of the human impacts are also shaped by cultural values, norms, and lived experiences alongside material considerations (Tschakert et al. 2017; Samuel 2019). Priority concerns of course include livelihoods, food and water security, and health and safety (Adger et al. 2014; Bauer, de Jong, and Ingram 2022). However, evaluations of loss and damage are often framed in terms of nonmaterial—social, emotional, spiritual—meanings. For example, St’át’imic First Nations people of British Columbia lament the assault on their tradition, cooperation, community, and identity caused by changes in the timing and abundance of sockeye salmon (Jacob, McDaniels, and Hinch 2010). For Tuvaluan islanders facing the difficult choice of staying put or abandoning their “sinking” homeland, their biggest fears of choosing the latter are squandering their ancestor’s legacy, cultural traditions, and independent nationhood (Roy 2019; Barnett and O’Neill 2012). Social Memories of Climate in the Past Some groups are able to keep alive social memories of historical climatic conditions and events that happened long ago, even surpassing 10,000 years in exceptional cases (Upton 2015). The memories may include past weather and seasonal patterns, extreme weather events and natural disasters, coping strategies used, landscape modifications, and now-extinct species and geological shifts, depending on the time depth. They are expressed and transmitted by means of conversational recollections, biographical memories, genealogies and family stories, oral histories of community or population, toponyms, sayings, commemorations and rituals, ancient literary traditions, and myths and folktales (box 3.4). References to past climatic or environmental conditions may appear as inferable or fragments of background information in such narratives or as a central topic in tales of epic transformation (Keep 2020). 67 BOX 3.4 SOCIAL MEMORIES OF HISTORICAL CLIMATIC CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES • Family-based farmers and ranchers in Sulphur Springs Valley, Arizona, express personal awareness of long-term climatic trends, on the order of several years or decades, that agree with scientifically determined trends, namely increasing aridity and shifts in seasonal precipitation patterns. However, the farmers consider these shifts to be cyclical rather than clear evidence of permanent change (West and Vásquez-León 2003). • Farmers of Kirtipur, Kathmandu valley, Nepal, readily recall extreme events of weather fluctuation and climate variability (such as droughts, early freezes, heavy precipitation or snowfall, erratic rainfall) within their lifetime (up to 65 years ago), various technological and social mechanisms used to cope with them (some of which are no longer available), and government actions and their effects. Such memories and their retelling instill the shared idea that recent climate fluctuations are not new or unusual but rather normal events that people are able to overcome through ingenuity, flexibility, and common effort (Poudel 2011). • Athapaskan and Tlinget oral traditions reveal many details on glacier locations and movements (advances, retreats, surges) in and around the Gulf of Alaska and Yukon Plateau region during the Little Ice Age (1550–1850) (Cruikshank 2001). 68 • Māori oral tradition includes ancestral sayings that refer to a number of keystone animal species that became extinct at different historical time periods, including the flightless moa birds, which disappeared before the arrival of Europeans (up to 700 years ago). A combination of linguistic and structural cues, vocabulary identifications, historical contexts, and embedded references to ancestor names, events, and genealogies could be used to establish a chronology of the narratives, which in turn provides insight into environmental change and its timing (Wehi et al. 2018). • Inuit toponyms used in conjunction with archaeological and zooarchaelogical data permit the reconstruction of settlement patterns, economic habits, the changing seascape and icescape, and climatic conditions during prehistoric Thule and historic Inuit periods (circa ad 1000–1850) on Baffin Island, eastern Canadian Arctic (Henshaw 2003). • The Sagas of Icelanders, an ancient literary tradition based on even older storytelling, contain many references to weather events and variable climate conditions, as well as to their economic and cultural significance, corresponding to the early settlement of Iceland and later medieval periods (circa ad 871–1050) in the north Atlantic (Ogilvie and Pálsson 2003). • Myths of the Warao people of the Orinoco delta tell of a time when they could walk to Trinidad, circa 7,500–8,000 years ago. This geological memory is reinforced by the tale of two laurel tree (Calophyllum sp.) brothers (that is, subspecies) who migrate in primordial times from Trinidad to the Orinoco delta and bring along their own soil to settle in, the red laurel bringing the humid soils of the lower delta and the white laurel bringing the dry soils of the upper delta (Wilbert 1995). • The myths and tales of numerous Australian Aboriginal peoples describe the creation, disappearance, or movement of islands, coastlines, bays, inlets, and other landscape features, presumably linked to sea level changes, that occurred between 7,000 and 11,000 years ago. This impressive oral record of geological change represents up to 400 generations of high-fidelity transmission (Upton 2015). 69 The specific pathways by which individual perceptions and recollections are shared and converted into collective memories are rarely documented empirically and therefore not well understood. The weather is a common topic of daily conversation in many places and informal communication contexts such as these contribute to the transmission of knowledge about it (Balehegn and Balehey 2019). It is rather common for elders in a population to remember extreme weather events leading to natural disasters, such as famine-causing droughts or historic Combining floods, and to use these unforgettable events as time microscale markers. However, there is little evidence that any group ethnoclimatology has been able to turn such memories into long-term with macroscale traditional climate prediction indicators for such events climate science (Poudel 2011; Zuma-Netshiukhwi, Stigter, and Walker enables greater 2013; Iticha and Husen 2018). Other studies suggest understanding that long-term climate memories are somewhat fluid and of how global result in shifting baselines of “normal” weather in the temperature past against which present weather patterns are judged rise leads to a (Marin 2010). On a theoretical level, social memories are variety of distinct explained as communicative acts that are repeated and atmospheric, institutionalized through social frameworks over time in physical, biotic, order to reinforce shared identity, social solidarity, ancestral and socioeconomic connections, territorial claims, and other social functions impacts at (Orianne and Eustache 2023). In any case, long-term smaller scales. social memories such as these are believed to contribute to the resilience and reorganization of social-ecological systems when confronted with unexpected environmental change (Folke 2006; Nykvist and von Heland 2014). 70 Comparing ILK- and Scientific Knowledge-Based Assessments The differences between ILK- and scientific knowledge-based perspectives on climate change provide the justification for comparing and combining them (Marin 2010; Savo et al. 2016). ILK perspectives typically consist of many variables, qualitative measurement, high resolution, and knowledge- sharing networks, while scientific knowledge operates on the basis of few variables, quantitative measurement, low resolution, and modeling based on seasonal or annual averages. Local understandings of weather and climate are shaped by the cumulative and collective experience of living in a particular society and landscape and coping with the ongoing changes over a long time period. Scientific models of climatic variation rest on data coming from multiple sites, usually covering comparatively brief time periods. Combining microscale ethnoclimatology with macroscale climate science enables greater understanding of how global temperature rise leads to a variety of distinct atmospheric, physical, biotic, and socioeconomic impacts at smaller scales. Despite this potential, there are relatively few examples where systematic complementation of ILK and scientific knowledge is actually being done (Byg and Salick 2009; Tengö et al. 2014). Three basic outcomes are possible when comparing ILK and scientific knowledge assessments: (a) confirmation, (b) contradiction, and (c) complementarity. Confirmation refers to basic agreement. This result is useful for validating the accuracy and reliability of information coming from different sources. It also facilitates evaluation of the consistency and relevance of information at different scales and across different socioecological contexts (Tengö et al. 2014; UNESCO 2018). Numerous field studies in fact report some type of corroboration between IPLC perceptions and narratives of climate change impacts on one hand, and weather station data and peer-reviewed observations on the other hand, coming from the same grid cell (Alexander et al. 2011; Kalanda-Joshua et al. 2011; Yang et al. 2019; Metcalfe et al. 2020). An analysis of patterns of agreement or disagreement between (a) scientific and nonscientific observers and (b) local observers at different locations 71 Photo: Mariana Kaipper Ceratti/World Bank shows that they depend on the scale and specificity of the comparison. On a global scale, high rates of agreement are obtained in regard to broadly defined trends such as warmer temperatures, greater rainfall variation, greater seasonal variance, higher frequency of extreme weather events, and more droughts. Across different sites within the same biome, one can find consistent observations of a more specific nature, such as less overall rainfall but more intense rain episodes in tropical dry broadleaf forests (Savo et al. 2016). Contradiction implies irreconcilable differences over what parameters change and how much they change, the effects on or risks they pose for people, the types of adaptive response needed, and notions of causality. One common point of difference is that IPLC perspectives on environmental impacts typically take into account many more components than scientific models but focus more on the interactions between them than the components themselves. These basic cognitive differences give rise to disagreements over how to interpret the same situation, for example whether a common pool resource is declining and more regulation is needed (Bender 2001; Rassweiler et al. 2020). Another area where viewpoints diverge sharply is in regard to the perception of climate change causality, which in turn has an impact on people’s attitudes toward corrective action. IPLC perspectives 72 on the causes tend to invoke supernatural agencies linked to human moral or social failings, which implies a greater sense of personal responsibility and agency to rectify the problem (ACCHSM 2011; Boillat and Berkes 2013; Baumgartner 2016; Granderson 2017; Miara et al. 2022). By contrast, the general public in Western society commonly displays the psychological traits of moral disengagement and personal dissociation from the causes of climate change, which may explain the motivational gap to tackle the threat through individual behavioral modification (Peeters, Diependaele, and Sterckx 2019). Complementarity entails the combination of distinct types of data and information in a complementary fashion. There are at least three dimensions where complementarity contributes to knowledge enrichment: (a) space, (b) time, and (c) complexity. First, ILK helps to augment the spatial coverage of data gathering, especially in places where there are no weather stations or scientific data available. In this regard, it is worth noting that the regions of the world where instrumental records of climatic parameters are extremely sparse – Oceania, Africa, and Latin America – are also regions where IPLCs are prevalent (Alexander et al. 2011). Second, ILK constitutes a source of information for establishing climate baselines or extending the timelines of environmental change beyond the point when scientific data collection began (ICH 2022). For example, scientists are using Iñupiaq narratives to better understand historical changes in whale migrations in northwestern Alaska (Vinyeta and Lynn 2013). Third, complementary viewpoints contribute to complexity of information by capturing more variables or dimensions of climate change. A study carried out among Jamaican farmers found that farmer perceptions agreed with scientific measurements regarding increase in the overall magnitude and frequency of dry months, but the farmers also picked up on greater oscillations in the rainfall between early and primary growing seasons, an insight with implications for adaptation planning (Gamble et al. 2010). Further examples of each outcome are provided in box 3.5. 73 BOX 3.5 OUTCOMES WHEN COMPARING ILK AND SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENTS Confirmation. ILK and scientific knowledge observations are in basic agreement. Example. Indigenous farmers of the high Andes of Peru and Bolivia conduct ritualized observations of the Pleiades star cluster at the time of the winter solstice in order to divine the timing and amount of rainfall during the coming summer growing season. They claim that a bright cluster accurately predicts a normal season while a dim cluster forecasts later and sparser rains, and they will adjust their potato planting schedules accordingly. These results were subsequently confirmed by scientific data and analysis, which pointed to altered wind directions and an increase in atypical high cloud cover during the drier El Niño years. This type of cloud is thin and subvisual, but nevertheless reduces visibility precisely toward the horizon where the Pleiades appears at that time of year. Thus, even though the objects and methods of observation were vastly different, the farmers and scientists were in basic agreement about the atmospheric variations and the accuracy of the forecasts (Orlove, Chiang, and Cane 2002). Contradiction. ILK- and scientific knowledge- based observations contradict one another. Example. On Moorea island, French Polynesia, native islander environmental impact assessments following major ecological disturbances contrasted 74 sharply with those made by visiting scientists. In this case, the disturbances were a destructive cyclone and an outbreak of coral-killing sea star, while the impact assessments focused on the reef-dwelling fish populations. The islanders paid more attention to ridge-to-reef connections and felt that no change to traditional fishing habits was needed, whereas the scientists focused on individual species and their populations, and strongly recommended moratoriums on fishing certain types. The islanders also applied a more long-term perspective, contending that fish populations were naturally and recurrently fluctuating and unpredictable. Therefore, such variability was something they viewed as normal (Rassweiler et al. 2020). Complementarity. Scenarios involving the combination of distinct types of data and information in a complementary fashion. There are at least three ways or areas in which such complementarity contributes to knowledge enrichment: space, time, and complexity. Examples • Space. A study comparing indigenous perceptions, local research station records, and grid-scale climate data in Bolivia found agreement between the first two data sets and disagreement with the third. This result suggests that local observations are basically accurate but refer to spatial scales finer than those captured by gridded data. Therefore, they can be used as a reliable data supplement at localities without stations nearby (Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2017). • Time. Researchers were able to reconstruct the extent of mangrove change in Queensland, Australia, since the date of European colonization with the assistance of participatory mapping by Kabi Kabi consultants who conserved long-term social memories of past mangrove landscapes through storytelling, place names, and other cultural devices (Brown et al. 2018). • Complexity. A study comparing Inuit and scientific perspectives on the relationship between sea ice and climate change found that the two knowledge systems furnished complementary information and when 75 used together could lead to a deeper understanding of the relationship. Inuit observations provide numerous details on sea ice dynamics (for example, extent, thickness, and distribution of ice; timing of freeze- up and break-up; floe edge history and position; wind conditions; and changes in animal habits and movements), weather (for example, duration of very cold periods; changes in the fall-to-winter transition; frequency of storms; and variability and unpredictability), animal behavior (for example, reproduction and movements), and the interactions between these variables. The authors suggest that scientific models and monitoring efforts can be enhanced by adding and taking into account the insights of traditional and local knowledge holders (Laidler 2006). Mitigation IPLCs are already major contributors to climate mitigation efforts through their valuable service as managers of a large portion of the world’s forests (Frechette, Ginsburg, and Walker 2018; Veit, Gibbs, and Reytar 2023). In view of their sterling track record as stewards of biodiversity-rich, carbon- absorbing ecosystems, it seems justified that this role should be expanded if there is any hope of reaching emission reduction targets (Stevens et al. 2014; Ding et al. 2016; FAO and FILAC 2021; WWF et al. 2021; IPCC 2022b). Sustainable use and management of land makes up a significant part of climate mitigation strategy. Natural ecosystems operate as a sink of GHGs when well managed, but as a source of them when cut down or burned. According to the IPCC, 23 percent of global GHG emissions come from agriculture, forestry, and other land uses (IPCC 2019b). Forestlands, which cover about 30 percent of the global land area, are especially important because they store a significant portion of the carbon stock on the planet in the form of living woody biomass, soil organic matter, and detritus. They also actively sequester atmospheric carbon, play a vital role in the global carbon cycle, modulate temperature and 76 rainfall at microclimatic scales, and provide key ecosystem services that extend beyond the immediate area. The world’s forests absorbed 7.2 billion more tonnes of CO2 than they released between 2001 and 2021, a positive sequestration ratio of about two to one (Veit, Gibbs, and Reytar 2023). However, the total area of forestland also receded substantially during this time. According to the most recent data appearing in the Global Forest Review, the world has Forests managed suffered a loss of 488 million hectares (Mha) of tree cover by indigenous since the turn of the century, amounting to 12 percent of communities the total area in 2000. Furthermore, the annual rate of tree are subject to cover loss has risen steadily, from 13.4 Mha of tree cover lower rates of loss in 2001 to 28.3 Mha in 2023. Latin America is the deforestation or world region with the greatest loss (119 Mha), of which 53 degradation than those found percent is from commodity-driven deforestation, 37 percent under other due to shifting agriculture and 10 percent by logging. The landholders or extent of forest degradation in recent decades appears to even in protected be equally severe, with 185 Mha affected by partial canopy natural areas. reduction (greater than 20 percent and less then 90 percent between 2001 and 2012), 113 Mha by wildfire (between 2001 and 2023), and 155 Mha by reduction of intact forests (between 2000 and 2020). Together, deforestation and forest degradation are responsible for 15 percent of global GHG emissions, more than global transport and aviation combined (WRI 2024; van der Werf et al. 2009). Evidence of Successful Forest Management The fate of the world’s forests is arguably dependent on the survival and well-being of IPLCs. One reason for this is that a large portion of the world’s forested ecosystems are found on community land. Roughly 36 percent of the remaining “intact forests,” which are unbroken swaths of primary forest free of significant anthropogenic damage, are standing on indigenous territories (Stevens et al. 2014). In Latin America, IPLCs control and manage 330–380 Mha of forest, which amounts to about one third of the forestlands in the region (Fa et al. 2020). More than 80 percent of the area occupied by Indigenous Peoples has forest cover, of which roughly 52 percent (330 Mha) are intact forests. In Central America, 48% of the forests and marine resources coincide with land areas occupied and used by indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples. In the Amazon Basin, the world’s biggest rainforest, 45 percent of the remaining intact forests are within the boundaries of indigenous territories (FAO and FILAC 2021). Forests managed by indigenous communities are subject to lower rates of deforestation or degradation than those found under other landholders or even in protected natural areas. Between 2003 and 2016, Amazonian indigenous territories (outside protected natural areas) lost 0.1 percent of carbon stock, overlapping indigenous territories with natural protected areas lost 0.3 percent, protected natural areas outside indigenous territories lost 0.6 percent, and other areas (neither indigenous territories nor natural protected areas) lost 3.6 percent. Deforestation rates on indigenous territories with secure land tenure rights were significantly lower than those on indigenous territories without such rights: 2.8 times lower in Bolivia, 2.5 times lower in Brazil, and 2 times lower in Colombia (Fa et al. 2020; FAO and FILAC 2021). Although indigenous territories comprise 28 percent of the Amazon, they generated only 2.6 percent of the carbon emissions (Walker et al. 2020). These results are all the more impressive when one considers that indigenous lands show higher rates of deforestation just outside their boundaries and greater proximity to high-risk areas of frontier expansion in comparison to protected nature reserves. For this reason, conservation scientists contend that Indigenous lands are “the most important barrier” to deforestation throughout the region (Nepstad et al. 2006; see also Ricketts et al. 2010). Not only do indigenous territories exhibit greater success at conserving carbon stocks than other land use categories, they do so at lower cost (Stevens et al. 2014; FAO and FILAC 2021). 78 Different studies in recent years have examined the impact of secure territorial rights on deforestation and degradation rates from around the world (Stevens et al. 2014; Ding et al. 2016; Blackman et al. 2017; Garnett et al. 2018; Baragwanath and Bayi 2020; Fa et al. 2020; FAO and FILAC 2021). All of them point to one clear conclusion: land tenure security is an effective driver of forest conservation, insecurity a driver of deforestation. Despite the strong evidence attesting to the ability of IPLCs to sustainably use and manage forests and other natural ecosystems, especially when backed by formal land tenure rights, the vast majority of them do not possess such rights. A recent paper by the World Resources Institute reports that only 10 percent of the total land area in the world is recognized under national laws as being possessed by IPLCs, while another 8 percent of the land area is designated for occupation and use by IPLCs but falls short of full ownership. The distribution of these rights is very uneven: two thirds of the land owned or controlled by IPLCs is found in just five countries (China, Canada, Brazil, Australia, and Mexico) (Veit 2021). Reasons for Stewardship Success The superior performance of IPLCs as custodians of forestland can be traced to two general attributes that give them a natural advantage: their eco-technological intelligence and their cultural values (Ford et al. 2020; FAO and FILAC 2021). ILK systems and the practices that flow from them incorporate the accumulated wisdom and experience gained from residing in certain landscapes over many generations and coping with climate variability and ecological change. More and better knowledge of biodiversity and ecodiversity in space and time underpin nondestructive use habits (Gadgil, Berkes, and Folks 1993; Nakashima and Roué 2002; Berkes 2008). In Latin America, Indigenous Peoples in particular exhibit more carbon-protective resource production systems compared to mestizo groups, with much lower dependence on cattle ranching and cash cropping and much higher dependence on nontimber forest product harvesting and production for household consumption (FAO and FILAC 2021). IPLC cultural systems consistently reflect an ethos of intimate and multidimensional attachments to the natural environment. The land and its biota are valued not only for food, medicine, tools, and other material needs, but also for history, identity, spirituality, beauty, morality, sociality, companionship, education, and philosophical reflection. Given their holistic dependence on the land, there is usually a strong incentive to preserve and protect it. Furthermore, a cultural characteristic shared by many IPLCs is a cosmovision that sees people as being a part of, rather than apart from, nature. This vision of unity and interdependence between human and nonhuman biospheres fosters more caring and respectful attitudes, as well as more symbiotic and sustainable use habits (Mazzocchi 2006; Zent and Zent 2022). Another important cultural feature reflected in healthy forests is the sheer diversity or distinctiveness of resource behaviors and ecological impacts from one local group to the next, which is more pronounced in the case of Indigenous Peoples. The interethnic diversity of such behaviors in regard to food habits, crop mixes, harvest technologies, ethnomedical treatments, housing types, crafts and manufactures, and settlement patterns augments landscape diversity and ecological stability at the extralocal scale (Athayde et al. 2021). Potential Outscaling of ILK-based Land Use Technologies Beyond their valuable service as carbon-rich ecosystem stewards, IPLCs and their ancient technologies and know-how are potential contributors to the development of new mitigation strategies in other lands. Traditional land use and resource management systems reflect many diverse technical designs and strategies that have permitted their practitioners to balance resource production or extraction with biodiversity and biomass preservation over the long term. As the debilitating effects of climate stress have progressed in vulnerable regions, increasingly there have been calls and proposals to outscale such technologies to areas with similar agroecological conditions to help mitigate the human impacts (Torres and Frías 2012; Degawan 2018; Antonelli 2023; Gilbert 2024). For example, the idea of transferring and adapting traditional rainwater harvesting techniques to places suffering from increased drought or unpredictable rainfall has gained some traction 80 Photo: Jessica Belmont/World Bank (Pandey, Gupta, and Anderson 2003; Barry et al. 2008; Ayele 2014). In this vein, traditional land use technologies may offer a potential source of models or inputs for the experimental development of carbon-protective land use systems applicable beyond their place of origin (Barry et al. 2008; Torres and Frías 2012; Degawan 2018; Antonelli 2023; Gilbert 2024). Such technologies may be advantageous in that they rest on low inputs, labor efficiency, and low risk aversion, but disadvantageous to the extent that they are land extensive and knowledge intensive (DeWalt 1994). Several land use technologies with outscaling potential are highlighted here: integral shifting cultivation, agroforestry, intercropping, crop varietal hyperdiversity, nontimber forest product extraction, soil conservation measures, water management engineering, controlled burning, and sacred natural site designations (figure 3.3). Box 3.6 presents a minimal description of each one. It should be emphasized that these categories refer to a basic design of land use or resource management that can be manifested in a great variety of ways as influenced by variables of the cultural and ecological setting (IUCN 2010). 81 FIGURE 3.3 SUSTAINABLE LAND USE TECHNOLOGIES FOUND IN ILK SYSTEMS Integral Shifting Cultivation Agroforestry Intercropping Water Management Crop Varietal Nontimber Forest Engineering Hyperdiversity Product Extraction Soil Conservation Measures Controlled Burning Sacred Natural Sites 82 BOX 3.6 IPLC SUSTAINABLE LAND USE TECHNOLOGIES • Integral shifting cultivation is a rotational system of land use that entails a cycle of clearing and burning (or mulching) a patch of forest or bush, planting and harvesting crops, fallowing the plot for a longer period until the natural cover is restored, and so on. Although potentially destructive (for example, in pioneering contexts), shifting cultivation tends to be ecologically balanced and sustainable among IPLC populations who have land security, long-term experience and technical know-how, and where the practice is well integrated with other cultural aspects (Fox et al. 2000; Freire 2007; Aweto 2012). Studies of carbon balance in long-fallow shifting cultivation systems show that they do not cause net carbon emissions, but rather tend to be carbon neutral or carbon positive (Erni and KMSS-Loikaw 2023). • Agroforestry combines annual or semiperennial crop cultivation or animal husbandry with tree or shrub species on the same unit of land. Agroforestry systems are usually characterized by high biodiversity, ecological complexity (that is, many interacting components), closed nutrient cycle, resilience, sustainability, and multifunctionality (Denevan and Padoch 1987). • Intercropping is the agronomic practice of growing two or more crops on the same field at the same time. The mix of crops are often chosen to achieve structural or functional complementarity, and to increase productivity, resource utilization, and nutrient use efficiency (Brookfield and Padoch 1994). • Crop varietal hyperdiversity refers to the cultivation of high numbers of distinct landraces or crop varieties. The maintenance of such diversity is advantageous for several reasons: use of different microecological niches, pest resistance, farmer experimentation, organoleptic variety, and positive valuation for sociocultural reasons (Heckler and Zent 2008). • Nontimber forest product extraction encompasses a wide variety of products from wild or semidomesticated species that are collected for sale or subsistence as food, fodder, spice, medicine, bark, fiber, rattan, oil, resin, dye, wax, packaging, ornaments, and other uses (Zent 2005). Where people depend extensively on nontimber forest products, it is common to find an environmental ethic that values care and preservation of the forest (FAO and FILAC 2021). • Soil conservation measures comprise a diverse set of techniques designed to protect the land from erosion, degradation, and nutrient depletion. Some of the measures commonly observed in IPLC farming systems include contour farming, terracing, no- till farming, conservation tillage, residue plowing, crop rotation, green manuring, strip cropping, windbreaks, cover crops, grassed waterways, buffer strips, bank stabilization, sediment control techniques, and organic farming (Cherlinka 2023). • Water management engineering is a common feature of many IPLC landscapes, especially in very arid or very humid environments. Traditional water conservation and distribution systems include dams, dikes, levees, terraces, paddies, irrigation furrows, canals, reservoirs, ponds, wells, ditches, aqueducts, tunnels, and redirected 84 drainage systems. For example, rainwater harvesting is an ancient moisture-saving practice that generally involves simple techniques of scooping up earth and piling up embankments around agricultural plots (Pandey, Gupta, and Anderson 2003; Barry et al. 2008). • Controlled burning entails setting planned fires for the purposes of preventing catastrophic wildfires, promoting ecological mosaics and biodiversity, stimulating resource growth, and maintaining ecosystem health. To perform controlled burning effectively and safely, it often requires locality-specific knowledge of type and stage of biomass, topography, wind direction and strength, soil moisture, rainfall patterns, and other factors (Widlock 2008; Bilbao et al. 2020). • Sacred natural sites are protected natural areas infused with religious, magical, historical, or cultural significance, where the type and degree of human intervention is effectively restricted. These spaces constitute conservation zones, ecological refugia, and dispersal centers that help surrounding areas maintain resilience in the face of ecological disturbance (Zannini et al. 2021). 85 Adaptation Adaptation to environmental change is an exceedingly variable, particularistic, and constantly evolving process. Climate variability itself is the product of a complex multiscalar process in which atmospheric phenomena occurring at a macro scale, such as solar radiation and gas concentration, interact with physical and biological phenomena at smaller scales, such as air movement and humidity, land and water surfaces, altitude and latitude, soil type and vegetation, and near-ground winds and cloud cover. Considering the Because of these complex interactions, a relatively uniform great number and change at one scale—global warming of the air and ocean— complexity of can lead to very uneven climatic effects at another scale, for factors involved, example, more intense storms and flash floods along Central the question of America’s Caribbean coastline, while there are more severe climatic impacts drought conditions on the Pacific side (TCRP 2022). Such and the adaptive effects interact in turn with dynamic variables in the biotic, challenges they ecological, and socioeconomic systems on the ground to spawn should be produce many different environmental and human impacts understood, at across regions and localities (Kronik and Verner 2010b). least initially, as a very site-specific Adaptive response to environmental change at the local and context-bound level is mediated by culture, which multiplies the diversity process. of situations even further (Galvin 2009; Adger et al. 2013; Naess 2013). The prevailing cultural system determines the cognitive schemes for comprehending the world and its transformations, the repertoire of technologies and behaviors for acting upon it, the attachment of value to material and nonmaterial items, the division of labor and leadership roles, the mechanisms of exchange and cooperation, and the reproduction or modification of norms (Murphy et al. 2015). Culture may also exert a drag or block on adaptive innovation but is not static or immune to changing contexts (Boonstra and Hanh 2014; Nykvist and von Heland 2014). 86 Considering the great number and complexity of factors involved, the question of climatic impacts and the adaptive challenges they spawn should be understood, at least initially, as a very site-specific and context-bound process. This was the conclusion of a study that elicited the perceptions and responses to climate change of native residents on different islands (Bellona, Ontong Java, Tikopia) of the Solomon archipelago. The islanders’ appreciations of the threats posed by cyclones, flooding, and erosion diverged sharply between the islands, in response to variations in island topography, marine resources, vegetation, food systems, livelihoods, migration, and social networks (Rasmussen et al. 2009; see Metcalfe et al. 2020 for a similar case study and result from the Yucatan peninsula, Mexico). Many experts agree that adaptation initiatives compatible with the local culture, knowledge, and practices are generally better received by the host communities and hence more sustainable over time (ILO 2017; Petzold et al. 2020; Taylor, Poleacovschi, and Perez 2023). The current guideline for climate-resilient adaptation planning outlined in recent UNFCCC policy directives, including the Cancun Adaptation Framework (UNFCCC 2010) and Paris Agreement (UNFCCC 2015), prescribe an intellectually pluralistic and inclusive approach, with specific reference to the participation of IPLCs and the integration of ILK into relevant social, economic, and environmental policies and actions, where appropriate. Despite this apparent inclusivity, the recognition and incorporation of these actors and their knowledge in actual plans and programs has lagged far behind the stated guideline (Salick and Ross 2009; Adger et al. 2011; Baer and Reuter 2015; Leal Filho et al. 2022). Their relative absence from the majority of national adaptation plans speaks eloquently to this issue (Shea and Thornton 2019). Yet it is precisely in the matter of devising better adaptation strategies where native wisdom may find its most valuable applications. IPLCs offer unique place-based, culturally literate perspectives on environmental change and coping strategies that can be used to fit global and national plans to local realities. In particular, ILK provides a ready-made foundation for developing community-based adaptation measures (Kuruppu and Liverman 2010; Derbile 2012; Nakashima et al. 2012; Naess 2013; Savo et al. 2016; ILO 2017). 87 IPLCs Are Active Responders IPLCs are not merely passive victims of the changes going on around them but rather are active responders. Appropriate responses include learning, analyzing, retooling, improvising, experimenting, borrowing, hybridizing, organizing, resisting, recovering, moving, and switching livelihoods (Nakashima et al. 2012). The literature review turned up many ethnographically rich reports on local, endogenous adaptive behaviors in response to climatic and associated environmental stressors (for example, see Leal Filho et al. 2022 for a comprehensive review of African experiences). Many of these cases were portrayed as representing successful adaptations, though understood to be ongoing (see box 3.7 for examples). At the same time, there is no shortage of reports suggesting that IPLCs are suffering grave hardships linked to climate stress, struggling or unable to overcome vulnerability issues, or even choosing maladaptive pathways (see box 3.8 for examples). It is not unusual to find stories of both positive adaption and negative adaptation outcomes within the same region, locality, or ethnic population. The high variability of outcomes suggests that there are a great number of factors that may influence this process and the degree and nature of their respective influences in a given situation are very context specific. Our understanding of this issue is obviously clouded by the lack of consensus, hence ambiguity, with respect to how to define and measure adaptation versus maladaptation (Bertana et al. 2022; Schipper and Mukheri 2024). In any case, one firm conclusion that may be drawn from the contrasting experiences is that independent adaptive behavior to climate change seems to be very pervasive, if not universal, but the ability and success in doing so is not a foregone conclusion. One of the routine pictures drawn is of local resource managers open to trying new strategies, sensitive to the success or failure of their adaptive experiments, and still learning to comprehend the unfamiliar weather patterns going on around them (Wood et al. 2014; Almudi and Sinclair 2022). 88 BOX 3.7 EXAMPLES OF IPLC ADAPTATIONS TO CLIMATE CHANGE • In the high-altitude plains surrounding Lake Titicaca, resident villagers are responding to environmental stress by reviving the ancient Tiwanaku agricultural technique known as camellones (Spanish), suka kollus (Quechua), or waru waru (Aymara). The technique, which consists of building, maintaining, and planting raised fields flanked by drainage canals, has proven to be an effective way to raise or maintain productivity on a long-term basis, protect crops from frost damage, conserve water and soil fertility, and convert marginal lands into productive areas (Canahua Murillo and Ho 2003; Gonzales- Iwanciw at el. 2007; Angelo et al. 2008; Galloway McClean 2010). • Indigenous Peoples of Guyana relocate their dwellings from savanna to forest sites during droughts and have begun planting cassava, their main crop, on moist floodplains that were previously uncultivated (UNPFII 2008). • Inuit hunters in eastern Greenland report fewer and leaner seals to hunt due to thinner ice but also more and bigger cod to fish as a result of warmer water. Accordingly, they are now relying less on hunting and more on fishing for subsistence and income (Buijs 2010). 89 Photo: Jessica Belmont/World Bank • Swidden cultivators of the Caquetá River in the Colombian Amazon are coping with the lack of a clearly distinguishable dry season by altering the timing, scale, and location of their slash and burn practices (Kronik and Verner 2010a). • For fishers of Lake Wamala, Uganda, climate change is manifested by more unpredictable seasons, floods, and droughts. Reported impacts include damage to equipment and landing sites, different dominant fish species, and changes in fish catches and sizes, reduced income from fishing, and altered dietary and consumption habits. The fishers have adapted to such changes by spending more time on their craft and by changing target species and fishing gear. Some innovative individuals have also diversified their livelihoods to include nonfishery activities (mainly high-value crops and livestock), a process enhanced by use of modern communications technology, membership of social groups, and greater fishing experience (Musinguzi et al. 2016). • Shrimp aquaculture is a predominant land use practice in southwest coastal Bangladesh. Changes in climatic variables (such as temperature, salinity, rainfall, drought, floods, cyclones) within the region have 90 had a deleterious impact on shrimp yields and livelihood security by increasing the frequency of shrimp disease, causing physical damage to farm structure, and degrading water quality. Small-scale shrimp farmers have responded to those changes by making numerous adjustments in their cultivation practices, including diversifying the mix of species tended, increasing pond depth, exchanging tidal water, applying lime, aerating stagnant water by drawing net, culling undersized shrimp, providing shade using aquatic plants, and strengthening earthen dikes by fencing and netting (Islam et al. 2019). • Farmers in the northern Bolivian altiplano (high plains) exhibit a variety of adaptation actions, including planting new crop species or varieties, tree cultivation, shifts in planting location or timing, changed cropping system, changed land use, improved soil and pest management, increased water capture, irrigation, lighting fires, livelihood diversification, and off-farm work (Meldrum et al. 2017). • Smallholders of the Yucatan are adjusting to “less rain and more heat” by modifying production schedules and daily working hours, and turning to alternative economic activities such as ecotourism, handicrafts, and migrant labor (Infante Ramírez and Arce Ibarra 2020). • Riverine dwellers in the Central Amazon, Brazil, are adapting to greater hydroclimatic variability (for example, extreme flooding and drought, drier and hotter summers) through modifications to housing and building architecture, storage units, dike construction, field and pasture locations, crop selection, harvest timing or methods, pest control, fishing techniques, domestic animal management, potable water supply, and transport systems (Almudi and Sinclair 2022). • Bassari farmers of Senegal are presently confronting a variety of climatic, demographic, and economic pressures. In response, they have adopted new crop species, rely more on short-cycle varieties, and are revising seed and soil management techniques (Porcuna-Ferrer et al. 2023). 91 BOX 3.8 EXAMPLES OF IPLC VULNERABILITY OR DIFFICULTY ADAPTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE • In the Sahel of Burkina Faso, woody vegetation is becoming increasingly scarce due to the demise of the nomadic migratory system and intensified pressure on the woody resource base amid increasingly arid conditions. Despite the continued economic importance of woody species, the Fulani people who live there have apparently not demonstrated the ability to actively manage trees or protect pasturelands, as it is not part of their nomadic pastoralist tradition, nor do they even consider it to be a possibility. A study conducted there concluded that “local people need ideas and support from the outside if they are to establish new management and land tenure practices, like rotation systems, that can replace the role of the traditional trekking system when it comes to ensuring a rational use of woody plants” (Lykke, Kristensen, and Ganaba 2004). • Circumpolar Indigenous Peoples of Alaska, Canada, Siberia, and Greenland report waning ability to maintain traditional hunting-based livelihoods, diets, settlement patterns, and cultural lifestyles as a result of the cascading effects of climate change on the weather and physical systems (cryosphere, hydrosphere, land areas), and in turn on the populations and behaviors of fauna that they relied on previously (Mustonen 2005). 92 • Indigenous communities in the Cotacachi volcano region of Ecuador are having much difficulty coping with increased water scarcity as a result of changing rain regimes, demise of the Cotacachi glacier, and shrinking rivers. By all appearances, their “local knowledge is inadequate in the face of external global change” and they have not yet been able to develop effective mitigation or adaptation strategies. The deteriorating economic situation has led to greater social conflicts over the shrinking water supply (Rhoades, Zapata Ríos, and Aragundy Ochoa 2008). • For the Kamayurá people of the Xingu National Park, Brazil, hotter and drier weather is decimating fish stocks in their territory and imperiling their very existence. They complain of fishing long hours with only meager catches to show for it. Lacking money, economic alternatives, or the capacity to move, they are having a tough time providing an adequate diet (Galloway McClean 2009). • Native islanders of Tuvalu deny any need to migrate or take special adaptation measures in response to imminent land loss from rising seas because they consider themselves to be godly people and expect God to save them from the peril (Mortreux and Barnett 2009). • The hardships experienced by poor farmers in southern Islamic Republic of Iran are getting worse under persistent drought conditions, leading to increases in food insecurity, illness, school abandonment, lawlessness, migration, land loss, and indebtedness. Because of endemic social inequality, women and daughters are the most deprived in this situation. Whereas more well-to-do farmers are coping by modernizing their production systems and taking advantage of government support services, the poor “farmers’ attitude towards drought was mostly metaphysical rather than physical and environmental,” as they believed that it was a punishment for their lack of faith in God and that basically “they cannot do anything about [it].” (Hayati, Yazdanpanah, and Karbalaee 2010). 93 • Quechua-speaking alpaca herders of the southern Peru are losing much of their traditional pasturelands as a repercussion of glacier retreat. In consequence, rural communities throughout the region and other areas of the high Andes are suffering high rates of population migration, village abandonment, and involuntary dislocation (Kronik and Verner 2010a). • In response to the adverse effects of climate change (for example, extreme weather, new pests and diseases), Ch’orti farmers of Guatemala have transitioned their milpa agricultural system from high to low diversity through the liberal use of chemical pesticides and herbicides. An unfortunate outcome here is that chemical-related health problems and nutritional deficiencies have increased dramatically, which calls into question the adaptive benefit of this type of response (FAO, ABI, and CIAT 2021). 94 All social-ecological systems are confronted with ecophysical, economic, technological, and social limits or thresholds, which constrain their ability to make beneficial adjustments (Adger et al. 2009; Weir, Dovey, and Orcherton 2016). Given the multidimensional, multiscalar nature of the adaptation process, some of the constraints and opportunities will come from outside the local context. At the same time, there may be cost–benefit trade-offs between different actions taken, or conflicts of interest where strategies or policies that may improve the livelihood viability or resource access of one group of stakeholders may detract from the position of other groups (Eriksen et al. 2011). The support, nonsupport, or even opposition of external institutional actors who command substantial financial resources and political clout may also be decisive for local adaptive outcomes (Berkes et al. 2006; Hayati, Yazdanpanah, and Karbalaee 2010). Any attempt to intervene in a given situation should count on a thorough grasp not only of the ecological and economic technicalities of change but also of the social and political complexities surrounding the different stakeholders and their respective positions (Eriksen et al. 2021; Porcuna-Ferrer et al. 2023). Adaptive Capacity Assessments of the adaptive behaviors of IPLCs or the significance of ILK for climate change adaptation tend to focus on the issue of adaptive capacity, defined by the IPCC as the ability to adjust to potential damage, take advantage of opportunities, or respond to consequences (IPCC 2014b). This ability is often conceptualized as a scale that goes from resilience (capacity to absorb and adjust to disturbance) to vulnerability (exposure and susceptibility to damage or harm). The status or prospect of adaptive capacity is then analyzed in terms of the variety of factors that either enable or obstruct it in a given community or population (Granderson 2017). IPLCs share some general characteristics that make them more resilient—well-developed knowledge and experience of their local environments, semi-independent livelihoods, high resource diversity, strong social networks, and cooperative customs—and other characteristics that make them more vulnerable—poverty, marginalization, land insecurity, higher prevalence of illness, and habitation in areas strongly affected by climate change—than other populations (Ford et al. 2020). Besides differences between societies or locations, there may also be significant inequities in 95 adaptive capacity within communities or even within households according to age, class, gender, occupation, education, ethnicity, and other variables. Higher-risk groups typically include women, children, the elderly, and minorities (Nyandiga and Jose 2015; Carbó 2022). For example, women are often more affected by climate change than men because of their greater burden in reproduction and childcare, androcentric property rights, discriminatory labor practices, lesser access to resources, and lower mobility (IUCN 2008). Different conceptual models for understanding how community-based adaptive capacity is constructed or maintained have been proposed. The popular Sustainable Livelihoods Framework represents a people-centered approach that examines the effects of vulnerability contexts (trends, shocks, seasonality) on livelihood outcomes (income, well-being, food security, sustainable resource base) at a household level through a series of intervening permutations and interactions involving available assets, transforming structures (levels of government, private sector) and processes (laws, policies, culture, institutions), and livelihood strategies (Natajaran et al. 2022). Although intended to be holistic, this approach frequently relies on an econometric analysis centered on the portfolio of livelihood assets that a given population has access to. Presumably the more assets there are, the greater the adaptive advantage. Five classes of assets are identified in the original model: human capital (health, education, skills), physical capital (infrastructure, equipment), financial capital (credit, savings, income), natural capital (natural resources available), and social capital (social relationships and support) (DFID 1999; Yang et al. 2018). An expanded version of the assets model adds cultural capital to the mix (Kronik and Verner 2010a). As used here, cultural capital is synonymous with ILK in the broadest sense of the term, including empirical knowledge, resource management systems, supporting institutional arrangements, and worldview (Berkes 2008). The first three assets (human, physical, financial) are those that are usually in short supply among IPLC populations, while the last three (natural, social, cultural) are the assets they have in greatest abundance. An alternative framework points to less tangible cultural factors as the positive drivers, such as knowledge, experimentation, learning ability, agency, diversity, social cohesion, collective action, and institutions (Folke, Colding, and Berkes 2003; Boillat and Berkes 2013; Ford et al. 2020). This type of analysis tends to be more qualitative, with emphasis on the interactive effects and contextual 96 integrity. Thus the particularities of each factor can vary greatly across different situations, such that what may represent an opportunity in one context may act as a constraint in another. Whether categorized as an economic asset or cultural property, access to knowledge, including its traditional forms, is frequently highlighted as a key resource for enabling social-ecological resilience (Adger et al. 2004; Wood et al. 2014; Williams, Fenton, and Huq 2015). ILK is a crucial resource for adaptive capacity for many reasons, starting with the general fact that it provides the lens through which people detect and interpret ecological changes and is the starting point for modifying resource behaviors. Experienced and knowledgeable resource managers are more adept at reading and tracking environmental changes, which usually translates into more apposite responses. By noticing and interpreting climatic deviations and their ecological impacts, they also ascribe meaning to them and reduce uncertainty, which allows them to react more quickly and pointedly. By contrast, uncertainty, if left unchecked, is often treated as one of the main drivers of vulnerability (Adger et al. 2004; Kalikoski, Quevedo Neto, and Almudi 2010). Secondly, ILK-based resource management systems provide time-tested formulas for learning to manage change and uncertainty, building resilience, and recovering from disturbances. One of these formulas involves the creation of small-scale ecological disturbances (for example, shifting cultivation, controlled burning, pulse grazing, rotational hunting), which permits resource extraction but also renewal (Berkes and Folke 1998). Other important formulas include management of landscape patchiness, managing ecological processes at multiple scales, and responding to pulses and surprises. Some researchers observe that traditional resource management systems embody some of the same principles found in science-based adaptive resource management, wherein resource managers closely monitor signals and feedbacks in dynamic situations and adjust their resource behaviors accordingly in an iterative fashion (Berkes, Colding, and Folke 2000; Folke, Colding, and Berkes 2003). These skills are crucial when it comes to dealing with climate- stressed change. Thirdly, ILK systems contain institutional components that serve an adaptive function in times of ecological transition and uncertainty by organizing individual responses into collective efforts. The main ones pertaining to adaptive capacity are those linked to governance, decision making, rule 97 enforcement, resource access and regulation, conflict resolution, social solidarity, economic exchange, and labor organization (Begossi 1998; Agrawal and Perrin 2008; Mowo et al. 2013; Wood et al. 2014; Ford et al. 2020). Finally, ILK systems incorporate mechanisms of knowledge integration, transmission, institutionalization, and internalization (for example, rituals, symbols, values) (Berkes and Folke 2002; Murphy et al. 2015; Balehegn and Balehey 2019). Empirically, it can be shown that groups and individuals with long-term experience and more developed knowledge systems tend to be more resilient, whereas groups with less developed knowledge systems (such as recent migrants or acculturated groups) tend to be more vulnerable (Adger et al. 2004; Ford 2012; Wood et al. 2014; Reyes-García, Guèze et al. 2016; Caviedes et al. 2024; Samsuddin et al. 2024). Opinion surveys conducted among IPLC groups themselves show that they are keenly aware of the positive impact of robust ILK (and of the negative impact of knowledge erosion) for generating adaptive climate responses (Granderson 2017; Hofmeijer et al. 2012; McMillen, Ticktin, and Kihalani Springer 2017). A wide range of adaptation practices based on the experimentation or novel application of ILK in contemporary climate-stressed settings have been empirically documented (box 3.9). Some of the general strategies used in different places and regions include resource and habitat diversification; livelihood flexibility; incremental modifications (such as timing, spacing, techniques) to traditional subsistence activities; adoption of new crops and varieties; water management techniques (for example, ponds, irrigation, aqueducts, rainwater harvesting); wetlands protection; fire control and prevention; climate-appropriate housing; use of new materials for local manufactures; living shoreline barrier construction; and reforestation. At a finer level of abstraction, ILK-based adaptive practices appear to be very context and activity specific, which means that they may not be directly transferable to other situations. 98 BOX 3.9 NOVEL APPLICATIONS OF ILK STIMULATED BY CLIMATE STRESS • Mayans of highland Guatemala are employing their mastery of ecological relationships to revitalize their traditional agroecosystems through microzonal selection of maize varieties, (water) spring protection, renovation of irrigation systems, soil conservation measures, reforestation, fertilizer production, and mixed milpa– orchard–pasture land use designs (ACCHSM 2011). • Kassena-Nankane farmers in northeastern Ghana are adapting their rain-fed agriculture to worsening drought conditions through creative use of ILK, for example through selective cultivation of native drought-resistant crop varieties; staggering the plantings at different times or spreading them across different fields; and enhancing soil and water conservation measures, including applying indigenous forms of organic manure, planting grass strips, stone terracing, and paddy farming with mud terracing (Derbile 2012). • In the event of harsh drought, the Iteso of Uganda rely on their traditional knowledge of edible species to make up dietary deficiencies, harvesting wild fruits and vegetables, including lily tubers, wetland vegetables and desert dates (Balanites aegyptiaca), collecting termites, and hunting for bush meat (Egeru 2012). • In Zimbabwe, incidence of malaria correlates with rainfall. Due to greater unpredictability of rain under climate change, health authorities have been less able to anticipate and prepare for intra-annual spikes in the disease. Local experts in Gwanda district were found to use phenological indicators to accurately predict malaria outbreak, and 99 their ILK was then used to develop a successful community-based malaria early warning system (Macherera and Chimbari 2016). • Fisher-farmers of the Amazon delta (Brazil) use their expert knowledge of the river, tide, water, land, soil, vegetation, aquatic and terrestrial fauna, and weather to adapt resource production habits to changing flood patterns and its effects on the estuarine landscape (Vogt et al. 2016). • Quechua-speaking camelid herders in Puno, Peru, are employing their traditional ecological knowledge to overcome problems of water scarcity in a high plain environment impacted by climate change. For example, they are extending and adapting bofetales (irrigated meadows) using their detailed knowledge of microlocal landscape variation (ecology, geology, soils, natural water sources) and water management skills (Saylor, Alsharif, and Torres 2017). • Among villagers of Tongoa island in Vanuatu, traditional institutions that normally function to promote social solidarity, such as surplus food production and storage systems, ceremonial feasts, and ritualized exchange between spatially distant partners, are now being used to mitigate the impact of food shortages caused by cyclones and other climate hazards (Granderson 2017). • Nepalese hill farmers have expanded and modified agroforestry systems to overcome floods, drought, landslides, and soil erosion, while people on the plains have learned to cope with recurrent floods by constructing time- and cost-effective bamboo houses (Karki et al. 2017). • Urban dwellers in Ghana depend on their prior knowledge of plant indicators, animal behavior, and astronomy to anticipate and prepare for potentially devastating floods and droughts (Kasei, Kalanda-Joshua, and Benefor 2019). • Mapuche communities of Chile and Argentina have developed new variations on old practices—waterscape protection, native seed exchange (trafkintu), crop rotation, polyculture, tree–crop associations—to enhance their resilience in light of climatic and nonclimatic disturbances (IPCC 2022b). 100 ILK as a Learning Tool The use of ILK as a learning tool is one of its most important adaptive functions. ILK may be rooted in deep historical experience, but is nonetheless dynamic and pragmatic, continuously subjected to revision and renovation within the real-life laboratory of basic needs satisfaction and competition for survival (Hunn 1993). This can entail the adoption of new knowledge, practices, and technologies through borrowing or independent invention, as well as the abandonment of old ones due to obsolescence or irrelevance. Experimentation is in fact a common practice in nearly all ILK systems (Bentley 2006). Evidence of successful experimentation in folk societies can be found all over the world (box 3.10). 101 BOX 3.10 REPORTS OF SUCCESSFUL FOLK EXPERIMENTS FROM AROUND THE WORLD • Smallholders in El Salvador and Nicaragua typically experiment on their own, with or without encouragement from development agencies or researchers. Some of the achievements of self-innovation include long-lived tomato varieties, botanical insecticides (for example, from garlic and capsicum), redesigned screenhouses (to keep whiteflies out of vegetable seedlings), trash traps for controlling slug infestation, feeding tortillas to fire ants (which are beneficial to crops), pulling off dead leaves from diseased plants, tomato stakes made of insecticidal Gliricidia branches, and quantitative sampling to test the effects of insecticide use on cabbage (Bentley 2006). • Home gardens are preferred spaces for conducting experiments and learning how to manage economic plants in many rural communities around the world. Among the Totonac people of Veracruz, Mexico, male farmers use them as a testing ground for exotic plants with an eye toward commercial cropping, while females adapt wild species from the forest (Del Angel-Pérez and Mendoza 2004). The huertas tradicionales (traditional vegetable gardens) of the Tontotuna of Cauca, Colombia, are described as mobile gene and cultural memory banks composed of many different kinds of food, herb, medicinal, and ornamental plants. These experimental spaces also constitute focal points for the articulation of social networks based on the exchange of seeds, knowledge, and cultivation practices (Galvis Sarria, Ordoñez Serna, and Sanabria Diago 2022). • The Pamir Mountains of eastern Tajikistan are an isolated and sparsely populated region that has suffered in recent decades from degradation 102 of the natural environment (for example, deforestation, soil erosion, desertification), failed agricultural reforms, and forced emigration policies. Some of the apple growers are famous for breeding new apple varieties with exceptional taste and ecological properties by seed cultivation. The new varieties have spread throughout the region by the custom of giving away vegetative cuttings to other farmers (Boonstra et al. 2016). • Peasant farmers of la Palma district in Cuba have developed numerous original strategies to resist and recover from extreme climatic events (such as drought and hurricanes). The practices contributing the most to farm resilience are considered to be local germplasm banks, seed exchange networks, food and energetic sovereignty, and community cooperation (Márquez Serrano and Funes-Monzote 2013). • Banacon Island in the Philippines has the largest constructed mangrove plantation in Asia. It is maintained and extended through a planting method that involves raising tree propagules on sandbars and shallow mudflats in a dense planting arrangement. The method was originally developed by a local person known for their inventive streak, for the purpose of rehabilitating mangrove ecosystems that had been decimated by the 1950s. Other residents took up the practice when they saw that, besides protecting the coastline, it creates habitat for marine fauna and produces direct economic benefits in the form of timber, fuelwood, and thatching (Pulhin, Pulhin, and Gevaña 2017). • Non-native fish species (such as trout and silverside) were introduced in Lake Titicaca in the 1960s. Although local people were not originally consulted on this, they adapted quickly to the new resource by creating new fishing techniques and building new kinds of boats (Orlove 2002). • Farmers in Zimbabwe have been deftly responding to drier growing conditions in recent decades, mainly through the application of homemade remedies. Among these are new methods of continuous crop production by irrigation from rivers or floodwaters and switching to short-season varieties of maize, small grains (such as sorghum, bulrush millet, grain millet, cowpeas, groundnuts), and cotton, which are more drought tolerant (Ayal and Chanza 2014). 103 The motivation to innovate is often sparked by environmental or economic change or both. The obvious goal is to resolve a challenge, which may appear as a risk (such as crop damage), a constraint (such as falling production or labor shortage), or an opportunity (such as a new resource or technology). Another stimulus is the presence of people with other knowledge and experience, thus providing an example of how to do things differently. Folk experiments are typically inspired by a combination of old and new ideas, taking the form of small, incremental modifications to traditional technology for the purpose of In order for maintaining or restoring acceptable levels of efficiency individual and effectiveness. Rarely are new ideas simply taken up creativity to without any tinkering (Bentley 2006; Garavito-Bermúdez become collective 2020). So, the ability to experiment normally depends knowledge, it must to a large extent on prior knowledge and experience. be converted into social learning. In order for individual creativity to become collective This requires that knowledge, it must be converted into social learning. new technologies This requires that new technologies and techniques be and techniques be transmitted and shared with other members of a society transmitted and (Davidson-Hunt 2006). Innovations are more likely to shared with enhance resilience and be embraced by local user other members groups when they provide some tangible short-term yet of a society sustainable benefit, are compatible with local social and ecological conditions, and meet people’s expectations and prior understandings (Begossi 1998). Experimental knowledge is eventually assimilated as community- based knowledge by streamlining it into a routine practice and codifying it as a recognized tradition (Zent 2013). Important drivers of knowledge socialization influenced by climate change dynamics include (a) degree of environmental change and severity of its impact on local livelihoods (Kala 2017; Metcalfe et al. 2020); (b) social networks and facility of information exchange (Phuong, 104 Biesbroek, and Wals 2017; Paik et al. 2020); and (c) the maintenance of community-based means and methods of knowledge transmission (Woodward and McTaggart 2019). Beyond these general features, the specifics of adaptive learning vary greatly from one place to the next. Role of ILK in Adaptation Is Context Specific The evidence reviewed here leads to the conclusion that ILK plays a primary role in building adaptive capacity in contemporary climate-stressed contexts. That role is frequently positive and advantageous but also highly variable and contextual. One encounters a great diversity of adaptive profiles, ranging from higher to lower resilience, and of specific contributions of community-based knowledge to these profiles. The diversity and complexity of the adaptive process argues for a local-level, multivariate approach to understanding the capabilities and needs of a particular population or community and how best to assist them. At the same time, the broader context must be taken into account to grasp how powerful extralocal political-economic agencies and institutions may limit or influence their choices (Eriksen et al. 2011; Naess 2013). Some access to an emic (that is, insider’s) perspective is probably required to achieve this level of understanding. For example, cultural values, like attachment to place, community, and identity, may play a big role in determining people’s risk assessments and adjustment decisions (Adger et al. 2013; Weir, Dovey, and Orcherton 2016; Samuel 2019). While ILK makes a considerable difference to adaptive outcomes, this does not mean that it should be considered as a panacea or infallible, or that IPLCs do not need any outside assistance or support. Some groups suffer from “cultural inertia” to change, while others may choose adaptive strategies that solve problems in the short term but create other problems in the long-term (Folke, Colding, and Berkes 2003; Boonstra and Hanh 2014; Nykvist and von Heland 2014). Furthermore, climate change and other types of social-ecological change exert significant impacts on ILK, as well as the cultural system in general, that may affect its viability and vitality (see chapter 4). It is quite possible, in any given situation, that IPLC resource managers will require access to external sources of technology and information to shore up present vulnerabilities and to protect and leverage their own knowledge systems moving forward. 105 Photo: Jessica Belmont/World Bank 106 CHAPTER 4 IMPACTS OF SOCIAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHANGE ON ILK The evidence reviewed here thus far supports the proposition that IPLCs and their knowledge systems have much to offer global efforts to manage the climate crisis. At the same time, it is important to recognize that social-ecological change can have strong and deleterious impacts on ILK, which therefore affect its apparent usefulness. Climate change may be directly implicated in such impacts, but other powerful drivers are usually involved as well. In any case, they represent challenges for an ILK-centric approach to climate action. Here we draw attention to three circumstances or processes in which the value and applicability of particular ILK systems may become seriously diminished or constrained: (a) desynchronization, when the system gets “out of sync”; (b) displacement, when the system is removed or decoupled from its customary place; and (c) erosion, when valuable parts are debilitated or lost. A basic grasp of these eventualities, and the factors that shape them, is important because they need to be addressed if this type of approach is followed. Too often, arguments promoting the strategic use of ILK ignore or gloss over these problem issues. 107 Desynchronization A particular knowledge system may become desynchronized, or “out of phase,” from its present context as a result of drastic, rapid, or nonlinear change. A frequent problem mentioned about ILK in contemporary climate contexts is that certain aspects of it are no longer accurate, reliable, or effective due to unprecedented ecological regime shift (Adger et al. 2013; Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2021). Although ILK is characteristically mutable when its users are confronted with shifting conditions, the pace and degree of change may outstrip the normal capacity of people to develop effective adaptive responses with the information technologies they have at hand. Climate-related threats to well-being and their effects on people’s lives vary considerably across different ecoregions and social settings, but there are some alterations that are very prevalent and present formidable challenges to resilience in almost any situation. They include greater variability in the amount and timing of rain, erratic or strongly shifting seasonal patterns, sudden-onset extreme weather events (such as storms, floods, frost, snow, heatwaves, fires), prolonged drought, biodiversity decimation, disappearance or range change of culturally important biological species, damaging pest and disease outbreaks, invasive species, and new pandemics. Such changes directly affect matters of human interest: the temporal and spatial availability of resources, food and water security, work effort and organization, health risks, personal safety, adequate housing, population aggregation, and social tensions, among others. These impacts are usually not experienced in isolation; rather, they take place in dynamic contexts where momentous change may also be occurring on economic, technological, political, cultural, and other fronts (Ford et al. 2020). When changes in the ecological system and the social system coincide and create synergies, a major regime shift may take place. This can lead to trap-like situations where people are locked into livelihood strategies that may satisfy immediate needs yet undermine ecosystem health and their own well-being (Boonstra and Hanh 2014; SRC 2016). In situations of uncertain environmental change, traditional categories, meanings, associations, and understandings about the natural environment may come under question when they no longer match the biophysical reality 108 that IPLC resource managers perceive in the present. In some cases, local people themselves express a loss of confidence in their own ability to predict the weather, make a living, and manage resources effectively (Roncoli, Ingram, and Kirshen 2002; Gonzales Iwanciw et al. 2007; Kelly 2007; Cunningham Kain 2018; Samuel 2019; Infante Ramírez and Arce Ibarra 2020; Hosen, Nakamura, and Hamzah 2020; Almudi and Sinclair 2022). Aspects of climate ILK that are especially affected by anomalous ecological change include indicators, calendars, and resource-regulating institutions. Traditional management Changes in the behavior of key ethno-environmental institutions that indicators may impair people’s ability to forecast the once functioned weather and plan their work activities accordingly. Different to regulate access socioethnic groups inhabiting disparate ecosystems, such and rights to land, as farmer-herders of the Bolivian high plains, pastoralists of water, and natural resources may semiarid East Africa, and interior tribal groups of northeastern fall into disrepair Sarawak, have all reported that many of the traditional due to habitat indicators are now seen as very unreliable (Valdivia et al. degradation 2010; Kalanda-Joshua et al. 2011; Kagunyu, Wandibba, and resource and Wanjohi 2016; Hosen, Nakamura, and Hamzah 2019). shortages, resulting in fierce Ethno-calendars may be at odds with the prevailing competition and seasonal or interannual cycles of weather conditions, conflict between thus preventing people from choosing the best times to neighboring groups plant crops or undertake gathering expeditions. In many places throughout southern Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America, liturgical and agricultural calendars have traditionally been closely coordinated, but there are recent reports that the calendars have become effectively out of sync, partly as result of climate change (Gonzales Iwanciw et al. 2007; Lammel, Goloubinoff, and Katz 2008; Ichuta Nina 2016; Schwartzstein 2019). Traditional management institutions that once functioned to regulate access and rights to land, water, and natural resources may fall into disrepair due to habitat degradation and resource shortages, resulting in fierce competition and conflict between neighboring groups (Economist 2019). While the available evidence does not support the long-standing hypothesis that climate change will inevitably lead to violent conflict all over the world (Gleditsch 2012), under certain circumstances climate- related changes do appear to be exacerbating conflict situations. One of the main drivers identified in these situations is the ineffectiveness of the traditional peacekeeping institutions to manage the situation (SIDA 2017). Psychological and Social Costs The shortcomings of ILK in contemporary contexts of environmental change not only exacerbate physical vulnerability but also incur psychological and social costs that cause further strain on ILK maintenance and vitality. The perception that reigning cultural knowledge and practices cannot guarantee well-being and security often leads to a crisis of faith in the existing social and cultural order. Elders, community leaders, resident experts, and household heads may lose credibility and authority in the eyes of their peers and dependents when they are no longer able to meet their basic needs or provide solutions to their problems. Different scenarios can be imagined: local forecasters are unable to predict dry spells or frosts, leading to crop ruin and hardship; healers and ritual specialists can no longer grow the range of plants needed to cure sick people or conduct ceremonies; traditional remedies are ineffective against new virulent diseases; more work or investment is required to maintain the same production level (Kronik and Verner 2010a). The resulting upset causes some people to reject the old ways in favor of new and exotic ones. This break with tradition disproportionately affects the younger generation. The erosion of confidence in traditional biocultural heritage has potentially grave implications for matters of social control, cultural values, and ILK transmission. This dynamic can be observed among distant and seemingly unconnected peoples and places, for example indigenous Miskito of 110 coastal Nicaragua and rural villagers of the Cordillera Apolobamba, Bolivia. Among both groups, people view disarray in the natural sphere as a symptom or companion of disarray in the social sphere. Coincidently, both cases are marked by climate-altered landscapes accompanied by drastic intergenerational cultural turnover (MRGI 2013; Cunningham Kain 2018). Adaptive responses themselves may lead to the debilitation or invalidation of certain aspects of ILK, especially when they result in departures from traditional practices or livelihoods upon which much of ILK is based. Two common scenarios are observed here. One is that targeted responses intended to fix specific livelihood problems have unintended consequences and cascade into manifold social or economic changes that affect ILK vitality (see Kronik and Verner 2010a and Meldrum et al. 2017 for case studies). Secondly, households or communities elect to adopt more radical solutions to the problems brought on by environmental change, such as occupational or technology shift (see box 4.1 for more information and more examples). The migration of people from their homelands, especially when permanent, represents a potentially grave risk for ILK preservation and entails a unique set of dynamics that are described in the following section. 111 BOX 4.1 REPORTED CASES OF TRADITIONAL CLIMATIC INDICATORS, CALENDARS AND INSTITUTIONS “OUT OF SYNC” • Farmers in Burkina Faso have lost confidence in their ability to predict rainfall on their own, and thus are keenly interested in getting external sources of weather information (Roncoli, Ingram, and Kirshen 2002). • Later-onset rains and more extreme weather in different parts of the Bolivian high plains are causing local forecast techniques to fall into disuse and undermining long-standing production strategies. This is forcing many residents to seek out new sources of information, technology, and income, which further alienates them from their traditional wisdom (Valdivia et al. 2010). • The Aunties (older women) of Erub Island, Torres Strait, express sadness and identity loss because of their present inability to “read” the landscape, in terms of weather, seasons, tides, and plant and animal cycles (McNamara and Westoby 2011). • In Bolivia, climate change is threatening the survival of the holistic medical practitioners known as kallawayas (traveling healers), a practice that dates to the Inca period. According to the kallawaya cosmovision, health maintenance is based on the idea that human society must stay in balance with the land and nature. Recent and unprecedented environmental shocks, 112 such as the disappearance of glaciers, desiccation of rivers, shortening of seasons, and declining crop production, are attributed to a general loss of vital forces and weakening of the physical and spiritual well-being of the communities living there. The deteriorating situation is bolstering the lure of urban life and leading many young people to abandon the countryside, diminishing the chances of cultural continuity, and threatening the legacy of this ancient healing knowledge (MRGI 2013). The deteriorating situation is • In highland areas of Guatemala and Peru, rainfall bolstering the lure variability has emerged as a major stressor of rural of urban life and livelihoods, food security, and income earnings. leading many young Survey data from these areas show that the people to abandon residents of farming communities are turning to ex the countryside, situ diversification alternatives to survive, including diminishing the occupation shift and migration to distant cities and chances of countries (Milan and Ho 2014; Milan and Ruano 2014) cultural continuity, and threatening • The Sa’ban of Sarawak used to observe the first quarter the legacy of this moon in August to tell them when rainfall was near ancient healing and thus they should begin to dibble and sow rice, knowledge their staple crop. However, “this indicator is no longer reliable due to the shifting weather and seasons,” which has had deleterious effects on their food production and supply (Hosen, Nakamura, and Hamzah 2019). • In southern Egypt and northern Sudan, farmers had used the Coptic calendar for millennia to plan the agricultural cycle. But now there is too much variability from one year to the next; the calendar is falling into disuse and people are leaving the countryside in droves (Schwartzstein 2019). • Desiccation of Lake Chad in the southern Sahel is behind armed conflict and resource disputes between formerly peaceful neighboring tribes. Age-old resource-sharing arrangements, which once served to coordinate and regulate the occupation and use of the lacustrine ecosystem by coresident farmer, herder, and fisher groups, have broken down over acute water shortage (Economist 2019). • Many Mayan (ex-)farmers of the Yucatan say that the xook k’iin (counting of days) no longer works as a reliable guide to sowing and harvesting their crops. As a result, they are giving up their time-honored milpas (gardens), depending more on government subsidies and migrant labor for their subsistence, at the cost of loss of a keystone cultural activity and food sovereignty. In recent decades, the rural young people have been leaving their native forests and fields in ever greater numbers to find employment opportunities elsewhere, leading to major changes in the social system (Infante-Ramirez and Arce Ibarra 2020). • Indigenous and nonindigenous pastoralists of southern Chile exhibit a rich heritage of traditional veterinary medicine (TVM), including at least 30 TVM plant species used to treat different ailments of their animals. But this tradition is currently losing ground to modern veterinary practices due to the collateral effects of climate change, agricultural modernization, and changes in land ownership. One reason mentioned by local people themselves is that TVM species are getting much harder to find and collect nowadays (Olivares, Marchant, and Ibarra 2022). Displacement A given knowledge system becomes displaced when it is removed or separated from its customary place. There are two basic modalities by which this may occur: (a) when the knowledge holders are persuaded or forced to move away from their heritage homelands; and (b) when they lose access to or control over their territory or habitat even though they remain in place. Under this scenario, the intricate tie between the knowledge system and the biocultural context in which it was formed and evolved, often over very long time periods, is severed, with vast implications for the utility and viability of the knowledge system moving forward. The former scenario describes the migrant situation, where the migrant groups have not had enough time to adjust fully or pick up new knowledge of the same quality as before. The latter can take place by land invasion, legal or illegal infringements upon their resource rights, or habitat loss through ecological regime shift or human impacts (such as deforestation). Climate change is increasingly recognized as a major cause of displacement. Climate stress drives population migration to the extent that it makes a place uninhabitable or unproductive, or because it intensifies competition for scarce resources beyond tolerable levels. Natural disasters are a main cause of displacement, and anthropogenic climate change is a main driver of natural disasters. Globally, the frequency of natural disasters has increased tenfold since 1960, a trend that correlates remarkably with the advance of global warming during the same time frame (IEP 2020). Climate refugees presently make up a substantial sector of the world’s population and their recent demographic trend lines show a sustained growth pattern that is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. Though international, economically motivated migration captures more high-profile attention, internal migration associated with climate-related impacts is actually much bigger. Since 2008, there have been an estimated 288 million displacements from natural disasters and another 90 million due to armed conflict. Natural disasters were implicated in the forced relocation of 25 million people in 2019 alone (IEP 2020). According to the latest data available on the web page of the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, there were 8.7 million people across 110 countries living in internal displacement caused by disaster at the end of 2022. By 2050, 115 climate migration is projected to reach between 31 million (best-case scenario) and 143 million (worse-case scenario) additional migrants. The regions most affected are Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America (IDMC 2023). Climate and Other Causes of Displacement Human population movement is a complex affair that rarely has a single root cause. A multitude of push–pull factors have been linked to migration in different contexts. Some common ones are overpopulation, resource depletion, pollution, structural poverty, socioeconomic aspirations, political unrest, threat of violence, cultural values, and family reunification (Wrathall et al. 2014; Reichman 2022). The precise role of climate change in migration trends and patterns is still being studied and debated. In some cases, climate is identified as being a direct driver, such as when extreme weather events (such as floods, storms, drought) force people to flee their homes. According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, approximately 89% of disaster displacements from 2008 to 2020 were deemed to be “weather-related” (IDMC 2022). In other cases, that role is not as clear or direct, as additional variables and ramifying effects come into play. In Bangladesh, sea-level rise and warmer, drier weather is exacerbating salinization and soil contamination, which in turn lowers crop yields and pinches farmer earnings, leading thousands of farmers to abandon the coasts every year. Additional socioeconomic factors appear to be driving this migration trend as well: inefficient irrigation and drainage systems, competition from commercial shrimp farms, personal or household characteristics (such as capital resources, demographic profile, social contacts), and alternative employment opportunities (Chen and Mueller 2018). Climatic effects may combine or interact with other causal factors in complex ways, sometimes as an additional factor, at other times as a multiplier. Hurricane Mitch was a major cyclone that devastated the Caribbean coast of Central America in 1998 with severe flooding and land erosion, followed by a prolonged wave of outmigration by the affected rural inhabitants. However, the specific dynamics and drivers of migration varied by location. Among the Garífuna people of Honduras, climate-related land scarcity was exacerbated by land tenure laws, government development policies, powerful commercial 116 interests, a corrupt judicial system, and structural violence by land grabbers (Wrathall et al. 2014; Reichman 2022). In neighboring Nicaragua, land-poor mestizo farmers were driven to invade territory of the indigenous Miskito people and then proceeded to deforest huge areas of it with impunity due to the absence of indigenous land titling, redistributional agrarian reform laws, and complacent government officials (Kronik and Verner 2010a). Sociocultural Impacts of Displacement Besides uprooting the population and shattering their lives on a material level, displacement also has a major impact on the sociocultural system (Crate 2011; SEEP 2023). Given that ILK is largely a place-based system of knowledge, separation from its natural context often has negative consequences for the utility, vitality, and continuity of such knowledge. Ethnobotanical taxonomies and use values, for example, will no longer have the same relevance if the inventory and abundance of plant species in the new habitat deviates substantially from the characteristic inventory present in the old one. Some degree of ethnobotanical accommodation, substituting new species or abandoning old practices, will be required (Pieroni and Vandebroek 2007; Tareau et al. 2021). In a similar vein, skill sets associated with traditional occupations may not always be transferable or applicable to the new occupational setting. In short, the baggage of traditional knowledge brought along by migrant groups will come under selective pressure to change and adapt to the new environmental conditions (Nesheim, Dhillion, and Stolen 2006; Tompkins, Hurlston, and Poortinga 2009; Kandal et al. 2019). Territorial dispossession or separation also has a potentially profound impact on the migrants’ sense of identity and attached meanings. This includes the emotional attachment and moral commitment to protect the territory and preserve cultural traditions moving forward. Many aspects of expressive culture, such as historical narratives, folklore, song, dance, rituals, art and aesthetics, food preparations, clothing, spiritual beliefs, environmental ethic, and worldview, depend on continuity of place, and therefore will likely be difficult to maintain when removed from that context. Since these are common vehicles for the transmission of biocultural heritage and 117 knowledge, the content of information that gets passed along from older to younger generations will inevitably be affected. Loss of custodianship of sacred sites, burial grounds, customary temples, and the living referents of natural symbols subverts the collective faith in the traditional religion. Altered social identities compete with or replace old ones, with various consequences for the continuity of traditional social values and practices, such as those founded on the principles of solidarity and mutualism. The loss or discontinuity of identity is often associated with feelings of grief, alienation, anomie, lack of cultural pride, and collective mental illness (Adger et al. 2013; Ford et al. 2020). A banner example of this is found in First Nations people of the Arctic region, who are coping with massive habitat loss and transformation as a result of warmer temperatures. These people register some of the highest rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide in the world (Gray, Richer, and Harper 2016). A survey of Inuit perceptions and attitudes toward climate change across a broad area of northern Canada revealed pervasive feelings of psychosocial stress related to the dissipation of the sea ice ecosystem, a key resource space within their traditional subsistence system. This loss of habitat has caused them to suffer more accidents, curtail hunting activities, reduce their range of movements, become more sedentary, adopt new forms of housing, change their diets, and depend more on wage employment and imported food and goods. The reduced ability of individuals to practice aspects of traditional lifestyles is self-recognized as a primary reason for mental unwellness (Furgal and Seguin 2006; Gray, Richer, and Harper 2016). Despite the far-reaching consequences of this phenomenon, the availability of case studies and empirical data on the particulars of ILK decay or modification associated with habitat loss or removal is surprisingly sparse. Considering the multifaceted, context-dependent makeup of ILK, one can imagine a great diversity of possible impacts. To give some idea of what is at stake, four types of impact and representative cases are described briefly in box 4.2. They include (a) language endangerment; (b) threat to cultural survival of marginal groups; (c) extinction of unique biocultural lifescapes; and (d) erasure of tangible cultural heritage. 118 BOX 4.2 IMPACTS OF DISPLACEMENT ON LANGUAGE, CULTURE, LIFESCAPE, AND HERITAGE • Language endangerment. In the south Pacific, climate change is causing mass migration of native peoples away from their homelands without much hope of ever returning. This demographic shift will likely result in an enormous loss of endemic languages and cultures, as this is a region with extraordinarily high linguistic diversity and small population size per language. For example, Tokelau is a small, endangered Austronesian language spoken by a few thousand people who are native to three small, low-lying atolls that are severely threatened by rising sea level. Presently, there are more Tokelaun speakers (around 2,500) living in New Zealand than on the Tokelau islands themselves. Because their language is not native to New Zealand, they are ineligible for any official assistance to protect their language from decline or extinction. Under these circumstances, language survival is predicted to be an uphill battle (Brown and Middleton 2022). • Threat to cultural survival of marginal groups. Climate-induced displacement is stacking the odds against small, marginal, endangered cultural groups who are already struggling to survive and revive core cultural elements. It is often the case that such elements are tied to the land and livelihood, as in the case of the Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw tribe of coastal Louisiana. Members of the tribe have inhabited the Isle de Jean Charles for the last 200 hundred years. Presently, they are being forced to resettle as their homeland is wasting away as a consequence of levee construction, canal dredging, sea-level rise, saltwater intrusion, repeated flooding, and prevailing land erosion and subsidence. Many individuals and families have already left the island and now live dispersed among inland communities. Tribal leaders fear that this new displacement represents a grave threat to their cultural identity and survival as a tribal entity, as it threatens the process of passing along their traditional knowledge, survival skills, crafts, and sustainable ways of living off the land and marsh to the young and future generations. For instance, it will be In Puerto Rico and difficult to maintain the crafts of dwelling construction other parts of the using palmetto (Serenoa serrulata) and basketry using Caribbean, changes river cane (Arundinaria macrosperma), because these in air temperature, plants are not found in sufficient quantities outside rainfall and storm the marshlands (Comardelle 2020; Medaris 2023). patterns, and their geomorphological • Extinction of unique biocultural lifescapes. The and hydrological “sea gypsies” of maritime Southeast Asia comprise a effects, are diversity of seafaring peoples who inhabit the shorelines modifying various and coastal seas of Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, sites containing Indonesia, and the Philippines. They are famous for valuable heritage their nomadic foraging lifestyle and simple technology, information. vast knowledge of the sea and its myriad life-forms, ability to predict tsunamis before they occur, free- diving skills, exceptional underwater eyesight, lack of ownership of natural resources, ecocentric ethic, and stateless legal status. But in the last few decades many of them have been reluctantly giving up their unique biocultural niche and lifescape due to a combination of forces, ranging from state-sponsored resettlement and assimilation programs to territorial encroachment by commercial interests (such as petroleum extraction and tourism). The impacts of climate change (such as warmer seas, coral bleaching, fish population 120 declines, extreme weather patterns) have also emerged as a major aggravating factor. The altered seascape, along with hard-line state policies, are leaving them little choice but to relocate and settle on the mainland, depend on government aid programs, and adopt a sedentary mainstream lifestyle (Patel 2021; Survival International 2023). • Erasure of tangible cultural heritage. Climate change is having a deleterious impact on recoverable cultural history and collective memory by erasing or eroding tangible cultural heritage sites. In Puerto Rico and other parts of the Caribbean, changes in air temperature, rainfall and storm patterns, and their geomorphological and hydrological effects, are modifying various sites containing valuable heritage information. These include historic or archaeological buildings, artifacts, earthworks, and landmarks (Ezcurra and Rivera-Collazo 2018). Erosion A knowledge system is subject to erosion when it undergoes significant loss or decline of valuable information content, richness, and complexity. Valuable information content is understood as knowledge or skill components that could still provide net benefits; richness as the quantity of information and associated behavioral operations; and complexity as the density, diversity, and embeddedness of relationships among people and environmental components. Although ILK is inherently dynamic and responsive to shifting environmental conditions, erosion implies an unnatural subtraction that does not confer fitness advantage but instead increases vulnerability and limits options. A severe case or advanced stage of erosion amounts to devitalization, or loss of vitality, which implies the loss or degradation of the capacity to grow and adapt in ways that are consistent with the preservation of resilience and sustainability. ILK erosion is typically manifested by a noticeable gap in the knowledge levels displayed by older versus younger generations. The degree of difference observed is a reflection of the speed and severity of the changes 121 in knowledge acquisition and practical experience that have taken place (Zent 2009). This type of change is often irreversible and has serious implications for the survival of the society as an independent biocultural group, unless revitalization measures are taken. It also foretells declining engagement with the environment, desensitization to ecosystem change, stunted innovation and learning potential, and negligible conservation effort (Fernández Llamazares et al. 2015; Aswani, Lemahieu, and Sauer 2018; Lyver et al. 2019). There is overwhelming evidence that many of the small-scale, time-honored ILK systems throughout the world are currently endangered or vulnerable to erosion under the hegemonic influence of globalization, modernization, and other contemporary forces of change. This topic has received intensive attention and scrutiny since at least the development of the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169) (ILO 1989), where explicit mention of the problem is made. In the last quarter century especially there has been a prodigious outpouring of scientific research dedicated to documenting and understanding the characteristics, mechanisms, and causes of this phenomenon (Zent and Maffi 2009; Reyes-García et al. 2013; Gómez-Baggethun, Corbera, and Reyes-García 2013; Tang and Gavin 2016; Aswani, Lemahieu, and Sauer 2018; Caballero-Serrano et al. 2019; Cámara- Leret, Fortuna, and Bascompte 2019; Fernández Llamazares et al. 2021). Recent meta-analyses of this growing body of research give some idea of the breadth and depth of the problem (Hanazaki et al. 2013; Tang and Gavin 2016; Aswani, Lemahieu, and Sauer 2018; Nepal 2021; Sharifian et al. 2022). Aswani, Lemahieu, and Sauer (2018) analyzed a global sample of 92 studies on local ecological knowledge trending, finding that 77 percent of studies reported “loss.” Hanazaki et al. (2013), with a focus on shifting baselines of ethnobotanical knowledge, uncovered evidence of intergenerational knowledge differences in 91 percent of case studies and explicit reference to knowledge loss in 54 percent of cases in a sample of 84 studies. Sharifian et al. (2022) reviewed 152 papers on pastoral traditional ecological knowledge, detecting knowledge transition in 61 of them, of which 52 (85 percent) reported erosion. In view of the sheer magnitude and wide distribution of cases, there seems to be little doubt that this is a global trend with broad 122 Photo: Jessica Belmont/World Bank repercussions for the state of biocultural diversity worldwide (Zent 2013). It should be emphasized that the mega trend of knowledge erosion is neither universal nor uniform. There are verifiable instances where ILK is actively being maintained (Zarger and Stepp 2004), hybridized (Heckler 2007; Zent and Freire 2011), or renovated with new competencies (Guest 2002; Kandal et al. 2019) in social-ecological contexts marked by broad changes. Where erosion has been confirmed, the process is not everywhere the same. One can find considerable differences from one place to the next with respect to the types of knowledge, the rate or degree of change, the sociodemographic groups most affected, and the causal or conditioning factors (Zent 2013; Ford et al. 2020; Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2021). Tsimane plant collectors of the Bolivian Amazon manifest both loss and gain according to the knowledge domain; wild edible and medicinal plant knowledge is decreasing while knowledge of species used for housebuilding is increasing (Gómez-Baggethun and Reyes-García 2013). A comparative analysis of loss trends across all continents found that medicinal and ethnobotanical knowledge was the most impacted domain; such changes apply more to men in South America and more to women elsewhere, while younger generations consistently know less than older ones everywhere (Aswani, Lemahieu, and Sauer 2018). 123 Possible Causes and Conditioning Factors of Erosion A great variety of possible causes and contributing factors operating at different scales have been linked to this debilitating process. Significant threats to ILK reproduction of a macrosociological nature include language shift, formal education, market integration, introduction of new technology, extractive industries, land invasion, war and civil strife, migration, sedentarization, interethnic contacts, tourism, biomedicine, religious evangelization, modern mass media access, integrationist government policies, and the spreading influence of secular and scientific worldviews (Zent and Maffi 2009; Tang and Gavin 2016; Nepal 2021). Not all of these are present or significant in all places. Furthermore, the effects of each one in terms of knowledge retention or change, and with respect to the domains or types of knowledge that are responsive to them, vary considerably across different contexts. For example, in some places school achievement negatively impacts ILK acquisition (Zent 2001; Voeks and Leony 2004; Rocha 2005), in others its impact is positive (Reyes-García et al. 2007), and in still others it has no observable impact (Godoy et al. 1998; Guest 2002). It is frequently the case that the exogenous drivers or stressors interact with internal microsocioecological dynamics to inhibit traditional knowledge transmission. The internal factors reported in previous case studies include the communication gap between persons of different generations, disconnection from traditional subsistence activities, and changes in core values (Ross 2002; Bates 2009; Cristancho and Vining 2009; Tang and Gavin 2016; Nepal 2021). Even though no two cases may look the same, in general being young, educated, literate, nonfluent in the local language, displaced, sedentary, dependent on market goods or outside aid, able to get Western medical treatment, a nonbeliever of the traditional religion, in regular contact with people from other cultural groups, or devoted to watching television or using the internet, are all risk factors for ILK loss. Environmental change represents another identifiable risk factor, especially where natural capital has been degraded, but this scenario is not as well documented as with the social drivers mentioned above (Hanazaki et al. 2013; Cámara-Leret, Fortuna, and Bascompte 2019) (see box 4.3 for examples). 124 BOX 4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE AND ILK EROSION • Until the 1960s, the Huottöja of the Venezuelan Amazon maintained a seminomadic, interfluvial forest settlement pattern, a hunting-horticulturalist subsistence economy, and little contact with criollos. In a contemporary Huottöja community (that is, sedentary and acculturated), adolescent and adult males below the age of 30 years were notably less able to correctly identify and name primary forest trees and lianas compared to their older counterparts. In the younger group, plant naming ability was correlated positively with age and negatively with years of schooling completed and fluency in Spanish. It is also worth noting that the community was founded 30 years prior, and the surrounding landscape is dominated by secondary forest; thus the results may also be explained as a result of younger people being born into an environment with less exposure to primary forest during a greater part of their lifetimes (Zent 1999). • Community-based studies of ethnobotanical knowledge change carried out in rural areas of Pernambuco and Pará, Brazil, revealed a clear association between knowledge erosion and extinction or scarcity of formerly culturally significant species. At both sites the expansion of commercial land uses, for sugarcane plantations and logging respectively, had resulted in large- scale forest clearance, occupational shifts, and sharp differences between older and younger people’s knowledge of native primary forest plants (Shanley and Rosa 2004; Silva, Andrade, and Albuquerque 2006). • Inuit young people of Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, Canada, lead more sedentary lives, are more dependent on store-bought food 125 and clothes, and have very little contact with the land and animals compared to older community members. They also speak few Inuinnaqtun words while their grandparents speak little English, and thus there is little direct communication between them. One disturbing consequence of this loss of experiential contact with the land and the elders is the far-diminished transmission of traditional land knowledge to the younger generation (Bates 2009). • Among the Turkana of northern Kenya, prolonged drought, creeping desertification, and localized resource depletion are fueling resource competition, armed conflict, settlement nucleation, migration to towns and cities, school enrollment, new livelihood choices, and dependence on humanitarian aid, making a return to nomadic pastoralism seem less viable (Blackwell 2010). A recent study among Samburu and Turkana adolescents found significant differences in the knowledge of native and culturally significant plant species held by herders versus students, indicating erosion of traditional ecological knowledge in the latter population (Bruyere, Trimarco, and Lemungesi 2016). • A study of folk botanical knowledge among rural versus urban children in Tzotzil Maya communities of Chiapas, Mexico, revealed stark contrasts with respect to their ability to recognize and name local plants. The children inhabiting a rural hamlet spent more time working or playing in the surrounding fields and forests, and demonstrated robust plant knowledge. By contrast, the children inhabiting the urbanized municipal town center spent most of their time close to their homes or in town, playing video games or sports, and manifested much lower ability (Shenton et al. 2011). • Among the Kondra Reddis people of Andhra Pradesh, India, landscape changes (for example, commercial agricultural expansion and deforestation), together with social processes (for example, monetary economy, government policies, modern education, and transport and communication facilities), were found to be the principal drivers of loss of traditional cultivation and forest knowledge (Kodirekkala 2017). 126 • For the Iñupiaq and Yupik aboriginal peoples of Alaska, the land, ice, lifeways, cultural identity, and language are all tightly bound together. After decades of being subjected to colonialism, formal schooling, and heritage language suppression, they are now trying to revitalize their languages as a way to recover and protect their traditional knowledge and culture. But climate change is making the task more difficult by curtailing the traditional activities they can engage in, the places where it is safe to travel, and the foods available to eat, among other things. Young people are especially affected, as they are trying to improve their linguistic competence and bush skills (Reo et al. 2019). Climate change is widely seen as yet another risk factor for ILK erosion and endangerment, particularly to the extent that it intensifies ongoing ecological transitions and threatens the maintenance of traditional livelihoods and lifestyles (Ford, Smit, and Wandel 2006; Salick and Byg 2007; Nakashima et al. 2012; ICH 2022). Thus it has been argued that changes in temperature, precipitation, winds, seasonality, phenology, interannual variability, surface moisture, and species distribution interact with ongoing anthropogenic impacts to alter the landscape upon which resource-based livelihoods operate. In particular, impacts that reduce biodiversity and critical ecosystem services, limit movement and access to natural resources, upset the timing and planning of resource-getting activities, make production systems less efficient, put people in harm’s way, or otherwise degrade local environments will increase the pressure on IPLCs to modify or even replace their normal subsistence activities. As conditions worsen, this may entail becoming less independent in resource provision matters and more dependent on external social and political relations and the resources provided through them to meet basic survival needs. Given the holistic constitution of culture, other cultural beliefs and behaviors will be correspondingly affected. For children and adolescents who are still in their active learning years, the diminished activity contexts and weaker cultural reinforcements will likely impair their ability to acquire ILK competence and expertise through hands-on experiences. 127 Conceptualizing the links between climate change and ILK erosion is a task that is still in an incipient stage. The scenario described above is more hypothetical than empirical because there are few available case study descriptions of climate-induced erosion. Our literature search turned up very few real-life examples that actually demonstrate this type of result (MacDonald et al. 2013; Reo et al. 2019; Blackwell 2010; Bruyere, Trimarco, and Lemungesi 2016), and in all of these the causal connection ILK continues to be the biggest was merely implied or inferred rather than systematically asset that IPLCs documented or tested (see box 4.3 for examples on Turkana, have as they adapt Iñupiaq, and Yupik). In the few evidence-based cases found, their information knowledge erosion appears as an outcome associated with economies to a local histories of desynchronization or displacement, which brave new climate- suggests that these processes overlap to some degree. stressed world. For researchers and policy analysts who seek a better It also offers an handle on this emerging problem, it will be necessary to incredibly rich expand empirical research and documentation focused source of insight on the prevalence, dynamics, and contextual covariables and information of climate-linked erosion across different biocultural sites. for policy For IPLC actors looking for insights into their own adaptive interlocutors tests, it is probably worthwhile to reflect on the extent to seeking to develop which this process may be affecting their own knowledge coproduced systems and what strategies might be available to mollify it. solutions to the problems arising from Visibilizing ILK Erosion climate change. The grim reality of pervasive ILK erosion needs to be visibilized and accounted for in order to optimize its use for climate response action and to avoid creating unrealistic expectations. It cannot be assumed that local knowledge is always robust or that all persons are equally prepared to meet the adaptive challenges posed by relentless environmental change. This type of idealistic and 128 decontextualized understanding of ILK runs the risk of raising expectations of its sufficiency in any situation and holds IPLCs to an unrealistic standard when they may actually be struggling to cope with momentous cultural transformation (Vandebroek et al. 2011). At the same time, it would be a mistake to interpret this as meaning that ILK, such as it is, is any less valuable or that the vast accumulated wealth of wisdom and experience that it represents is doomed to the dustbin of history. ILK continues to be the biggest asset that IPLCs have as they adapt their information economies to a brave new climate-stressed world. It also offers an incredibly rich source of insight and information for policy interlocutors seeking to develop coproduced solutions to the problems arising from climate change. But before taking this asset for granted in any particular situation, the current state of ILK vitality, stability, and growth potential should be assessed. One limitation for making such an assessment is that there is no universal or standard method or metric for determining what constitutes erosion, and the scientific experts are not always in agreement about this. Discerning the line between adaptive modification and maladaptive erosion may require a fine understanding of the subjects’ particular motivation and situation. The local people themselves are more familiar with their own predicament than anyone else and hence are probably in the best position to judge the current states and trends of the local knowledge system. It is therefore recommended that such assessments be fundamentally participatory, involving the active participation of community-based experts and incorporating local criteria of vitality (Zent and Maffi 2009; McCarter and Gavin 2014; FPP 2016; Wali et al. 2017). 129 Given the ongoing threats to ILK vitality, it is important to consider that climate action should also include integrated measures to reinforce and revitalize such knowledge systems where needed. The issue of transmission, in particular, will be crucial in order to maintain the knowledge as situated meaning and practice instead of inert, codified information content removed from its normal activity context. A focus on transmission is people and user centered, and enables adaptive modification as surrounding conditions change. A literature review of ILK maintenance program descriptions came up with five basic approaches: securing intellectual property rights, creation of databases, integration into formal educational programs, biocultural conservation projects, and community-based efforts to maintain or revitalize ILK, each one with its own strengths and limitations. One of the main conclusions of this study was that “the successful maintenance of IEK [indigenous ecological knowledge] systems is likely to be predicated on a high degree of control by the IEK holders” (McCarter et al. 2014). Many IPLCs are already taking strategic actions, on their own or with outside assistance, to sustain their heritage knowledge and practice systems. One way is by “recycling” their old knowledge through novel economic or technological applications, as in the case of the San people of the Kalahari desert, who are leveraging their peerless tracking skills to find employment in the ecotourism and big-game hunting industries (Crawhall 2009). A recent survey of IPLCs from around the world found that 94 percent of them were already undertaking community-led initiatives to promote the uptake of knowledge and skills related to traditional occupations among young people (FPP 2016). Across different examples, one can observe a common pattern whereby IPLCs are using modern technologies and applications to renovate and revitalize their ancient knowledges while fulfilling practical objectives that range from land rights defense and natural resource protection to economic development and livelihood opportunities (box 4.4). Considering the transcendence of this issue, such initiatives should be targeted for external support when needed. 130 BOX 4.4 REVITALIZING OLD KNOWLEDGES WITH NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND APPLICATIONS • The mix of ILK, community-based mapping methods, Global Positioning System (GPS) devices and computerized geographic information system (GIS) technologies has become a common strategy used by numerous indigenous nations and communities in different parts of the world over the past three decades to defend their land rights, support rational use and conservation of natural resources, and enhance the value and uptake of traditional landscape knowledge (Chambers et al. 2004). • Participatory video (PV) is a popular tactic being used by rural people to document their knowledge and innovations, share the results within and between communities, and provoke self-evaluation and situation analysis. A PV exercise carried out in Turkmenistan, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the deconstruction of state farms, helped villagers realize the need to learn from the more experienced farmers and to rediscover certain traditional farming and food processing skills that only a few individuals still knew about (Lunch 2004). • The San people of the Kalahari Desert, whose hunter-gatherer culture dates back 20,000 years, are now using their peerless knowledge of the desert ecosystem to find employment in ecotourism, safaris, and conservation monitoring (Crawhall 2009). At the Nyae Nyae Conservancy in Namibia, young members of the Ju/’huansi group 131 learn the ancient craft of master tracking from expert elders while monitoring wildlife, plant growth, and water resources with the aid of electronic devices. Supported by the nongovernmental organization CyberTracker Conservation, the data they record are fed into an online conservation platform called CyberTracker Online (Selibas 2024). • SIKU is a social media network and mapping platform that combines traditional knowledge, remote sensing data, and mobile app technology to provide local communities of Nunavut, Canada, with a range of tools and services for Inuit language and knowledge transfer, wildlife observations, travel safety, and local weather and sea ice conditions in near real time. The platform, launched in 2019, was created through a partnership of the Sanikiluaq-based Arctic Eider Society and Google Earth Outreach (Heath and Arragutainaq 2019). • Local Bininj knowledge holders and park rangers have teamed up with scientists to develop a unique protection system for Kakadu National Park, one of the largest wetlands in Australia, that integrates ILK, artificial intelligence, and drone technology (Cranney 2019). • First Nation entrepreneurs in Australia are using virtual and augmented reality technology to tell cultural stories and create economic opportunities. The products they are making infuse traditional cultural content into graphic design programs, animations, digital gaming, interactive tourist guides, park maps, and song and dance recordings. More and more Aboriginal groups are adopting this hybrid technology as they have come to realize that their youngsters are fascinated to learn about their cultural heritage through the medium of digital apps (Hardy 2020). • The Uru-Eu-Wau-Wau people of Rondonia, Brazil, with help from the Kandidé Ethno-Environmental Defense Association and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), have learned to use drones, smartphones and camera traps, which they employ along with their intimate knowledge of the landscape to keep track of invasions and deforestation in defense of their territory (Pritz et al. 2022). 132 Overlapping Effects To sum up the main point of this section, ILK systems are labile and sensitive to surrounding forces of change, climate change being one of them, and this kinetic quality should be taken into account in order to better assess and optimize their value and role for combating climate change. Given the site- specific nature of ILK change, such assessments should be conducted on a case-by-case basis. Three effects of climate change on ILK were described: desynchronization, displacement, and erosion. The first two may diminish the effectivity, usefulness, transfer, and continuity of ILK over time. Meanwhile, IPLCs’ capacity to cope and adapt to environmental fluctuation may be debilitated when their ILK systems are undergoing moderate to severe erosion. These processes overlap and interact to some extent, which can then produce positive feedback loops and intensified effects. Thus, sudden-onset extreme events or never-before-seen environmental variability may provoke migration in some circumstances.If these processes are extended over time, displaced individuals will be more likely to seek nontraditional occupations, abandon traditional skills and knowledge, and hence aggravate collective erosion. In a similar vein, households or communities facing stress and uncertainty from an erratic or harsh environment may be more inclined to give up place-based attachments and leave for imagined greener pastures if they are already less trained in the ways of heritage languages, livelihoods, foods, artifacts, ideologies, and customs. While people cannot be expected to cling to archaic or outmoded components of traditional knowledge, they may still need special assistance and support in order to maintain knowledge components and learning styles that still have adaptive value. A close-up and nuanced understanding of the local situation is recommended so as to avoid ill-conceived designs and find appropriate forms of help. Participatory, community-led, and rights-based initiatives that put local actors at the center of climate action offer promising approaches for meeting these criteria. Successful adaptations and applications of ILK in changing circumstances can and do occur, and offer lessons or examples for developing strategies of adaptive management under similar circumstances. South–South information exchange and collaborations with scientists would be useful for leveraging these experiences. 133 Photo: Julio César Casma/World Bank 134 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The trail of evidence uncovered here confirms that ILK has much to contribute to climate policy and practice matters, notably in the fields of environmental and human impact assessment, climate change mitigation strategies, and adaptive capacity building. At the same time, ILK is deeply or potentially impacted by social and ecological change, which in many places is being compounded by climate change. In that sense, active measures for the protection and proliferation of ILK, where needed, should be considered a vital part of climate defense policy. One of the main takeaways from this review is that perhaps the best way to maximize the value and effectivity of ILK is to follow the unconventional adage of “think locally, act globally.” In the present context, “thinking locally” refers to bringing local and subaltern points of view into the mainstream or foreground of national and global climate policy making. Thus, local perspectives on how the environment is changing, how it impacts people’s lives, what preventive or corrective measures can be taken, what obstacles or 135 affordances may be present, and what types of aid or institutional arrangements are needed to facilitate appropriate action should be a takeoff point, rather than an afterthought. Local perspectives tend to be detail oriented, that is to say, attuned to the particularities of context, and long-term, in that they incorporate memories of past conditions and events, and are guided by values of attachment or commitment to remain in the locality for the foreseeable future. In view of the incredible variability of climate impacts, mitigation strategies, and adaptation or maladaptation experiences from one place to the next, such details, memories, and commitments appear to be crucial for success. Going a step further, “thinking locally” in a global context means being open to allowing the “genius of place”, or the novelties discoverable in ILK, to influence or add to nonlocal frameworks of understanding and action (Jacobs 2014). “Acting globally” refers here to the process of embedding global or broad- scale policy directions into different local realities not by unilateral imposition but rather by accommodation to local ideas, needs, and criteria. It recognizes that despite the global march of many businesses and institutions, local communities are nevertheless able to bend the behaviors of the global institutions by exerting their own regulative influences (such as local politics and government, public policies, and authority figures and styles), social-normative influences (such as social sentiment and mobilizations, internal social cohesion or differences, and social and knowledge exchange networks), and cultural-cognitive influences (such as shared mental models, traditional ways of doing things, and inclinations for or against innovation and technological change) (Marquis and Battilana 2009). In an increasingly globalized world, local communities are defined not only as the people confined to a given spatial location but also as a relational space consisting of a distinct mixture of social relations among community members and between the insiders and outside parties. Through their contacts and collaborations with outside agencies, they are potential agents of positive change on their own behalf who may be in a position to get access to global resources and engage in activities within global structures. From this perspective, policies in favor of global action by IPLCs are those that empower local communities and enhance their participation in the analytical, planning, and decision-making phases of change processes (Klekotko et al. 2018). 136 Much work still remains to be done and concrete measures should be taken in the short rather than the long term to advance this general policy principle. The findings of this report lead us to make eight recommendations: 1. Promote a respect- and rights-based approach. The voices of IPLCs and their allies maintain that the best way to ensure the integration of their unique perspective and expertise in global climate governance processes is to dismantle the structures of colonialism that are still entrenched in many countries (IUCN 2010; IWGIA 2022). This would require that such rights be formalized through national laws, institutions, and policy instruments. Where formal rights are presently unattainable, support could be directed to informal governance mechanisms, such as land self-demarcation or territorial guardian projects in lieu of land titles. Any policy or action that involves access to and use of IPLC lands, natural resources, and knowledge should adhere strictly to the principle of knowledge sovereignty, which implies the right to retain and exercise traditional resource management practices without encumbrance (Norgaard 2014; Fre 2018). 2. Advance IPLC land rights and security. Expanding the role of IPLCs as effective stewards of a large portion of the world’s forestlands will require that advances be made with respect to their collective land rights and security (Stevens et al. 2014; FAO and FILAC 2021). National governments should be strongly encouraged to legalize IPLC land tenure rights with concrete measures and to provide adequate protection with due diligence. In places where the security situation is unsafe, cogovernance arrangements, involving governmental and community- based partnerships, would probably offer the best chance for success. Where land titles alone are not enough to ensure good management practices, additional forms of support may be required, including direct compensation for environmental services rendered (FAO and FILAC 2021). 3. Stimulate collaborative assessment and action processes. The development of coproduced knowledge has become one of the key principles of climate governance discourse (see box 1.3), but there is no 137 consensus with respect to what the concept of “coproduction” really means or entails, much less any clear guidelines on how to go about doing it (Howarth et al. 2022). The process of bringing together and maintaining a team of stakeholders with different backgrounds and competencies working toward a common goal is a challenging proposition that is highly —context and participant— dependent. However, experienced observers of the process recommend that it can be facilitated by effective “boundary agency,” which involves developing institutional mechanisms designed to facilitate communication, translation, and mediation across the boundaries (Cash, Borck, and Patt 2006; Howarth et al. 2022). Gaps of language and understanding must be bridged through effective translation, which should go in two directions: local data should be translated to fit a scientific frame and scientific information should be made more comprehensible for the folk participants (Brondízio et al. 2021). Preference should be given to projects that are medium or long term and broadly participatory, involving different sectors of the community. 4. Support community-based adaptation and development initiatives. In keeping with a rights-based approach, support should be focused on strengthening local institutions and organizations, especially with respect to reinforcing social cohesion, economic cooperation or coordination, division of labor, and norms and rules regarding resource use and regulation. Local institutions may benefit from external institutional linkages (for example, with government agencies, funders, research institutions, other IPLCs) when they promote social learning and renewal (Tang and Gavin 2016). 5. Identify and address threats to ILK integrity and vitality. While ILK is undoubtedly a valuable tool in the fight against harmful climate change, the integrity and vitality of many local knowledge systems are under threat from ongoing processes of desynchronization, displacement, or erosion. In order to assess and support ILK systems, it will be necessary to carry out a competent assessment of the present state and trends of vitality in a given place. The most practical, but not necessarily most accurate, way to go about this would be to rely on self-assessment or information 138 supplied by the subject community or communities, or a participatory rapid appraisal (FPP 2016). In the event that a positive diagnosis is obtained, an appropriate remedial course of action should be designed and developed in consultation with the community, taking into account the particularities of the social-ecological context. Special attention should be given to making school curricula more enlightened and accommodating as far as cultural differences are concerned (Batibo 2009; Ng’asike 2019). 6. Develop new indicators. More locally applicable indicators are needed to obtain a better comprehension of the great diversity of climate-related impacts and how they affect people’s experiences and well-being. Present examples relevant for assessing climate impacts include (a) the Indigenous Health Indicators, developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States;3 and (b) the European Union- funded Local Indicators of Climate Change Impacts Observation Network (LICCION).4 Additional indicators are needed for exploring a variety of relevant topics: adaptive capacity, learning resources, local language and knowledge vitality, traditional occupations, land tenure and resource rights, food security, disaster preparedness, social networks, and well-being. 7. Expand empirical research. Despite the considerable amount of writing and information available on this topic, there is still an acute need for more documentation and analytical exploration of ILK deployment for climate assessment, mitigation, and adaptation purposes in real-life settings. The needs fall into at least two categories: (a) basic ethnographic description; and (b) multisite comparison. Given the basic importance of ethno-environmental indicators for detecting and evaluating the impacts of climate change, this should be a primary topic of investigation (LICCI 2024). Ethnographic research would be especially helpful in regions that 3 https://toolkit.climate.gov/tool/indigenous-health-indicators-tool. 4 http://www.laseg.cat/en/projects/35/local-indicators-of-climate-change-impacts- observation-network-liccion. 139 show relatively low data coverage (see figure 1.2). Controlled comparative studies, both between and within communities, could shed light on the relative importance of and interactions between causal drivers, stressors, risk factors, and other variables (Rasmussen et al. 2009; Milan and Ho 2014; Hosen, Nakamura, and Hamzah 2020). Quantitative assessments of the carbon balance achievements of particular groups through their land management practices would be a useful tool in support of their struggle to gain rights recognition (Erni and KMSS-Loikaw 2023). 8. Improve information management. The data and information available on the interconnections of IPLCs, ILK, and climate change are voluminous but also very fragmented and dispersed. An online database or data- sharing clearinghouse that provides easy access to the abundant public record on the topic would facilitate greater access to and use of the available information. Ideally, it would be indexed to enable high- performance searches of the data via input of key words or topics. Another proposed tool for better information access would be a crowd- sourced online platform that could be used for storing and sharing narratives about climate change and its impact in different places around the world (Alexander et al. 2011). Ideally, this type of venue could be used by a wide public of users, including IPLC actors or organizations, ILK researchers, policy managers and practitioners, and funders. 140 REFERENCES ACCHSM (Agricultores de la Cuenca del río Cuilco, Huehuetenango y San Marcos). 2011. Sabiduría local y cambio climático [Local Wisdom and Climate Change]. Guatemala: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). https://www.bivica.org/file/view/id/2098. ACIA. 2005. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 0-521-86509-3. Adger, W.N. 2006. “Vulnerability.” Global Environmental Change 16 (3): 268–81. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006. Adger, W.N., J. Barnett, K. Brown, N. Marshall, and K. O’Brien. 2013. “Cultural Dimensions of Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation.” Nature Climate Change 3 (2): 112–7. doi:10.1038/nclimate1666. Adger, W.N., J. Barnett, F.S. Chapin III, and H. Ellemor. 2011. “This Must Be the Place: Underrepresentation of Identity and Meaning in Climate Change Decision-Making.” Global Environmental Politics 11 (2): 1–8. doi:10.1162/GLEP_a_00051. Adger, W.N., N. Brooks, G. Bentham, M. Agnew, and S. Eriksen. 2004. New Indicators of Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity. Technical Report 7. East Anglia, United Kingdom: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. https:// citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/ document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=6ff42b2e526e 40f7d1a82db8cfa8057b4ca7355c. 141 Adger, W.N., S. Dessai, M. Goulden, M. Hulme, I. Lorenzoni, D.R. Nelson, L.O. Naess, J. Wolf, and A. Wreford. 2009. “Are There Social Limits to Adaptation to Climate Change?” Climatic Change 93 (3) :335–54. doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9520-z. Adger, W.N., J.M. Pulhin, J. Barnett, G.D. Dabelko, G.K. Hovelsrud, M. Levy, Ú. Oswald Spring, and C.H. Vogel. 2014. “Human Security.” In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [C.B. Field, V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)], 755–91. Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/. Agrawal, A. 1995. “Dismantling the Divide between Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge.” Development and Change 26 (3): 413–39. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.1995.tb00560.x. Agrawal, A., and N. Perrin. 2008. Climate Adaptation, Local Institutions, and Rural Livelihoods. IFRI Working Paper No. W08I- 6. International Forestry Resources and Institutions Program, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237510000_Climate_ Adaptation_Local_Institutions_and_Rural_Livelihoods. Aikenhead, G.S., and M. Ogawa. 2007. “Indigenous Knowledge and Science Revisited.” Cultural Studies of Science Education 2: 539–620. doi:10.1007/s11422-007-9067-8. Alcorn, J.B., and V.M. Toledo. 1998. “Resilient Resource Management in Mexico’s Forest Ecosystems: The Contribution of Property Rights.” In Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social 142 Mechanisms for Building Resilience, edited by F. Berkes and C. Folke, 216–49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511541957. Alexander, C., N. Bynum, E. Johnson, U. King, T. Mustonen, P. Neofitis, N. Oettlé, C. Rosenzweig, C. Sakakibara, V. Shadrin, M. Vicarelli, J. Waterhouse, and B. Weeks. 2011. “Linking Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge of Climate Change.” BioScience 61 (6): 477–84. doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.6.10. Almudi, T., and A.J. Sinclair. 2022. “Extreme Hydroclimatic Events in Rural Communities of the Brazilian Amazon: Local Perceptions of Change, Impacts, and Adaptation.” Regional Environmental Change 22 (1): 27. doi:10.1007/s10113-021-01857-0. Anderson, E.N. 1996. Ecologies of the Heart: Emotion, Belief and the Environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978-0195090109. Angelo, D., S. Mamani, E. Morales, and R. Chipana. 2008. Suka Kollus, una tecnología ancestral para el tiempo actual [Suka Kollus, an Ancestral Technology for the Current Time. La Paz: COSUDE/Intercooperation/ PROSUKO. https://prosuco.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Suka-kollus.pdf. Antonelli, A. 2023. “Indigenous Knowledge Is Key to Sustainable Food Systems.” Nature 613 (7943): 239–42. doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00021-4. Antweiler, C. 1998. “Local Knowledge and Local Knowing: An Anthropological Analysis of Contested ‘Cultural Products’ in the Context of Development.” Anthropos 93: 469–94. Armitage, D.R., F. Berkes, A. Dale, E. Kocho-Schellenberg, and E. Patton. 2011. “Comanagement and the Co-production of Knowledge: Learning to Adapt in Canada’s Arctic.” Global Environmental Change 21 (3): 995–1004. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.006. 143 Aswani, S., A. Lemahieu, and W.H.H. Sauer. 2018. “Global Trends of Local Ecological Knowledge and Future Implications.” PLoS One 13 (4): e0195440. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0195440. Athayde, S., G. Shepard, T.M. Cardoso, H. van der Voort, S. Zent, M. Rosero- Peña, A.A. Zambrano, G. Surui, and D.M. Larrea-Alcázar. 2021. “Critical Interconnections between the Cultural and Biological Diversity of Amazonian Peoples and Ecosystems.” In Amazon Assessment Report 2021, edited by Science Panel for the Amazon, 10.1–10.34. New York, USA: United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network. doi:10.55161/IOBU4861. Aweto, A.O. 2012. Shifting Cultivation and Secondary Succession in the Tropics. Wallingford, UK: CABI. ISBN: 978-1-78064-043-3. Ayal, D.Y., and N. Chanza. 2014. “Local Knowledge Contributes to Adaptation Success.” Joto Afrika 15: 5. https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/271836673_Local_knowledge_contributes_to_adaptation_success. Ayal, D.Y., S. Desta, G. Gebrum, J. Kinyangi, J. Recha, and M. Radeny. 2015. “Opportunities and Challenges of Indigenous Biotic Weather Forecasting among the Borena Herders of Southern Ethiopia.” SpringerPlus 4 (1): 617. doi:10.1186/s40064-015-1416-6. Ayele, Y.A. 2014. Rainwater Harvesting for Climate Change Adaptation in Ethiopia: Policy and Institutional Analysis. V.R.F. Series No. 488. Chiba, Japan: Institute of Development Studies, Japan External Trade Organization. https://www.ide.go.jp/library/English/Publish/Reports/Vrf/pdf/488.pdf. Baer, H.S., and T. Reuter. 2015. Anthropological Perspectives on Climate Change and Sustainability: Implications for Policy and Action. Brief for GSDR 2015. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/ documents/5834GSDR_brief_anthropology_SD_baer_reuter_rev.pdf. Balehegn, M., and S. Balehey. 2019. “The Role of Customary Institutions in Climate Change Adaptation among Afar Pastoralists in North-eastern 144 Ethiopia.” In Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change: Emerging Research on Traditional Knowledge and Livelihoods, edited by the International Labour Organization, 35–49. Geneva: ILO and School of Geography and the Environment, Oxford University. ISBN: 978-92-2-132936-7. Baragwanath, K., and E. Bayi. 2020. “Collective Property Rights Reduce Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 (34): 20495–502. doi:10.1073/pnas.1917874117. Barnes, J., M.R. Dove, M. Lahsen, A. Mathews, P. McElwee, R. McIntosh, F. Moore, J. O’Reilly, B. Orlove, R. Puri, H. Weiss, and K. Yager. 2013. “Contribution of Anthropology to the Study of Climate Change.” Nature Climate Change 3 (6): 541–44. doi:10.1038/nclimate1775. Barnett, J., and S.J. O’Neill. 2012. “Islands, Resettlement and Adaptation.” Nature Climate Change 2 (1): 8–10. doi:10.1038/nclimate1334. Barry, B., A.O. Olaleye, R. Zougmoré, and D. Fatondji. 2008. Rainwater Harvesting Technologies in the Sahelian Zone of West Africa and the Potential for Outscaling. Working Paper 126. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute. https://www. iwmi.org/Publications/Working_Papers/working/WOR126.pdf. Bates, P. 2009. “Learning and Inuit Knowledge in Nunavut, Canada.” In Learning and Knowing in Indigenous Societies Today, edited by P. Bates, M. Chiba, S. Kube, and D. Nakashima, 95–105. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000180754. Batibo, H.M. 2009. “Transmitting Indigenous Knowledge through the School Curriculum in a Diminishing Bio-cultural Environment.” In Learning and Knowing in Indigenous Societies Today, edited by P. Bates, M. Chiba, S. Kube, and D. Nakashima, 87–93. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000180754. 145 Bauer, T.N., W. de Jong, and V. Ingram. 2022. “Perception Matters: An Indigenous Perspective on Climate Change and Its Effects on Forest-Based Livelihoods in the Amazon.” Ecology and Society 27 (1): 17. doi:10.5751/ES-12837-270117. Baumgartner, R. 2016. “Coping with Floods and Global Warming: The Case of Rolwaling Valley.” In: Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: Policies and Practices in Nepal, edited by K.B. Bhattachan, P. Sherpa, and P. Dolma Sherpa, 123–48. Katmandu: Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities, Centre for Indigenous Peoples’ Research and Development. ISBN: 978-9937-2-9310-5. Begossi, A. 1998. “Resilience and Neo-traditional Populations: The Caiçaras (Atlantic Forest) and Caboclos (Amazon, Brazil).” In Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience, edited by F. Berkes and C. Folke, 129–57. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511541957. Bele, M.Y., D.J. Sonwa, and A.M. Tiani. 2013. “Supporting Local Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in the Congo Basin Forest of Cameroon: A Participatory Action Research Approach.” International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management 5 (2): 181–97. doi:10.1108/17568691311327587. Belfer, E., J.D. Ford, M. Maillet, M. Araos, and M. Flynn. 2019. “Pursuing an Indigenous Platform: Exploring Opportunities and Constraints for Indigenous Participation in the UNFCCC.” Global Environmental Politics 19 (1): 12–33. doi:10.1162/glep_a_00489. Bender, A. 2001. “‘God Will Send Us the Fish’: Perception and Evaluation of an Environmental Risk in Ha’apai, Tonga.” Research on Social Problems and Public Policy 9: 165–90. doi:10.1016/S0196-1152(01)80028-4. 146 Bentley, J.W. 2006. “Folk Experiments.” Agriculture and Human Values 23 (4): 451–62. doi:10.1007/s10460-006-9017-1. Berkes, F. 2008. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management, 2nd edition. New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203123843. Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2000. “Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as Adaptive Management.” Ecological Applications 10 (5): 1251–62. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1251:ROTEKA]2.0.CO;2. Berkes, F., and C. Folke. 1998. “Linking Social and Ecological Systems for Resilience and Sustainability.” In Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience, edited by F. Berkes and C. Folke, 1–25. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511541957. Berkes, F., and C. Folke. 2002. “Back to the Future: Ecosystem Dynamics and Local Knowledge.” In Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, edited by L.H. Gunderson and C.S. Holling, 121–46. Washington, DC: Island Press. ISBN: 978-1559638579. Berkes, F., W.V. Reid, T.J. Wilbanks, and D. Capistrano. 2006. “Conclusion.” In Bridging Scales and Knowledge Systems, edited by W. Reid, F. Berkes, T.J. Wilbanks, and D. Capistrano, 315– 31. Washington, DC: Island Press. ISBN: 1-59726-037-1. Bertana, A., B. Clark, T.M. Benney, and C. Quackenbush. 2022. “Beyond Maladaptation: Structural Barriers to Successful Adaptation.” Environmental Sociology 8 (4): 448–58. doi:1080/23251042.2022.2068224. Bhambra, G.K., and P. Newell. 2022. “More Than a Metaphor: ‘Climate Colonialism’ in Perspective.” Global Social Challenges Journal 2 (3): 1–9. doi:10.1332/EIEM6688. 147 Bilbao, B., L. Steil, I.R. Urbieta, L. Anderson, C. Pinto, M.E. González, A. Millán, R.M. Falleiro, E. Morici, V. Ibarnegaray, D.R. Pérez-Salicrup, J.M. Pereira, and J.M. Moreno. 2020. “Wildfires.” In Adaptation to Climate Change Risks in Ibero-American Countries: RIOCCADAPT Report, edited by J.M. Moreno, C. Laguna-Defior, V. Barros, E. Calvo Buendía, J.A. Marengo, and U. Oswald Spring, 435–96. Madrid: McGraw Hill. https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/346487629_Wildfires_Adaptation_to_ Climate_Change_Risks_in_Ibero-American_Countries-RIOCCADAPT. Blackman, A., L. Corral, E.S. Lima, and G.P. Asner. 2017. “Titling Indigenous Communities Protects Forests in the Peruvian Amazon.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 (16): 4123–8. doi:10.1073/pnas.1603290114. Blackwell, P.J. 2010. “East Africa’s Pastoralist Emergency: Is Climate Change the Straw That Breaks the Camel’s Back?” Third World Quarterly 31 (8): 1321–38. doi:10.1080/01436597.2010.541085. Bohensky, E., and Y. Maru. 2011. “Indigenous Knowledge, Science, and Resilience: What Have We Learned from a Decade of International Literature on ‘Integration?’” Ecology and Society 16 (4): 6. doi:10.5751/ES-04342-160406. Boillat, S., and F. Berkes. 2013. “Perception and Interpretation of Climate Change among Quechua Farmers of Bolivia: Indigenous Knowledge as a Resource for Adaptive Capacity.” Ecology and Society 18 (4): 21. doi:10.5751/ES-05894-180421. Boonstra, W.J., and T.T.H. Hanh. 2014. “Adaptation to Climate Change as Social–Ecological Trap: A Case Study of Fishing and Aquaculture in the Tam Giang Lagoon, Vietnam.” Environment, Development and Sustainability 16 (6): 1527–44. doi:10.1007/s10668-014-9612-z. 148 Boonstra, W.J., E. Njörkvik, L.J. Haider, and V. Masterson. 2016. “Human Responses to Socio-ecological Traps.” Sustainability Science 11: 877–89. doi:10.1007/s11625-016-0397-x. Brattland, C., E. Eythórsson, J. Weines, and K. Sunnanå. 2019. “Social–Ecological Timelines to Explore Human Adaptation to Coastal Change.” Ambio 48 (12): 1516–29. doi:10.1007/s13280-018-1129-5. Brewer, J., and E.A.K. Warner. 2015. “Guarding against Exploitation: Protecting Indigenous Knowledge in the Age of Climate Change.” SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2567995. Brondízio, E.S., Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, P. Bates, J. Cariño, A. Fernández- Llamazares, M. Farhan Ferrari, K. Galvin, V. Reyes-García, P. McElwee, Z. Molnár, A. Samakov, and U.B. Shrestha. 2021. “Locally Based, Regionally Manifested, and Globally Relevant: Indigenous and Local Knowledge, Values, and Practices for Nature.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 46 (1): 481–509. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-012127. Brookfield, H., and C. Padoch. 1994. “Appreciating Agrodiversity: A Look at the Dynamism and Diversity of Indigenous Farming Practices.” Environment 36 (5): 1–17. doi:10.1080/00139157.1994.9929164. Brown, J., and J. Middleton. 2022. “Climate Change, Migration, and Language Endangerment in the Pacific.” In Global Agenda for Social Justice, edited by G.W. Muschert, K.M. Budd, H. Dillaway, D.C. Lane, M. Nair, and J.A. Smith, 88–95. doi:10.51952/9781447367420.ch010. Brown, M.I., T. Pearce, J.X. Leon, R. Sidle, and R.S. Wilson. 2018. “Using Remote Sensing and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) to Understand Mangrove Change on the Marochy River, Queensland, Australia.” Applied Geography 94. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.03.006. Bruyere, B.L., J. Trimarco, and S. Lemungesi. 2016. “A Comparison of Traditional Plant Knowledge between Students 149 and Herders in Northern Kenya.” Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 12 (1): 48. doi:10.1186/s13002-016-0121-z. Buijs, C. 2010. “Inuit Perceptions of Climate Change in East Greenland.” Études/Inuit/Studies 34 (1): 39–54. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42870072. Byg, A., and J. Salick. 2009. “Local Perspectives on a Global Phenomenon: Climate Change in Eastern Tibetan Villages.” Global Environmental Change 19 (2): 156–66. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.01.010. Caballero-Serrano, V., B. McLaren, J.C. Carrasco, J.G. Alday, L. Fiallos, J. Amigo, and M. Onaindia. 2019. “Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Medicinal Plant Diversity in Ecuadorian Amazon Home Gardens.” Global Ecology and Conservation 17 (2): e00524. doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00524. Cabalzar, A. 2018. “Annual Cycles in Indigenous North-Western Amazon: A Collaborative Research towards Climate Change Monitoring.” In Indigenous Knowledge for Climate Change Assessment and Adaptation, edited by D. Nakashima, I. Krupnik, and J.T. Rubis, 41–57. Local and Indigenous Knowledge 2. Cambridge, United Kingdom, and Paris, France: Cambridge University Press and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. doi:10.1017/9781316481066. Camacho-Villa, T.C., T.E. Martínez-Cruz, A. Ramírez-López, M. Hoil-Tzuc, and S. Terán-Contreras. 2021. “Mayan Traditional Knowledge on Weather Forecasting: Who Contributes to Whom in Coping with Climate Change?” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5 (2021): 62. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2021.618453. Cámara-Leret, M.A. Fortuna, and J. Bascompte. 2019. “Indigenous Knowledge Networks in the Face of Global Change.” PNAS 116 (20): 9913–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1821843116. 150 Canahua Murillo, A., and R. Ho. 2003. “Reintroducción del agroecosistema de los waru waru” [Reintroduction of the Waru Waru Agroecosystem]. Leisa Revista de Agroecología 19 (2): 25–27. Carbó, G. 2022. 5 Facts about Gender Equality and Climate Change. United Nations Foundation. https://unfoundation.org/blog/post/five-facts-about-gender- equality-and-climate-change/? gclid=CjwKCAjwyaUBhA CEiwA2IHHQOnIRuD Aa52jAkOjii0OjLOEh3-qFh8LuPtBii0GtDZxU2 NUt8FEJRoCjwUQAvD_BwE. Carmona, R., G. Reed, J. Ford, S. Thorsell, R. Yonm, F. Carril, J. Cerda, and K. Pickering. 2022. Recognition of Indigenous Peoples in Nationally Determined Contributions. IWGIA (International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs) Policy Paper, October 2022. https://www.iwgia.org/en/resources/publications/4943- recognition-indigenous-peoples-nationally-determined-contributions.html. Cash, D.W., J.C. Borck, and A.G. Patt. 2006. “Countering the Loading-Dock Approach to Linking Science and Decision Making: Comparative Analysis of El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Forecasting Systems.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 31 (4): 465–94. doi:10.1177/0162243906287547. Castillo, L., and A. Ladio. 2018. “Mammals and Birds as Ethno- indicators of Change: Their Importance to Livestock Farmers in Arid Patagonia (Argentina).” Environmental Development and Sustainability 20 (11): 2161–79. doi:10.1007/s10668-017-9983-z. Caviedes, J., J.T. Ibarra, L. Calvet-Mir, S. Álvarez-Fernández, and A. Braga Junqueira. 2024. “Indigenous and Local Knowledge on Social-Ecological Changes Is Positively Associated with Livelihood Resilience in a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System.” Agricultural Systems 216: 103885. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2024.103885. Chambers, K.J., J. Corbett, C.P. Keller, and C.J.B. Wood. 2004. “Indigenous Knowledge, Mapping, and GIS: A Diffusion of Innovation Perspective.” Cartographica 39 (3): 19–31. doi:10.3138/N752-N693-180T-N843. 151 Chanza, N., and A. de Wit. 2013. “Epistemological and Methodological Framework for Indigenous Knowledge in Climate Science.” Indilinga – African Journal of Indigenous Knowledge Systems 12 (2): 203–16. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/indilinga/article/view/125845. Chanza, N., and W. Musakwa. 2022. “Indigenous Local Observations and Experiences Can Give Useful Indicators of Climate Change in Data-Deficient Regions.” Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 12 (3): 534–46. doi:10.1007/s13412-022-00757-x. Chanza, N., W. Musakwa, and C. Kelso. 2024. “Overlaps of Indigenous Knowledge and Climate Change Mitigation: Evidence from a Systematic Review.” Frontiers in Climate 6: 1344931. doi:10.3389/fclim.2024.1344931. Chen, J., and V. Mueller. 2018. “Coastal Climate Change, Soil Salinity and Human Migration in Bangladesh.” Nature Climate Change 8 (16): 981–5. doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0313-8. Cherlinka, V. 2023. Soil Conservation Methods & Benefits of Implementation. EOS Data Analytics. https://eos.com/blog/soil-conservation/. COICA (Coordinadora de Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazónica). 2024. Llamado urgente a un pacto global para proteger el 80% de la Amazonia para el 2025 [Urgent Call for a Global Pact to Protect 80% of the Amazon by 2025]. https://amazonia80X2025.earth/es/declaracion/. Comardelle, C. 2020. “Preserving Our Place: Isle de Jean du Charles.” Nonprofit Quarterly, October 19, 2020. https:// nonprofitquarterly.org/preserving-our-place-isle-de-jean-charles/. Comberti, C., T.F. Thornton, M. Korodimou, M. Shea, and K.O. Riamet. 2019. “Adaptation and Resilience at the Margins: Addressing Indigenous Peoples Marginalization at International Climate Negotiations.” Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 61 (2): 14–30. doi:10.1080/00139157.2019.1564213. 152 Cranney, K. 2019. “Magpie Geese Return with Help from Ethical AI and Indigenous Knowledge.” CSIRO, November 20, 2019. https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2019/november/ magpie-geese-return-ethical-ai-indigenous-knowledge. Crate, S.A. 2011. “Climate and Culture: Anthropology in the Era of Contemporary Climate Change.” Annual Review of Anthropology 40 (1): 175–94. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.104925. Crawhall, N. 2009. “African Hunter-Gatherers: Threats and Opportunities for Maintaining Indigenous Knowledge Systems of Biodiversity.” In Learning and Knowing in Indigenous Societies Today, edited by P. Bates, M. Chiba, S. Kube, and D. Nakashima, 107–27. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000180754. Cristancho, S., and J. Vining. 2009. “Perceived Intergenerational Differences in the Transmission of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in Two Indigenous Groups from Colombia and Guatemala.” Culture and Psychology 15 (2): 229–54. doi:10.1177/1354067X09102892. Cruikshank, J. 2001. “Glaciers and Climate Change: Perspectives from Oral Tradition.” Arctic 54 (4): 377–93. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40512394. Cunningham Kain, M. 2018. “The Spirits Are Leaving: Adaptation and the Indigenous Peoples of the Caribbean Coast of Nicaragua.” In Indigenous Knowledge for Climate Change Assessment and Adaptation, edited by D. Nakashima, I. Krupnik, and J.T. Rubis, 188–97. Local and Indigenous Knowledge 2. Cambridge, United Kingdom, and Paris, France: Cambridge University Press and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. doi:10.1017/9781316481066. David-Chavez, D.M., and M. Gavin. 2018. “A Global Assessment of Indigenous Community Engagement in Climate Research.” Environmental Research Letters 13 (12): 1–17. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaf300. 153 Davidson-Hunt, I.J. 2006. “Adaptive Learning Networks: Developing Resource Management Knowledge through Social Learning Forums.” Human Ecology 34 (4): 593–614. doi:10.1007/s10745-006-9009-1. Davis, A., and K. Ruddle. 2010. “Constructing Confidence: Rational Skepticism and Systematic Enquiry in Local Ecological Knowledge Research.” Ecological Applications 20 (3): 880–94. doi:10.1890/09-0422.1. Degawan, M. 2018. “Foreword.” In Indigenous Knowledge for Climate Change Assessment and Adaptation, edited by D. Nakashima, I. Krupnik, and J.T. Rubis, xiii–xv. Local and Indigenous Knowledge 2. Cambridge, United Kingdom, and Paris, France: Cambridge University Press and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. doi:10.1017/9781316481066. Del Angel-Pérez, A.L., and M.A. Mendoza. 2004. “Totonac Homegardens and Natural Resources in Veracruz, Mexico.” Agriculture and Human Values 21 (4): 329–46. doi:10.1007/s10460-004-1219-9. Denevan, W., and C. Padoch, eds. 1987. Swidden-Fallow Agroforestry in the Peruvian Amazon. Advances in Economic Botany, Volume 5. Bronx, New York, USA: New York Botanical Garden. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43919697. Derbile, E.K. 2012. “Reducing Vulnerability of Rain-Fed Agriculture to Drought through Indigenous Knowledge Systems in North-Eastern Ghana.” International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management 5 (1): 71–94. doi:10.1108/17568691311299372. DeWalt, B.R. 1994. “Using Indigenous Knowledge to Improve Agriculture and Natural Resource Management.” Human Organization 53 (2): 123–31. doi:10.17730/humo.53.2.ku60563817m03n73. DFID (United Kingdom Department for International Development). 1999. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheet. https://www.staff. ncl.ac.uk/david.harvey/AEF873/Development/DfIDSustLiv.pdf. 154 Dias Alves, L., E.M. Rosa Bulhões, A.P. Madeira Di Beneditto, and C. Antunes Zappes. 2018. “Ethnoclimatology of Artisanal Fishermen: Interference in Coastal Fishing in Southeastern Brazil.” Marine Policy 95: 69–76. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2018.07.003. Ding, H., P.G. Veit, A. Blackman, E. Gray, K. Reytar, J.C. Altamirano, and B. Hodgdon. 2016. Climate Benefits, Tenure Costs: The Economic Case for Securing Land Rights in the Amazon. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www.cbd.int/doc/case-studies/inc/cs-inc-%20wri-en.pdf. Dinsa, A.B., F.S. Wakjira, E.T. Demmesie, and T.T. Negash. 2017. “Indigenous Astronomical Knowledge Based Seasonal Weather Forecast: Evidence from Borana Oromo Pastoralists of Southern Ethiopia.” F1000Research 11: 1217. doi:10.12688/f1000research.121926.1. Docip (Indigenous Peoples’ Centre for Documentation, Research and Information). 2015. Update No. 109. https://cendoc.docip.org/ collect/upd_en/index/assoc/HASHd175.dir/Upd109_eng.pdf. Economist. 2019. “How Climate Change Can Fuel Wars.” The Economist, May 23, 2019. https://www.economist.com/ international/2019/05/23/how-climate-change-can-fuel-wars. Egeru, A. 2012. “Role of Indigenous Knowledge in Climate Change Adaptation: A Case Study of the Teso Sub-region, Eastern Uganda.” Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 11 (2): 217–24. https://Egeru_IJTK%20 11%282%29%20217-224.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=35589&force=. Ellen, R.F. 1993. The Cultural Relations of Classification: An Analysis of Nuaulu Animal Categories from Central Seram. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511470530. Ellen, R.F., and H. Harris. 2000. “Introduction.” In Indigenous Environmental Knowledge and Its Transformations, edited 155 by R. Ellen, P. Parkes, and A. Bicker, 1–33. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers. ISBN: 9789057024849. Eriksen, S., P. Aldunce, C.S. Bahinipati, R. D’Almeida Martins, J.I. Molefe, C. Nhemachena, K. O’Brien, F. Olorunfemi, J. Park, L. Sygna, and K. Ulsrud. 2011. “When Not Every Response to Climate Change Is a Good One: Identifying Principles for Sustainable Adaptation.” Climate and Development 3 (1): 7–20. doi:10.3763/cdev.2010.0060. Eriksen, S., E.L.F. Schipper, M. Scoville-Simonds, K. Vincente, H.N. Adam, N. Brooks, B. Harding, D. Khatri, L. Lenaerts, D. Liverman, M. Mills-Novoa, M. Mosberg, S. Movik, B. Muok, A. Nightingale, H. Ojhas, L. Sygna, M. Taylor, C. Vogel, and J.J. West. 2021. “Adaptation Interventions and Their Effect on Vulnerability in Developing Countries: Help, Hindrance or Irrelevance?” World Development 141: 105383. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105383 0305-750X. Erni, C., and KMSS-Loikaw (Karuna Mission Social Solidarity-Loikaw). 2023. “Calculating the Carbon Balance: Questioning the Contribution of Shifting Cultivation to Climate Change in Kayah State, Myanmar.” In Farmer Innovations and Best Practices by Shifting Cultivators in Asia-Pacific, edited by M. Cairns, 379–407. CABI International. doi:10.1079/9781800620117.0019. Etchart, L. 2017. “The Role of Indigenous Peoples in Combating Climate Change.” Palgrave Communications 3: 17085. doi:10.1057/palcomms.2017.85. Ezcurra, P., and I.C. Rivera-Collazo. 2018. “An Assessment of the Impacts of Climate Change on Puerto Rico’s Cultural Heritage with a Case Study on Sea-Level Rise.” Journal of Cultural Heritage 32: 198–209. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2018.01.016. Fa, J.E., J.E.M. Watson, I. Leiper, P. Potapov, T.D. Evans, N.D. Burgess, Z. Molnár, A. Fernández-Llamazares, T. Duncan, S. Wang, B.J. Austin, H. Jonas, C.J. Robinson, P. Malmar, K.K. Zander, M.V. Jackson, E. Ellis, E.S. Brondízio, and S.T. Garnett. 2020. “Importance of Indigenous Peoples’ 156 Lands for the Conservation of Intact Forest Landscapes.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 18 (3): 135–40. doi:10.1002/fee.2148. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2017. 6 Ways Indigenous Peoples Are Helping the World Achieve #ZeroHunger. Rome: FAO. https://x.com/fao/status/951475833641848834. FAO, ABI, and CIAT (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Alliance of Bioversity International, and International Center for Tropical Agriculture). 2021. Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems: Insights on Sustainability and Resilience in the Front Line of Climate Change. Rome. doi:10.4060/cb5131en. FAO and FILAC (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Fund for the Development of Indigenous Peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean). 2021. Forest Governance by Indigenous and Tribal Peoples: An Opportunity for Climate Action in Latin America and the Caribbean. Policy brief. https://www.fao.org/3/cb2930en/cb2930en.pdf. Feld, S., and K.H. Basso, eds. 1996. Senses of Place. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. ISBN: 978-0-933452-95-4. Fernández Llamazares, Á., I. Díaz-Reviriego, A.C. Luz, M. Cabeza, A. Pyhälä, and V. Reyes-García. 2015. “Rapid Ecosystem Change Challenges the Adaptive Capacity of Local Environmental Knowledge.” Global Environmental Change 31 (2): 272–84. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.001. Fernández-Llamazares, Á., J.E. Fa, D. Brockington, E.S. Brondízio, J. Cariño, E. Corbera, M. Farhan Ferrari, D. Kobei, P. Malmer, G.Y.H. Márquez, Z. Molnár, H. Tugendhat, and S. Garnett. 2024. “Comment: A Baseless Statistic Could Harm the Indigenous Peoples It Is Meant to Support.” Nature 633: 32–5. doi:10.1038/d41586-024-02910-8. Fernández-Llamazares, Á., R.A. García, I. Díaz-Reviriego, M. Cabeza, A. Pyhälä, and V. Reyes-García. 2017. “An Empirically 157 Tested Overlap between Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge of a Changing Climate in Bolivian Amazonia.” Regional Environmental Change 17 (6): 1673–85. doi:10.1007/s10113-017-1125-5. Fernández-Llamazares, Á., D. Lepofsky, K. Lertzman, C.G. Armstrong, E.S. Brondízio et al. 2021. “Scientists’ Warning to Humanity on Threats to Indigenous and Local Knowledge Systems.” Journal of Ethnobiology 41 (2): 144–69. doi:10.2992/0278-0771-41.2.144. FIAY (Foro Indígena de Abya Yala). 2015. The Position of FIAY on COP21. Lima, October 13, 2015. https://static1.squarespace.com/ static/5627862ce4b07be93cfb9461/t/56280619e4b0c53c5afa47 ae/1445463577836/ENGLISH-PosicionamientoDeFIAY.pdf. Folke, C. 2006. “Resilience: The Emergence of a Perspective for Socio-Ecological Systems Analyses.” Global Environmental Change 16 (3): 253–67. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002. Folke, C., J. Colding, and F. Berkes. 2003. “Synthesis: Building Resilience and Adaptive Capacity in Social-Ecological Systems.” In Navigating Social-Ecological Systems, edited by F. Berkes, J. Colding, and C. Folke, 352–87. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511541957. Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. 2005. “Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30: 441–73. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511. Ford, J.D. 2012. “Indigenous Health and Climate Change.” American Journal of Public Health 102 (7): 1260–6. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300752. Ford, J.D., L. Cameron, J. Rubis, M. Maillet, D. Nakashima, A.C. Willox, and T. Pearce. 2016. “Including Indigenous Knowledge and Experience in IPCC Assessment Reports.” Nature Climate Change 6: 349–53. doi:10.1038/nclimate2954. 158 Ford, J.D., N. King, E.K. Galappaththi, T. Pearce, G. McDowell, and S.L. Harer. 2020. “The Resilience of Indigenous Peoples to Environmental Change.” One Earth 2 (6): 532–43. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2020.05.014. Ford, J.D., B. Smit, and J. Wandel. 2006. “Vulnerability to Climate Change in the Arctic: A Case Study from Arctic Bay, Canada.” Global Environmental Change 16 (2): 145–60. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.11.007. FPP (Forest Peoples Programme). 2016. Status and Trends in Traditional Occupations: Outcomes of a Rapid Assessment. https://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2016/05/ fpp-status-trends-trad-occupations-english-web-16.pdf. Fox, J., D.M. Truong, T. Rambo, N.P. Tuyen, L.T. Cuc, and S. Leisz. 2000. “Shifting Cultivation: A New Old Paradigm for Managing Tropical Forests.” BioScience 50 (6): 521–8. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0521:SCANOP]2.0.CO;2. FPP, IIPFCC, IWBN, COD-ILK, and SCBD (Forest Peoples Programme, International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Biodiversity, Indigenous Women’s Biodiversity Network, Centres of Distinction on Indigenous and Local Knowledge, and Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity). 2020. Local Biodiversity Outlooks 2: The Contributions of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities to the Implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and to Renewing Nature and Cultures. Complement to the fifth edition of Global Biodiversity Outlook. Moreton-in-the-Marsh, United Kingdom: Forest Peoples Programme. https://www.localbiodiversityoutlooks.net. Fre, Z. 2018. Knowledge Sovereignty among African Cattle Herders. London: UCL Press. doi:10.14324/111.9781787353114. Frechette, A., C. Ginsburg, and W. Walker. 2018. A Global Baseline of Carbon Storage in Collective Lands: Indigenous and Local Community Contributions to Climate Change Mitigation. Washington, 159 DC: World Resources Institute. https://rightsandresources.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/09/A-Global-Baseline_RRI_Sept-2018.pdf. Freire, G. 2007. “Indigenous Shifting Cultivation and the New Amazonia: A Piaroa Example of Economic Articulation.” Human Ecology 35 (6): 681–96. doi: 10.1007/s10745-007-9120-y. Furgal, C., and J. Seguin. 2006. “Climate Change, Health, and Vulnerability in Canadian Northern Aboriginal Communities.” Environmental Health Perspectives 114 (12): 1964–70. doi:10.1289/ehp.8433. Gadgil, M., F. Berkes, and C. Folks. 1993. “Indigenous Knowledge for Biodiversity Conservation.” Ambio 22 (2/3): 151–6. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4314060. Galloway McLean, K. 2009. Advance Guard: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation, Mitigation and Indigenous Peoples: A Compendium of Case Studies. Darwin, Australia: United Nations University–Institute of Advanced Studies Traditional Knowledge Initiative.https://i.unu.edu/media/ourworld. unu.edu-en/article/1148/Advance_Copy-Advance_Guard_Compendium.pdf. Galvin, K.A. 2009. “Transitions: Pastoralists Living with Change.” Annual Review of Anthropology 38 (1): 185– 98. doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-091908-164442. Galvis Sarria, W.A., M.L. Ordoñez Serna, and O.L. Sanabria Diago. 2022. “Manejo de agrobiodiversidad en la huerta tradicional de alta montaña: Resguardo Totoró, Cauca, Colombia” [Agrobiodiversity Management in Traditional High Mountain Gardens: Totoró Reservation, Cauca, Colombia]. Ambiente & Sociedade 25: 1–24. doi:10.1590/1809-4422asoc20190230r2vu2022L2AO. Gamble, D.W., D. Campbell, T.L. Allen, D. Barker, S. Curtis, D. McGregor, and J. Popke. 2010. “Climate Change, Drought, and Jamaican Agriculture: 160 Local Knowledge and the Climate Record.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100 (4): 1–14. doi:10.1080/00045608.2010.497122. Garavito-Bermúdez, D. 2020. “Biocultural Learning: Beyond Ecological Knowledge Transfer.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 63 (10): 1791–810. doi:10.1080/09640568.2019.1688561. Garnett, S.T., N.D. Burgess, J.E. Fa, A. Fernández-Llamazires, Z. Molnár, C.J. Robinson, J.E.M. Watson, K.K. Zander, B. Austin, E.S. Brondízio, N.F. Collier, T. Duncan, E. Ellis, H. Geyle, M.V. Jackson, H. Jonas, P. Malmer, B. McGowan, A. Sivongxay, and I. Leiper. 2018. “A Spatial Overview of the Global Importance of Indigenous Lands for Conservation.” Nature Sustainability 1 (7): 369–74. doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6. German, L., A-M. Tiani, A. Daoudi, T.M. Maravanyika, E. Chuma, C. Jum, N. Nemarundwe, E. Ontita, and G. Yitamben. 2012. The Application of Participatory Action Research to Climate Change Adaptation in Africa. International Development Research Centre and Center for International Forestry Research. https://ccafs.cgiar.org/resources/publications/ application-participatory-action-research-climate-change-adaptation. Gilbert, S. 2024. “Nine Practices from Native American Culture That Could Help the Environment.” Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- environment/2024/04/22/native-american-practices-combat-climate-change/. Gleditsch, N.P. 2012. “Whither the Weather? Climate Change and Conflict.” Journal of Peace Research 49 (1): 3–9. doi:10.1177/0022343311431288. Godoy, R., N. Brokaw, D. Wilkie, D. Colón, A. Palermo, S. Lye, and S. Wei. 1998. “Of Trade and Cognition: Markets and the Loss of Folk Knowledge among the Tawahka Indians of the Honduran Rain Forest.” Journal of Anthropological Research 54 (2): 219–33. doi:10.1086/jar.54.2.3631731. Gómez-Baggethun, E., E. Corbera, and V. Reyes-García. 2013. “Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Global Environmental 161 Change: Research Findings and Policy Implications.” Ecology and Society 18 (4): 72. doi:10.5751/ES-06288-180472. Gómez-Baggethun, E., and V. Reyes-García. 2013. “Reinterpreting Change in Traditional Ecological Knowledge.” Human Ecology 41 (4): 643–7. doi:10.1007/s10745-013-9577-9. Gonzales Iwanciw, J., M. Aparicio Effen, J. Cusicanqui Giles, M.E. Lima Carvajal, E. Yucra, A. Mujica, V. Cortéz Limachi, A. Gonzales, and J. Rodriguez. 2007. Vulnerabilidad y adaptación al cambio climático en Bolivia: Resultados de un proceso de investigación participativa en las regiones del Lago Titicaca y los Valles Cruceños [Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in Bolivia: Results of a Participatory Research Process in the Regions of Lake Titicaca and the Cruceños Valley]. La Paz, Bolivia: Programa Nacional de Cambios Climáticos. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.26703.43687. Granderson, A. 2017. “The Role of Traditional Knowledge in Building Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change: Perspectives from Vanuatu.” Weather, Climate, and Society 9 (3): 545–61. doi:10.1175/WCAS-D-16-0094.1. Gray, A.P., F. Richer, and S. Harper. 2016. “Individual- and Community- Level Determinants of Inuit Youth Mental Wellness.” Canadian Journal of Public Health 17 (3): e251–7. doi: 10.17269/CJPH.107.5342. Grenier, L. 1998. Working with Indigenous Knowledge: A Guide for Researchers. Ottawa, Ontario: International Development Research Centre. https://idrc-crdi.ca/en/book/working-indigenous-knowledge-guide-researchers. Guest, G. 2002. “Market Integration and the Distribution of Ecological Knowledge within an Ecuadorian Fishing Community.” Journal of Ecological Anthropology 6 (1): 38–49. https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/jea/vol6/iss1/3. Guido, Z., S. Lopus, K. Waldman, C. Hannah, A. Zimmer, N. Krell, C. Knudson, L. Estes, K. Caylor, and T. Evans. 2021. “Perceived Links between Climate 162 Change and Weather Forecast Accuracy: New Barriers to Tools for Agricultural Decision-Making.” Climate Change 168: 9. doi:10.1007/s10584-021-03207-9. Hanazaki, N., D.F. Herbst, M.S. Marques, and I. Vandebroek. 2013. “Evidence of the Shifting Baseline Syndrome in Ethnobotanical Research.” Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 9 (1): 75. doi:10.1186/1746-4269-9-75. Hardy, E. 2020. “This Indigenous Creator Built a Virtual Reality Program to Celebrate First Nations Cultures.” Create, June 4, 2020. https://createdigital. org.au/indigenous-creator-builds-virtual-reality-program-first-nations-cultures/. Hayati, D., M. Yazdanpanah, and F. Karbalaee. 2010. “Coping with Drought: The Case of Poor Farmers of South Iran.” Psychology and Developing Societies 22 (2): 361–83. doi:10.1177/097133361002200206. Heath, J., and L. Arragutainaq. 2019. “Siku: Mixing High- Tech with Ancient Know-How.” UNESCO Courier 1: 20–22. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000366664. Heckenberger, S. 2021. The Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples at UN Climate Change Conferences: A View at the History and Present. Global Human Rights Defense. https://linkd.in/dE5Xyx_R. Heckler, S. 2007. “Herbalism, Home Gardens, and Hybridization: Wotïhã Medicine and Cultural Change.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly 21 (1): 41–63. doi: 10.1525/maq.2007.21.1.41. Heckler, S., and S. Zent. 2008. “Piaroa Manioc Varietals: Hyperdiversity or Social Currency?” Human Ecology 36: 679–97. doi:10.1007/s10745-008-9193-2. Henshaw, A. 2003. “Climate and Culture in the North: The Interface of Archaeology, Paleoenvironmental Science, and Oral History.” In Weather, Climate, Culture, edited by S. Strauss and B.S. Orlove, 217–31. Oxford: Berg. doi:10.4324/9781003103264-16. 163 Hernández, J., J. Meisner, L.A. Jacobs, and P.M. Rabinowitz. 2022. “Re-centering Indigenous Knowledge in Climate Change Discourse.” PLOS Climate 1 (5): e0000032. doi:10.1371/journal.pclm.0000032. Hiwasaki, L., E. Luna, Syamsidik, and J.A. Marçal. 2014. “Process for Integrating Local and Indigenous Knowledge with Science for Hydro- meteorological Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in Coastal and Small Island Communities.” International Journal for Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (A): 15–27. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.07.007. Hofmeijer, I., J.D. Ford, L. Berrang-Ford, C. Zavaleta, C. Carcamo, E. Llanos, C. Carhuaz, V. Edge, S. Lwasa, and D. Namanya. 2012. “Community Vulnerability to the Health Effects of Climate Change among Indigenous Populations in the Peruvian Amazon: A Case Study from Panaillo and Nuevo Progreso.” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 18 (7) :957–78. doi:10.1007/s11027-012-9402-6. Hosen, N., H. Nakamura, and A. Hamzah. 2019. “Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Climate Change Adaptation: The Sa’ban Experience.” Journal of ASIAN Behavioural Studies 4 (14): 63–77. doi:10.21834/jabs.v4i14.339. Hosen, N., H. Nakamura, and A. Hamzah. 2020. “Adaptation to Climate Change: Does Traditional Ecological Knowledge Hold the Key?” Sustainability 12 (2): 676. doi:10.3390/su12020676. Howarth, C., M. Lane, S. Morse-Jones, K. Brooks, and D. Viner. 2022. “The ‘Co’ in Co-production of Climate Action: Challenging Boundaries within and between Science, Policy and Practice.” Global Environmental Change 72: 102445. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102445. Hunn, E. 1993. “What Is Traditional Ecological Knowledge?” In Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Wisdom for Sustainable Development, edited by N.M. Williams and G. Baines, 13–15. Canberra: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University. ISBN: 9780867404142. 164 Hunn, E.S. 1989. “Ethnoecology: The Relevance of Cognitive Anthropology for Human Ecology.” In The Relevance of Culture, edited by M. Freilich, 143–160. New York: Bergin and Garvey. ISBN: 0897891813. ICH (Indigenous Climate Hub). 2022. Traditional Knowledge (TK) and Climate Change. https://indigenousclimatehub. ca/traditional-knowledge-tk-and-climate-change/. Ichuta Nina, J.L. 2016. Cambio climático y manifestaciones rituales en el Municipio de Guaqui Provincia Ingavi del Departamento de La Paz: El caso del ciclo agrícola de la papa [Climate Change and Ritual Manifestations in the Municipality of Guaqui, Ingavi Province, Department of La Paz: The Case of the Potato Agricultural Cycle]. Tesis de Grado. La Paz, Bolivia: Universidad Mayor de San Andres. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.12010.29128. IDMC (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre). 2022. Global Report on Internal Displacement 2021: Internal Displacement in a Changing Climate. Geneva: IDMC/NRC (Norwegian Refugee Council). https://www.internal- displacement.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/grid2021_idmc.pdf. IDMC (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre). 2023. Global Internal Displacement Database. https://www.internal- displacement.org/database/displacement-data. IEP (Institute for Economics and Peace). 2020. Ecological Threat Register 2020: Understanding Ecological Threats, Resilience and Peace. Sydney: IEP. http://visionofhumanity.org/reports. IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development). 2016. The Traditional Knowledge Advantage: Indigenous Peoples’ Knowledge in Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies. Rome: IFAD. https://www.ifad.org/documents/38714170/40320989/traditional_ knowledge_advantage.pdf/58c15785-2072-4265-993f-3ac7ae9127c9. 165 IIPFCC (International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change). 2009. Policy Proposals on Climate Change. Statement released by the IIPFCC, September 27, 2009. https://www.forestpeoples.org/ sites/default/files/publication/2010/08/iipfccpolicysept09eng.pdf. IIPFCC (International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change). 2019. World Indigenous Peoples Initiative to the UNSG Climate Action Summit. United Nations Climate Action Summit, September 23, 2019. https://www.iitc. org/wp-content/uploads/World-Indigenous-Peoples-Initiative-to-the-UNSG.pdf. ILO (International Labour Organization). 1989. Convention C169 – Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169). Geneva: ILO. https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=N ORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C169. ILO (International Labour Organization). 2017. Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change: From Victims to Change Agents through Decent Work. Geneva: ILO, Gender, Equality and Diversity Branch. https://www.ilo.org/publications/ indigenous-peoples-and-climate-change-victims-change-agents-through-decent. Infante Ramírez, K.D., and A.M. Arce Ibarra. 2020. “‘Less Rain and More Heat’: Smallholders’ Perception and Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in Tropical Environments.” Sociedad y Ambiente 7: 77–103. doi:10.31840/sya.v0i21.2040. Ingold, T. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London: Routledge. ISBN: 978-0415617475. IPBES (Intergovernmental Sciende-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). 2019. Global Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, edited by E.S. Brondízio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, H.T. Ngo. Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat. ISBN: 978-3-947851-20-1. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014a. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral 166 Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [C.B. Field, V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014b. “Annex II: Glossary” [K.J. Mach, S. Planton, and C. von Stechow (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)], 117–30. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2019a. “Cross-Chapter Box 13 – Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK).” In Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems [J. Morton, F. Denton, J. Ford, J. Kimutai, P. McElwee, M.R. Ferre, and L. Stringer (eds.)], 746–48. doi:10.1017/9781009157988.009. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2019b. Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, and J. Malley (eds.)]. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/ assets/uploads/2019/11/SRCCL-Full-Report-Compiled-191128.pdf. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2022a. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 167 Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, and B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781009325844. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2022b. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, and J. Malley (eds.)]. Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781009157926.001. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2023. Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_FullVolume.pdf. IPCC Working Group II (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group II). 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg2/. Islam, M.A., M.A. Akber, M. Ahmed, M.M. Rahman, and M.R. Rahman. 2019. “Climate Change Adaptations of Shrimp Farmers: A Case Study from Southwest Coastal Bangladesh.” Climate and Development 11 (6): 459–68. doi:10.1080/17565529.2018.1442807. Iticha, B., and A. Husen. 2018. “Adaptation to Climate Change Using Indigenous Weather Forecasting Systems in Borana 168 Pastoralists of Southern Ethiopia.” Climate and Development, August 22, 2018. doi:10.1080/17565529.2018.1507896. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2008. Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Climate Change. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/12830. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2010. Indigenous People and Climate Change/REDD: An Overview of Current Discussions and Main Issues. https://iucn.org/sites/default/files/ import/downloads/iucn_briefing_ips_and_redd_march_2010.pdf. Ives, C.D., J.H. Kidwell, C.B. Anderson, P. Arias-Arévalo, R.K. Gould, J.O. Kenter, and R. Murali. 2024. “The Role of Religion in Shaping the Values of Nature.” Ecology and Society 29 (2): 10. doi:10.5751/ES-15004-290210. IWGIA (International Working Group on Indigenous Affairs). 2020. The Indigenous World 2020, 34th edition. Copenhagen: IWGIA. ISBN: 978-87-92786-98-2. IWGIA (International Working Group on Indigenous Affairs). 2022. An Analysis of the IPCC Report on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. IWGIA Briefing Paper, March 2022. https://lcipp.unfccc.int/sites/default/ files/2022-03/IWGIA_IPCC%20Briefing_March%202022_ENG.PDF. Jacob, C., T. McDaniels, and S. Hinch. 2010. “Indigenous Culture and Adaptation to Climate Change: Sockeye Salmon and the St’át’imc People.” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 15 (8): 859–76. doi:10.1007/s11027-010-9244-z. Jacobs, A. 2014. “Think Locally, Act Globally.” The New Atlantis, September 25, 2014. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/text-patterns/think-locally-act-globally. 169 Johnson, L.M., and E.S. Hunn, eds. 2010. Landscape Ethnoecology: Concepts of Biotic and Physical Space. New York: Berghahn Books. doi:10.1515/9781845458041. Johnson, M. 1992. “Research on Traditional Environmental Knowledge: Its Development and Its Role.” In: Lore: Capturing Traditional Environmental Knowledge, edited by M. Johnson, 3–22. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. e-ISBN:1552501078. Junqueira, A.B., Á. Fernández-Llamazares, M. Torrents-Ticó, P.L. Haira, J.G. Nasak, D. Burgas, S. Fraixedas, M. Cabeza, and V. Reyes-García. 2021. “Interactions between Climate Change and Infrastructure Projects in Changing Water Resources: An Ethnobiological Perspective from the Daasanach, Kenya.” Journal of Ethnobiology 41 (3): 331–48. doi:10.2993/0278-0771-41.3.331. Kagunyu, A., S. Wandibba, and J.G. Wanjohi. 2016. “The Use of Indigenous Climate Forecasting Methods by the Pastoralists of Northern Kenya.” Pastoralism 6: 7. doi:10.1186/s13570-016-0054-0. Kala, N. 2017. “Learning, Adaptation, and Climate Uncertainty: Evidence from Indian Agriculture.” MIT CEEPR Working Paper 2017-023: 1–49. https:// mitsloan.mit.edu/shared/ods/documents?PublicationDocumentID=2828. Kalanda-Joshua, M., C. Ngongondo, L. Chipeta, and F. Mpembeka. 2011. “Integrating Indigenous Knowledge with Conventional Science: Enhancing Localised Climate and Weather Forecasts in Nessa, Mulanje, Malawi.” Physics and Chemistry of the Earth Parts A/B/C 36(14–15): 996–1003. doi:10.1016/j.pce.2011.08.001. Kalikoski, D.C., P. Quevedo Neto, and T. Almudi. 2010. “Building Adaptive Capacity to Climate Variability: The Case of Artisanal Fisheries in the Estuary of the Patos Lagoon, Brazil.” Marine Policy 34 (4): 742–51. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.003. 170 Kanani, P.R. 2006. “Testing the Traditional Methods of Weather Forecasting in Gujarat Using the Participatory Approach.” In Traditional Knowledge Systems of India and Sri Lanka, edited by A.V. Balasubramanian and T.D. Nirmala Devi, 125–44. Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India: Centre for Indian Knowledge Systems. https://bibalex.org/baifa/Attachment/Documents/362465.pdf. Kandal, H.A., H.A. Yacoub, M.P. Gerkema, and J.A.A. Swart. 2019. “Traditional Knowledge and Community Resilience in Wadi Allaqi, Egypt.” Journal of Arid Environments 171 (5): 103987. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2019.05.015. Karki, R., S. ul Hasson, U. Schickhoff, T. Scholten, and J. Böhner. 2017. “Rising Precipitation Extremes across Nepal.” Climate 5 (1): 4. doi:10.3390/cli5010004. Kasei, R.A., M.D. Kalanda-Joshua, and D.T. Benefor. 2019. “Rapid Urbanization and Implication for Indigenous Knowledge in Early Warning on Flood Risk in African Cities.” Journal of the British Academy 7 (2): 183–214. doi:10.5871/jba/007s2.183. Kassam, K.-A.S., and J. Bernardo. 2022. “Role of Biodiversity in Ecological Calendars and Its Implications for Food Sovereignty: Empirical Assessment of the Resilience of Indicator Species to Anthropogenic Climate Change.” GeoHealth 6 (10): e2022GH000614. doi:10.1029/2022GH000614. Keep, L. 2020. A Flood of Myths and Stories. Independent Lens in Beyond the Films, PBS. https://www.pbs.org/ independentlens/blog/a-flood-of-myths-and-stories/. Keil, F.C. 2012. “Running on Empty? How Folk Science Gets By with Less.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 21 (5): 329–34. doi:10.1177/0963721412453721. Kelly, A. 2007. “Hope Dries Up for Nicaragua’s Miskito.” The Guardian, May 29, 2007. https://www.theguardian.com/ environment/2007/may/29/climatechange.climatechange. 171 Klekotko, M., A. Jastrzębiec-Witowska, K. Gorlach, and P. Nowak. 2018. “Think Locally and Act Globally: Understanding Human Development in the Era of Globalisation.” Eastern European Countryside 24: 111–41. doi:10.2478/eec-2018-0006. Klenk, N., A. Fiume, K. Meehan, and C. Gibbes. 2017. “Local Knowledge in Climate Adaptation Research: Moving Knowledge Frameworks from Extraction to Co-production.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Review of Climate Change 8 (5): e475. doi:10.1002/wcc.475. Kodirekkala, K.R. 2017. “Internal and External Factors Affecting Loss of Traditional Knowledge: Evidence from a Horticultural Society in South India.” Journal of Anthropological Research 73 (1): 22–42. doi:10.1086/690524#. Kronik, J., and D. Verner. 2010a. Indigenous People and Climate Change in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington, DC: World Bank. http:// documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/654311468010837927/Indigenous- peoples-and-climate-change-in-Latin-America-and-the-Caribbean. Kronik, J., and D. Verner. 2010b. “The Role of Indigenous Knowledge in Crafting Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies in Latin America.” In Social Dimensions of Climate Change: Equity and Vulnerability in a Warming World, edited by R. Mearns and A. Norton, 145–72. Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-0-8213-7887-8. Krupnik, I., J.T. Rubis, and D. Nakashima. 2018. “Indigenous Knowledge for Climate Change Assessment and Adaptation: Epilogue.” In Indigenous Knowledge for Climate Change Assessment and Adaptation, edited by D. Nakashima, I. Krupnik, and J.T. Rubis, 280–90. Local and Indigenous Knowledge 2. Cambridge, United Kingdom, and Paris, France: Cambridge University Press and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. doi:10.1017/9781316481066. 172 Kuruppu, N., and D. Liverman. 2010. “Mental Preparation for Climate Adaptation: The Role of Cognition and Culture in Enhancing Adaptive Capacity of Water Management in Kiribati.” Global Environmental Change 21 (2): 657–69. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.12.002. Laidler, G.J. 2006. “Inuit and Scientific Perspectives on the Relationship between Sea Ice and Climate Change: The Ideal Complement?” Climatic Change 78 (2): 407–44. doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9064-z. Lammel, A., M. Goloubinoff, and E. Katz, eds. 2008. Aires y lluvias: Antropología del clima en México [Winds and Rains: Anthropology of Climate in Mexico]. Centro de estudios mexicanos y centroamericanos. Mexico: IRD Editions. ISBN:978-968-496-672-7. Leal Filho, W., F. Wolf, E. Totin, L. Zvobgo, N.P. Simpsom, K. Musiyiwa, J.W. Kalangu, M. Sanni, I. Adelekan, J. Efitre, F.K. Donkor, A.-L. Balogun, S.A.R. Mucova, and D.Y. Ayal. 2022. “Is Indigenous Knowledge Serving Climate Adaptation? Evidence from Various African Regions.” Development Policy Review 41 (2): e12664. doi:10.1111/dpr.12664. LICCI (Local Indicators of Climate Change Impacts). 2024. The Contribution of Local Knowledge to Climate Change Research. https://www.licci.eu. Lunch, C. 2004. Participatory Video: Rural People Document Their Knowledge and Innovations. Indigenous Knowledge Notes No. 71. http://insightshare.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/PV-Rural- People-Document-their-Knowledge-and-Innovations.pdf. Lykke, A.M., M.K. Kristensen, and S. Ganaba. 2004. “Valuation of Local Use and Dynamics of 56 Woody Species in the Sahel.” Biodiversity and Conservation 13 (10): 1961–90. doi:10.1023/B:BIOC.0000035876.39587.1a. Lyver, P.O’B., P. Timoti, T. Davis, and J.M. Tylianakis. 2019. “Biocultural Hysteresis Inhibits Adaptation to Environmental Change.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 34 (9): 771–80. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2019.04.002. 173 MacDonald, P., S.L. Harper, A.C. Willox, and V.L. Edge. 2013. “A Necessary Voice: Climate Change and Lived Experiences of Youth in Rigolet, Nunatsiavut, Canada.” Global Environmental Change 23 (1): 360–71. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.010. Macherera, M., and M.J. Chimbari. 2016. “Developing a Community- Centred Malaria Early Warning System Based on Indigenous Knowledge: Gwanda District, Zimbabwe.” Jamba: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 8 (1): 1–10. doi:10.4102/jamba.v8i1.289. Maffi, L. 2005. “Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological Diversity.” Annual Review of Anthropology 34: 599–617. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120437. Marin, A. 2010. “Riders under Storms: Contributions of Nomadic Herders’ Observations to Analysing Climate Change in Mongolia.” Global Environmental Change 20 (1): 162–176. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.004. Márquez Serrano, M., and F.R. Funes-Monzote. 2013. “Factores ecológicos y sociales que explican la resiliencia al cambio climático de los sistemas agrícolas en el Municipio La Palma, Pinar del Río, Cuba” [Ecological and social factors that explain the resilience to climate change of agricultural systems in the La Palma Municipality, Pinar del Río, Cuba]. Agroecología 8 (1): 43–52. https://revistas.um.es/agroecologia/article/view/182961. Marquis, C., and J. Battilana. 2009. “Acting Globally but Thinking Locally? The Influence of Local Communities on Organizations.” Research in Organizational Behavior 29: 283–302. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2009.06.001. Mazzocchi, F. 2006. “Western Science and Traditional Knowledge.” EMBO Reports 7 (5): 463–6. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400693. McCarter, J., and M.C. Gavin. 2014. “Local Perceptions of Changes in Traditional Ecological Knowledge: A Case Study from Malekula Island, Vanuatu.” Ambio 43 (3): 288–96. doi:10.1007/s13280-013-0431-5. 174 McCarter, J., M.C. Gavin, S. Baereleo, and M. Love. 2014. “The Challenges of Maintaining Indigenous Ecological Knowledge.” Ecology and Society 19 (3): 39. doi:10.5751/ES-06741-190339. McMillen, H., T. Ticktin, and H. Kihalani Springer. 2017. “The Future Is behind Us: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resilience over Time on Hawai‘i Island.” Regional Environmental Change 17 (2): 579–92. doi:10.1007/s10113-016-1032-1. McNamara, K.E., and R. Westoby. 2011. “Solastalgia and the Gendered Nature of Climate Change: An Example from Erub Island, Torres Strait.” EcoHealth 8 (2): 233–6. doi:10.1007/s10393-011-0698-6. Medaris, J.K. 2023. The Impact of Climate Change on the Cultural Identity of Indigenous Peoples and the Nation’s First “Climate Refugees.” University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. https:// digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1763&context=ailr. Mekonnen, Z., M. Kidemu, H. Abebe, M. Semere, M. Gebreyesus, A. Worku, M. Tesfaye, and Abraham Chernet. 2021. “Traditional Knowledge and Institutions for Sustainable Climate Change Adaptation in Ethiopia.” Current Research in Environmental Sustainability 3: 100080. doi:10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100080. Meldrum, G., D. Mijatovic, W. Rojas, J. Flores, M. Pinto, G. Mamani, E. Condori, D. Hilaquita, H. Gruberg, and S. Padulosi. 2017. “Climate Change and Crop Diversity: Farmers’ Perceptions and Adaptation on the Bolivian Altiplano.” Environment, Development and Sustainability 20 (2): 703–30. doi:10.1007/s10668-016-9906-4. Metcalfe, S.E., B. Schmook, D.S. Boyd, B. De la Barreda-Bautista, G.E. Endfield, S. Mardero, M. Mansón Che, R. Medina González, M.T. Munguia Gil, S. Navarro Olmedo, and A. Perea. 2020. “Community Perception, Adaptation and Resilience to Extreme Weather in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico.” Regional Environmental Change 20 (1): 25. doi:10.1007/s10113-020-01586-w. 175 Miara, M.D., M. Negadi, S. Tabak, H. Bendif, W. Dahmani, M. Ait Hammou, T. Sahnoun, J. Snorek, V. Porcher, V. Reyes-García, and I. Teixidor- Toneu. 2022. “Climate Change Impacts Can Be Differentially Perceived across Time Scales: A Study among the Tuareg of the Algerian Sahara.” GeoHealth 6 (11): e2022GH000620. doi:10.1029/2022GH000620. Milan, A., and R. Ho. 2014. “Livelihood and Migration Patterns at Different Altitudes in the Central Highlands of Peru.” Climate and Development 6 (1): 69–76. doi:10.1080/17565529.2013.826127. Milan, A., and S. Ruano. 2014. “Rainfall Variability, Food Insecurity and Migration in Cabricán, Guatemala.” Climate and Development 6 (1): 61–8. doi:10.1080/17565529.2013.857589. Mortreux, C., and J. Barnett. 2009. “Climate Change, Migration and Adaptation in Funafuti, Tuvalu.” Global Environmental Change 19 (1): 105–12. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.09.006. Mowo, J.G., Z. Adimassu, D. Catacutan, J. Tanui, K. Masuki, and C. Lyamchai. 2013. “The Importance of Local Traditional Institutions in the Management of Natural Resources in the Highlands of East Africa.” Human Organization 72 (2): 154–63. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44148706. MRGI (Minority Rights Group International). 2013. “State of the World’s Minorities and Indigenous Peoples 2013 – Case Study: Bolivia: Traditional Healers and Climate Change.” Article, September 24, 2013. https://www.refworld.org/docid/526fb71e14.html. Murphy, C., M. Tembo, A. Phir, O. Yerokun, and B. Grummell. 2015. “Adapting to Climate Change in Shifting Landscapes of Belief.” Climatic Change 134 (1): 101–14. doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1498-8. Musinguzi, L., J. Efitre, K. Odongkara, R. Ogutu-Ohwayo, F. Muyodi, V. Natugonza, M. Olokotum, S. Namboowa, and S. Naigaga. 2016. 176 “Fishers’ Perceptions of Climate Change, Impacts on Their Livelihoods and Adaptation Strategies in Environmental Change Hotspots: A Case of Lake Wamala, Uganda.” Environment, Development and Sustainability 18: 1255–73. doi:10.1007/s10668-015-9690-6. Mustonen, T., ed. 2005. Stories of the Raven. Snowchange 2005 Conference Report. Anchorage, Alaska: Snowchange Cooperative. https://www.snowchange.org/pages/wp-content/ uploads/2011/04/StoriesOfTheRaven_06NF.pdf. Naess, L.O. 2013. “The Role of Local Knowledge in Adaptation to Climate Change.” WIREs Climate Change 4 (2): 99–106. doi:10.1002/wcc.204. Nakashima, D.J., K. Galloway McLean, H.D. Thulstrup, A. Ramos Castillo, and J.T. Rubis. 2012. Weathering Uncertainty: Traditional Knowledge for Climate Change Assessment and Adaptation. Paris, France, and Darwin, Australia: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and United Nations University (UNU). https:// sdgs.un.org/publications/technical-report-weathering-uncertainty-17407. Nakashima, D., I. Krupnik, and J.T. Rubis, eds. 2018. Indigenous Knowledge for Climate Change Assessment and Adaptation. Local and Indigenous Knowledge 2. Cambridge, United Kingdom, and Paris, France: Cambridge University Press and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. doi:10.1017/9781316481066. Nakashima, D., and M. Roué. 2002. “Indigenous Knowledge, Peoples and Sustainable Practice.” In Social and Economic Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, edited by M.P. Timmerman, 314–24. Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley. https://web. mnstate.edu/robertsb/307/Indigenous_Knowledge.pdf. Nakashima, D., J.T. Rubis, and I. Krupnik. 2018. “Indigenous Knowledge for Climate Change Assessment and Adaptation: Introduction.” In 177 Indigenous Knowledge for Climate Change Assessment and Adaptation, edited by D. Nakashima, I. Krupnik, and J.T. Rubis, 1–20. Local and Indigenous Knowledge 2. Cambridge, United Kingdom, and Paris, France: Cambridge University Press and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. doi:10.1017/9781316481066. Natajaran, N., A. Newsham, J. Rigg, and D. Suhardiman. 2022. “A Sustainable Livelihoods Framework for the 21st Century.” World Development 155: 105898. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105898. Nepal, T.K. 2021. “An Overview of Threats to Traditional Ecological Knowledge.” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 9 (11): 01–04. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:245003400. Nepstad D., S. Schwartzman, B. Bamberger, M. Santilli, D. Ray, P. Schlesinger, P. Lefebvre, A. Alencar, E. Prinz, G. Fiske, and A. Rolla. 2006. “Inhibition of Amazon Deforestation and Fire by Parks and Indigenous Lands.” Conservation Biology 20 (1): 65–73. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00351.x. Nesheim, I., S.S. Dhillion, and K.A. Stolen. 2006. “What Happens to Traditional Knowledge and Use of Natural Resources when People Migrate?” Human Ecology 34 (1): 99–131. doi:10.1007/s10745-005-9004-y. Ng’asike, J.T. 2019. “Turkana Indigenous Knowledges as Narrated by Turkana Elders: Implications for Early Childhood Curriculum in Pastoralist Communities in Kenya.” In Nurturing Nature and the Environment with Young Children, edited by J. Kroeger, C.Y. Myers, and K. Morgan, 64–72. London: Routledge. ISBN:9780815359296. Norgaard, K.M. 2014. Retaining Knowledge Sovereignty: Expanding the Application of Tribal Traditional Knowledge on Forest Lands in the Face of Climate Change. Portland, Oregon: North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative Tribal Climate Change Initiative 178 on Knowledge Sovereignty. https://pages.uoregon.edu/norgaard/ pdf/Retaining-Knowledge-Sovereignty-Norgaard-2014.pdf. Norton-Smith, K., K. Lynn, K. Chief, K. Cozzetto, J. Donatuto, M.H. Redsteer, L.E. Kruger, J. Maldonado, C. Viles, and K.P. Whyte. 2016. Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-944. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. https://www.fs.usda.gov/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr944.pdf. NRC (National Research Council). 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Committee on Analysis of Global Change Assessments, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/11868. Nyandiga, C., and A.L. Jose. 2015. A Practitioner’s Guide to Establishing a Community-Based Adaptation Programme: Recommendations Based on the UNDP-GEF Pilot Project. New York: United Nations Development Programme. https://sgp.undp.org/global-publications/562-a-practitioners-guide-to- establishing-a-community-based-adaptation-programme-recommendations- based-on-a-undp-gef-community-based-adaptation-pilot-project.html#. Nykvist, B., and J. von Heland. 2014. “Social-Ecological Memory as a Source of General and Specified Resilience.” Ecology and Society 19 (2): 47. doi:10.5751/ES-06167-190247. Ogilvie, A.E.J., and G. Pálsson. 2003. “Mood, Magic, and Metaphor: Allusions to Weather and Climate in the Sagas of Icelanders.” In Weather, Climate, Culture, edited by S. Strauss and B.S. Orlove, 251–74. New York: Berg. doi:10.4324/9781003103264-18. Olivares, F., C. Marchant, and J.T. Ibarra. 2022. “‘The Climate Itself Must Have Hidden Some Medicines’: Traditional Veterinary Medicine of Indigenous 179 and Non-indigenous Campesinos of the Southern Andes.” Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 18: 36. doi:10.1186/s13002-022-00534-8. Orianne, J.-F., and F. Eustache. 2023 “Collective Memory: Between Individual Systems of Consciousness and Social Systems.” Frontiers in Psychology 14: 1238272. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1238272. Orlove, B. 2002. Lines in the Water: Nature and Culture at Lake Titicaca. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. doi:10.2307/3985776. Orlove, B. 2003. “How People Name Seasons.” In Weather, Climate, Culture, edited by S. Strauss and B.S. Orlove, 121– 40. New York: Berg. doi:10.4324/9781003103264-10. Orlove, B.S., J.C.H. Chiang, and M.A. Cane. 2002. “Ethnoclimatology in the Andes.” American Scientist 90 (5): 428–35. https://www. americanscientist.org/article/ethnoclimatology-in-the-andes. Orlove, B., C. Roncoli, M. Kabugo, and A. Majugu. 2010. “Indigenous Climate Knowledge in Southern Uganda: The Multiple Components of a Dynamic Regional System.” Climatic Change 100: 243–65. doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9586-2. Paik, S., D.T.P. Le, L.T. Nhu, and B.F. Mills. 2020. “Salt-Tolerant Rice Variety Adoption in the Mekong Delta: Farmer Adaptation to Sea-Level Rise.” PLoS One 15 (3): e0229464. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0229464. Pandey, D.N., A.K. Gupta, and D.M. Anderson. 2003. “Rainwater Harvesting as an Adaptation to Climate Change.” Current Science 85 (1): 46–59. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/42763165. Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson, eds. 2007. “Cross-Chapter Case Study.” In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 180 Panel on Climate Change, 843–68. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg2/. Patel, D. 2021. “Sea Nomads No More: The Sama-Bajau and the Climate Crisis.” Journal of Foreign Affairs at Carolina Blog Archive, October 11, 2021. https://jfacunc.org/oceana-pacific/sea- nomads-no-more-the-sama-bajau-and-the-climate-crisis. Peeters, W., L. Diependaele, and S. Sterckx. 2019. “Moral Disengagement and the Motivational Gap in Climate Change.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 22 (1): 425–47. doi:10.1007/s10677-019-09995-5. Petzold, J., N. Andrews, J.D. Ford, C. Hedemann, and J.C. Postigo. 2020. “Indigenous Knowledge on Climate Change Adaptation: A Global Evidence Map of Academic Literature.” Environmental Research Letters 15 (11): 113007. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/abb330. Phuong, L.T.H., G.R. Biesbroek, and A.E.J. Wals. 2017. “The Interplay between Social Learning and Adaptive Capacity in Climate Change Adaptation: A Systematic Review.” NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 82 (2): 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.njas.2017.05.001. Pieroni, A., and I. Vandebroek. 2007. “Introduction.” In Traveling Cultures and Plants: The Ethnobiology and Ethnopharmacy of Human Migrations, edited by A. Pieroni and I. Vandebroek, 1–13. Oxford: Berghahn Books. doi:10.3167/9781845453732. Porcuna-Ferrer, A., T. Guillerminet, B. Klappoth, and A. Schlingmann. 2023. “Agricultural Adaptation to Multiple Stressors in a Climate Change Context: A Case Study in South-Eastern Senegal.” In Routledge Handbook of Climate Change Impacts on Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, edited by V. Reyes-García, 227–43. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003356837. Posey, D., J. Frechione, J. Eddins, L.F. Da Silva, D. Myers, D. Case, and P. Macbeath. 1984. “Ethnoecology as Applied 181 Anthropology in Amazonian Development.” Human Organization 43 (2): 95–107. doi:10.17730/humo.43.2.908kp82611x0w860. Postigo, J.C. 2014. “Perception and Resilience of Andean Populations Facing Climate Change.” Journal of Ethnobiology 34 (3): 383–400. doi:10.2993/0278-0771-34.3.383. Poudel, J.M. 2011. “Eyewitness Accounts on Climate Variability and the Responses: Perspectives from Farmers.” Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology 5: 171–90. doi:10.3126/dsaj.5i0.6362. Prasetyo, S.F. 2023. “Harmony of Nature and Culture: Symbolism and Environmental Education in Ritual.” Journal of Contemporary Rituals and Traditions 1(2): 67–76. doi:10.15575/jcrt.361. Pritz, A., W.N. Miller, S.J. Dyekjaer, D. Aronofsky, G. Uchida, L. Gillett, T. Uru-eu-wau-wau, C. Rojas Felice, K. Mihailova, and T. Suruí. 2022. The Territory. National Geographic Documentary Films. https://films.nationalgeographic.com/the-territory. Pulhin, J.N., F. Pulhin, and D. Gevaña. 2017. “Community-Based Mangrove Management in the Philippines: Experience and Challenges in the Context of Changing Climate.” In Participatory Mangrove Management in a Changing Climate: Perspectives from the Asia-Pacific, edited by R. DasGupta and R. Shaw, 247–62. Tokyo: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-4-431-56481-2_16. Quintanilla, M., A. Guzmán León, and C. Josse. 2022. La Amazonia a contrarreloj: un diagnóstico regional sobre dónde y cómo proteger el 80% al 2025 [The Amazon against the Clock: A Regional Diagnosis on Where and How to Protect 80% by 2025]. Red Amazónica de Información Socioambiental Georreferenciada (RAISG). https://amazonia80x2025.earth/. Rasmussen, K., W. May, T. Birk, M. Mataki, O. Mertz, and D. Yee. 2009. “Climate Change on Three Polynesian Outliers in the Solomon Islands: 182 Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation.” Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 109 (1): 1–13. doi:10.1080/00167223.2009.10649592. Rassweiler, A., M. Lauer, S.E. Lester, S.J. Holbrook, R.J. Schmitt, R.M. Moussa, K.S. Munsterman, H.S. Lenihan, A.J. Brooks, J. Wencélius, and J. Claudet. 2020. “Perceptions and Responses of Pacific Island Fishers to Changing Coral Reefs.” Ambio 49 (1): 130–43. doi:10.1007/s13280-019-01154-5. Raygorodetsky, G. 2011. Why Traditional Knowledge Holds the Key to Climate Change. New York: United Nations University. https://waccglobal. org/why-traditional-knowledge-holds-the-key-to-climate-change/. Rees, W.G., F.M. Stammler, F.S. Danks, and P. Vitebsky. 2008. “Vulnerability of European Reindeer Husbandry to Global Change.” Climate Change 87 (1): 199–217. doi:10.1007/s10584-007-9345-1. Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. 1976. “Cosmology as Ecological Analysis: A View from the Rain Forest.” Man 11 (3): 307–18. Reichman, D.R. 2022. “Putting Climate-Induced Migration in Context: The Case of Honduran Migration to the USA.” Regional Environmental Change 22 (3): 91. doi:10.1007/s10113-022-01946-8. Reid, W., F. Berkes, T.J. Wilbanks, and D. Capistrano, eds. 2006. Bridging Scales and Knowledge Systems. Washington, DC: Island Press. ISBN:9781597268400. Reo, N.J., S.M. Topkok, N. Kanayurakm, J.N. Stanford, D.A. Peterson, and L.J. Whaley. 2019. “Environmental Change and Sustainability of Indigenous Languages in Northern Alaska.” Arctic 72 (3): 215–28. doi:10.14430/arctic68655. Reyes-García, V., S. Álvarez-Fernández, P. Benyei, D. García-del-Amo, A.B. Junqueira, V. Labeyrie, X. Li, V. Porcher, A. Porcuna-Ferrer, A. Schlingmann, and R. Soleymani. 2023. “Local Indicators of Climate Change 183 Impacts Described by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities: Study Protocol.” PLoS One 18 (1): e0279847. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0279847. Reyes-García, V., A. Fernández-Llamazares, M. Guèze, A. Garcés, M. Mallo, M. Vila-Gómez, and M. Vilaseca. 2016. “Local Indicators of Climate Change: The Potential Contribution of Local Knowledge to Climate Research.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Review of Climate Change 7 (1): 109–24. doi:10.1002/wcc.374. Reyes-García, V., D. García-del-Amo, P. Benyei, Á. Fernández- Llamazares, K. Gravani, A.B. Junqueira, V. Labeyrie, X. Li, D.M.S. Matias, A. McAlvay, P. Graham Mortyn, A. Porcuna-Ferrer, A. Schlingmann, and R. Soleymani-Fard. 2019. “A Collaborative Approach to Bring Insights from Local Observations of Climate Change Impacts into Global Climate Change Research.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 39: 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2019.04.007. Reyes-García, V., M. Guèze, I. Díaz-Reviriego, R. Duda, A. Fernández- Llamazares, S. Gallois, L. Napitupulu, M. Orta-Martínez, and A. Pyhälä. 2016. “The Adaptive Nature of Culture: A Cross-cultural Analysis of the Returns of Local Environmental Knowledge in Three Indigenous Societies.” Current Anthropology 57 (6): 761–84. doi:10.1086/689307. Reyes-García, V., M. Guèze, A.N. Luz, J. Paneque-Gálvez, M.J. Macía, M. Orta-Martínez, J. Pino, and X. Rubio-Campillo. 2013. “Evidence of Traditional Knowledge Loss among a Contemporary Indigenous Society.” Evolution and Human Behavior 34 (4): 249–57. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.03.002. Reyes-Garcia, V., V. Vadez, T. Huanca, W.R. Leonard, and T. McDade. 2007. “Economic Development and Local Ecological Knowledge: A Deadlock? Quantitative Research from a Native Amazonian Society.” Human Ecology 35 (3): 371–7. doi:10.1007/s10745-006-9069-2. Rhoades, R.E., X. Zapata Ríos, and J. Aragundy Ochoa. 2008. “Mama Cotacachi: History, Local Perceptions, and Social Impacts of Climate Change and Glacier Retreat in the Ecuadorian Andes.” 184 In Darkening Peaks: Glacier Retreat, Science and Society, edited by B. Orlove, E. Wiegandt, and B. Luckman, 216–25. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley Press. ISBN: 9780520253056. Riedlinger, D., and F. Berkes. 2001. “Contributions of Traditional Knowledge to Understanding Climate Change in the Canadian Arctic.” Polar Record 37 (203): 315–28. doi:10.1017/S0032247400017058. Ripple, W.J., C. Wolf, T.M. Newsome, M. Galetti, M. Alamgir, E. Crist, M.I. Mahmoud, and W.F. Laurance. 2017. “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice.” Bioscience 67 (12): 1026–8. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix125. Rocha, J.M. 2005. “Measuring Traditional Agro-ecological Knowledge: An Example from Peasants in the Peruvian Andes.” Field Methods 17 (4): 356–72. doi:10.1177/1525822X05275380. Rodd, R. 2008. “Märipa: To Know Everything, The Experience of Power as Knowledge Derived from the Integrative Mode of Consciousness.” Anthropology of Consciousness 14 (2): 60–88. doi:10.1525/ac.2003.14.2.60. Roncoli, C. 2006. “Ethnographic and Participatory Approaches to Research on Responses to Climate Predictions.” Climate Research 33 (1): 81–99. doi:10.3354/cr033081. Roncoli, C., K. Ingram, and P. Kirshen. 2002. “Reading the Rains: Local Knowledge and Rainfall Forecasting in Burkina Faso.” Society and Natural Resources 15 (5): 409–27. doi:10.1080/08941920252866774. Ross, N. 2002. “Cognitive Aspects of Intergenerational Change: Mental Models, Cultural Change, and Environmental Behavior among the Lacandon Maya of Southern Mexico.” Human Organization 61 (2): 125–38. doi:10.17730/humo.61.2.9bhqghxvpfh2qebc. Roy, E.A. 2019. “‘One Day We’ll Disappear’: Tuvalu’s Sinking Islands.” The Guardian, May 16, 2019. https://www.theguardian. 185 com/global-development/2019/may/16/one-day-disappear- tuvalu-sinking-islands-rising-seas-climate-change. Rozzi, R., R. Álvarez, V. Castro, D. Núñez, J. Ojeda, A. Tauro, and F. Massardo. 2023. “Biocultural Calendars across Four Ethnolinguistic Communities in Southwestern South America.” GeoHealth 7 (4): e2022GH000623. doi:10.1029/2022GH000623. Rudiak-Gould, P. 2011. “Climate Change and Anthropology: The Importance of Reception Studies.” Anthropology Today 27 (2): 9–12. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8322.2011.00795.x. Sahu, M., B. Chattopadhyay, R. Das, and S. Chaturvedi. 2023. “Measuring Impact of Climate Change on Indigenous Health in the Background of Multiple Disadvantages: A Scoping Review for Equitable Public Health Policy Formulation.” Journal of Prevention 44 (4): 421–56. doi:10.1007/s10935-022-00718-8. Saitabau, H.O. 2014. Impacts of Climate Change on the Livelihoods of Loita Maasai Pastoral Community and Related Indigenous Knowledge on Adaptation and Mitigation. Nairobi: Directorate of Research and Collections, National Museums of Kenya. https://www.ethnobiology.net/ wp-content/uploads/From-the-Field_Henry_ISE-Paper-2014.pdf. Salick, J., and A. Byg. 2007. Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change. Report of the Symposium on Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change. Oxford, United Kingdom: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. https://library.uniteddiversity.coop/ Climate_Change/Indigenous_Peoples_and_Climate_Change.pdf. Salick, J., and N. Ross. 2009. “Traditional Peoples and Climate Change: Introduction.” Global Environmental Change 19 (2): 137–9. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.01.004. 186 Samsuddin, N.S., H.S. Salleh, W.I.A.W. Talaat, and J. Saputra. 2024. “The Role of Traditional Knowledge Due to Climate Change Adaptation and Economic Wellbeing in Island Communities: A Case Study of Terengganu, Malaysia.” Sustainability 16 (10): 4218. doi:10.3390/su16104218. Samuel, S. 2019. “Witsaja iki, or the Good Life in Ecuadorian Amazonia: Knowledge Co-production for Climate Resilience.” In Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change: Emerging Research on Traditional Knowledge and Livelihoods, edited by the International Labour Organization, 51–64. Geneva: ILO and School of Geography and the Environment, Oxford University. https://ccafs.cgiar.org/resources/publications/witsaja- iki-or-good-life-ecuadorian-amazonia-knowledge-co-production. Savo, V., D. Lepofsky, J.P. Benner, K.E. Kohfeld, J. Bailey, and K. Lertzman. 2016. “Observations of Climate Change among Subsistence-Oriented Communities around the World.” Nature Climate Change 6 (5): 462–73. doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2958. Saylor, C.R., K.A. Alsharif, and H. Torres. 2017. “The Importance of Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Agroecological Systems in Peru.” International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management 13 (1): 150–161. doi:10.1080/21513732.2017.1285814. Schipper, E.L.F., and A. Mukheri. 2024. “Misguided Negative Adaptation Narratives Are Hurting the Poor.” Science 386 (6722): 624–6. doi:10.1126/science.adq7821. Schwartzstein, P. 2019. “Indigenous Farming Practices Failing as Climate Change Disrupts Seasons.” National Geographic, October 14, 2019. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/ climate-change-killing-thousands-of-years-indigenous-wisdom. Seena, K. 2019. “Traditional Knowledge Key in Achieving Africa’s Climate Goals.” IUCN-CEESP News, January 22, 2019. https://iucn.org/ 187 news/commission-environmental-economic-and-social-policy/201901/ traditional-knowledge-key-achieving-africas-climate-goals. SEEP (Small Enterprise Education and Promotion Network). 2023. Climate Displacement and Non-economic Loss in Fiji: A Briefing. Climate Tok supported by UUSC. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/ Issues/CulturalRights/Call_ClimateChange/Makereta-waqavonovono.pdf. Selibas, D. 2024. “Signs of Science.” Science 384 (6701): 1166–9. doi:10.1126/science.adr0022. Shaffer, J. 2014. “Making Sense of Local Climate Change in Rural Tanzania through Knowledge Co-Production.” Journal of Ethnobiology 34 (3): 315–34. doi:10.2993/0278-0771-34.3.315. Shanley, P., and N.A. Rosa. 2004. “Eroding Knowledge: An Ethnobotanical Inventory in Eastern Amazonia’s Logging Frontier.” Economic Botany 58 (2): 135–60. doi:10.1663/0013-0001(2004)058[0135:EKAEII]2.0.CO;2. Sharifian, A., A. Fernández-Llamazares, H.T. Wario, Z. Molnár, and M. Cabeza. 2022. “Dynamics of Pastoral Traditional Ecological Knowledge: A Global State-of-the-Art Review.” Ecology and Society 27 (1): 14. doi:10.5751/ES-12918-270114. Shawoo, Z., and T.F. Thornton. 2018. “The UN Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples’ Platform: A Traditional Ecological Knowledge-Based Evaluation.” WIREs Climate Change 2019; 10 (3): e575. doi:10.1002/wcc.575. Shea, M.M., and T.F. Thornton. 2019. “Tracing Country Commitment to Indigenous Peoples in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.” Global Environmental Change 58 (2): 101973. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101973. Shenton, J., N. Ross, M. Kohut, and S. Waxman. 2011. “Maya Folk Botany and Knowledge Devolution: Modernization and Intra-community 188 Variability in the Acquisition of Folkbotanical Knowledge.” Ethos 39 (3): 349–67. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1352.2011.01197.x. SIDA (Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency). 2017. The Relationship between Climate Change and Violent Conflict. Green Tool Box/Peace and Security Tool Box: Working Paper. https://cdn.sida.se/app/ uploads/2020/12/01105650/working-paper-climate-change-and-conflict.pdf. Sillitoe, P. 2007. “Local Science vs. Global Science: An Overview.” In Local Science vs. Global Science: Approaches to Indigenous Knowledge in International Development, edited by P. Sillitoe, 1–22. New York: Berghahn Books. doi:10.3167/9781845450144. Silva, A.J.R., L.H.C. Andrade, and U.P. Albuquerque. 2006. “Revising the Cultural Significance Index: The Case of the Fulni-ô in Northeastern Brazil.” Field Methods 18 (1): 98–108. doi:10.1177/1525822X05278025. Sobrevila, C. 2008. The Role of Indigenous Peoples in Biodiversity Conservation: The Natural but Often Forgotten Partners. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/995271468177530126/The-role-of-indigenous-peoples-in- biodiversity-conservation-the-natural-but-often-forgotten-partners. SRC (Stockholm Research Centre). 2016. “Insight Note 5: Social- Ecological Traps.” in Research Insights. Stockholm: Stockholm University. https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/ insights/2016-11-16-insight-5-social-ecological-traps.html. Stevens, C., R. Winterbottom, J. Springer, and K. Reytar. 2014. Securing Rights, Combating Climate Change: How Strengthening Community Forest Rights Mitigates Climate Change. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/initiatives/securing-rights. 189 Strauss, S. 2017. “Ethnoclimatology.” In: International Encyclopedia of Anthropology, edited by H. Callan. Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea2305. Survival International. 2023. The Ocean Is Our Universe. https:// www.survivalinternational.org/galleries/moken-sea-gypsies. Tang, R., and M.C. Gavin. 2016. “A Classification of Threats to Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Conservation Responses.” Conservation and Society 14 (1): 57–70. doi:10.4103/0972-4923.182799. Tareau, M.-A., A. Greene, M. Palisse, and G. Odonne. 2021. “Migrant Pharmacopoeias: An Ethnobotanical Survey of Four Caribbean Communities in Amazonia (French Guiana).” Economic Botany 76 (2): 176–88. doi:10.1007/s12231-021-09529-0. Taylor, J.E., C. Poleacovschi, and M.A. Perez. 2023. “Climate Change Adaptation Trends among Indigenous Peoples: A Systematic Review of the Empirical Research Focus over the Last 2 Decades.” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 28: 29. doi:10.1007/s11027-023-10063-8. TCRP (The Climate Reality Project). 2022. Extreme Weather and the Climate Crisis: What You Need to Know. https://www. climaterealityproject.org/get/extreme-weather-and-climate- change?ref=5236d434-ff4d-41dc-ae7c-1c8ff3717ac4. Tengö, M., E.S. Brondízio, T. Elmqvist, P. Malmer, and M. Spierenburg. 2014. “Connecting Diverse Knowledge Systems for Enhanced Ecosystem Governance: The Multiple Evidence Base Approach.” Ambio 43 (5): 579–91. doi:10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3. Toledo, V.M. 2001. “Biodiversity and Indigenous Peoples.” In Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, Vol. 3, edited by S.A. Levin, 452–63. New York: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00299-9. 190 Tompkins, E.L., L. Hurlston, and W. Poortinga. 2009. “Foreignness as a Constraint on Learning: The Impact of Migrants on Disaster Resilience in Small Islands.” Environmental Hazards 8 (4): 263–77. doi:10.3763/ehaz.2009.0018. Torres, J., and C. Frías. 2012. Ella Policy Brief: How Traditional Knowledge and Technologies Are Contributing to Climate Change Adaptation in Latin America’s Mountains. Lima, Peru: Ella, Practical Action Consulting. https://www.gov.uk/research-for-development-outputs/ella-policy- brief-how-traditional-knowledge-and-technologies-are-contributing- to-climate-change-adaptation-in-latin-america-s-mountains. Tschakert, P., J. Barnett, N. Ellis, C. Lawrence, N. Tuana, M. New, C. Elrick-Barr, R. Pandit, and D. Pannell. 2017. “Climate Change and Loss, As If People Mattered: Values, Places, and Experiences.” WIREs Climate Change 8 (5): e476. doi:10.1002/wcc.476. Tschakert, P., and K. Dietrich. 2010. “Anticipatory Learning for Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience.” Ecology and Society 15 (2): 11. doi:10.5751/ES-03335-150211. Tsioumanis, A. 2020. Climate Change Policy and the Need for Paradigm Shift. Thessaloniki, Greece: Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung. https://gr.boell.org/ en/2020/02/05/climate-change-policy-and-need-paradigm-shift. Ullmann, A.L., and K.-A.S. Kassam. 2022. “Has the Adaptation-Mitigation Binary Outlived Its Value? Indigenous Ways of Knowing Present an Alternative.” Community Science 1 (2): e2022CSJ000008. doi:10.1029/2022CSJ000008. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). 2018. Climate Policy Brief 1: Knowing Our Changing Climate in Africa. Local and Indigenous Knowledge Systems Programme (LINKS). https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000366827. UNESCO–IESALC (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization – International Institute for Higher Education in Latin America 191 and the Caribbean). 2022. A Decade to Prevent the Disappearance of 3,000 Languages. https://www.iesalc.unesco.org/en/2022/02/21/a- decade-to-prevent-the-disappearance-of-3000-languages/. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 2010. “Decision 1/CP.16. The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention.” In Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its Sixteenth Session, Held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010. Addendum, Part Two: Action Taken by the Conference of the Parties at Its Sixteenth Session. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 2015. Paris Agreement. https://unfccc. int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf. University of Oregon. 2024. Tribal Climate Change Project. https://tribalclimate.uoregon.edu/. UNPFII (United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues). 2007. Urban Indigenous Peoples and Migration: Challenges and Opportunities. Backgrounder: Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous Voices. https://www. un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/6_session_factsheet2.pdf. UNPFII (United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues). 2008. Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples. Backgrounder: Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous Voices. https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/ documents/backgrounder%20climate%20change_FINAL.pdf. UNPFII (United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues). 2019a. Backgrounder: Indigenous Languages. https://www.un.org/esa/ socdev/unpfii/documents/2016/Docs-updates/backgrounderL2.pdf. UNPFII (United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues). 2019b. Backgrounder: Traditional Knowledge. https://www.un.org/ 192 development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/ sites/19/2019/04/Traditional-Knowledge-backgrounder-FINAL.pdf. UNPFII (United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues). 2022. Who Are Indigenous Peoples? https://www.un.org/esa/ socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf. Upton, J. 2015. “Ancient Sea Rise Tale Told Accurately for 10,000 Years.” Scientific American, January 26, 2015. https://www.scientificamerican. com/article/ancient-sea-rise-tale-told-accurately-for-10-000-years/. Valdivia, C., A. Seth, J.L. Gilles, M. García, E. Jiménez, J. Cusicanqui, F. Nava, and E. Yucra. 2010. “Adapting to Climate Change in Andean Ecosystems: Landscapes, Capitals, and Perceptions Shaping Rural Livelihood Strategies and Linking Knowledge Systems.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100 (4): 818–34. doi:10.1080/00045608.2010.500198. Vandebroek, I., V. Reyes-García, U.P. de Albuquerque, R. Bussman, and A. Pieroni. 2011. “Local Knowledge: Who Cares?” Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 7: 35. doi:10.1186/1746-4269-7-35. van der Werf, G.R., D.C. Morton, R.S. DeFries, J.G.J. Olivier, P.S. Kasibhatla, R.B. Jackson, G.J. Collatz, and J.T. Randerson. 2009. “CO2 Emissions from Forest Loss.” Nature Geoscience 2: 737–8. doi:10.1038/ngeo671. Veit, P. 2021. 9 Facts about Community Land and Climate Mitigation. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://landportal.org/es/node/113939. Veit, P., D. Gibbs, and K. Reytar. 2023. Indigenous Forests Are Some of the Amazon’s Last Carbon Sinks. World Resources Institute. https:// www.wri.org/insights/amazon-carbon-sink-indigenous-forests. Vinyeta, K., and K. Lynn. 2013. Exploring the Role of Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Climate Change Initiatives. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-879. Portland, Oregon: United States 193 Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. https://www.fs.usda.gov/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr879.pdf. Voeks, R.A. 2009. “Traditions in Transition: African Diaspora Ethnobotany in Lowland South America.” In Mobility and Migration in Indigenous Amazonia: Contemporary Ethnoecological Perspectives, edited by M.N. Alexiades, 275–94. Environmental Anthropology and Ethnobiology Series, Volume 11. New York: Berghahn Books. doi:10.1515/9781845459079-015. Voeks, R.A., and A. Leony. 2004. “Forgetting the Forest: Assessing Medicinal Plant Erosion in Eastern Brazil.” Economic Botany 58 (Suppl.): S294–306. doi:10.1663/0013-0001(2004)58[S294:FTFAMP]2.0.CO;2. Vogt, N., M. Pinedo-Vasquez, E.S. Brondízio, F. Rabelo, K. Fernandez, O. Almeida, S. Riveiro, P. Deadman, and Y. Dou. 2016. “Local Ecological Knowledge and Incremental Adaptation to Changing Flood Patterns in the Amazon Delta.” Sustainability Science 11 (4): 611–23. doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0352-2. Wali, A., D. Alvira, P. Tallman, A. Ravikumar. and M.O. Macedo. 2017. “A New Approach to Conservation: Using Community Empowerment for Sustainable Well-being.” Ecology and Society 22 (4): 6. doi:10.5751/ES-09598-220406. Walker, W.S., S.R. Gorelik, A. Baccini, J.L. Aragon-Osejo, C. Josse, C. Meyer, M.N. Macedo, C. Augusto, S. Rios, T. Katan, A. Almeida de Souza, S. Cuellar, A. Llanos, I. Zager, G. Díaz Mirabal, K.K. Solvik, M.K. Farina, P. Moutinho, and S. Schwartzman. 2020. “The Role of Forest Conversion, Degradation, and Disturbance in the Carbon Dynamics of Amazon Indigenous Territories and Protected Areas.” PNAS 117 (6): 3015–25. doi:10.1073/pnas.1913321117. Webber, S. 2019. “Putting Climate Services in Contexts: Advancing Multi-disciplinary Understandings: Introduction to the Special Issue.” Climatic Change 157 (1): 1–8. doi:10.1007/s10584-019-02600-9. 194 WEF (World Economic Forum). 2024. The Global Risks Report 2024: 19th Edition. Geneva: WEF. https://www3.weforum. org/docs/WEF_The_Global_Risks_Report_2024.pdf. Wehi, P., M.P. Cox, T. Roa, and H. Whaanga. 2018. “Human Perceptions of Megafaunal Extinction Events Revealed by Linguistic Analysis of Indigenous Oral Traditions.” Human Ecology 46 (13): 461–70. doi:10.1007/s10745-018-0004-0. Weir, T., L. Dovey, and D. Orcherton. 2016. “Social and Cultural Issues Raised by Climate Change in Pacific Island Countries: An Overview.” Regional Environmental Change 17 (4): 1017–28. doi:10.1007/s10113-016-1012-5. West, C.T., and M. Vásquez-León. 2003. “Testing Farmer’s Perceptions of Climate Variability: A Case Study from the Sulphur Springs Valley, Arizona.” In Weather, Climate, Culture, edited by S. Strauss and B.S. Orlove, 233–50. Oxford: Berg. doi:10.4324/9781003103264-17. Whyte, K.P. 2013. “On the Role of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as a Collaborative Concept: A Philosophical Study.” Ecological Processes 2: 7. doi:10.1186/2192-1709-2-7. Widlock, T. 2008. “Landscape Unbounded: Space, Place, and Orientation in ≠Akhoe Hai//om and Beyond.” Language Sciences 30 (2): 362–80. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2006.12.002. Wilbert, W. 1995. “Conceptos etnoecológicos Warao.” In Scientia Guaianae 5: Naturaleza y Ecologia Humana en el Neotrópico [Nature and Human Ecology in the Neotropics], edited by H.D. Heinen, J.J. San Jose and H. Caballero Arias, 335–70. ISBN: 978-9800726259. Williams, C., A. Fenton, and S. Huq. 2015. “Knowledge and Adaptive Capacity.” Nature Climate Change 5 (2): 82–3. doi:10.1038/nclimate2476. 195 Williams, N., and G. Baines, eds. 1993. Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Wisdom for Sustainable Development. Canberra: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, National Australian University. ISBN:9780867404142. WMO (World Meteorological Organization). 2024. State of the Global Climate 2023. WMO No. 1347. Geneva: WMO. https://library.wmo.int/ viewer/68835/?offset=#page=3&viewer=picture&o=bookmark&n=0&q=. Wood, S.A., A.S. Jina, M. Jain, P. Kristjanson, and R.S. DeFries. 2014. “Smallholder Farmer Cropping Decisions Related to Climate Variability across Multiple Regions.” Global Environmental Change 25: 163–72. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.011. Woodward, E., and P.M. McTaggart. 2019. “Co-developing Indigenous Seasonal Calendars to Support ‘Healthy Country, Healthy People’ Outcomes.” Global Health Promotion 26 (Suppl. 3): 26–34. doi:10.1177/1757975919832241. World Bank. 2015. Indigenous Latin America in the Twenty- First Century. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://documents1. worldbank.org/curated/en/145891467991974540/pdf/Indigenous- Latin-America-in-the-twenty-first-century-the-first-decade.pdf. World Bank. 2023. Indigenous Peoples. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/indigenouspeoples#1. Wrathall, D.J., J. Bury, M. Carey, B. Mark, J. McKenzie, K. Young, M. Baraer, A. French, and C. Rampini. 2014. “Migration amidst Climate Rigidity Traps: Resource Politics and Social-Ecological Possibilism in Honduras and Peru.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 104 (2): 292–304. doi:10.1080/00045608.2013.873326. WRI (World Resources Institute). 2024. Global Forest Review, Update 8. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://research.wri.org/gfr/global-forest-review. 196 WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature). 2021. Indigenous Contributions to NDCS: How Increasing Recognition Can Raise Paris Agreement Ambition and Drive Implementation. Gland, Switzerland: WWF. https://wwfint.awsassets.panda. org/downloads/wwf_policy_brief_indigenous_contributions_to_ndcs.pdf. WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature), United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Small Grants Programme of Institute for Climate Change and Adaptation Global Support Initiative, LandMark Global Platform of Indigenous and Community Lands, The Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, Wildlife Conservation Society, United Nations Development Programme Equator Prize, International Land Coalition Secretariat, Conservation Matters LLC, and International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2021. The State of Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ Lands and Territories: A Technical Review of the State of Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ Lands, Their Contributions to Global Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Services, the Pressures They Face, and Recommendations for Actions. Gland, Switzerland: WWF. https://wwflac.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/report_the_state_of_the_ indigenous_peoples_and_local_communities_lands_and_territories_1.pdf. Yang, H., S. Ranjitkar, D. Zhai, M. Zhong, S.D. Goldberg, M.A. Salim, Z. Wang, Y. Jiang, and J. Xu. 2019. “Role of Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Seasonal Calendars in the Context of Climate Change: A Case Study from China.” Sustainability 11 (12): 3243. doi:10.3390/su11123243. Yang, L., M.C. Liu, F. Lun, Z. Yuan, Y.X. Zhang, and Q.W. Min. 2018. “Livelihood Assets and Strategies among Rural Households: Comparative Analysis of Rice and Dryland Terrace Systems in China.” Sustainability 10 (7): 2525. doi:10.3390/su10072525. Zannini, P., F. Frascaroli, J. Nascimbene, A. Persico, J.M. Halley, K. Stara, G. Midolo, and A. Chiarucci. 2021. “Sacred Natural Sites and Biodiversity Conservation: A Systematic Review.” Biodiversity and Conservation 30 (6407): 3747–62. doi:10.1007/s10531-021-02296-3. 197 Zarger R.K., and J.R. Stepp. 2004. “Persistence of Botanical Knowledge among Tzeltal Maya Children.” Current Anthropology 45 (3): 413–8. doi:10.1086/420908. Zent, E., and S. Zent. 2022. “Love Sustains Life: Jkyo Jkwainï and Allied Strategies in Caring for the Earth.” Journal of Ethnobiology 41 (2): 86–104. doi:10.2993/0278-0771-42.1.86. Zent, E., S. Zent, y comunidad del Páramo Los Conejos, Mérida. 2024. Entre el cielo y la montaña: ecogonía en el páramo venezolano [Between the Sky and the Mountain: Ecogony in the Venezuelan Moorland]. Altos de Pipe: Ediciones IVIC. ISBN:978-980-261-213-0. Zent, S. 1999. “The Quandary of Conserving Ethnobotanical Knowledge: A Piaroa Example.” In Ethnoecology: Knowledge, Resources, Rights, edited by T. Gragson and B. Blount, 90– 124. University of Georgia Press. ISBN:9780820320670. Zent, S. 2001. “Acculturation and Ethnobotanical Knowledge Loss among the Piaroa of Venezuela: Demonstration of a Quantitative Method for the Empirical Study of TEK Change.” In On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge, and the Environment, edited by L. Maffi, 190–211. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. ISBN:1-56098-905-X. Zent, S. 2005. “Productos forestales no-madereros: hacia una estrategia para el desarrollo de la Amazonía Venezolana” [Non-Timber Forest Products: Towards a Strategy for the Development of the Venezuelan Amazon]. In Desarrollo sustentable del bosque húmedo tropical: características, ecología y uso [Sustainable Development of Tropical Rainforests: Characteristics, Ecology and Use], edited by L. Hernández and N. Valero, 133–77. Pto. Ordáz: Programa BioGuayana UNEG, Fundacite Guayana. ISBN:980-6864-00-X. Zent, S. 2009. “Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and Biocultural Diversity: A Close-up Look at Linkages, Delearning Trends, and Changing Patterns of Transmission.” In Learning and Knowing in Indigenous 198 Societies Today, edited by P. Bates, M. Chiba, S. Kube, and D. Nakashima, 39–58. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000180754. Zent, S. 2013. “Processual Perspectives on Traditional Environmental Knowledge: Continuity, Erosion, Transformation, Innovation.” In Understanding Cultural Transmission in Anthropology: A Critical Synthesis, edited by R.K. Ellen, S.J. Lycett, and S.E. Johns, 213–65. Methodology and History in Anthropology Series, Vol. 26. Oxford, United Kingdom: Berghahn Books. doi:10.1515/9780857459947-8. Zent, S., and G. Freire. 2011. “La economía política de la salud, la enfermedad y la cura entre los Piaroa” [The Political Economy of Health, Illness and Healing among the Piaroa]. In Perspectivas de Salud Indígena: Cosmovisión, Enfermedad y Políticas Públicas [Indigenous Health Perspectives: Worldview, Disease and Public Policies], edited by G. Freire, 327–83. Quito: Abya Yala. ISBN:978-9978-22-952-1. Zent, S., and L. Maffi. 2009. Final Report on Indicator No. 2: Vitality Index for Traditional Ecological Knowledge (VITEK). Terralingua Working Document for the Research Project Global Indicators of the Status and Trends of Linguistic Diversity and Traditional Knowledge. Zent, S., and E. Zent. 2023. “Collaborative Action Research with the Jotï in Venezuela: Experiences in Autoethnography and TEK Vitality Assessment.” In Field Environmental Philosophy: Education for Biocultural Conservation, edited by R. Rozzi, A. Tauro, T. Wright, N. Avriel-Avni, and R.H. May Jr., 229–45. Springer International. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-23368-5_24. Zuma-Netshiukhwi, G., K. Stigter, and S. Walker. 2013. “Use of Traditional Weather/Climate Knowledge by Farmers in the South- Western Free State of South Africa: Agrometeorological Learning by Scientists.” Atmosphere 4 (4): 383–410. doi:10.3390/atmos4040383. 199 200