Troy King

United Nations, Climate Change,Natural Resources, and Development

Troy King

24/11/2012

It is imperative to integrate scientific knowledgewith indigenous knowledge to address the problems of

Climate Change. Discuss.

1

Troy King

It is imperative to integrate scientific knowledge with indigenousknowledge to address the problems of Climate Change. Discuss.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss and explore the relationship

between scientific knowledge and indigenous knowledge and to assess

its usefulness in addressing climate change issues. This paper sets

out to argue that it is indeed imperative for the collaboration of

the two knowledge systems, however, it also serves to point out

difficulties and considerations that must be made. Primarily, the

paper will focus on reasons why indigenous knowledge has been left

out of climate change action in the past and how there has been a

growing realisation for its valuable input to their purpose. The

discussion will then move forward to outline some of the ways in

which common ground is found between the two systems of knowledge

and how they can complement each other successfully. To illustrate

this I will use case studies from projects in Canada and Kenya where

collaboration has been successful. The paper will then move on to

explore how the integration has not been so successful, again

drawing upon a separate example from Canada, and how some view the

collaboration to be potentially dangerous. This will lead into a

discussion about the considerations we must take when integrating

science with indigenous knowledge due to potential cultural

degradation using a case study from the Aboriginal peoples of

Australia. This important issue will be explored further by

addressing what we can do in the future to ensure maximum success of

the integration in climate change action.

2

Troy King

With surfacing realisations for the usefulness of indigenous

knowledge in addressing climate change, questions have been directed

as to why it has been excluded from circles of debate and action for

so long. There is a wide consensus that scientists have taken an

ethnocentric position towards indigenous knowledge in the past,

regarding it as primitive and futile. These attitudes have

“contributed to the decline of indigenous knowledge systems”

(Grenier, 1998, 5) where indigenous peoples have been left out of

decision and policy making of climate change action in areas that

directly affect them. Subsequently, mitigation and adaptation

projects can become blinded to potential harm towards indigenous

people such as mega dam projects under the ‘CDM’ or the ‘Green

Revolution’. Jordan (1997) raises the concept of ‘authoritative

knowledge’ which is argued to be a fundamental reason behind the

rejection of indigenous knowledge. The “perceived inferiority of

local indigenous knowledge” (Green, 2010, 239) enforces an automatic

hierarchy of superior knowledge to which those in power are the

driving force. Growing awareness of the severity of climate change

has woken people up to the fact that we require all cooperation and

all knowledge we can muster as a global community which lead to a

realisation that “we have stripped ourselves of a lot of the

processes, understandings, techniques, methods of connecting

ourselves with the whole” (Campbell, 2009). As a result there has

been an increased awareness of the potential usefulness of the

holistic nature of indigenous knowledge and there has been a

positive change towards the incorporation and utility of their

knowledge systems.

A multitude of groups have been committed in engaging interactions

with science and indigenous knowledge (IPCC, World Bank, UNU-TKI,

World Health Organisations, International Development research

3

Troy King

Centre) to try and achieve a fruitful relationship in tackling

climate change. Furthermore, the Mexico Workshop 2011 was designed

as a collaborative workshop between indigenous and non-indigenous

people from around the world to discuss vulnerability and

adaptation. The major breakthrough came with the World Conference on

Science in Budapest 1999 where it was declared that “local knowledge

systems, as dynamic expressions of perceiving and understanding the

world, can make, and historically have made, a valuable contribution

to science and technology” (Bala, 2007, 41) which can be seen as a

crucial catalyst for changing attitudes towards indigenous

knowledge. Since then, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change) has spurred forward in promoting the use of indigenous

knowledge. In their assessment reports on 2007 and 2010 they

unearthed the failure to appreciate the value of indigenous

knowledge towards matters such as mitigation, adaptation, direct and

indirect impacts; “[it] is an invaluable basis for developing

adaptation and natural resource managements strategies in response

to environmental and other forms of change” (Raygorodetsky, 2012).

Recent trends suggest that indigenous knowledge has been lauded as a

useful addition to scientific knowledge at a time when existing

methods and techniques have been strained and tested.

There are obvious benefits for the use of indigenous knowledge on

the surface of the topic; it acts to increase our global knowledge

whilst simultaneously developing global interests in environmental

well-being. Evidence of previous development projects of the past

that have failed to utilise indigenous knowledge have had harmful

effects on local communities and have wasted precious time and

resources. Take, for example, the ‘Green Revolution’ of the 1970’s

which aimed to introduce new farming technologies (such as double

cropping) that would increase seasonal yields and thus develop

4

Troy King

exports and the economies of developing countries. Although these

aims were met, the changes caused significant damage on a local

level, leaving disproportionate distribution of wealth and increased

poverty. Mechanisation replaced labourers leaving them paralysed in

deprivation of nutrition (Scott, 1985). Before we go in with science

we have to appreciate what has been sustaining these cultures for

generations and why it has worked for so long; “traditional

techniques have been tried and tested; are effective, inexpensive,

locally available, and culturally appropriate” (Grenier, 1998, 7).

Indigenous peoples have been paying close attention to their

environment for a long time because their understanding of it is the

key to survival. If we are to understand their environments we must

learn from their knowledge first.

Climate change concerns have had a great deal of attention towards

Arctic regions due to the rising global temperature that is melting

the ice. If this continues there is high risk of widespread flooding

and releasing new Greenhouse Gases that are held in the permafrost.

Thus, there is focussed attention upon weather changes that are

taking place in these Arctic regions because little is known about

these ecosystems and the potential damage it could cause. Luckily

the Indigenous Inuit peoples of Canada have been habitant in such

areas and have built a plethora or knowledge about weather changes

over history. Many Inuit activities “are governed by environmental

conditions” (Gearheard, 2010, 267) because their lifestyle depends

on their understanding of it. It has already been proven that Inuit

knowledge should not be shunned after the “indigenous peoples’

population estimates of caribou, fish or whale populations have been

found to be far more accurate than scientific estimates” (Grenier,

1998, 10). The Nunavut Impact Review Board has given specific

instruction to keep indigenous knowledge of equal importance to

5

Troy King

scientific knowledge. Evidently indigenous knowledge has become a

respectable field of knowledge in climate change discourse. Its

assets can complement and outweigh the usefulness of scientific

knowledge which displays a potential dialogue for the two to work

effectively in tandem.

The reasons why the two parameters of knowledge complement each

other is worth exploring because it provides a useful insight to the

dynamics of the relationship that can be used as an example for

future projects. Reasons for it not working are equally, if not

more, useful too as it outlines hindrances that can be better

prepared for in future. A basic interpretation for the reason why

indigenous knowledge and scientific knowledge integrate well is that

they are both based on observation. For example the observations

made by satellites using microwave radiometry on weather patterns

can be confirmed by indigenous peoples’ observations on the ground

level which then helps for warning systems for local populations

(UNUChannel, 2012). One of the reasons indigenous knowledge was

disregarded for so long was the assumption of its techniques being

based on supernatural explanation systems, however, it “often

involves mechanistic explanation of natural processes comparable

with, and often complementing , scientific knowledge” (Colfer, 2005,

179). Not only would it be useful if the results were able to

complement each other, but if results were to be of a similar status

then it would be of significant importance. Scientific analysis

often involves expensive or electronic equipment and indigenous

analysis often involves understanding natural phenomena in the local

ecosystem that are observed closely. If both are equally effective,

then it would reduce the need for electrical and expensive equipment

that adds to the problem it is designed to solve; “to foster inter-

linkages of mutual benefit” (Bala, 2007, 41).

6

Troy King

A further reason as to why the duo of knowledge systems act well

together comes from the sole purpose and definition of science

itself. To take Bala and Joseph’s definition that the scientific

“process as a whole reflects the ideal of completeness pursued by

scientists and constitutes and in-built dynamic for continuality

improving knowledge” (Bala, 2007, 45) would suggest that science

should naturally embrace indigenous knowledge. If science were to

reject indigenous knowledge then it would be undermining its own

primary purpose of expanding knowledge and striving to be complete.

Thus it could be considered that it is indeed imperative for

scientific and indigenous knowledge to integrate if it is to achieve

its goal of surmounting climate change issues.

A chief example of how this collaboration has proven successful is

the ‘Nganyi Indigenous Knowledge Adaption Project’ in which

traditional weather predictors have united with local meteorologists

to ensure the best weather forecasts for local people. For nine

generations the Nganyi people’s of Western Kenya have relied upon

‘rain makers’ to predict weather so that people know when to take

certain actions to ensure producing the best possible harvest.

Climate change has struck the community hard; it has affected land

and soil so that the people do not know how to farm their own land

anymore. Furthermore, the ‘rain makers’ are struggling to make

accurate predictions with harsher weathers because their techniques

rely on natural shrines of the forest. The Nganyi are aware that

they must adopt new strategies in the face of these changes if they

are to survive. The ‘Nganyi Indigenous Knowledge Adaption Project’

has integrated the technology of government satellites with the

‘rain maker’ techniques in seasonal meetings to make a forecast. A

‘rain maker’ points out that “the two sciences are equally

legitimate” (Miller, 2009) and stresses that the collaboration has a

7

Troy King

common goal to help the people, thus, a harmonious consensus is

formed. Both sides benefit from this collaboration because Nganyi

‘rain makers’ are less able to make accurate predictions to help

their people adapt, and the meteorologists can utilise the

“community networking that the Nganyi family have built up over

100’s of years” (Miller, 2009) in a more climate friendly way of

transferring information. The project has succeeded in improving

food security for Nganyi because they can now act according to

forthcoming conditions, for example, if drought it coming they know

to sell their cattle. The project is also documenting Nganyi

techniques into a book so that knowledge can be published and

shared.

So far we have established plenty of positives about the integration

of scientific and indigenous knowledge but like all issues related

to climate change there is never a completely smooth side to it. In

spite of our explorations of the similarities and harmonies between

the two knowledge systems, there are some differences between the

two that can lead to disagreements in results. Shankar argues that

scientific knowledge strives to isolate problems and “eliminate its

interlinkage with various other factors and to reduce a problem to a

small number of controllable parameters” (Shankar, 1996). Whereas

indigenous knowledge systems are holistic and “examine problems in

their entirety, together with interlinkages and complexities”

(Shankar, 1996) that are recorded over differing time scales to the

former. These differences are exposed when examining the results of

the Inuit observations of weather changes in the ‘Clyde River’

region of Canada in comparison to the meteorological station

observations. As mentioned earlier, Inuit way of life is dependent

on weather changes and thus they are highly sensitive to any

climatic differences that might hinder their day-to-day lives. Wind

8

Troy King

changes have become a focal point for both the Inuit and the

scientists because it influences ice, ocean and weather conditions

and therefore they are attempting to collaborate observations of

wind change for mutual benefits.

As Shankar outlines, the Inuit have a holistic approach to

observations, constantly taking note in everyday activities of

weather patterns. Their knowledge is refers to “sea ice, snow,

weather, animal behaviour, precipitation, ocean currents and many

other environmental phenomena” (Gearheard, 2010, 286) which

subsequently results in dynamic and processual knowledge gained from

their own experience’s and generations before them. The scientific

observations are somewhat different; observations of various wind

parameters are taken individually by independent measuring

instruments. The Inuit results show that they have noticed three

major changes in wind speed, variability and direction over the last

few decades however the weather station in the area do not identify

any significant changes for the last four decades. This disagreement

raises important questions about legitimacy of each other’s methods

and whose should be considered more accurate. Therefore we must take

a closer look into the differences between the ways the two

observations were made. One simple distinction is that the weather

station is situated in the flats in contrast to the Inuit hunters

who work in areas bordered by mountains; nonetheless, one would

still expect similar patterns. Perhaps it is the differences in the

consistencies of how observations have been made over the given time

scale. The weather station has been using the same instruments since

the beginning of their study; on the other hand the Inuit knowledge

has been passed down orally through generations of individual

interpretations which could create some inconsistencies.

Furthermore, Inuit have used variant hunting techniques; “wind is

9

Troy King

likely to affect dog teams differently than it effects snowmobiles”

(Gearheard, 2010, 290) given that Inuit do pay attention to animal

behaviour. Subsequently, the comparisons are not comparable because

observations are of a differing nature; Inuit are fundamentally

concerned with sudden changes that affect hunting whereas the

weather station is concerned with consistency in their timescales.

Although there are little agreements in these results, disagreements

can be significantly enlightening with respect to re-thinking

methodology and setting examples for future considerations in

projects of a similar nature. In this case, the project can now

move forward to become more specific about the spheres of time and

space in their observations and re-assess their results. The work

done to bring the dialogue of the two knowledge systems into closer

discourse is not agreed with universally. Agrawal points out that

there are potential issues in pulling them together. Knowledge

systems are dynamic and processual which adapt as they learn,

constantly looking to improve and expand. By bringing them closer

together he foresees that they will inevitably learn from each

other, subsequently “collapsing the distinction between science and

traditional knowledge” (Bala, 2007, 46) to become one body of

knowledge. Many may argue that creating one body of knowledge is

precisely what we need to address the issues of climate change. In

spite of this, in the duty to preserve and protect our climate we

also have a duty to protect and preserve our diverse cultures. If

the boundaries between science and indigenous knowledge are to be

distorted and amalgamated it would threaten cultural integrity

because it would encourage the foundations of universal thinking. I

will not explore this topic into too much depth from fear of

straying from the topic at hand, nevertheless important to note that

10

Troy King

we must be careful with the parameters of the two knowledge systems

in their dialogues.

Cultural degradation is a serious topic of global discussions at

present with the forces of globalisation acting to corrode cultural

values and techniques and younger generations of indigenous peoples

are becoming less interested in inheriting the ancient ways of their

people. Thus, if we are to integrate science and indigenous

knowledge it is also imperative that we attempt the preserve these

valuable traditional systems of knowledge before they are lost or

unfound. The most effective way to do this is to document these

findings because much of “indigenous knowledge if transmitted

orally” (Grenier, 1998, 5) and is therefore vulnerable to rapid

societal changes. There has already been significant action to

support this trend as we have seen with the Nganyi previously as

well as ‘The Indigenous Knowledge Monitor’, a “journal devoted

entirely to documenting such knowledge” (Colfer, 2005, 173). Not

only would documentation preserve the sanctity of indigenous

knowledge, it would also act to prevent exclusion of indigenous

knowledge in discussions and projects regarding climate change. It

would allow increased awareness in academia for the plethora of

knowledge indigenous people can offer about our world’s ecosystems

and how we can use them for global benefits.

The Australian Aborigines are one of the oldest existing cultures in

the world with their history dating back 50,000 years. Their

knowledge systems are tied intimately to the lands that they live

in, for them, experience of the land is knowledge. Their deep

cultural roots have survived many dramatic climate changes giving

them vast experience in adaptation. Evidence of their experiences in

variant weather conditions can be found in rock paintings where they

are seen with the lightening man (depicting storms) and throwing

11

Troy King

boomerangs indicating their habitats in open land (Green, 2010).

Anthropologist Michael Jackson’s ethnography ‘At Home in the World’

goes into detail about aboriginal (Walpiri) concerns over growing

integration of their children into schools who are losing the

incentive to learn the traditional way’s of the aboriginal people.

Documentation of their knowledge systems provides a useful antidote

for their concerns on losing cultural values however there are

notable hindrances and difficulties such as language barriers and

traditional systems that do not “always sit easily within a western

scientific paradigm” (Green, 2010, 341). Nevertheless, The Bureau of

Meteorology has pushed through these complications in their

Indigenous Weather Project that has put together a seasonal weather

calendar seen in figure 1. As stressed throughout this paper,

knowledge systems are dynamic and processual and therefore it must

be ensured that documentation must be kept up-to-date for it to

maintain its relevance. If we are serious about expanding our

knowledge of global systems then we must not take for granted the

indigenous populations remarkable ability to adapt to climate change

as they have done for generations. Documenting their advancements

and techniques is critical so that we can learn from it and utilise

it to integrate with ever expanding scientific knowledge to tackle

climate change most effectively.

This paper has scratched at the surface of the multitude of issues

arising when integration science with indigenous knowledge.

Nevertheless it has presented how the discourse can be successful

but also how it is unsuccessful and potentially problematic. The

underlying argument has been that the natures of all knowledge

systems are dynamic and processual and we must be aware of this

trend and make sure we take precaution. As discussed, documentation

is a primary example for how we can combat the potentially negative

12

Troy King

sides to collaborating science and indigenous knowledge. The over-

arching argument is that the collaboration serves a vast global good

to which it has the power to move forward in tackling the issues of

climate change as well as developing ways in which people can adapt.

In short, “the marriage of traditional and scientific knowledge is

potentially the most potent combination for both environmental and

human well-being” (Colfer, 2005, 180).

BibliographyArun Bala, G. J. (2007). Indigenous knowledge and western science: the possibility of dialogue. Race Class , 39-58.

Campbell, C. (2009, 08 14). Colin Campbell - on indigenous knowledgeand the Earth. (T. G. Foundation, Interviewer)

Channel, U. (2012, 08 05). YouTube. Retrieved 11 20, 2012, from www.youtube.com: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzBQZwpRhI0

Colfer, C.J.P. and Colchester, M. and Joshi, L. and Puri, R.K. and Nygren, A. and Lopez, C. (2005) Traditional Knowledge and Human Well-Being in the 21st Century. In: Mery, G. and Alfaro, R. and Kanninen, M. and Lobovikov, M., eds. Forests in the Global Balance -Changing Paradigms. IUFRO- World Forests Society and Environment Project, pp. 173-182. ISBN 3-901347-55-0

D Green, G. R. (2010). Indigenous Knowledge of a changing climate. Climatic Change , 239-242.

Donna Green, J. B. (2010). Indigenous Australians’ knowledge of weather and climate. Climatic Change , 337-354.

Grenier, L. (1998). Working With Indigenous Knowledge: A Guide For Researchers. Ottowa: IDRC.

Raygorodetsky, G. (2012, 12 13). United Nations University. Retrieved 11 21, 2012, from www.unu.edu:

13

Troy King

http://unu.edu/publications/articles/why-traditional-knowledge-holds-the-key-to-climate-change.html

Scott, J. (1985). Weapons of the Weak: Everyday forms of Peasant Resistance. YaleUniverity Press.

Shankar, D. (1996). The epistemology of the indigenous medical knowledge systems of India. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor, 4(3). Online: http://www.nufficcs.nl/ciran/ikdm/.

Shari Gearheard, M. P. (2010). Linking Inuit knowledge and meteorological station observations to understand changing wind patterns at Clyde River, Nunavut. Climatic Change , 267-294.

14