Inclusion in body and mind: ensuring full participation of Indigenous peoples and local communities in decisions related to nature

Synthesis, part of a special feature on Beyond the Assessment on the Diverse Values of Nature: Hidden gems, Biases, Frontiers, Challenges, and Insights

INTRODUCTION

The inclusion of the knowledge and perspectives of Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC) in global science-policy processes are increasingly being mandated (IPBES 2019, 2022, SCBD 2020, Pörtner et al. 2021). This is indicative of the recognition of their expertise and worldviews to inform social and ecological decisions. Although many assessment processes previously recognized the importance of IPLC (Turnhout et al. 2012, Hill et al. 2020), the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) represents the biggest effort to include Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) at a broad scale in science-policy processes (Brondizio et al. 2019, Hill et al. 2020). IPBES recognizes that diverse social, cultural, and environmental knowledge of IPLC contributes extensively to sustainability and thus has a major role to play in assessments and policy formulation for biodiversity and ecosystem services (Diaz et al. 2015, Brondizio et al. 2019, Hill et al. 2020, Balvanera et al. 2022). Elements of IPBES’ ILK approach cover enabling conditions for their inclusion, including participatory mechanisms (Hill et al. 2020). IPLC played a prominent role in shaping the conceptual framing of the global and other assessments (Thaman et al. 2013, Diaz et al 2015), resulting in more integrated conceptualizations of people and nature (Diaz et al. 2015). IPBES has, through its ILK Process, integrated several strategies to ensure engagement of ILK and IPLC providing many entry points including as nominators, authors, reviewers, and organizers of communication events (Hill et al. 2020). Specific strategies included the setting up of ILK Liaison Groups (McElwee et al. 2020), devising key ILK-related questions, in consultation with ILK leaders (Thaman et al. 2013, Brondizio et al. 2019, Hill et al. 2020, Balvanera et al. 2022), specifically to review evidence, identify ILK specific authors, databases, networks, and organizations and get feedback through dialogue workshops (McElwee et al. 2020, Balvanera et al. 2022). These strategies were perhaps given the most weight in the IPBES Values Assessment (VA; Balvanera et al. 2020, Pascual et al. 2023). Experts surmise that these approaches are supporting ILK by shifting focus toward respecting rights, supporting care and mutuality, strengthening communities and their knowledge systems, and supporting knowledge exchange (Tengö et al. 2017, Hill et al. 2020). Including IPLC has enriched our understanding of nature and its contributions to people, assisted in assessing and monitoring ecosystem change, and contributed to international targets and scenario development toward achieving global goals, generating inclusive and policy-relevant options for people and nature (McElwee et al. 2020, Hill et al. 2020). Nonetheless, significant challenges in weaving ILK and other knowledge systems exist (Tengö et al. 2017, McElwee et al. 2020, Cámara-Leret and Dennehy 2019). Authors highlight fundamental underlying flaws in the assessments’ theory of change (Löfmarck and Lidskog 2017, Urzedo and Robinson 2023) and the lack of capacities (Hill et al. 2020) that enable true inclusion of IPLC/ ILK. Some challenges are methodological, like when reviews may be open to including non-academic sources, which are not necessarily catalogued and accessible in the same way as scientific knowledge, and there are major limits in scientific experts’ understanding of the depth and breadth of ILK, and the rules by which the integrity of such knowledge is evaluated (Cámara-Leret and Dennehy 2019). Other challenges are systemic such as operational rules of IPBES where Indigenous experts from Global North countries are not eligible for IPBES funding, making it difficult for effective and equitable participation of such experts from these countries. Despite IPBES’ adoption of the multiple evidence approach (Tengö et al. 2014, 2017) that recognizes diverse knowledge systems should be evaluated separately and by their own rules, weaving these knowledge systems to craft general messages for policy makers is challenging, especially given power differences between knowledge systems (Tengö et al. 2017, McElwee et al. 2020). At a deeper level, IPBES has struggled to reconcile an open, collaborative atmosphere with the demands for structure set by the scientific format (Löfmarck and Lidskog 2017) and has not been able to sufficiently support the capacities required for true integration of diverse forms of knowledge, including customary institutions that ensure the integrity of ILK, and shared governance of the assessment process (Tengö et al. 2017, Hill et al. 2020). In practice, it has yet to solve the epistemological challenges of knowledge generation and validation when working across knowledge-systems (Löfmarck and Lidskog 2017, Tengö et al. 2017), treating scientific knowledge and ILK as easily distinguishable entities ignoring potentially conflict-laden issues (Root-Bernstein et al. 2023). Importantly, it is unclear if IPLC themselves are adequately benefitting from their engagement in the IPBES process (Balvanera et al. 2022), and whether it has helped address issues such as identity and representation in ILK contexts (Tengö et al. 2017).

Summarizing, the discussion thus far begs the question whether IPLC stakes are really factored in decisions on nature. This could be reflected through decisions made on land or sea uses by different actors, incentives given to various activities, and distribution of power and authority to prioritize some types of decisions over others. Furthermore, it is also important to ascertain if IPLC feel that their knowledge is sufficiently represented in assessments that aim to capture their perspectives (mind), and if they believe that they are represented adequately by and for themselves, that is, to have a full seat at the table (body). Although power asymmetries encoded in institutional structures of the science-policy interface do not only affect IPLC (but also academic scientists from the Global South or early-career researchers, for instance), our focus here is on IPLC because they bring onto-epistemological perspectives that are not only underrepresented, but also often fundamentally misaligned with dominant assessment processes. These knowledge systems are grounded in relational worldviews and place-based ethical frameworks that challenge prevailing scientific and policy norms, making their inclusion both crucial and especially difficult. The barriers IPLC face are therefore not only structural, but also epistemic, and demand more than improved representation: they require rethinking how knowledge is recognized, engaged, and co-constructed in global assessments.

This paper presents further reflections on the findings of Chapter 6 of the VA that focused on operationalizing diverse values approaches in policy (Kelemen et al. 2022). Specifically, we examine how IPLC are consulted, and their values included in sectoral and cross-sectoral policies interlinked with biodiversity. We also reflect specifically on IPLC experiences in the VA Chapter 6 process, in terms of both epistemological and physical representativeness.

METHODOLOGY

Epistemological representativeness is captured through a semi-structured review of literature selected for an analysis that examined how diverse values were incorporated in decisions related to nature within and across sectors. The review builds chiefly on that conducted for Chapter 6 of the VA (primarily in the English language). This body of evidence included academic and grey literature (e.g., previous IPBES reports, policy documents, and NGO reports) and was assessed in three steps. Firstly, key words were identified (viz., multiple or plural or diverse or integrated values, or approaches in decisions or policies on nature, nature and development, and “sector specific” words), along the sectors and cross-sectoral themes that are identified as relevant to various human well-being priorities (urban transitions and infrastructure development, agriculture, nature conservation, health, education, and economics). Secondly, a targeted (non-systematic) literature search of peer-reviewed sources was conducted using search engines including Scopus and Web of Science based on the key words that were identified. Articles were selected for review if they offered empirical insights. The results of the review were organized under the following guiding questions: (1) What benefits, challenges, and gaps can be identified in current and emerging policy options? (2) How are diverse values operationalized in these policy options? (3) How do these policy options contribute to transformative change?

For this paper, our analysis of literature comprised three elements: We first revisited the initially selected publications, focusing specifically on how IPLC engagement manifested across these cases, the barriers to more meaningful participation of IPLC in these processes, and how such participation could facilitate diverse values approaches and transformative change. This is supplemented by semi-structured literature review on representation, enabling conditions and challenges. Secondly, we selected one case study to highlight how the themes that emerged from our literature review may interact in context-specific ways. Lastly, we assessed physical representativeness in our own assessment process, captured through an active participant observation and personal reflection of how an Indigenous scholar was involved in the assessment process and the degree of agency they had to bring on board and reach out to their peer networks for information sharing and gathering.

INCLUSION OF IPLC KNOWLEDGE IN DECISIONS RELATED TO NATURE

Policy makers make decisions about nature based on diverse assumptions, interests, evidence bases, values, and implementation tools (Kelemen et al. 2023). However, the inclusion or exclusion of different voices in these decisions is shaped by power asymmetries, representativeness, and socio-cultural factors (Arias-Arévalo et al. 2023). A more inclusive approach to policy making has the potential to achieve more just and sustainable outcomes (IPBES 2022). Furthermore, integrating multiple ways of knowing and valuing nature into decision making can enhance the transformative potential of sustainability policies (Kelemen et al. 2022). However, inclusion must go beyond rhetorical commitments; it requires structural changes to governance processes that enable IPLC actors to participate on their own terms rather than as external contributors to pre-existing policy models.

Our review identified three key themes regarding IPLC knowledge inclusion in environmental governance. First, IPLC governance systems and customary institutions remain underrecognized in dominant policy frameworks. Although IPLC have well-established systems for managing biodiversity, conservation, and land use, these systems are often actively displaced in favor of top-down governance approaches. Second, dominant policy models often reflect epistemological structures that are misaligned with IPLC ways of knowing and being. Environmental governance frameworks tend to prioritize Western scientific knowledge and market-based approaches, which can lead to the tokenistic inclusion of IPLC perspectives without meaningful shifts in governance structures. Third, there are significant gaps between global policy commitments to pluralistic knowledge systems and the realities of policy implementation on the ground. Even where international agreements recognize the value of ILK, national and local governance structures often fail to integrate these commitments into practice. We illustrate these themes further with examples from conservation and agriculture.

Incorporating customary institutions and management systems governed by IPLC in conservation is important because they are based on local knowledge and encoded in complex cultural practices, relational values, usufruct systems, spiritual beliefs, kinship-oriented philosophies, and principles of stewardship ethics (Berkes et al. 2000, Kohn 2013, Walsh et al. 2013, Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2016). Formal recognition of IPLC rights over their territories not only addresses some of the human rights violations (Kohler and Brondizio 2017) but is also a critical factor to ensure the effectiveness of area-based conservation measures, together with knowledge-sharing and mutual learning processes (Aerts et al. 2016, Irakiza et al. 2016, Jonas et al. 2017). Historically, many dominant conservation policies have taken a protectionist approach that separated people from nature, often excluding IPLC from decision making and displacing their governance systems (Tauli-Corpuz et al. 2020). However, this approach has been actively challenged, not only by IPLC, who see themselves as integral to nature (Krause et al. 2020), but also by many scientists and practitioners, particularly those working in the Global South or in transdisciplinary fields who have resisted exclusionary or instrumentalist paradigms. Reyers and Bennett (2025) describe the emergence of a “people with nature” perspective arising from growing critiques of dominant models and shaped by transdisciplinary, often Global South and IPLC informed perspectives. Although protectionist approaches persist, this framing reflects a shift in parts of conservation science toward more relational and inclusive understandings of people-nature interdependence. In this view, ILK systems are not marginal alternatives but foundational to transforming conservation toward more just and sustainable futures (Chaplin-Kramer et al. 2023)

The growing recognition of the relevance and importance of traditional ecological knowledge within science and policy (IPBES 2022, van Maurik Matuk et al. 2023), also requires a corresponding understanding and inclusion of the relational values of IPLC that shape local and cultural rules and norms (Krause et al. 2020). For instance, local and Indigenous hunters in the Amazon rainforest perceive that hunting is a crucial activity that supports conservation (Bonilla Riveros 2014, Ponta et al. 2019). They have developed intricate knowledge on species interactions, based on which rules and norms on how to use forest fauna in a more sustainable way were established (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1976, Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2016). Although these knowledge systems, norms, and rules are eroding, there remains an opportunity to support local governance and institutions in sustaining them, and in doing so support biodiversity conservation (Ponta et al. 2019). Realizing this potential, however, requires recognizing hunting not merely as a subsistence or extractive activity, but as a practice that connects people with their environment and fosters land stewardship and a sense of belonging (Krause et al. 2020).

Agriculture provides further examples on the benefits and obstacles to including ILK. Cropping systems like shifting cultivation, also called swidden agriculture, constitute what has been described as “living landscapes” supporting land productivity, forest conservation, ecosystem services, and human well-being (Bruun et al. 2009, Li et al. 2014, Dressler et al. 2017). It is the primary source of sustenance for about 500 million of the poorest rural peoples in the humid tropical regions of Central Africa, Asia, and Latin America (Dove 1983, Li et a 2014, Dressler et a 2017). The culture of reciprocal household labor arrangements in swidden agriculture is part of a larger culture of reciprocity in social relations in rural communities (Indra and Buchignani 1997, Vasco 2014, Koczberski et al. 2018). These systems are managed based on culture-specific local and Indigenous knowledges about forest ecosystem functioning and soil conditions (Reyes-García et al. 2008, Wangpakapattanawong et al. 2010, Xu et al. 2017), with crop diversity observed to be directly linked to cultural identity (WinklerPrins and Barrera-Bassols 2004, Perreault 2005, Hume 2006).

Despite the expansion of swidden agriculture in Africa and Latin America, policy initiatives, such as the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme, largely overlook this practice. This may reflect a broader policy hesitancy to mainstream lessons from successful local experiences because of factors such as limited awareness or capacity to implement integrated approaches, and power hierarchies that hinder inclusive decision making. In food production, there is evidence that the global Green Revolution policies of the 1960s to the 1980s led to increased food production and wealth creation for large landholders (FAO 2011, Patel 2013, Pingali 2012), while the poorest, smallholder farmers lost out. More recently, India has witnessed a widely publicized farmer protest against new government policies to reshape farming in India (Mashal et al. 2021). Although the immediate cause was that local smallholder farmers felt the new policies favored large commercial farmers and farm enterprises (national and multinational), Aga (2021) shows that some of the farmers’ resentment can be traced back to the impact of the Green Revolution on smallholder farmers, as it ignored local agro-ecological knowledge, which led to an ecological, agrarian, and economic crisis for local peasant farmers in the 1990s, and subsequently to an “epidemic of suicides” by local farmers (see also Agarwal 2021, Dongre and Deshmukh 2012:1), a scenario consistent with peoples who have been dispossessed from their ancestral lands (Ansloos and Peltier 2022). This is not to essentialize the views and opinions of IPLC as the most important in decision making; as Ingram (2022) notes, local communities could hold views that are restrictive and discriminatory. We argue for multiple and diverse values in the room, including those of IPLC because multiple values lead to “a more widely accepted consensus or compromise” (Ehrlich and Ross 2015, Kenter et al. 2016:362), owned, legitimized, and complied with by all affected parties. Non-inclusion generates suspicion, illegitimacy, non-compliance, and unsustainability.

While reviewing how diverse values were taken up across different policies and policy support tools, it was observed that policy development and implementation that facilitated transformations toward sustainable outcomes was often approached as a learning activity (Kelemen et al. 2022). These cases used a broad range of flexible criteria that represented diverse values, stakeholders and knowledge systems in policy development, implementation, and monitoring, and illustrated social-ecological complexity that influenced policy development and decision-making processes. We demonstrate below the advantages of such an approach using an in-depth case study from Canada.

Efforts to include ILK in nuclear waste management in Canada

Nuclear systems represent a special challenge in waste management as the waste contains residual radioactivity and chemical toxicity that persists for a very long time. Radioactive waste management policies are often perceived as controversial, with stakeholders having opposing views (Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada 1998, IAEA 2018, 2020, Fischer et al. 2019, Bell 2021, Mayhew and Perritt 2021). The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), the not-for-profit corporation responsible for the long-term management of used nuclear fuel in Canada, recognizes that Indigenous knowledge (IK), including strong relational values to nature, is essential in understanding its contribution to sustainable development (NWMO 2010, 2016, Fischer et al. 2015, IPBES 2019, Cajete 2020, FPP 2020, Hill et al. 2020, Woroniecki et al. 2020).

Here, the Canadian Constitution definition of Indigenous peoples (IP) is adopted, recognizing three groups: First Nations, Inuit, and Métis, who hold Aboriginal and Treaty rights (section 35 of the Constitution Act). Roles of rights-holders and stakeholders in this case study are described within the boundaries established by the NWMO’s Indigenous Knowledge and Reconciliation policies (NWMO 2016, 2019), which ensure respect for, and protection of knowledge shared throughout the consent-based process operating within the overarching federal regulatory regime. It may seem that the essential role IP have assumed in the long-term management of used nuclear fuel in Canada is paradoxical. Indeed, this is a complex and nuanced discussion, and one that risks incorrectly painting IP in Canada as a monolith regarding their values and aspirations in relationship to Canada’s plan for the long-term management of its used nuclear fuel. It is widely accepted that a long-term solution is needed, including by IP who have stewardship responsibilities to the lands, waters, and non-human beings who could be affected if the material is not safely and securely managed into the future. An overarching lack of trust of industry persists from legacy practices that excluded IPLC from participation in decision making, knowledge contribution, and equitable benefit from developments and policies including the value of the relationship to lands and waters (e.g., Cajete 2020), and management of used nuclear fuel is no exception. Across the world, the diverse values regarding effective and just nuclear waste management are evident while juxtaposed with the pragmatism that solutions to the inherited legacy of the hazard are needed and the “do nothing” option is not risk free (Leonard 1997, Fan 2006, Green 2017, Chiblow 2019, McIntosh 2022, AFN 2023, Bratt et al. 2023).

There is a long history related to the process to implement a long-term strategy for the management of used nuclear fuel in Canada (Hare et al. 1977, Porter 1978, 1980, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada 1998, Johnson 2007, Ramana 2013). In 2002, through the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, this responsibility was assigned to the NWMO. A multiyear, dialogue-driven iterative study involving citizens (> 18,000) that included technical specialists (> 500) and IP (> 2500) was undertaken to determine a path forward. Importantly, engagements with Indigenous peoples were largely led by Indigenous organizations. Through this process, objectives on issues ranging from fairness, public and worker health and safety, to environmental integrity and community well-being were established, and focused on two essential requirements: (1) the approach must be safe and secure for people, communities, and the environment; and (2) it must be fair, both to current and future generations (NWMO 2005). Consequently, the plan called Adaptive Phased Management (APM) was recommended as both a technical and management approach for used nuclear fuel by the NWMO and was adopted by the federal government as Canada’s Plan in 2007. The APM Project is being implemented through continued dialogue with Canadians and IP, and explicitly accounts for the importance of Indigenous knowledge (IK) and local values, embedding consideration thereof into Canada’s Plan (NWMO 2024).

Since 2010, the NWMO has been engaged in a voluntary participation site selection process to identify a site where Canada’s used nuclear fuel can be safely isolated in a deep geological repository. The total lifecycle cost of the APM Project, from site selection through regulatory approval, construction, operation, long-term monitoring, and closure (approximately 150 years), is $26 billion (Canadian, in 2020 dollars) and will have implications for social and economic conditions locally and regionally (NWMO 2024). Canada’s Plan will only move forward at a site with informed and willing hosts, with municipalities and Indigenous nations determining willingness (NWMO 2010, NWMO 2020, NWMO 2024). Twenty-two communities initially expressed interest in the project, including three Indigenous communities. All other potential sites would have been located within the traditional territory of First Nations, such that Aboriginal and Treaty rights must be addressed throughout siting and beyond to construction and operations. The three main success factors of the NWMO’s approach are regulatory and policy commitments, organizational capacity building, and the participatory decision-making process. These are explained below in more detail.

Since the establishment of the modern state of Canada, decision-making processes have been dominated by Western (scientific) values, which carries its own viewpoints, experimental activities, and social institutions (Basalla 1967, Ehrlich and Ross 2015, Cajete 2020). There is concerted effort to bring other values into regulatory processes more recently, for example, through Canada’s Impact Assessment Act. Through this Act, the federal government has confirmed the regulatory requirement to integrate ILK, wherever possible, to support a sustainability-based assessment framework (IAAC 2019). However, this Act is relatively new (2019) and the effectiveness of implementation of diverse values through the regulatory process remains to be seen.

The NWMO formed the Council of Elders and Youth, an independent advisory body comprising Indigenous elders and youth from across Canada who have been instrumental in the development of NWMO policy. The NWMO’s IK and Reconciliation policies (NWMO 2016, NWMO 2019) formally commit that IK will inform all aspects of the NWMO’s work while ensuring IK is respected and protected, and that the NWMO will contribute toward reconciliation (Tengö et al. 2014, 2017, Díaz et al. 2015, TRC 2015, Hill et al. 2020). The NWMO also issued governance on environmental responsibility, water, and sustainability along with an ethical and social framework, promoting the commitment that diverse values, including the inter-relationships between human-ecological systems, will be accommodated and applied to decision making (NWMO 2024).

Consistent with the literature (Croal et al. 2012, Arctic Council Indigenous Peoples’ Secretariat 2015, Council of Elders and Youth 2016, Tengö et al. 2017, TNC 2017, Muir 2018, Cajete 2020, Eckert et al. 2020), Indigenous community members and The Council of Elders and Youth have confirmed to Executive at the NWMO that opportunities to learn and work together help establish the reciprocal foundation of trust and respect essential for the successful implementation of Canada’s plan for long-term management of used nuclear fuel. The NWMO actively works to successfully include Indigenous perspectives within the APM Project by addressing the knowledge gap that Western scientists have with respecting IK in planning and decision making (Tengö et al. 2014, 2017, Díaz et al. 2015, FPP 2020, Hill et al. 2020). It has adopted a participatory process with partnership as an outcome, recognizing that working at the community level and taking the lead from local IK holders is the only way to incorporate the nuances of the region (Whyte et al. 2016, Cajete 2020, Mayhew and Perritt 2021). This has often involved “experiencing” the land together, participating in ceremony when invited to do so, and co-creating studies focused on features of the biophysical environment of most value to those involved in the process (Reo 2011, Landsberg et al. 2013, Tengö et al. 2014, 2017, Johnson et al. 2016, Rosa and Sánchez 2016, Arnold and Hanna 2017, TBC 2018, Cajete 2020, Mayhew and Perritt 2021). Inclusion of the results of engagement with communities early in the process means concerns are considered and studies conducted in a culturally appropriate manner following protocols established by local First Nations. The voluntary participation of communities in the process, leading to successfully confirming a site for the deep geological repository through consent, is an accomplishment considering the challenges experienced in other countries, and previously in Canada, toward a permanent solution for radioactive waste (Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada 1998, IAEA 2020, Mayhew and Perritt 2021).

A collective personal reflection on IPLC participation in IPBES

We highlight some of the challenges faced by IPLC representatives to fully contribute to IPBES assessments, through a narration of our experience during the assessment process in the engagement of the ideas of an indigenous scholar who was part of the Chapter team. The nomination and selection process for any author to an IPBES assessment is heavily weighted toward government recommendations with a comparatively narrow opportunity for non-government nominees. Government focal points are not always connected to, or aware of, Indigenous researchers and their areas of expertise. Nominees are then screened by the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel. In the case of the VA, one Indigenous scholar joined the Chapter 6 Team. Although excited at the prospect of being able to contribute ILK directly to the content of the assessment she also expressed some frustration with the multiple levels of challenges and in some cases barriers to achieving this. These challenges included both systemic and operational issues, as explained below:

(i) A default bias toward one knowledge system: Even when there are multiple decisions and policies committing to inclusion of diverse values and knowledge systems, the reality is that it is unnecessarily challenging. In the absence of understanding Indigenous knowledge, or having greater numbers of appointed Indigenous authors, there’s a tendency to revert to status quo ways of knowing, doing, conceptualizing, researching, and writing.

(ii) A reliance on a limited number of predominantly English language terms to search for papers for the literature reviews: Many Indigenous scholars are using Indigenous language terms in the titles of their papers. For example, the term “Indigenous knowledge” is not commonly used in some countries such as New Zealand (NZ). The more widely used term is mātauranga, a Māori term for knowledge (Muru-Lanning 2012, Ruru and Nikora 2021, Broughton et al. 2015, Ataria et al. 2018). A search using mātauranga; will reveal a considerable body of work spanning 30–40 years from NZ that may not come up in a standard literature search using terms such as Indigenous knowledge.

(iii) The notion of using “level of agreement” as a measurement of the credibility of evidence/data as applied in the IPBES Guide on the Production of Assessments (p. 30) does not take into account that many Indigenous authored papers are directly challenging dominant epistemologies and assumptions based on colonial understandings of the world. Hence the purpose of their papers is the opposite of achieving “agreement” of non-Indigenous peers. Their papers are attempting to change a paradigm, to transform the very nature of research (Smith 1999), and to create new Indigenous research approaches, such as Kaupapa Māori, which re-center research around Māori worldviews, values, and aspirations, a research paradigm grounded in principles such as whakapapa (genealogy), tikanga (customs), and rangatiratanga (self-determination), and can be described as “research by Māori, for Māori, and with Māori” (Mane 2009, Smith 2015, Mikahere-Hall 2017, Chilisa 2020).

(iv) Whereas most UN agencies have acknowledged the seven sociocultural regions where Indigenous peoples live and fund Indigenous representation at meetings accordingly, IPBES still operates under the developed/developing country concept. Although much is made of encouraging Indigenous participation, including as authors, only Indigenous representatives from developing countries are funded. This serves to add another experience of discrimination to Indigenous authors from developed countries who are expected to self-fund.

If one looks at the demographics of IPBES assessment teams, the number of Indigenous experts who manage to successfully navigate the selection process is minimal. There remain larger numbers of non-indigenous researchers some of whom compete for and occupy spaces that could and should be made available to Indigenous experts, as lead-authors and conceptualizers. Furthermore, there tends to be an assumption that capacity building is only required for ILK holders to be trained in science or policy. It is equally the case however that scientists and policy makers need specialist training to learn how to navigate Indigenous-led research, and to work successfully with Indigenous communities in collaborative research particularly within an access and benefit sharing framework. Reflection about the protocols that should inform how non-Indigenous researchers engage in Indigenous focused research, requires greater attention within IPBES processes (Barnes 2013, Huambachano et al. 2025).

Some examples of such protocols include works such as Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples(Smit 1999) on conducting respectful research with IPLC; Kaupapa Māori Research paradigm, developed by Māori researchers (Cram 2013), and a set of Guidelines for Science Partnerships with Kaitiaki (Indigenous guardians) for research involving Taonga (Cultural and Natural heritage) (Potter and Mangai 2022). Many Indigenous communities, universities, and science entities have developed guidelines outlining their expectations on conduct of scientific research with Indigenous peoples such as: Guidelines for Ethical Research in Indigenous Studies (AITSIS 2000, Australia), Latin American Society of Ethnobiology’s Code of Ethics (SOLAE Ethics Committee et al. 2018), Research Involving the First Nations, Inuit and Metis Peoples of Canada (Canadian Institutes of Health Research et al. 2022).

We were made aware of the expectation that a Values Assessment would enable Indigenous knowledge to be showcased and indeed championed. However, ILK was subsumed into a melting pot of “other” values. The scope of Indigenous-led academic research, and the transformative innovations it has led to in multiple scientific disciplines, are still relatively unacknowledged.

Recognizing such gaps exist across the whole assessment team relating to the practicalities of developing and implementing Indigenous values into national legislation and policies, the Indigenous co-author offered to host in NZ a small meeting of the Chapter 6 authors. The intent was to collect practical examples of policy makers addressing the various issues the Assessment was writing about: how to develop, implement, and assess performance of laws and policies that encompass more than one knowledge and value systems in conservation and environmental management. There are numerous examples in NZ legislation and policies that include specific provisions relating to the consideration of Māori (Indigenous values, knowledge, rights, and responsibilities; Mead et al. 2022). This offer however was declined because of general IPBES rules of procedures. As the Technical Support Unit of the VA communicated, authors were not allowed to meet with external stakeholders during the assessment writing process, and accepting an invitation from a country to host an authors’ meeting would have set a precedent. Additionally, having lengthy travel times for participants to get to NZ was considered as a risk of “losing time.”

The accumulative effect of the experience of trying to work within an assessment purporting to value and respect Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous knowledge holders while unable to break the barriers and challenges to doing so resulted in our colleague withdrawing as an author, depriving the team of a fully involved expert for the remaining assessment process. This highlights that despite IPBES’s strong commitment to engage with IPLC, its general rules of procedures can still lead to exclusion. More can be done to address the systemic biases, policies, and procedures inherent in its modus operandi to avoid such unintended effects.

DISCUSSION

Representation of and by IPLC for themselves in decision making and assessment platforms

The recent endeavours to weave diverse knowledges, including ILK and different disciplinary traditions, together and co-produce commendable decisions requires a critical analysis as there is evidence that these attempts still often work to the disadvantage of IPLC knowledge systems because of persistent power imbalances (Stevenson 1996, Usher 2000, Tengö et al. 2014, 2017, Johnson et al. 2016, Huambachano et al. 2025). Our review, case studies, and reflection enlightened four practical reasons that prevent such a knowledge integration from happening on a day-to-day basis:

1. A major and fundamental challenge relates to the often-unspoken, non-verbal, onto-epistemological, and cultural differences between IPLC and dominant knowledge systems, particularly those grounded in Western scientific traditions. Personal and professional perspectives, lifestyles, social norms, and worldviews differ widely, leading sometimes to bias and prejudice, for instance in how people relate to and view nature and their role in it. Nature-centered and holistic worldviews that often characterize ILK systems pose a challenge for Western-trained scientists and scientific institutions. Overcoming the bounds of disciplinary constraints and opening to pluralistic approaches to understanding is a tough undertaking for an individual and even more difficult for institutions.

2. In many cases, environmental, social, and economic trends and the onset of modernity profoundly impacts and changes human-nature relations, and centuries of colonialism in all its forms has also changed the knowledge of IPLC and their relationships with nature. For instance, environmental degradation, the loss of access to territories, and the disappearance of local languages profoundly affected the state of ILK (UN 2018, Cámara-Leret and Bascompte 2021, Menton and Le Billon 2021), which may be perceived as no longer complete or relevant by Western knowledge holders. Nonetheless, without making a value judgement on the status of ILK, it is an international legal obligation to include it in decision making (ILO Convention 169). Moreover, ILK is increasingly seen as fundamental to the transformative change required to addressing the climate, biodiversity pollution, and related polycrises (IPBES 2024). Therefore, it is essential these knowledges are taken seriously and, as we show, IPBES represents a critical step toward the respectful inclusion of these knowledges in science-policy processes, despite the shortcomings and limitations that we have presented here.

3. In many contexts and societies, IPLC remain legally and economically marginalized by public institutions, prevalent social norms, and economic structures (Hartel et al. 2023). They are often underrepresented in governments and state agencies and are more likely to experience multi-dimensional poverty (Faguet et al. 2020, Gordon et al. 2020, OPHI and UNDP 2021, UNDP 2022). This structural marginalization of IPLC prevents them from fully participating in society, politics, or the economy, and has implications for particular projects to protect biodiversity that should include IPLC effectively and equitably in order to prevent negative impacts on the very people who own and use resources that are the object of conservation interventions (Tauli-Corpuz et al. 2020, Hartel et al. 2023). In practice this marginalization also means that many IPLC are either excluded from or struggle to take part in activities and events because they need to secure the sustenance for their families. Furthermore, their participation still remains rather tokenistic for the aforementioned reasons (Belfer et al. 2019) and therefore many IPLC may choose to not attend meetings and forgo the potential visibility and awareness that this brings. The experience from one of the authors underlines this challenge vividly.

4. Different perceptions of time frames are another reason for the difficulty to achieve IPLC representation in environmental governance broadly and specific scientific or conservation projects. ILK tends to be based on timescales aligned with the rhythm of nature and longitudinal observation of the environment that span decades and less to the short-lived rhythm of meetings, projects schedules, and deliverables. This calls for more sensitive procedures of consultations and inclusion of IPLC on terms they would be comfortable with, for instance, mechanisms that enable IPLC-led review and consultation processes in contexts that respond to the broader framings of assessments.

In summary, we have outlined and described some of the reasons and barriers for IPLC inclusion and participation from our experience at the science-policy interface. These include legal and political constraints, economic disparities, lack of capacity building and development, bias and prejudices within mainstream society and within science, insufficient institutional support, environmental degradation and displacement, technological barriers, lack of interest in being influenced or colonized by Western interventions, and false expectations on the role ILK and IPLCs can play in these processes.

Capacity development processes to address full representation of IPLC

There is much to be learned from IPLC, particularly for the need to increase the visibility and work with knowledge holders, Indigenous scholars, etc. IPLC hold vital knowledge, and more importantly, sovereignty over their knowledge, albeit at risk globally. There are good examples of autonomous initiatives that are mostly led by IPLC and that operationalize the diverse values of nature in everyday decisions through experiential learning, and relations with land, resources, and nature (e.g., Mother Earth, and land-based education). Within mainstream science, a shift toward transdisciplinary approaches is an emerging area, and knowledge co-construction and experiential learning with IPLC is increasing. Moreover, across Latin America, for instance, Indigenous people’s associations and peasant farmer initiatives are organizing themselves to provide different, local, and culturally appropriate ethnic education based on local and Indigenous knowledge as a complement to the state schooling system (Corbetta et al. 2018). These initiatives (such as, the programs run by IYARINA, a learning center and field school offered by Indigenous people of the Ecuadorian Amazon) play important roles in the revitalization of cultures, knowledge, language, and identities. Nevertheless, they are still often lacking recognition from provincial and central governments, as well as mainstream science. The widespread inability and unwillingness to engage with and understand different ontologies and worldviews perpetuates power hierarchies that do not recognize tangible and intangible rights of IPLC and impede the full and effective participation of IPLC in such assessments. Also noteworthy is the fact that experiences of inclusion and the debates surrounding them are even less representative of issues pertaining to local communities, who are harder to define despite having unique values rooted in their occupations, cultures, transactions with different actors, and changing social-ecological values (e.g., urbanization, mechanization, new commodity chains, etc.). In particular, the formal rules and regulations governing the global supply chains, and the natural resource extraction these regulations enable, are at variance to the values expressed by IPLC, generating conflicts around extractive projects (Amnesty International 2019, Human Rights Watch 2020).

Our analysis also highlighted many ways in which capacity development, as a reflexive process of co-learning between different stakeholders, can help transform top-down policy processes by enlarging the set of knowledge that decisions are built on, and by acknowledging the wider range of values of nature. Co-learning and knowledge co-creation approaches also enhance the reliability of the understanding of status, trends, drivers, and impacts on nature and nature’s contribution to people, and help identify workable policy options, as was particularly notable in the Canadian nuclear waste policy.

Throughout their scope of works, which include capacity building and development, knowledge management, policy advocacy, and stakeholder engagement, international cross-scale initiatives (e.g., UN and OECD bodies, development agencies, and NGOs) can influence the uptake of plural values in various kinds of decisions on land use and management, ecosystems management, climate information services, investments in infrastructure, research and capacity development activities related to social-ecological systems. Such uptake requires improved understanding about the specific decision-making context, and involves multiple stakeholders, actors, and key organizations that represent specific interest groups and decision-making authorities, enabling inclusive approaches to decision making at the implementation scale. Sometimes there is a misconception amongst scholars that the inclusion of IK in assessments of nature means informing or educating Indigenous people about Western scientific aspects. However, the successful inclusion of Indigenous perspectives entails acknowledging and addressing knowledge and operationalization gaps between Western and Indigenous knowledge holders, e.g., the weak understanding of valuation methods and approaches used by IPLC, the missing abilities to validate knowledge developed by IPLC scholars, or the scant skills and resources to implement plural valuations that consider different knowledge systems and properly articulate values of IPLC in decision making. Furthermore, the lack of acknowledgment of IPLC’s self-governance and territorial autonomy needs to be addressed to empower stake- and rights-holders and allow them to articulate their visions and values, but in their own terms, as is evident from the different experiences illustrated above. This entails investing in approaches that can be considered reflexive, responding to needs of all stakeholders and allows co-learning and co-design of solutions

CONCLUSIONS

It is noteworthy that the use and effectiveness of various policy tools, instruments, and methods is dependent on contexts and availability of various types of resources and capacities to different stakeholders. It is pertinent to ensure that a decision/policy-making cycle be cognizant of principles of inclusivity, equity, and sustainability. Engaging diverse stakeholders, considering diverse values, and recognizing multiple knowledge systems can amplify pathways to system-wide transformative change toward sustainable futures. Inclusive sectoral and cross-sectoral approaches, including landscape approaches, multi-stakeholder platforms at different levels, offer opportunities to reconcile multiple interests, values, and norms while recognizing trade-offs and uneven power relations between stakeholders.

A main outcome of the IPBES assessments is that they changed the paradigm of conservation assessments by acknowledging and incorporating IPLC practices and knowledge as legitimate and credible sources of evidence. However, it is also clear from our experience that it has created structural rigidities that severely limit a full and effective engagement of IP and scholars, aligned with cultural deliberative processes. This constrains not just the participation of these experts, but a fuller representation of IPLC views that could be accessed through them in a trustful manner. Open, reflexive, and co-learning approaches help raise awareness of the complexity of social-ecological systems. They help co-design solutions to better manage and govern these systems allowing agency to all actors and minimizing the likelihood of making decisions that would have adverse consequences both to people and nature.

LITERATURE CITED

Aerts, R., K. Van Overtveld, E. November, A. Wassie, A. Abiyu, S. Demissew, D. D. Daye, K. Giday, M. Haile, S. Tewolde Berhan et al. 2016. Conservation of the Ethiopian church forests: threats, opportunities and implications for their adaptive management. Science of The Total Environment 551-552:404-414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.034

Aga, A. 2021. Farm protests in India are writing the Green Revolution’s Obituary. Scientific American, 24 January. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/farm-protests-in-india-are-writing-the-green-revolutions-obituary/

Agarwal, K. 2021. India’s Green Revolution sowed the seeds of today’s meltdown. Foreign Policy, 7 March. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/07/indias-green-revolution-sowed-the-seeds-of-todays-meltdown/

Amnesty International. 2019. Annual Report. Amnesty International, London, UK. https://www.amnistia.pt/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Annual-Report-2019-ENG.pdf

Ansloos, J., and S Peltier. 2022. A question of justice: critically researching suicide with Indigenous studies of affect, biosociality, and land-based relations. Health 26(1):100-119. https://doi.org/10.1177/13634593211046845

Arctic Council of Indigenous Peoples’ Secretariat. 2015. Procedural guidelines. Arctic Council Secretariat, Tromsø, Norway. https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/8ba9ec16-d674-40a5-a28c-9404287dfe0d/content

Arias-Arévalo, P., F. Lazos-Chavero, A. S. Monroy-Sais, S. H. Nelson, A. Pawlowska-Mainville, A. Vatn, M. Cantú-Fernández, R. Murali, B. Muraca, and U. Pascual. 2023. The role of power in leveraging the diverse values of nature for transformative change. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 64:101352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101352

Arnold, L., and K. Hanna. 2017. Best practices in environmental assessment: cases studies and application to mining. Canadian International Resources and Development Institute (CIRDI) Report 2017-003. CIRDI, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Assembly of First Nations (AFN). 2023. Securing accountability of nuclear technology, waste, transport and storage. AFN Resolution no 52/2023. Annual General Assembly, Halifax, Nova Scotia July. AFN, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. https://afn.bynder.com/m/7e116f4c12fd9dba/original/52-2023-Securing-Accountability-of-Nuclear-Technology-Waste-Transport-and-Storage.pdf

Ataria, J., M. Mark-Shadbolt, A. Mead, K. Prime, J. Doherty, J. Waiwai, T. Ashby, S. Lambert, and G. O. Garner. 2018. Whakamanahia Te mātauranga o te Māori: empowering Māori knowledge to support Aotearoa’s aquatic biological heritage. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 52(4):467-486. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330.2018.1517097

Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AITSIS). 2000. Guidelines for ethical research in Indigenous studies. AITSIS, Acton, Australia.

Balvanera, P., U. Pascual, M. Christie, B. Baptiste, L. Guibrunet, B. Lliso, A. S. Monroy-Sais, C. B. Anderson, S. Athayde, D. N. Barton, et al. 2022. The role of the values of nature and valuation for addressing the biodiversity crisis and navigating towards more just and sustainable futures. Chapter 1 in P. Balvanera, U. Pascual, C. Michael, B. Baptiste, D. González-Jiménez, editors. Methodological assessment of the diverse values and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6418971

Barnes, A. 2013. What can Pākehā learn from engaging in kaupapa Māori educational research? Working Paper 1, New Zealand Council of Educations Research, Wellington, New Zealand.

Basalla, G. 1967. The spread of Western science: a three-stage model describes the introduction of modern science into any non-European nation. Science 156(3775):611-622. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.156.3775.611

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. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00489

Bell, M. Z. 2021. Spatialising procedural justice: fairness and local knowledge mobilisation in nuclear waste siting. Local Environment. International Journal of Justice and Sustainability 26(1):165-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2020.1867841

Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications 10(5):1251-1262. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1251:ROTEKA]2.0.CO;2

Bonilla Riveros, T. A. 2014. Usos, prácticas e ideologías socio-culturales de la cacería de dos comunidades Tikuna, ubicadas en el sur de la Amazonía colombiana. Thesis. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Leticia, Colombia. https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/bitstream/handle/unal/55879/tamaraaydeebonillariveros.2014.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Bratt, D., P. Larkin, and X. Deschênes-Philion. 2023. Getting it right? The site selection process for Canada’s high-level nuclear waste. Pages 107-133 in M. Gattinger, editor. Democratizing risk governance: bridging science, expertise, deliberation and public values. Springer International, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24271-7_5

Brondizio, E., S. M. Díaz, J. Settele, H. Ngo, M. Gueze, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, X. Bai, A. Geschke, Z. Molnár, A. Niamir, and U. Pascual. 2019. Assessing a planet in transformation: rationale and approach of the IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Chapter 1 in E. S. Brondízio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, and H. T. Ngo, editors. Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany.

Broughton, D., (Te Aitanga-a-Hauiti, Taranaki, Ngāti Porou, Ngāpuhi), K. McBreen, and (Waitaha, Kāti Māmoe, Ngāi Tahu). 2015. Mātauranga Māori, tino rangatiratanga and the future of New Zealand science. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 45(2):83-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2015.1011171

Bruun, T. B., A. De Neergaard, D. Lawrence, and A. D. Ziegler. 2009. Environmental consequences of the demise in swidden cultivation in Southeast Asia: carbon storage and soil quality. Human Ecology 37(3):375-388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-009-9257-y

Cajete, G. A. 2020. Indigenous science, climate change, and Indigenous community building: a framework of foundational perspectives for Indigenous community resilience and revitalization. Sustainability 12:9569. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229569

Cámara-Leret, R., and J. Bascompte. 2021. Language extinction triggers the loss of unique medicinal knowledge. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(24):e2103683118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2103683118

Cámara-Leret, R., and Z. Dennehy. 2019. Information gaps in indigenous and local knowledge for science-policy assessments. Nature Sustainability 2(8):736-741. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0324-0

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. 2022. Research involving the First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples of Canada. Chapter 9 in Tri Council Policy Statement: ethical conduct for research involving humans. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Chaplin-Kramer, R., R. A. Neugarten, D. Gonzalez-Jimenez, G. Ahmadia, T. D. Baird, N. Crane, E. Delgoulet, H. N. Eyster, N. Kurashima, J. C. Llopis et al. 2023. Transformation for inclusive conservation: evidence on values, decisions, and impacts in protected areas. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 64:101347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101347

Chiblow, S. 2019. Anishinabek women’s Nibi Giikendaaswin (water knowledge). Water 11(2):209. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020209

Chilisa, B. 2020. Indigenous research methodologies. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Corbetta, S., C. Bonetti, F. Bustamante, and A. V. Parra. 2018. Educación intercultural bilingüe y enfoque de interculturalidad en los sistemas educativos latinoamericanos - Avances y desafíos. CEPAL / UNICEF, Santiago, Chile. https://repositorio.cepal.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/23ffb0bf-cfff-4546-83cc-a132182f507f/content

Council of Elders and Youth. 2016. Declaration of the keepers of the land. https://www.nwmo.ca/-/media/Reports-MASTER/Council-of-Elders-and-Youth/APM-CORR-00676-40238-DECLARATION-OF-THE-KEEPERS-OF-THE-LAND-03-2016.ashx?rev=92f3d06799f0437ea807af337a781eec&hash=8EB12E0903AEF980B52EFF7FD81168B2

Cram, F. 2013. He Rangahau Kaupapa Māori: A guide to undertaking a Kaupapa Māori research project. Katoa Ltd., Auckland, New Zealand.

Croal, P., C. Tetreault, and Members of the International Association for Impact Assessment IP Section. 2012. Respecting Indigenous peoples and traditional knowledge. Special Publication Series 9 IAIA, Fargo, North Dakota.

Díaz, S., S. Demissew, J. Carabia, C. Joly, M. Lonsdale, N. Ash, A. Larigauderie, J. R. Adhikari, S. Arico, A. Báldi, et al. 2015. The IPBES conceptual framework - connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002

Dongre, A. R., and P. R. Deshmukh. 2012. Farmers’ suicides in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra, India: a qualitative exploration of their causes. Journal of Injury and Violence Research 4(1):2-6.

Dove, M. R. 1983. Theories of swidden agriculture, and the political economy of ignorance. Agroforestry Systems 1(2):85-99. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00596351

Dressler, W. H., D. Wilson, J. Clendenning, R. Cramb, R. Keenan, S. Mahanty, T. B. Bruun, O. Mertz, and R. D. Lasco. 2017. The impact of swidden decline on livelihoods and ecosystem services in Southeast Asia: a review of the evidence from 1990 to 2015. Ambio 46(3):291-310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0836-z

Eckert, L. E., N. X. Claxton, C. Owens, A. Johnston, N. C. Ban, F. Moola, and C. T. Darimont. 2020. Indigenous knowledge and federal environmental assessments in Canada: applying past lessons to the 2019 impact assessment act. FACETS 5:67-90. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2019-0039

Ehrlich, A., and W. Ross. 2015. The significance spectrum and EIA significance determinations. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 33(2):87-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2014.981023

Faguet, J.-P., F. Sánchez, and M.-J. Villaveces. 2020. The perversion of public land distribution by landed elites: power, inequality and development in Colombia. World Development 136:105036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105036

Fan, M. F. 2006. Environmental justice and nuclear waste conflicts in Taiwan. Environmental Politics 15(3):417-434. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010600627683

Fernández-Llamazares, Á., I. Díaz-Reviriego, M. Guèze, M. Cabeza, A. Pyhälä, and V. Reyes-García. 2016. Local perceptions as a guide for the sustainable management of natural resources: empirical evidence from a small-scale society in Bolivian Amazonia. Ecology and Society 21(1):2. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08092-210102

Fischer, J., T. A. Gardner, E. M. Bennett, P. Balvanera, R. Biggs, S. Carpenter, T. Daw, C. Folke, R. Hill, T. P. Hughes et al. 2015. Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social-ecological systems perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:144-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.002

Fischer, T. B., M. Welsch, and I. Jalal. 2019. Reflecting on the preparation of guidelines for strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of nuclear power programmes. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(2):165-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2018.1560667

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2011. The state of food and agriculture 2011: women in agriculture: closing the gender gap for development. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Forest Peoples Program (FPP). 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. A complement to the fifth edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook. FFP, Moreton-in-Marsh, UK. https://www.cbd.int/gbo/gbo5/publication/lbo-2-summary-en.pdf

Gordon, E., S. R Henao, A. Z. Duque, and E. Dolan-Evans. 2020. Power, poverty and peacebuilding: the violence that sustains inequalities and undermines peace in Colombia. Conflict, Security & Development 20(6):697-721. https://doi.org/10.1080/14678802.2020.1848119

Green, J. 2017. Radioactive waste and Australia's Aboriginal People. Angelaki 22(3):33-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2017.1387364

Hare, F. K., A. M. Aikin, and J. M. Harrison. 1977. The management of Canada’s nuclear wastes. Report EP77-6. Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Hartel, T., J. Fischer, G. Shumi, and W. Apollinaire. 2023. The traditional ecological knowledge conundrum. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 3:211-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2022.12.004

Hill, R., C. Adem, W. V. Alangui, Z. Molnár, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, P. Bridgewater, M. Tengö, R. Thaman, C. Y. Dou Yao, F. Berkes et al. 2020. Working with Indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 43:8-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006

Huambachano, M., G. R. Nemogá Soto, and T. H. Mwampamba. 2025. Making room for meaningful inclusion of Indigenous and local knowledge in global assessments: our experiences in the values assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Ecology and Society 30(1):16. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-15599-300116

Human Rights Watch. 2020. World Report 2020. Human Rights Watch, New York, New York, USA. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020

Hume, D. W. 2006. Swidden agriculture and conservation in eastern Madagascar: stakeholder perspectives and cultural belief systems. Conservation and Society 4(2):287-303.

Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC). 2019. Impact Assessment Act and CEAA 2012 comparison: better rules to protect Canada’s environment and grow the economy. Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/iaac-acei/documents/policy-guidance/pg-gp/ceaa-vs-iaa-en.pdf

Indra, D. M., and N. Buchignani. 1997. Rural landlessness, extended entitlements and inter‐household relations in south Asia: a Bangladesh case. Journal of Peasant Studies 24(3):25-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066159708438642

Ingram, G. 2022. Locally driven development: overcoming the obstacles. Brookings Global Working Paper No. 173. Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., USA. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/locally-driven-development-overcoming-the-obstacles/

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). 2019. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. S. Díaz, J. Settele, E. S. Brondízio, H. T. Ngo, M. Guèze, J. Agard, A. Arneth, P. Balvanera, K. A. Brauman, S. H. M. Butchart, K. M. A. Chan, L. A. Garibaldi, K. Ichii, J. Liu, S. M. Subramanian, G. F. Midgley, P. Miloslavich, Z. Molnár, D. Obura, A. Pfaff, S. Polasky, A. Purvis, J. Razzaque, B. Reyers, R. Roy Chowdhury, Y. J. Shin, I. J. Visseren-Hamakers, K. J. Willis, and C. N. Zayas, editors. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3553579

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). 2022. Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment report on the diverse values and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. U. Pascual, P. Balvanera, M. Christie, B. Baptiste, D. González-Jiménez, C. B. Anderson, S. Athayde, D. N. Barton, R. Chaplin-Kramer, S. Jacobs, E. Kelemen, R. Kumar, E. Lazos, A. Martin, T. H. Mwampamba, B. Nakangu, P. O'Farrell, C. M. Raymond, S. M. Subramanian, M. Termansen, M. Van Noordwijk, and A. Vatn, editors. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany.

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). 2024. Summary for policymakers of the thematic assessment report on the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and the determinants of transformative change and options for achieving the 2050 vision for biodiversity of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. K. O’Brien, L. Garibaldi, A. Agrawal, E. Bennett, O. Biggs, R. Calderón Contreras, E. Carr, N. Frantzeskaki, H. Gosnell, J. Gurung, S. Lambertucci, J. Leventon, C. Liao, V. Reyes García, L. Shannon, S. Villasante, F. Wickson, Y. Zinngrebe, and L. Perianin, editors. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11382230

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 2018. Strategic environmental assessment for nuclear power programmes: guidelines. Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-T-3.17. IAEA, Vienna, Austria.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 2020. Management of spent fuel from nuclear power reactors: learning from the past, enabling the future. Proceedings of an International Conference, 2019 Jun 24-28. IAEA, Vienna, Austria.

Irakiza, R., M. Vedaste, B. Elias, B. Nyirambangutse, N. Joram Serge, and N. Marc. 2016. Assessment of traditional ecological knowledge and beliefs in the utilisation of important plant species: the case of Buhanga sacred forest, Rwanda. Koedoe 58(1):a1348. https://doi.org/10.4102/koedoe.v58i1.1348

Johnson, G. 2007. The discourse of democracy in Canadian nuclear waste management policy. Policy Sciences 40:79-99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-007-9032-0

Johnson, J. T., R. Howitt, G. Cajete, F. Berkes, R. P. Louis, and A. Kliskey. 2016. Weaving Indigenous and sustainability sciences to diversify our methods. Sustainability Science 11(1):1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0349-x

Jonas, H., E. Lee, H. Jonas, C. Matallana-Tobon, K. Wright, F. Nelson, and E. Ens. 2017. Will ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ increase recognition and support for ICCAs? Parks 23(2):63-78. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2017.PARKS-23-2HDJ.en

Kelemen, E., S. M. Subramanian, A. De Vos, S. Amaruzaman, L. Porter-Bolland, M. Islar, M. Kosmus, B. Nakangu, E. Nuesiri, G. Arroyo -Robles, E. Yiu, L. Emerton, A. Zólyomi. 2023. Signposts on the road toward transformative governance: how a stronger focus on diverse values can enhance environmental policies. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 64:101351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101351

Kelemen, E.,S. M. Subramanian, B. Nakangu, M. Islar, M. Kosmus, E. Nuesiri, L. Porter-Bolland, A. De Vos, S. Amaruzaman, E. Yiu, and G. Arroyo-Robles. 2022. Policy options and capacity development to operationalize the inclusion of diverse values of nature in decision-making. Chapter 6 in P. Balvanera, U Pascual, M Christie, B Baptiste, and D González-Jiménez, editors. Methodological assessment report on the diverse values and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6522359

Kenter, J. O., R. Bryce, M. Christie, N. Cooper, N. Hockley, K. N. Irvine, I. Fazey, L. O’Brien, J. Orchard-Webb, N. Ravenscroft, C. M. Raymond, M. S. Reed, P. Tett, and V. Watson. 2016. Shared values and deliberative valuation: future directions. Ecosystem Services 21(Part B):358-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.006

Koczberski, G., G. N. Curry, V. Bue, E. Germis, S. Nake, and G. M. Tilden. 2018. Diffusing risk and building resilience through innovation: reciprocal exchange relationships, livelihood vulnerability and food security amongst smallholder farmers in Papua New Guinea. Human Ecology 46(6):801-814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-018-0032-9

Kohler, F., and E. S. Brondizio. 2017. Considering the needs of Indigenous and local populations in conservation programs. Conservation Biology 31(2):245-251. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12843

Kohn, M. 2013. Postcolonialism and global justice. Journal of Global Ethics 9(2):187-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2013.818459

Krause, T., M. P. Quiceno-Mesa, and U. Matapí Yucuna. 2020. Indigenous ecological knowledge in the Colombian Amazon - challenges and prospects for a more sustainable use of local forest fauna. Chapter 6 in A. Breidlid and R. Krøvel, editors. Indigenous knowledges and the sustainable development agenda. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367853785-7

Landsberg, F., J. Treweek, M. M. Stickler, N. Henninger, and O. Venn. 2013. Weaving ecosystem services into impact assessment: a step-by-step method. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., USA.

Leonard, L. G., III. 1997. Sovereignty, self-determination, and environmental justice in the Mescalero Apache’s decision to store nuclear waste. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 24:651.

Li, P., Z. Feng, L. Jiang, C. Liao, and J. Zhang. 2014. A review of swidden agriculture in Southeast Asia. Remote Sensing 6(2):1654-1683. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs6021654

Löfmarck, E., and R. Lidskog. 2017. Bumping against the boundary: IPBES and the knowledge divide. Environmental Science & Policy 69:22-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.12.008

Mane, J. 2009. Kaupapa Māori: a community approach. MAI Review 3(1).

Mashal, M., E. Schmall, and R. Goldman. 2021. What prompted the farm protests in India? The New York Times, 19 November.

Mayhew, M., and J. Perritt. 2021. Leveraging impact assessment for satisfactory project outcomes: benefits of early planning and participatory decision-making. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 39(1):24-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2020.1820848

McElwee, P., A. Fernández‐Llamazares, Y. Aumeeruddy‐Thomas, D. Babai, P. Bates, K. Galvin, M. Guèze, J. Liu, Z. Molnár, H. T. Ngo et al. 2020. Working with Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) in large‐scale ecological assessments: reviewing the experience of the IPBES Global Assessment. Journal of Applied Ecology 57(9):1666-1676. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13705

McIntosh, E. 2022. Holding in the deep: what Canada wants to do with its decades-old pileup of nuclear waste. The Narwahal, 19 January. https://thenarwhal.ca/nuclear-waste-ignace-bruce/

Mead, A. T. P., V. Smith, J. Ataria, T. P. Wilson-Leahy, S. Ogilvie, E. Watene-Rawiri, H. Potter, and M. Shadbolt. 2022. When The Crown controls Mātauranga: a report on a survey of Crown policies, programmes, legislation, funding, and impact assessment relating to Mātauranga Māori. Biological Heritage National Science Challenge, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Menton, M., and P. Le Billon, editors. 2021. Environmental defenders: deadly struggles for life and territory. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003127222

Mikahere-Hall, A. 2017. Constructing research from an indigenous Kaupapa Māori perspective: an example of decolonising research. Psychotherapy and Politics International 15(3):e1428. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppi.1428

Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. 1998. “Executive Summary”, Environmental Assessment Panel Report (on nuclear fuel waste management and a disposal concept proposed by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Chaired by B. Seaborn). Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Muir, B. R. 2018. Closing the regulatory gap: revisions to the conventional practice of ex-post plans for EIAs to protect the valued components of Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 36(2):186-203. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2017.1390873

Muru-Lanning, M. 2012. Māori research collaborations, Mātauranga Māori science and the appropriation of water in New Zealand. Anthropological Forum 22(2):151-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/00664677.2012.694171

Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO). 2005. Choosing a way forward. The future management of Canada’s used nuclear fuel. Final Study Report. NWMO, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO). 2010. Moving forward together: process for selecting a site for Canada’s deep geological repository for used nuclear fuel. NWMO, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO). 2016. Indigenous knowledge policy. Governing document NWMO-POL-RG-0004. NWMO, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO). 2019. Reconciliation policy. Governing document NWMO-POL-RG-0006. NWMO, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO). 2020. Implementation of adaptive phased management 2020-2024. NWMO, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. https://canadacommons.ca/artifacts/2215645/mise-en-oeuvre-de-la-gestion-adaptative-progressive-2020-a-2024/2972589/

Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO). 2024. Creating the future together - Annual Report 2023. NWMO, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. https://annualreport.nwmo.ca/2023/introduction-to-the-nwmo/

Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative and United Nations Development Programme (OPHI and UNDP). 2021. The global multidimensional poverty index 2021 - unmasking disparities by ethnicity, caste and gender. UNDP and OPHI, Oxford, UK. https://ophi.org.uk/multidimensional-poverty-index/

Pascual, U., P. Balvanera, C. B. Anderson, R. Chaplin-Kramer, M. Christie, D. Gonazlez-Jimenez, A. Martin, C. M. Raymond, M. Termasen, A. Vatn, S. Athayde, B. Baptiste, D. N. Barton, S. Jacobs, E. Keleman, R. Kumar, E. Lazos, T. H. Mwapamba, B. Nakangu, P. O’Farrell, S. M. Subramanian, M. van Noordwijk, S. Ahn, S. Amaruzaman, A. M. Amin, P. Arias-Arevalo, G. Arroyo-Robles, M. Canti-Fernandex, A. J. Castro, V. Contreras, A. de Vos, N. Dendoncer, S. Engel, U. Eser, D. P. Faith, A. Filyushkina, H. Ghazi, E. Gomez-Baggethun, R. K. Gould, L. Guibrunet, H. Gundimeda, T. Hahn, Z. V. Harmáčková, M. Hernández-Blanco, A.-I. Horcea-Milcu, M. Huambachano, N. L. H. Wicher, C. I. Aydin, M. Islar, A.-K. Koessler, J. O. Kenter, M. Kosmus, H. Lee, B. Leimona, S. Lele, D. Lenzi, B. Lliso, L. M. Mannetti, J. Merçon, A. S. Monroy-Sais, N. Mukherjee, B. Muraca, R. Muradian, R. Murali, S. H. Nelson, G. R. Nemogá-Soto, J. Ngouhouo-Poufoun, A. Niamir, E. Nuesiri, T. O. Nyumba, B. Özkaynak, I. Palomo, R. Pandit, A. Pawłowska-Mainville, L. Porter-Bolland, M. Quaas, J. Rode, R. Rozzi, S. Sachdeva, A. Samakov, M. Schaafsma, N. Sitas, P. Ungar, E. Yiu, Y. Yoshida, and E. Zent. 2023. Diverse values of nature for sustainability. Nature 620:813-823. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9

Patel, R. 2013. The long green revolution. Journal of Peasant Studies 40(1):1-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2012.719224

Perreault, T. 2005. Why chacras (swidden gardens) persist: agrobiodiversity, food security, and cultural identity in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Human Organization 64(4):327-339. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.64.4.e6tymmka388rmybt

Pingali, P. L. 2012. Green Revolution: impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(31):12302-12308. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0912953109

Ponta, N., T. Cornioley, A. Dray, N. van Vliet, P. O. Waeber, and C. A. Garcia. 2019. Hunting in times of change: uncovering Indigenous strategies in the Colombian Amazon using a role-playing game. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7:34. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00034

Porter, A. 1978. A race against time, interim report on nuclear power in Ontario. Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Porter, A. 1980. The report of the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning: Vol.1, concepts, conclusions, and recommendations. Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Pörtner, H. O., R. J. Scholes, J. Agard, E. Archer, A. Arneth, X. Bai, D. Barnes, M. Burrows, L. Chan, W. L. Cheung, S. Diamond, C. Donatti, C. Duarte, N. Eisenhauer, W. Foden, M. A. Gasalla, C. Handa, T. Hickler, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, K. Ichii, U. Jacob, G. Insarov, A. Kiessling, W. Leadley, P. Leemans, R. Levin, L. Lim, M. Maharaj, S. Managi, S. Marquet, P. P. McElwee, G. Midgley, T. Oberdorff, D. Obura, E. Osman, R. Pandit, U. Pascual, A. P. F. Pires, A. Popp, V. Reyes-García, M. Sankaran, J. Settele, Y. J. Shin, D. W. Sintayehu, P. Smith, N. Steiner, B. Strassburg, R. Sukumar, C. Trisos, A. L. Val, J. Wu, E. Aldrian, C. Parmesan, R. Pichs-Madruga, D. C. Roberts, A. D. Rogers, S. Díaz, M. Fischer, S. Hashimoto, S. Lavorel, N. Wu, H. T. Ngo. 2021. Scientific outcome of the IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop on biodiversity and climate change. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4659158

Potter, H., and R. Māngai. 2022. A Wai 262 Best Practice Guide For Science Partnerships With Kaitiaki For Research Involving Taonga: lessons from Māori voices in the New Zealand Science Sector. Rauika Māngai, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Ramana, M. V. 2013. Shifting strategies and precarious progress: nuclear waste management in Canada. Energy Policy 61:196-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.085

Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. 1976. Cosmology as ecological analysis: a view from the rain forest. Man 11(3):307-318. https://doi.org/10.2307/2800273

Reo, N. J. 2011. The importance of belief systems in traditional ecological knowledge initiatives. International Indigenous Policy Journal 2(4). https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2011.2.4.8

Reyers, B., and E. M. Bennett. 2025. Whose conservation, revisited: how a focus on people-nature relationships spotlights new directions for conservation science. Philosophical Transactions B 380(1917):20230320. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2023.0320

Reyes-García, V., V. Vadez, N. Martí, T. Huanca, W. R. Leonard, and S. Tanner. 2008. Ethnobotanical knowledge and crop diversity in swidden fields: a study in a native Amazonian society. Human Ecology 36(4):569-580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-008-9177-2

Root-Bernstein, M., P. du Plessis, M. Guerrero-Gatica, T. Narayan, S. Roturier, and H. C. Wheeler. 2023. What are ILK in relation to science? Using the ‘ethic of equivocation’ to co-produce new knowledge for conservation. Sustainability 15:1831. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031831

Rosa, J. C. S., and L. E. Sánchez. 2016. Advances and challenges of incorporating ecosystem services into impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 180:485-492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.05.079

Ruru, J., and L. W. Nikora. 2021. Ngā Kete Mātauranga. Māori scholars at the research interface. Otago University Press, Dunedin, New Zealand

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD). 2020. Global biodiversity outlook 5. SCBD, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Smith, L. K. 2015. Kaupapa Māori research - some Kaupapa Māori principles. University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. https://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/server/api/core/bitstreams/c3eb833e-73ff-4239-a595-f64b4a00a36b/content

Smith, T. L. 1999. De-colonising research methodologies. Zed Books, London, UK.

SOLAE Ethics Committee, A. Medinaceli, E. J. Cano, A. Argueta, and O. L. Sanabria. 2018. Latin American Society of Ethnobiology’s code of ethics. Ethnobiology Letters 9(1):86-89. https://doi.org/10.14237/ebl.9.1.2018.1121

Stevenson, M. G. 1996. Indigenous knowledge in environmental assessment. Arctic 49(3):278-291. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic1203

Tauli-Corpuz, V., J. Alcorn, A. Molnar, C. Healy, and E. Barrow. 2020. Cornered by PAs: adopting rights-based approaches to enable cost-effective conservation and climate action. World Development 130:104923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104923

Tengö, M., E. S. Brondizio, T. Elmqvist, P. Malmer, and M. Spierenburg. 2014. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. AMBIO 43(5):579-591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3

Tengö, M., R. Hill, P. Malmer, C. M. Raymond, M. Spierenburg, F. Danielsen, T. Elmqvist, and C. Folke. 2017. Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond - lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26-27:17-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005

Thaman, R. R., P. Lyver, R. Mpande, E. Perez, J. Cariño, and K. Takeuchi, editors. 2013. The contribution of indigenous and local knowledge systems to IPBES: building synergies with science. PBES Expert Meeting Report. UNESCO, Paris, France.

The Biodiversity Consultancy (TBC). 2018. Social considerations when designing and implementing biodiversity offsets: opportunities and risks for business. Industry Briefing Note. The Biodiversity Consultancy, Cambridge, UK.

The Nature Conversancy (TNC). 2017. Strong voices, active choices: TNC’s practitioner framework to strengthen outcomes for people and nature. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC). 2015. Calls to action. National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. https://web.archive.org/web/20200506065356/http://trc.ca/assets/pdf/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf

Turnhout, E., B. Bloomfield, M. Hulme, J. Vogel, and B. Wynne. 2012. Listen to the voices of experience. Nature 488(7412):454-455. https://doi.org/10.1038/488454a

United Nations (UN). 2018. ‘Our values, beliefs and identity’ are embedded within language, UNESCO says on Mother Language Day. UN, New York, New York, USA. https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/02/1003191

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2022. The 2021 global multidimensional poverty index (MPI). UNDP, Kenya, Nairobi. https://hdr.undp.org/en/2021-MPI

Urzedo, D., and C. J. Robinson. 2023. Decolonizing ecosystem valuation to sustain Indigenous worldviews. Environmental Science & Policy 150:103580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103580

Usher, P. J. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge in environmental assessment and management. Arctic 53(2):183-193. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic849

van Maurik Matuk, F. A., B. Verschuuren, P. Morseletto, T. Krause, D. Ludwig, S. J. Cooke, M. Haverroth, M. Maeesters, T. J. M. Mattijssen, S. Keßler, T. R. Lanza, E. Milberg, L. C. Ming, C. A. Hernández-Vélez, K. M. T. da Silva, M. P. V. Souza, V. O. Souza, J. W. Fernandes, and B. L. dos Reis Carvalho. 2023. Advancing co-production for transformative change by synthesizing guidance from case studies on the sustainable management and governance of natural resources. Environmental Science & Policy 149:103574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103574

Vasco, C. 2014. Reciprocal and wage labour in rural Ecuador. A quantitative analysis. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics 115(1):23-30.

Walsh, F. J., P. V. Dobson, and J. C. Douglas. 2013. Anpernirrentye: a framework for enhanced application of indigenous ecological knowledge in natural resource management. Ecology and Society 18(3):18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05501-180318

Wangpakapattanawong, P., N. Kavinchan, C. Vaidhayakarn, D. Schmidt-Vogt, and S. Elliott. 2010. Fallow to forest: applying indigenous and scientific knowledge of swidden cultivation to tropical forest restoration. Forest Ecology and Management 260(8):1399-1406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.07.042

WinklerPrins, A. M. and N. Barrera-Bassols. 2004. Latin American ethnopedology: a vision of its past, present, and future. Agriculture and Human Values 21:139-156. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AHUM.0000029405.37237.c8

Whyte, K. P., J. P. Brewer II, and J. T. Johnson. 2016. Weaving Indigenous science, protocols and sustainability science. Sustainability Science 11(1):25-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0296-6

Woroniecki, S., H. Wendo, E. Brink, M. Islar, T. Krause, A. M. Vargas, and Y. Mahmoud. 2020. Nature unsettled: how knowledge and power share ‘nature-based’ approaches to societal challenges. Global Environmental Change 65:102132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102132

Xu, J., T. McLellan, and I. Hiwasaki. 2017. Integrating swidden agricultural knowledge systems. Pages 1-15 in M. Cairns, editor. Shifting cultivation policies: balancing environmental and social sustainability. CABI, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.