traditional ecological knowledge and practice and red … · department of ecology and evolutionary...
TRANSCRIPT
The Social Science for Conservation
Fellowship Programme
Working Paper Series
Pamela Wong Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology,
University of Toronto and Department of Natural History, Royal Ontario Museum [email protected]
Traditional Ecological Knowledge and
Practice and Red List Assessments: Guidelines and Considerations for Integration
Working Paper 3 (July 2016)
1
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Jill Belsky, Nathan Bennett, and Ken Lindeman who provided
critical review to assist in the development of this paper. The author would also like to thank
Alison Greenberg, Gernot Brodnig, Rosie Cooney, and Dena Cator for assistance and feedback
in developing this work and Robert Murphy and Deborah McGregor for their advice and support.
About the SSCFP Working Papers
SSCFP’s Working Paper Series presents research on the unique perspectives, methodologies and
approaches that the social sciences can bring to understanding and addressing the underlying and
proximate drivers of habitat destruction and overexploitation of species in The Anthropocene.
The goal of the Working Paper Series is to share “work in progress”. Working papers are
unpublished manuscripts and should not be cited without author permission. The authors of the
papers are solely responsible for the content of their contributions and may use the citation
standards of their home country. The SSCFP Working Papers can be found at
https://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/science_knowledge/culture_of_science_and_kno
wledge/social_science_for_conservation_fellowship_programme/. Please also visit this website
to learn more about IUCN’s mission and activities.
If you should have any questions regarding the SSCFP or the Working Paper Series, please
contact Dr. Gernot Brodnig, Director, IUCN’s Global Economics and Social Science Programme
at [email protected] or Alison Greenberg, Programme Officer, IUCN, at
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
1630 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20009
2
Abstract
Species conservation stands to benefit greatly from including traditional ecological knowledge and
practice (TEKP), especially in areas where scientific data are lacking. TEKP holders are local
resource users and/or indigenous people who interact intimately with a resource. TEKP includes
important historical information on local population dynamics; socioeconomic implications that
are accumulated over time, continuously updated, and reinforced with practice; and user buy-in to
management processes. IUCN’s Red List Assessments, in particular, could benefit from including
TEKP. For some species, TEKP holders might be the only source of ecological and biological
information as well as important socio-ecological factors impacting species ecology that are not
detectable through natural sciences alone. However, formal guidelines and procedures on how to
incorporate TEKP in a meaningful way are lacking. Drawing from examples of TEKP inclusion
in polar bear conservation, monitoring medicinal plant use, and fisheries management, we suggest
general guidelines and considerations for including TEKP in Red List assessments noting that
these will be applicable to any conservation and/or management assessment process.
3
Table of contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………. 2
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………4
Traditional and ecological knowledge and practice (TEKP) …………………………….4
The role of TEKP in local communities ………………………………………………... 5
TEKP for conservation …………………………………………………………………...5
Benefits of including TEKP in Red List assessments …………………………………………6
Methods for engaging knowledge holders and learning TEKP………………….………..…6
Flexibility in assessment criteria and governance ……………………………………..……..7
Anticipated challenges for TEKP inclusion in Red List assessments …………………….8
Inuit TEKP of polar bears in Nunavut, Canada ……………………………………………….9
TEKP in conservation of medicinal plants in Bangladesh …………………………………. 10
TEKP in fisheries and implications for management ……………………………………….. 12
General guidelines for TEKP integration into Red List assessments …………………….14
References ……………………………………………………………………………..…17
4
Introduction
Conservation assessments and their applications are typically driven by information gathered
through scientific methods and protocols, which, though objective and reliable, do not fully
incorporate human dimensions. Stakeholders often demand that management decisions are
rooted in rigorous objective (e.g., natural) sciences, especially in controversial scenarios
(Giardina et al 2007). In spite of this, conservation programs that exclude multiple (cultural)
knowledge systems continue to inadequately understand and address species conservation within
the context of the entire ecosystem, leading to debates over which knowledge or “history” is
more important in management (Berkes 2012). Successful conservation requires species
management that supports human wellbeing and sustainable economies (Evans and Klinger
2008, Berkes 2012). Failure to incorporate sociocultural risks associated with conservation
action can lead to social inequalities (Carothers et al 2010), reduce resilience and adaptive
capacity of affected communities (Gregory and Trousdale 2009), and weaken social and
knowledge systems that mitigate ecological risks (Evans and Klinger 2008).
Recognizing that conventional natural sciences alone cannot address the social and political
forces that shape management action in conservation (Giardina et al 2007, Cabin 2007), the
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has initiated efforts to incorporate
traditional ecological knowledge and practice (TEKP) into its Red List of Threatened Species
assessments.
Traditional and ecological knowledge and practice (TEKP)
TEKP has come to be known by such terms as: indigenous knowledge, traditional knowledge
and wisdom, local traditional knowledge, traditional ecological knowledge, as well as a
combination of these terms (Huntington et al 2004). TEKP holders are local resource users
and/or indigenous people who interact intimately with a resource (e.g., a species) and levels of
ecological experience and knowledge differ across individuals within these communities (e.g.,
not everyone in a local community has relevant TEKP). Here, I define TEKP as an experiential
knowledge system and practice in that it is continuously gathered and updated through extensive
interactions of knowledge holders with the environment and its species (Huntington 2000), and
varies according to individual and community-level circumstances and needs (Huntington et al
2004, Pearce et al 2009). As TEKP is passed on from generation to generation (Berkes 2000,
Berkes et al 2007) and linked to the high consequences of failure (e.g., sickness, suffering, and/or
death), TEKP is precisely shaped through trial and error, where unsuccessful techniques are
modified or fade out with memory (Alessa et al 2015). Unlike most deductive scientific
approaches, new observations are analyzed and compared with existing bodies of knowledge to
make subsequent decisions; for example, whether or not to go hunting at particular times and/or
in certain areas (Alessa et al 2015). In this vein, TEKP is a dynamic, interconnected web of cause
and effect, action and outcome, behavior and consequence associated with people, animals,
plants, natural objects, and supernatural entities (Turner et al 2000). These relationships are
linked to each other and the environment through cultural traditions and interactive reciprocal
relationships (Turner et al 2000, Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services [IPBES] 2015, Houde 2007). TEKP is holistic and, thus, cannot be isolated
5
and fragmented (Turner et al 2000, Alessa et al 2015). Compared to conventional scientific
methods and hypothesis testing, where few quantitative variables are used to explain ecological
complexities, TEKP considers multiple qualitative variables at the same time; for example, Inuit
hunters take into account several observations in deciding whether or not to consume a harvested
seal (Berkes 2012).
The role of TEKP in local communities
TEKP is characterized factual observations, management systems, land use, ethics, cultural
identity, cosmology and values (Houde 2007, Poe et al 2014). Knowledge is learned and shared
through generations of hunting, medicinal gathering, preparing for spiritual ceremonies, and
maintaining household economy (Drew 2005, Poe et al 2014), and children gain experience by
participating in these events and observing older community members (Turner et al 2000). Local
language and terminology are key tools for knowledge formation through conversations, stories,
narratives, and oral histories (Huntington et al 2004, Turner et al 2000, Alessa et al 2015, Poe et
al 2014). Experiential meaning and relevance is further reinforced through ceremony (e.g., song,
art, and prayer; Turner et al 2000, Poe et al 2014, Alessa 2015).
In conserving species, TEKP is shaped by ecological principles in light of adaptive strategies for
monitoring, enhancing, and sustaining resources (Turner et al 2000) and mechanisms for
governance, decision-making, harvest control, and accessing resources (Poe et al 2014). TEKP
can also guided by ethics by means of enforcing sustainable practices, respect for all life forms,
and sanctions against those who are wasteful (Turner et al 2000, Poe et al 2014). From a socio-
economical standpoint, TEKP is tightly linked with livelihood dynamics, especially when
harvesting is more often motivated by sustenance versus sale and/or income (Freeman and
Wenzel 2006, Poe et al 2014). At the species level, TEKP includes folk taxonomy and
systematics, for example, different species names according to cultural value and use (Drew
2005, Houde 2007).
TEKP for conservation
For formal conservation purposes (or applications steeped in Western science and conservation
paradigms), TEKP could certainly shed light on threatening factors, causes, and actions that
contribute to species at risk and enrich scientifically based Red List criteria (IUCN 2014). For
communities still operating and/or working from their traditional practices, TEKP inclusion as a
process of knowledge generation can strengthen knowledge systems that are already embedded
within these communities (IPBES 2015), allowing them to emphasize which observations should
be made as relevant to daily life (Alessa et al 2015). However, TEKP is not always perfect and
does not always operate within the context of conservation; it could in some cases be used to
overexploit and cheat rules. Thus, understanding the context through which TEKP operates is
important, and identifying motivations for gathering TEKP might suggest opportunities to
overlap with conservation frameworks.
6
Benefits of including TEKP in Red List assessments
The IUCN Red List facilitates species listing under national and/or international legislations
(e.g., Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species [CITES]), targeting species of
conservation concern to scientists, resource users, and public communities using contemporary
scientific approaches to detect population and habitat decline and fragmentation (Baillie et al
2004, IUCN 2014). However, these quantitative data are limited or lacking altogether for some
taxa, especially those that are scarce and/or difficult to access (e.g., that are in remote locations).
For species that have not been described on a scale that is relevant (or large enough) for Red
Listing, local resource users and people who interact with the resource might be the only source
of ecological and biological information. Given their holistic view of the environment,
indigenous people are likely aware of linkages between ecological processes, multiple species,
and abiotic factors that influence species ecology that are not detectable through science alone
(Alessa et al 2015, Drew 2005). Harvesters in particular are aware of cultivation and harvest
effects on contemporary population and habitat dynamics not yet documented in scientific
literature (Drew 2005). Using indigenous knowledge could also reduce measurement error and
uncertainty in scientific data by informing alternative strategies for conducting assessments.
Strong collaborations with local communities with intact TEKP and governance institutions
could support adaptive management of interventions toward socio-ecological resilience, and
policy actions amidst environmental and institutional changes (Turner et al 2000, Berkes 2010,
Berkes 2012, Alessa et al 2015) and reduce conflict and costs associated with policy negotiation
(Evans and Klinger 2008).
Recognizing that information beyond science is necessary for policy makers and conservation
practitioners to understand underlying drivers of species decline, I provide guidelines for
integrating TEKP into Red List assessments relevant to three themes: methods for recognizing
and gathering TEKP; exigencies and considerations surrounding governance; and challenges and
ethical considerations for TEKP integration. I describe three cases that incorporate TEKP in light
of these themes to enrich our understanding of how TEKP could be gathered and integrated in a
meaningful way. Additionally, working directly with scientists can break down many perceived
user-group barriers and create opportunities to turn locally important resource users into
conservation champions (e.g., Capt. Peter Gladding’s work to assist the creation of Dry Tortugas
Ecological Reserves within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary [Lindeman et al., 2000;
Cowie-Haskell and Delaney, 2003]). I hope that these guidelines will support and encourage
TEKP inclusion in Red List-based programs.
Methods for engaging knowledge holders and learning TEKP
Openness to and respect for diversity in worldviews, working cultures, and knowledge tools can
help to set the stage for resilient and sustainable collaborations between natural scientists and
TEKP holders. To encourage knowledge co-production, assessment processes should allow a
broad range in TEKP participatory scenarios that reflect differences in culture and knowledge
claims to surface for negotiation (Berkes et al 2012, Poe et al 2014). Following the conditions
through which TEKP operates, Red List assessments should be open to all possible outcomes
through a community-based, iterative process (Poe et al 2014). These processes might not
resemble or mimic western science or scientifically driven data collection. TEKP learning by
scientists or individuals who seek to apply it could take the form of semi-directive interviews
7
(Huntington 1998, 2000), informal discussions, focus groups, workshops, and/or community
consultations. Those who are documenting TEKP should recognize and show deference to the
strong probability that the indigenous community has a history of colonization by outsiders
(Drew 2005, Houde 2007, Alessa et al 2015) by taking on the role of a “learner” versus “leader”,
allowing communities to lead the process. Assessment reports should be communicated in
meaningful ways, discussed in advance with influential community leaders, that describe outputs
in the context of what matters to communities and rights to use, distribute, and/or benefit from
them (Poe et al 2014). For example, visually powerful tools such as interactive maps and
diagrams, artwork, books, film, websites, libraries, museums, and databases (with consent and
validation) might be preferred over lengthy written reports. These forms of presenting
information will be especially effective if led by local communities.
Understanding local social structures—which vary across communities and cultures—will help
conservation scientists develop social relationships and knowledge contexts to engage
appropriate and relevant individuals (IPBES 2015). TEKP is not evenly distributed among tribes
or other groups and, as such, different topics and skills vary from person to person, perhaps
according to age, gender and/or socioeconomic status. Further, it is important to recognize that
not everything an indigenous person says is TEKP. Knowledge holders are likely respected
characters within communities who have been seen “living the knowledge” (IPBES 2015), and
can be identified and recruited by community members (Pearce et al 2009, Poe et al 2014). Key
informants might comprise hunters, gatherers, agriculturalists, fishers, craft-makers, artists,
medicine practitioners, and elders with knowledge of past and/or rare events (IPBES 2015). In
many cases, knowledge holders are already actively engaged in community-based assessments;
for example, chiefs and specific families in charge of monitoring and controlling particular
resources (Turner et al 2000). Interpreters could be employed not only as translators but also
research assistants, teachers, guides, and community liaisons between community and non-
community members, refining research questions and assessments strategies according to
ethically and culturally appropriate contexts (Pearce et al 2009).
Flexibility in assessment criteria and governance
Governance concerns the integration of “public” and “private” sectors in solving problems and
creating solutions, as well as the politics relevant to distributing rights and responsibilities
(Wyborn and Bixler 2013, Berkes 2012). In these contexts, decision-making is inherently
complex, requiring social, economic, and administrative considerations beyond science (Berkes
2012, Coombe 2005). These forces interact in response to social and ecological processes that
emerge from fundamentally different spatial and temporal scales (Wyborn and Bixler 2013).
Thus, cooperation across multiple scales will be necessary for successful conservation action.
Including TEKP communities with strong governance institutions in Red List assessments could
foster locally adapted ecosystem governance that is nested in broader, larger scale systems of
conservation (Berkes 2012). TEKP-based Red List assessments could guide management at
larger scales, while subsequent decision-making and management policies operate on more
locally relevant, smaller scales (Rodríguez et al 2011). Indeed, Red List assessments aim to
foster species classification processes that are consistent and transparent enough to the public to
support broad comparisons across a wide range of taxa (IUCN 2012), yet are also specific
8
enough for applications according to local geographic contexts and decision-making (Rodríguez
et al 2011).
In spite of this, Red List guidelines still discourage assessments within small geographic areas
(IUCN 2014), as they tend to produce inaccurate range estimates under scientific frameworks
(IUCN 2012). TEKP typically operates on small scales (Berkes 2000, Berkes 2012), and the
deeply place-based or contextualized nature of TEKP does not align with scientific principles of
large-samples enabling replicability and generalizability (Agrawal 1995, Poe et al 2014). Red
List guidelines also encourage assessments independent of ecological, evolutionary, economic,
societal species values; chances of recovery; and actions that are required to protect species
(IUCN 2014), whereas TEKP is deeply rooted in these considerations; TEKP-based assessments
will need to include these implications as they relate to knowledge holders and human values.
These incongruities strongly suggest that a new assessment framework that supports TEKP—as
well as people with place-based or contextual knowledge and language facilities—is required to
integrate TEKP into the Red List. At the outset, management decisions that are rooted in TEKP-
based assessments will likely need to allow for a larger emphasis on inferred information, which
are currently discouraged for scientifically based assessments (IUCN 2014). At the same time,
TEKP includes “direct observation” data characteristic of valuable scientific-based criteria
(IUCN 2014). Further, TEKP is gathered and maintained as it is relevant to individuals and
communities and, hence, could be considered unique evidentiary (versus precautionary) criteria
(IUCN 2014).
Transparency in the role of TEKP and resilient relationships with communities where TEKP is in
place will be necessary to encourage capacity for and sustain local governance over knowledge
and resources. Clarifying TEKP roles and ownership, and how resulting decisions will affect
TEKP communities, will mitigate any conflicts that arise from uncertainty (Berkes 2012,
Peacock et al 2011, Coombe 2005). This could be achieved through increasing public awareness
of TEKP, engaging a broad set of public, scientific, and TEKP communities throughout the
process, developing adaptable and flexible governance systems, and linking governing
institutions across all scales (Berkes 2012). Establishing strong partnerships is a key component
to any endeavor that involves learning about and using TEKP outside its historic use or
community of users (Moller et al 2004, Houde 2007, Motaleb 2010).
Anticipated challenges for TEKP inclusion in Red List assessments
If Red Listing criteria are not expected to change in the near future (IUCN 2014), incorporating
TEKP—which is rooted in continuously adapting processes—will certainly be challenging. It is
unlikely that objective, rigid procedures will support qualitative TEKP in quantitative-based Red
List assessments. In many cases, TEKP may not agree with scientific criteria; indeed, many
classification systems and assumptions do not travel across different cultures and settings (e.g.,
Caniago and Siebert). Including TEKP might also implicate revisions of scientifically justified
listings that are already in place. Indigenous communities do not always perceive science and
decision-making as credible if TEKP and wisdom are lacking and/or they fail in addressing or
incorporating community concerns (Moller et al 2004, Alessa et al 2015). Identifying and
focusing on overlaps between knowledge types and common conservation goals, raising
awareness of TEKP in public domains to increase public understanding of it, and acknowledging
9
differences in data types that could be used to understand the same phenomena will minimize
conflict and support integration for these incongruences. The ease of and degree to which TEKP
is integrated into Red List assessments will likely depend on the species and local community,
including community perceptions of scientific research, management and experience with
relevant past conservation initiatives. Species that are of high cultural and political interest will
likely pose additional challenges, especially if the species is valued differently among the
stakeholders involved, for example, polar bears being valued for research versus subsistence
among researchers versus TEKP holders, respectively.
Clear agreements defining terms of interaction and especially ownership of products will be
required for TEKP inclusion in species assessments. For indigenous people, knowledge is under
the control of their communities and TEKP cannot be separated from TEKP holders (Agrawal
2002). Some TEKP is considered intellectual property, in which case sharing with outsiders is
not permissible under specific conditions and/or leads to appropriation if it is not shared and
published within culturally defined laws and controls (Drew 2005). Intellectual property rights
that protect knowledge holders against marketplace offence and confusion, assert origin and
conditions of knowledge origin, and respect confidentiality and values are necessary to avoid
controversies over political boundaries and rights, especially for indigenous communities
(Coombe 2005). In most cases, knowledge and rights are relevant to the physical survival of
community members and cannot be isolated in the context of market value (Coombe 2005).
Formally acknowledging and compensating knowledge holders can empower local communities
and promote sustainable political autonomies and territorial rights that are necessary for
indigenous survival (Coombe 2005). It may be elusive or unclear, in forming new collaborative
processes, how to compensate community members. These methods and processes require
openness and adaptability, and should be documented to support TEKP integration in similar
contexts.
In some cases, licensed permits will be necessary following legal procedures and guidelines.
Ethical protocols should not only follow institutional, regional, and national requirements, but
also community-based procedures, which will likely vary from community to community.
Information that is being gathered for assessments must be treated as privileged and/or sacred,
and the rights and interests of participating communities must be recognized and supported. As
criteria and justification for assessments must be listed in a public domain (IUCN 2014),
community consent will be necessary before any information is released, and might require
additional discussions with local tribe leaderships (Moller et al 2004, Pearce et al 2009, Alessa et
al 2015) to ensure culturally and institutionally appropriate storage of and access to information.
Identifying which individuals best represent local community interests and priorities may not be
an easy process, especially if community perspectives are broad in scope. This process might
require considerable time and effort to build relationships and understand social and cultural
contexts within local communities.
Inuit TEKP of polar bears in Nunavut, Canada
TEKP plays a key role in assessing the population status of the polar bear, a Red List species, in
Canada. Indigenous traditional knowledge is also integral to conservation and management as a
legal requirement through territorial land claims agreements (e.g., The Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development and the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut 1993 1993) and is
10
sanctioned at national (Government of Canada 2002) and international (Government of Canada
et al 1973) levels. At the federal level, Canada manages polar bears according to designations
under its Species at Risk Act (2002) and the Convention on International Trade of Endangered
Species (CITES) categories, as well as partnerships with IUCN. These categories are largely
informed by a combination of aerial mark-recapture (e.g., Taylor et al 2006), satellite telemetry
(e.g., Bethke et al 1996), and less-invasive biopsy (Pagano et al 2014) and genetic (Van
Coeverden de Groot et al 2013) surveys of individual subpopulations (Peacock et al 2011). In
Nunavut, where 86% of the harvests occur (Peacock et a 2011), polar bear surveys often include
and are led by local (Inuit) hunters, elders, and/or community Hunters and Trappers
Organizations (Fernandez-Giminez et al 2006, Peacock et al 2011). Harvest monitoring by the
government through salvaged sampling also occurs through collaborations with community
hunters and wildlife officers who acquire hunting tags (Peacock et al 2012). Community
residents have the opportunity to participate in all types of research and monitoring projects
(Vongraven et al 2011, Peacock et al 2011) and all proposed studies are also led by TEKP and
hunters and trappers organizations (Vongraven et al 2011, Peacock et al 2011).
For Inuit, polar bears are valued economically, culturally, and socially as a historical source of
food, clothing, and artwork, and more recently income through guiding sport hunts (Freeman and
Wenzel 2006). Thus, the inclusion of Inuit knowledge-holders in monitoring programs allows
communities to inform management decisions that impact a traditional resource that they value.
Beyond participation in scientific population studies, Inuit play a key role in co-management by
the territorial Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB; NCLA 1993), regional wildlife
and community hunters and trappers organizations, the Government of Nunavut Department of
Environment, and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., an organization that represents all Inuit beneficiaries
as per the land claims agreement (NCLA 1993; Dowsley and Wenzel 2008). These territorial,
regional, and community wildlife organizations are responsible for allocating harvest quotas,
while government staff conduct necessary scientific research (via surveys), document TEKP, and
make recommendations to NWMB and other decision-making bodies (Dowsley 2009, Peacock et
al 2011). For management consultations (e.g. revision of quotas, allocation of quotas toward
sport hunts), TEKP sharing and gathering takes place through public hearings or formal meetings
with hunters and trappers within communities (Peacock et al 2011). In this manner, Inuit
interests are represented throughout all tiers of polar bear management, from research to
informing decisions.
Unfortunately, Canada has been criticized for including TEKP in its decision-making for polar
bears; in some jurisdictions, only scientific data are included (Vongraven et al 2011, Clark et al
2013). This may be due in part to incongruences in protection levels across jurisdictions (Parsons
and Cornick 2011, Clark et al 2013), lack of understanding in subsistence harvesting by Inuit
(Clark et al 2013), media portrayal of commercial hunting by Inuit against an imminent
extinction of polar bears (Tyrrell and Clark 2013), and disagreements among TEKP and
scientific data (Dyck et al 2007, Stirling et al 2008, Clark et al 2008, Dowsley and Wenzel 2008,
Clark et al 2013, Tyrell and Clark 2014). A well-publicized example is the scientifically-reported
population decline in Western Hudson Bay polar bears warranting a decrease in harvest quotas,
while Inuit report dangerous human-bear interactions that have increased in frequency in and
around communities, necessitating an increase in quotas (Tyrell 2009, Dowsley and Taylor 2006,
Clark et al 2013, Stirling and Derocher 2012). Unethical TEKP acquisition (Gearhead and
11
Shirley 2007), historical appropriation (Grimwood et al 2012) and perceived marginalization by
communities (Peacock et al 2011) have also contributed to mistrust in science by TEKP holders.
Lack of efficient research, effective integration of scientific and TEKP views, and confidence in
either data types could lead to unsatisfactory decisions for all parties involved (Peacock et al
2011, Vongraven et al 2011). Improving communication of the cultural importance of species
harvests and TEKP to stakeholders and public at large, and clearly defining limitations of TEKP
and science alike could reduce polarization in perspectives (Peacock et al 2011). For example,
clarifying TEKP excludes (scientific) information on physiological and biochemical changes
linked to climate change, but emphasizes behavioral effects and ecological relationships (Berkes
et al 2007).
The potential for conflicts over TEKP consideration in Red List assessments similar to those that
arise in TEKP and polar bear conservation cannot be discounted. But TEKP could certainly be
viably integrated in assessments using a range of methods, from survey and monitoring through
all (e.g., community, regional, territorial, and national) levels of nested governance, especially in
areas that are beyond the scope of science. Knowledge, awareness, and respect for TEKP and the
communities where they are in place, appreciation of its unique differences in comparison to
science, and comprehensive approaches to TEKP integration from the outset can mitigate any
controversies over its inclusion.
TEKP in conservation of medicinal plants in Bangladesh
Ethnobiological knowledge is valued for scientific research and conservation management
(Berkes et al 2000, Huntington 2000, Ghimire et al 2005). For resource users, medicinal plants
form the basis of traditional (e.g., Unani, ayurvedic, homeopathic, and folk) remedies and raw
ingredients for western medicines (Mollik et al 2010, Motaleb 2010). Unfortunately, several
medicinal plants have suffered abundance decline due to global commercialization, habitat
degradation and alteration, lack of support from government and policies, and limited
management and institutional structures that insufficiently guard against overharvest (Kunwar et
al 2013, Motaleb 2010, Sajem et al 2008). There is also a general lack of organized research and
information on indigenous medicinal plant knowledge—especially plants that are least
commercially profitable—which might serve as the only source of knowledge for most plants
(Sajem et al 2008, Mollik et al 2010). As a response, initiatives that document and preserve
medicinal plant TEKP are in place in the Himalayas and central Asia, including identifying large
numbers of plant species; parts and chemical constituents used; methods of gathering,
preparation, and administration; and diseases or ailments that are targeted (e.g. Kunwar et al
2013, Ragupathy et al 2008, Muthu et al 2006, Ayyanar and Ignacimuthu 2005).
Spending time with local communities and familiarizing oneself with local cultures and
traditions can allow for the development of effective research practices, in contrast to scientific
methods where studies are isolated from local contexts. Rigorous preliminary studies are
successful in shaping subsequent research methods and outputs through a thorough
understanding of local language, culture, and economy, including social control over medicinal
plants (Ghimire et al 2005). One example is the One Stop Service project (OSS) by IUCN
Bangladesh and the Bolipara Nari Kalyan Somity, which conducted a baseline survey a priori to
understand the prevalence of traditional practices, followed by structured questionnaires, focus
groups, and one-on-one discussions with elders, local community (headmen and kabaries) and
12
religious (bhante) leaders, Buddhist monks (boiddo), and local community members (Motaleb
2010). Similarly, variation in TEKP use of Nardostachys grandiflora and Neopicrorhiza
scrophulariiflora have been documented in the Shey-Phoksundo National Park in Nepal
following preliminary quantitative assessments to acquire general information on levels of
knowledge across social groups (Ghimire et al 2005). Preliminary questionnaires have also been
used to gather general information on medicinal plant TEKP by healers (kavirajes) in three
Bangladesh districts (Mollik et al 2010). Quantitative statistical analyses (e.g., through
quantifying informant consensus [Kunwar et al. 2013]) can also be used to determine consistency
in initial survey responses (e.g., Singh et al 2012, Ghimire et al 2005). Effective project outputs
include user-friendly online databases that detail basic medicinal plant usage, while detailed
TEKP information is excluded to safeguard TEKP and ownership (Motaleb 2010). Awareness
raising (e.g., workshops, school programs, fairs, brochures in English and native languages) and
training initiatives (e.g., through scientific education and exposure visits to research centers;
Motaleb 2010) have also together strengthened TEKP and local participatory capacity in these
conservation programs. In these contexts, documenting TEKP of local medicinal plant
management and use is valuable for potential pharmacological applications.
In far west Nepal, medicinal plant use regulation is under both formal and informal control by
local communities, with roles played by amchi (representing TEKP institutions), religious heads,
and local chiefs who set rules and fines when regulations are not respected (Lama et al 2001,
Ghimire et al 2005). Informal regulations historically included rituals that encouraged ethical and
respectful use of plants, with social constraints (local customary institutions) that regulate access
to plant resources (Ghimire et al 2005). More recently, amchi health care centers have been
established in areas frequented by commercial collectors; these newer groups still include
representatives of older institutions, ensuring visibility of the amchi and apprenticeships through
training and culturally appropriate health care practices (Kunwar et al 2013, Ghimire et al 2005).
These local institutions also raise awareness in medicinal plant TEKP and monitor sustainable
harvests that are used through it (Kunwar et al 2013, Ghimire et al 2005). Integrating local
institutions of governance could support and preserve traditional mechanisms of resource
management through the active engagement of local communities.
Successful monitoring institutions are highly flexible and continuously restructured according to
shifting TEKP concepts, challenges, and contemporary use. However, medicinal plants are
assigned a value for commercial use that lies beyond local contexts (Ghimire et al 2005), posing
unique challenges to their management. Integrating local scales of governance within larger
scales of managing commercial harvest is necessary, especially when the majority of medicinal
plants are exported (Kunwar et al 2013). Sustainable TEKP integration will likely require larger
scales of governance that are adaptable to smaller scale fluctuations, as well as systems that
encourage knowledge transfer and persistence. In many cases, TEKP is also transferred from
word of mouth, and knowledge transfer that lacks any systematic process could result in a TEKP
loss in the future (Singh et al 2012). Indeed, traditional healers are now of old age and there is a
general lack of interest among younger generations (Caniago and Siebert 1998, Muthu et al
2006, Kunwar et al 2013). Immersion in typical and local settings (e.g., while conducting
household chores or collecting fruits and vegetables; Motaleb 2010) can reveal how TEKP is
transferred within (e.g., from parents and mentors to offspring and protégés, respectively) and
outside (e.g., to non-government organizations and outside projects) communities (Motaleb et al
13
2010). Through including individuals that have high social acceptance and influence on local
opinions and decision-making (e.g., local government bodies and schoolteachers) throughout the
project (Motaleb 2010), participatory capacity within communities could be encouraged and
supported. Younger individuals, youth, and local schools and colleges could also be included to
stimulate interest and support long-term local community involvement. For Red List
assessments, rigorously documenting TEKP, the methods used to acquire it, and its mechanisms
of local transfer could protect TEKP in its commercial applications.
TEKP in fisheries and implications for management
TEKP studies have been important in furthering our understanding of fishery dynamics toward
solutions to population declines. Logistical challenges in studying spawning events and
migration patterns (e.g., gathering in deep water at dusk or at night; Johannes 1981) in wide-
ranging marine species often limit scientific ecological data to inform timely management
actions. In many cases, local fishers are the only reliable sources for these data. Cuban fishers
have gathered information on locations and timing of snapper and grouper spawning
aggregations, and interviews with experienced fishers can identify spawning site locations and
timing of peak densities (Lindeman et al 2000, Claro and Lindeman 2003). This information is
valuable as population degradation, especially at the level of spawning aggregations, threatens
the sustainability of fisheries and could lead to long-term economic damage for local
communities (Sadovy and Colin 2012). Fishers are also aware of market constraints and
technology changes (e.g., fishing gear and success) that influence fish behaviour (Johannes et al
2000, Grant and Berkes 2007). Interviews with experienced fishers and traders can also be cross-
referenced to scientific literature reviews, newspaper articles and communication with academics
and government officials to identify aggregation areas and nursery grounds requiring seasonal
protection and reduce trawling pressure during spawning seasons (Sadovy and Cheung 2003).
Similar ecological data have also been gathered through interviews with fishers in China and
Hong Kong where the giant yellow croaker (Bahaba taipingensis) is valued for swimbladder
consumption and medicinal use; fishers record catch information (date, location, and size) of all
large fish on an ongoing basis as aggregations are considered significant events (Sadovy and
Cheung 2003). However, interviews, questionnaires or surveys that are too structured and/or
culturally inappropriate—for example, led and designed by researchers with little local input—
have failed to target important and relevant ecological information (Johannes et al 2000),
suggesting the importance of local contexts and researcher involvement beyond simply giving
surveys in shaping TEKP research.
Traditional harvesting rights are often viewed as obstacles to government policies (Johannes and
Yeeting 2000) and an understanding of local systems of governance can overcome barriers to
collaborative management initiatives. In Tarawa Atoll, Kiribati, I-Kiribati (local fishermen) have
identified the precise location of the last known spawning run of Kiribati bonefish (Abula
glossondota), which was previously unidentified by the Tarawa Fisheries Department. This led
to corresponding protection by local fishermen without government sanction or interference
(Johannes et al 2000). The I-Kiribati have historically possessed a marine conservation ethic, and
an awareness that all marine resources are subject to depletion from overharvesting (Johannes
and Yeeting 2000). Even beyond fish species, regulations are posed and strictly enforced in the
form of taboos and punishment includes public censure, loss of harvesting rights, fines, and
threats of supernatural retribution (Johannes and Yeeting 2000). I-Kiribati also imposed bans on
14
lures that are “too efficient” and damaging to fish species after the arrival of Western fishing
technology (Johannes and Yeeting 2000).
Interview methods initiated and led by experienced fishers can detect species compositions of
catches and historical systems of governance that are not revealed through government- or
scientifically-led research alone (Johannes et al 2000, Fernandez-Giminez et al 2006). However,
the inclusion of local fishers in assessments is usually limited by lack of explicit knowledge on
how to include them, as well as language and conceptual barriers (Sadovy and Colin 2012).
Identifying key informants can be met with additional challenges, as many younger or more
easily accessible fishers tend to be less experienced, and studies that include any “local people”
could lead to inaccurate portrayals of ecological dynamics (Johannes et al 2000). Allowing local
communities to inform and guide research during initial planning stages could be effective in
identifying key informants and research questions that are important and relevant. Methods for
approaching communities may need to be developed on a case-by-case basis. For Red List
assessments, locally established TEKP research could also help dilute mistrust in scientists and
government agencies by local communities.
In one such example, multi-generational fishing leaders from the Greater Caribbean were invited
to join the global Snapper, Seabream and Grunt Specialist Group when it was formed. These
specialist group members contributed valuable comments during the reviews of draft Red List
accounts for various species. The fishers had uniquely valuable comments on food web issues
and the ability to extrapolate across regions in data-limited situations.
Table 1. Summary of methods of learning TEKP, systems of governance, challenges and lessons for TEKP inclusion
in Red List assessments using three examples.
Inuit and polar bear conservation
in Canada
Indigenous knowledge of
medicinal plant use
Local fisher knowledge
in fishery management
Methods of
learning
TEKP
Hunter participation in surveys;
harvest sampling; interviews;
workshops; focus groups; public
consultations
Documenting species and
methods of gathering, use,
and healing applications;
online database of TEKP
terms and use
Semi-structured
interviews; surveys of
species capture histories,
spawning areas, and
cultural relevance and
value
Systems of
governance
Regulation of research and
monitoring activities;
distribution and allocation of
harvest quotas; co-management
wildlife boards;
recommendations to higher tiers
of management
Establishment of a locally-
governed (health center)
institution; management and
regulations set by local tribe
leaderships; awareness
raising
Locally or federally set
regulations against
overharvest; local
awareness and
enforcement of human-
animal relationships
Challenges Contrasting ecological and
management perspectives
between Inuit and scientists;
historical colonialism and lack of
trust between Inuit and research
communities
Loss of knowledge with older
elders and youth lacking
interest; integrating scales of
governance
Identifying key users;
loss of younger fishers;
lack of guidelines on
how to integrate TEKP
15
Lessons for
Red List
assessments
Focusing on overlaps between
TEKP and science; clarifying
roles of knowledge holders and
outputs throughout process;
nested scales of governance
Immersion in local
community culture; learning
TEKP within local contexts;
engaging youth
Include user group
leaders on advisory
panels; allow
communities to guide
and lead research
methods; recognize and
respect harvesting rights
in management contexts
General guidelines for TEKP integration into Red List assessments
A summary of three cases that incorporate TEKP into conservation and management in light of
methods of learning TEKP, systems of governance, ongoing challenges, and lessons for Red List
assessments is provided in Table 1. TEKP-based assessments should be conducted through
partnerships with (versus participation of) key local knowledge holders from local communities.
Community members should be involved as much as possible throughout all assessment stages,
from initial planning and deciding what is relevant to the study to disseminating and/or using
results (Fernandez-Giminez et al 2006). Informal and formal relationships between individuals
leading assessments and knowledge holders (Gearhead and Shirley 2007, Pearce et al 2009) will
be necessary to foster communication, trust, and cultural exchange and, thus, ensure successful
collaborations (Wyborn and Bixler 2013, Pearce et al 2009). As it will likely be difficult to
systematically evaluate these interactions, transparency in dialogue and detailed research notes
throughout the whole process will be critical. Building flexibility and capacity will require time
and will need to occur gradually in order for all local, scientific, public, and decision-making
communities to learn and adapt in a dynamic manner (Berkes 2010). These relationships will
likely require immersion in the community by non-community members who are conducting the
assessments (Moller et al 2004, Pearce et al 2009, Grimwood et al 2012), training for community
and non-community members alike, and leadership from communities on how to appropriately
incorporate TEKP in species and environmental assessments.
Acknowledging the cultural relevance and importance of a species that is being assessed is
critical, especially when Red Lists impact cultural connections to species. This could be
facilitated by local partners and is critical from the onset, as species values will differ and
potentially frustrate collaborations among scientists, local and/or indigenous communities, and
relevant stakeholders who have command over the resource (Berkes 2012). Assessments must
consider appropriate time scales; past and present impacts may have cumulative effects for
present and future community members (Poe et al 2014). In order for assessments to benefit
TEKP communities (and hence encourage their support for and inclusion in assessments), it is
also necessary to incorporate community priorities and address any community concerns, even
when they conflict with status quo circumstances and metrics of inclusion are unclear.
Demonstrating how TEKP relates to management action and rights to food and land will
empower indigenous communities to share information that tailors government decisions to local
contexts (Moller et al 2004, Coombes et al 2014). This includes communicating openly how
species assessments can benefit different community members or groups, how outputs of
assessments will affect them, and how knowledge holders can shape the assessment process.
Clear communication will also be necessary to allow knowledge holders to understand the nature
of quantitative data, how scientific data is collected, and the context through which TEKP will be
integrated into Red List assessments. Semantic uncertainty arises when terminology and criteria
16
are vague or consistency across different assessments is lacking (IUCN 2012). Uncertainty could
be minimized by translating and adapting IUCN’s categories and criteria (IUCN 2012) according
to TEKP terminology and language or preferably vice versa. One could begin with local terms
and processes and adapt or create relevant IUCN categories and criteria accordingly, especially
where terminology does not compare or translate well. Defining mutual conservation goals and
benefits (e.g., language preservation, education, and tourism) are the basis for effectively sharing
TEKP.
Apart from species assessments, TEKP inclusion will likely shed light on asymmetries in power
and politics, gaps in community resources and willingness to engage, colonial histories, and
epistemological and scalar differences in management approaches (Agrawal 1995, Berkes 2012),
as well as differences in institutional organizations of these systems (Friedlander et al 2013).
TEKP integration will require multidisciplinary approaches to decentralize governance, support
community-based management practices that are already in place, manage ecosystem services
and human well-being according to socio-ecological information, and make informed tradeoffs
in decision-making (Berkes 2010). TEKP inclusion in assessments will not only validate but also
acknowledge TEKP as equally valuable as Western science in conservation, empowering local
communities to regain ownership and control of knowledge where it has been historically
appropriated through colonization (Moller et al 2004, Alessa et al 2015). Indigenous TEKP
inclusion can also ensure indigenous perspectives and contexts are included in subsequent policy
and action, recognizing indigenous roles as the first responders to change (Alessa et al 2015).
Beyond Red List assessments, any conservation initiative will certainly necessitate the inclusion
of socio-ecological dimensions that are directly impacted by management, decision-making and
policy.
17
References
Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge.
Development and Change 26:413–439.
Agrawal, A. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and the politics of classification. International Social
Science Journal 287–297.
Alessa, L., Kliskey, A., Gamble, J., Fidel, M., Beaujean, G. and James, G. (2015). The role of
indigenous science and local knowledge in integrated observing systems: moving toward
adaptive capacity indices and early warning systems. Sustainability Science 11:91–102.
Ayyanar, M. and Ignacimuthu, S. (2005). Traditional knowledge of Kani tribals in Kouthalai of
Tirunelveli hills, Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 102:246–255.
Berkes, F., Colding, J. and Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as
adaptive management. Ecological Applications 10:1251–1262.
Baillie, J.E.M., Hilton-Taylor, C., and Stuart, S.N. (2004). 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. A Global Species Assessment. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.
Berkes, F., Berkes, M.K. and Fast, H. (2007). Collaborative integrated management in Canada’s
north: the role of local and traditional knowledge and community-based monitoring. Coastal
Management 35:143–162.
Berkes, F. (2010). Devolution of environment and resources governance: trends and future.
Environmental Conservation 37:489–500.
Berkes, F. (2012). Implementing ecosystem-based management: evolution or revolution? Fish
and Fisheries 13:465–476.
Bethke, R., Taylor, M., Amstrup, S. and Messier, F. (1996). Population delineation of polar bears
using satellite collar data. Ecological Applications 6:311–317.
Cabin, R.J. (2007). Science-driven restoration: a square grid on a round earth? Restoration
Ecology 15:1–7.
Caniago, I. and Siebert, S.F. (1998). Medicinal plant ecology, knowledge and conservation in
Kalimantan, Indonesia. Economic Botany 52:229–250.
Carothers, C., Lew, D.K. and Sepez, J. (2010). Fishing rights and small communities: Alaska
halibut IFQ transfer patterns. Ocean and Coastal Management 53:518–523.
Clark, D.A., Lee, D.S., Freeman, M.M.R. and Clark, S.G. Polar bear conservation in Canada:
defining the policy problems. Arctic 61:347–360.
Clark, D.A., Meek, C., Cheechoo, J., Clark, S., Foote, A.L., Lee, D. and York, G. (2013). Polar
bears and CITES: a rejoinder to Parsons and Cornick. Marine Policy 38:365–368.
Claro, R. and Lindeman, K.C. (2003). Spawning aggregation sites of snapper and grouper
species (Lutjanidae and Serranidae) on the insular shelf of Cuba. Gulf and Caribbean Research
14:91–106.
18
Coombe, R.J. (2005). Protecting traditional environmental knowledge and new social
movements in the Americas: intellectual property, a human right, or claims to an alternative form
of sustainable development? Florida Journal of International Law 17:115–135.
Dowsley, M. (2009). Community clusters in wildlife and environmental management: using
TEK and community involvement to improve co-management in an era of rapid environmental
change. Polar Research 28:43–59.
Dowsley, M. and Wenzel, G. (2008). “The time of the most polar bears”: a co-management
conflict in Nunavut. Arctic 61:177–189.
Dowsley, M. and Taylor, M.K. (2006). Management consultations for the Western Hudson Bay
(WH) polar bear population (1–2 December 2005). Government of Nunavut, Department of
Environment, Final Wildlife Report: 3, Iqaluit, 55 pp.
Drew, J.A. (2005). Use of traditional ecological knowledge in marine conservation.
Conservation Biology 19:1286–1293.
Dyck, M.G., Soon, W., Baydack, R.K., Legates, D.R., Baliunas, S., Ball, T.F. and Hancock, L.O.
(2007). Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change: are warming spring air
temperatures the “ultimate” survival control factor? Ecological Complexity
doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.03.002
Evans, K.E. and Klinger, T. (2008). Obstacles to bottom-up implementation of marine ecosystem
management. Conservation Biology 22:1135–1143.
Fernandez-Giminez, M.E., Huntington, H.P. and Frost, K.J. (2006). Integration or co-optation?
Traditional knowledge and science in the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee. Environmental
Conservation 1–10.
Freeman, M.M.R. and Wenzel, G.W. (2006). The nature and significance of polar bear
conservation hunting in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic 59:21–30
Friedlander, A.M., Shackeroff, J.M. and Kittinger, J.N. (2013). Customary marine resource
knowledge and use in contemporary Hawai‘i. Pacific Science 67:441–460.
Gearhead, S. and Shirley, J. (2007). Challenges in community-research relationships: learning
from natural science in Nunavut. Arctic 60:62–74.
Ghimire, S., McKey, D., and Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y. (2005). Heterogeneity in ethnoecological
knowledge and management of medicinal plants in the Himalayas of Nepal: implicationbs for
conservation. Ecology and Society 9:6. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art6/
Giardina, C.P., Litton, C.M., Thaxton, J.M., Cordell, S., Hadway, L.J., and Sandquist, D.R.
(2007). Science driven restoration: a candle in a demon haunted world––response to Cabin
(2007). Restoration Ecology 15:171–176.
Government of Canada. (2002). Species at Risk Act.
The Government of Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the
United States of America. (1973). Agreement on the conservation of polar bears.
Grant, S. and Berkes, F. (2007). Fisher knowledge as expert system: a case from the longline
fishery of Grenada, the Eastern Caribbean. Fisheries Research 84:162–170.
19
Gregory, R. and Trousdale, W. (2009). Compensating aboriginal cultural lessons: an alternative
approach to assessing environmental damages. Journal of Environmental Management 90:2469–
2479.
Grimwood, B.S.R., Doubleday, N.C., Ljubicic, G.J., Donaldson, S.G. and Blangy, S. (2012).
Engaged acclimatization: towards responsible community-based participatory research in
Nunavut. The Canadian Geographer 56:211–230.
Houde, N. (2007). The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge: challenges and
opportunities for Canadian co-management arrangements. Ecology and Society 12:34. [online]
URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art34/
Huntington, H.P. (1998). Observations on the utility of the semi-directive interview for
documenting traditional ecological knowledge. Arctic 51:237–242.
Huntington, H.P. (2000). Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and
applications. Ecological Applications 10:1270–1274.
Huntington, H.P., Callaghan, T., Fox, S. and Krupnik, I. (2004). Matching traditional and
scientific observations to detect environmental change: a discussion on arctic terrestrial
ecosystems. Ambio 13:18–23.
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. (2015).
Work on indigenous and local knowledge systems (deliverable 1 (c)). Plenary of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services fourth
session. Kuala Lumpur, 22–28. Item 5 (d) of the provisional agenda.
IUCN. (2012). IUCN Red List categories and criteria: version 3.1. Second edition. Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.
IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. (2014). Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List
categories and criteria: version 11. Downloadable from
http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf.
Johannes, R.E. (1981). Working with fishermen to improve coastal tropical fisheries and
resource management. Bulletin of Marine Science 31:673–680.
Johannes, R.E., Freeman, M.M.R., and Hamilton, R.J. (2000). Ignore fishers’ knowledge and
miss the boat. Fish and Fisheries 1:257–271.
Johannes, R.E. and Yeeting, B. (2000). I-Kiribati knowledge and management of Tarawa’s
lagoon resources. Atoll Research Bulletin No. 489. Issued by National Museum of Natural
History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA.
Kunwar, R.M., Mahat, L., Acharya, R.P. and Bussmann, R.W. (2013). Medicinal plants,
traditional medicine, markets and management in far-west Nepal. Journal of Ethnobiology and
Ethnomedicine 9:24. [online] URL: http://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/9/1/24
Lama, Y.C., Ghimire, S.K. and Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y. (2001). Medicinal plants of Dolpo:
Amchis’ knowledge and conservation. WWF Nepal Program, Kathmandu.
Lindeman, K.C., Pugliese, R., Waugh, G.T. and Ault, J.S. (2000). Developmental patterns within
a multispecies reef fishery: management applications for essential fish habitats and protected
areas. Bulletin of Marine Science 66:929–956.
20
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Tungavik Federation of
Nunavut. (1973). Agreement between the Inuit of the Nunavut Settlement Area and Her Majesty
the Queen in Right of Canada.
Moller, H., Berkes, F., Lyver, P.O. and Kislalioglu, M. (2004). Combining science and
traditional ecological knowledge: monitoring populations for co-management. Ecology and
Society 9:2. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art2/.
Mollik, A.H., Hossan, S., Paul, A.K., Taufiq-Ur-Rahman, M., Jahan, R. and Rahmatullah, M.
(2010). A comparative analysis of medicinal plants used by folk medicinal healers in three
districts of Bangladesh and inquiry as to mode of selection of medicinal plants. Ethnobotany and
Research Applications 8:195–218.
Motaleb, M.A. (2010). Approaches to conservation of medicinal plants and traditional
knowledge: a focus on the Chittagong Hill tracts. Bangladesh Country Office, Dhaka,
Bangladesh: IUCN.
Muthu, C., Ayyanar, M., Raja, N. and Ignacimuthu, S. (2006). Medicinal plants used by
traditional healers in Kancheepuram district of Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of Ethnobiology and
Ethnomedicine 2:43. [online] URL:
https://ethnobiomed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1746-4269-2-43.
Pagano, A.M., Peacock, E., and McKinney, M.A. (2014). Remote biopsy darting and marking of
polar bears. Marine Mammal Science 30:169–183.
Parsons, E.C.M and Cornick, L.A. (2011). Sweeping scientific data under a polar bear skin rug:
the IUCN and the proposed listing of polar bears under CITES Appendix I. Marine Policy
35:729–731.
Peacock, E., Derocher, A.E., Thiemann, G.W. and Stirling, I. (2011). Conservation and
management of Canada’s polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in a changing Arctic. Canadian Journal
of Zoology 89:371–385.
Peacock, E., Laake, J., Laidre, K.L., Born, E.W. and Atkinson, S.N. (2012). The utility of harvest
recoveries of marked individuals to assess polar bear (Ursus maritimus) survival. Arctic 65.
Downloadable from
http://arctic.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/view/4237
Pearce, T.D., Ford, J.D., Laidler, G.J., Smit, B., Duerden, F., Allarut, M., Andrachuk, M.,
Baryluk, S., Dialla, A., Elee, P., Goose, A., Ikummaq, T., Joamie, E., Kataoyak, F., Loring, E.,
Meakin, S., Nickels, S., Shappa, K., Shirley, J. and Wandel, J. Polar Research 28:10–27.
Poe, M.R., Norman, K.C., and Levin, P.S. (2014). Cultural dimensions of socioecological
systems: key connections and guiding principles for conservation in coastal environments.
Conservation Letters 7:166–175.
Ragupathy, S., Steven, N.G., Maruthakkutti, M., Velusamy, B. and Ul-Huda, M.M. (2008).
Consensus of the ‘Malasars’ traditional aboriginal knowledge of medicinal plants in the
Velliangiri holy hills, India. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 4:8. [online] URL:
http://ethnobiomed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1746-4269-4-8.
Rodríguez, J.P., Rodríguez-Clark, K.M., Baillie, J.E.M., Ash, N., Benson, J., Boucher, T.,
Brown, C., Burgess, N.D., Collen, B., Jennings, M., Keith, D.A., Nicholson, E., Revenga, C.,
21
Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Smith, T., Spalding, M., Taber, A., Walpole, M., Zager, I. and Zamin, T.
(2011). Establishing IUCN Red List criteria for threatened ecosystems. Conservation Biology
25:21–29.
Sadovy, Y. and Cheung, W.L. (2003). Near extinction of a highly fecund fish: the one that nearly
got away. Fish and Fisheries 4:86–99.
Sadovy de Mitcheson ,Y. and Patrick, P.L. 2012. Reef fish spawning aggregations: biology,
research, and management. Fish and Fisheries Series 35. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Sajem, A.L., Rout, J. and Nath, M. (2008). Traditional tribal knowledge and status of some rare
and endemic medicinal plants of North Cachar Hills District of Assam, Northeast India.
Ethnobotanical Leaflets 12:261–275.
Singh, A.G., Kumar, A. and Tewari, D.D. (2012). An ethnobotanical survey of medicinal plants
used in Terai forest of western Nepal. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 8:19. [online]
URL: http://ethnobiomed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1746-4269-8-19.
Stirling, I. and Derocher, A.E. (2012). Effects of climate warming on polar bears: a review of the
evidence. Global Change Biology 18:2694–2706.
Stirling, I., Derocher, A.E., Gough, W.A. and Rode, K. (2008). Response to Dyck et al. (2007)
on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay. Ecological Complexity 5:193–201.
Taylor, M.K., Laake, J., McLoughlin, P.D., Cluff, H.D. and Messier, F. (2006). Demographic
parameters and harvest-explicit population viability analysis for polar bears in M’Clintock
Channel, Nunavut, Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1667–1673.
Turner, N.J., Ignace, M.B. and Ignace, R. (2000). Traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom
of aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. Ecological Applications 10:1275–1287.
Tyrell, M. (2009). West Hudson Bay polar bears: the Inuit perspective. In Freeman MMR and L
Foote (ed.) Inuit, polar bears and sustainable use: local, national and international perspectives,
pp. 95–110. Edmonton, AB: CCI Press.
Tyrell, M. and Clark, D.A. (2014). What happened to climate change? CITES and the
reconfiguration of polar bear conservation discourse. Global Environmental Change 24:363–
372.
Van Coeverden de Groot, P., Wong, P.B.Y., Harris, C., Dyck, M.G., Kamookak, L., Pagès, M.,
Michaux, J. and Boag, P.T. (2013). Toward a non-invasive Inuit polar bear survey: genetic data
from polar bear hair snags. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:394–401.
Vongraven, D. and Peacock, E. (2011). Development of a pan-Arctic monitoring plan for polar
bears: background paper. Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Programme, CAFF Monitoring
Series Report no 1, January 2011. Akureyri, Iceland: CAFF International Secretariat. ISBN 978-
9935-431-01-1.
Wyborn, C. and Bixler, R.P. (2013). Collaboration and nested environmental governance: scale
dependency, scale framing, and cross-scale interactions in collaborative conservation. Journal of
Environmental Management 123:58–67.