Jennifer Rubis, Green Climate Fund, Indigenous Peoples Specialist

The year was 2013 and my father was visiting me in Paris. There was a symposium on Indigenous Knowledge and Climate Change in UNESCO[1] and they needed an expert speaker: would he – an indigenous Dayak shaman from Borneo – come and speak? “What expert things do they want me to speak about?” he asked. “Maybe you could tell them about the different types of forest we have and how we look after them – you know like obut (communal forest), tiboie (forest that has been farmed), toyah (small orchard),” I said. “Oh, but that is nothing expert,” he said, somewhat disappointed I was not going to let him talk about his theories about climate change (he would anyway): “Why would they want me to talk about things so simple that even our children should know?”

As the world grapples with global environmental challenges, there is an increasing need for more data and concrete solutions. Dialogues between knowledge systems, that of science and that of diverse knowledges, become a source of urgent interest, not just for the discovery of novel information held by each knowledge system, but for the potential to uncover innovative solutions and shifts in paradigms – potentially present when multiple knowledge systems are brought to bear on a common problem. In an era of multiple uncertainties, acquiring more knowledge rather than less becomes the logical strategy of any decision-maker, whether it be a pastoralist looking at the skies to decide the timing of when to move the herds, or a meteorologist looking at the same skies through instruments to opine on the probable forecast in oncoming days.

To be able to reach the important outcomes of a dialogue between holders of knowledge is not, though, a matter of simply bringing a pastoralist and meteorologist into one room, perhaps with interpreters, and engaging the experts in conversation. Attention needs to be paid to prosaic matters – the institutional arrangements and conditions in which dialogue can be productively held, as well as an understanding of the potential complexities of a dialogue between knowledge systems. One may imagine that enough barriers such as language and methodological bias may already exist between experts coming from multiple scientific disciplines that hamper mutual communication and understanding. Appreciate then the additional levels of ‘translation’ that both scientific experts and experts from Indigenous Knowledge systems must undergo to learn from one another. It is equally important to acknowledge the historical power imbalance at the start of any conversation on the subject of the meeting of these diverse knowledge systems, whether such efforts are done in the name of interdisciplinary collaboration, transdisciplinarity, knowledge co-production or braiding.

My contribution to this worthy volume is divided into two complementary areas, first a reflection on the history of Indigenous Knowledge and international science policy and second, an example of the mobilization of Indigenous knowledge at the Green Climate Fund.

However, if we were to go back to the beginning, it might be useful to recall that the first encounter between experts of Western science and Dayak knowledge would not have been with my father in a UN meeting room (or even with his long-suffering daughter in the years preceding), but a few hundred years earlier when European scientists, most likely botanists, first set foot in Borneo, accompanying the wave of Dutch or British colonizers. One could argue that modern botany and zoology owes not just finds of ‘exotic’ species to long forgotten local guides and their traditional knowledge, but their constructions of taxonomies which Ellen and Harris (2000) note were also ‘borrowed’ from local ways of classifying the natural world around them (Nakashima et al., 2012). Over the last six decades, science has gradually begun to shift in its attitude towards indigenous knowledge, with a steady change in approach, moving from ‘importing’ knowledge to recognizing and respecting knowledge as a distinctive ‘other’ source, to seeking areas of mutual exchange. Collaboration would grow particularly around health and biological diversity – for example knowledge of animals and plants, and associated production systems – for example on resource management in forest, water systems, agriculture, drylands, rangeland use etc.

In parallel, and due in no small part to the advocacy of Indigenous Peoples ourselves, a policy shift was also underway. Principle 22 of the Rio Declaration, the outcome of the 1992 Earth Summit, set in motion a global policy basis for intergovernmental engagement with Indigenous Peoples with the aim of achieving sustainable development. By linking indigenous knowledge to environmental management, the principle also provided the genesis for intergovernmental work on traditional knowledge, notably UNESCO’s Local and Indigenous Knowledge Programme (LINKS) and Article 8(j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Established in 2012, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services also incorporates a systematic and deliberative approach to ensuring Indigenous and Local Knowledge Systems are included in their assessments.

Alongside the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Earth Summit also saw the emergence of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The growing concern with the worsening impacts of climate change has also increased research interest related to indigenous knowledge of weather and climate over the last few decades. Responding to the increasing mentions of indigenous knowledge in the regional chapters in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the authors of Working Group II of the Fifth Assessment Report sought a deliberative approach to incorporating consideration of indigenous knowledge by convening an international meeting on the topic in 2011 together with UNESCO’s Local and Indigenous Knowledge Systems Programme and the United Nations University Traditional Knowledge Initiative. The 2011 meeting convened knowledge holders from Indigenous Peoples and local communities, indigenous knowledge experts and developing country scientists and produced three publications, including a review of the scientific and grey literature on indigenous knowledge of climate change assessment and adaptation that contained over three hundred sources and was made available to IPCC authors (Nakashima et al., 2012).

At this point it may be useful to explain why it is important to invest in a deliberative approach, as well as ensure that those with experience in Indigenous Knowledge, including Indigenous Peoples themselves, are involved in the design of the dialogues and encounters.

The voices from remote milieus and diverse ontologies are of no doubt compelling to the intellectual mind, but moving from mutual respect to building productive action and outcomes between knowledge systems may bring additional challenges. How can engagements and dialogues be productively designed to have clear knowledge outcomes, moving to joint decision-making and mobilization?

Knowledge systems are different and unique ways of knowing and understanding the world around us. Indigenous knowledge systems are dynamic, diverse and adaptive, transmitted across the generations and containing meticulous descriptions about the surrounding environment, and their production systems (Nakashima, Rubis, Bates and Avila, 2017). Nomadic pastoralists, for example, acquire expertise relevant for the well-being of their animals; clouds, birds and wind indicators portend the rains, soils that create good pasture, and they are able to study the land surface and water table. By contrast, western science acquires knowledge through high specialization and mastery of a specific but narrow domain. So when a single pastoralist expert discusses his knowledge relevant for adaptation, for science to completely understand, a meteorologist, biologist, hydrologist, ethnopedologist and an ethnolinguist would need to be at the table.

Nakashima, Krupnik and Rubis (2018) review early case studies on climate change that reveal some of these complexities (see Orlove, Chiang and Cane 2000, 2002; Weatherhead, Gearheard and Barry, 2010; Marin, 2010). For example, there are differences in what Indigenous Peoples need to observe versus what a scientist can observe – or provide as data. In the case of Marin (2010), Mongolian pastoralists analyzed the quality – as expressed in their local languages – rather than the quantity of rain – as measured by standard meteorological records. In the case of the Inuit, while scientists focus on averages, ‘the primary preoccupations of indigenous observers of weather may be the intensity and frequency of peaks and lows’ (Weatherhead, Gearheard and Barry, 2010).

The point being made is that as systems of knowledge, both Indigenous Knowledge and science bring unique contributions to bear towards solving a common problem – that of, in the words of the Laudato Si’, ‘caring for our common home’. If it is recognized that these ways of knowing can be largely complementary but are fundamentally not meant to be validated by the other, then it should also be recognized that the spaces of engagement need to be mutually inclusive and deliberative approaches to Indigenous Knowledge are essential to avoid unintentionally subsuming it with science.

Mobilizing indigenous knowledge at the Green Climate Fund

The Green Climate Fund (GCF or the Fund) is the world’s largest fund dedicated solely to supporting developing countries’ climate action. Established in 2010, the GCF serves as a finance mechanism of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. Reaching over 130 countries and with a growing portfolio of 300 projects and 15 billion US dollars committed in financing, the GCF provides rich opportunities for knowledge generation and learnings.

Within the Green Climate Fund’s institutional framework are a number of arrangements that are instrumental to enhancing the perspectives of Indigenous Peoples, and their knowledge. These include the Governing Instrument of the Fund that identifies Indigenous Peoples as a distinct and separate stakeholder group of the Fund (UNFCCC, 2012, p. 66). From the Governing Instrument came a dedicated Indigenous Peoples Policy that was adopted at the nineteenth session of the GCF Board. As the main instrument that provides a structure for ensuring that GCF activities are developed and implemented in such a way that ‘fosters full respect, promotion, and safeguarding of Indigenous Peoples so that they (a) benefit from GCF activities and projects in a culturally appropriate manner; and (b) do not suffer harm or adverse effects from the design and implementation of GCF-financed activities’ (GCF, 2019, p. 4), the policy further sets out operational arrangements for GCF in order to effectively execute the policy. Among these are the establishment of a Fund-wide Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group (IPAG) and a dedicated specialist within the Secretariat vested with operational responsibility of the policy.

The IPAG aims to enhance coordination between GCF, its accredited entities, states and Indigenous Peoples. The three functions are: to provide advice on GCF-financed activities affecting Indigenous Peoples, to review implementation and monitoring of the Policy, and to provide guidance and advice to the Board as may be requested (GCF, 2019, p. 20). Members of IPAG are nominated through an Indigenous Peoples-led self-selection process and are Indigenous Peoples who come from the regions of developing states where GCF may fund activities (GCF, 2019, p. 20). Meetings of the IPAG are held twice a year at the GCF Headquarters, and updates on the work of the IPAG are provided to the GCF Board on a regular basis (GCF, 2022). The first membership term of the IPAG is from 2022-2026 and has six members. The IPAG provides a means through which Indigenous Peoples’ concerns can be reflected and heard at an operational level.

The promotion and respect of indigenous knowledge is also taken up in the policy. In its objectives, the GCF Indigenous Peoples Policy highlights the importance of promoting traditional knowledge, recognizing the link between indigenous knowledge systems, and climate change leadership and mitigation and adaptation action. The policy recognizes inherent characteristics of indigenous knowledge systems, including that it is holistic, linked to culture and heritage, and that there are gender dimensions.

In practice then, these frameworks enhance the tracking and collation of good practices on indigenous knowledge on climate. Most projects where communities are encouraged to promote their indigenous knowledge within the Fund are in adaptation. For example in Vanuatu, the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme is working with the Government of Vanuatu through the Vanuatu Meteorology and Geo-Hazards Department (VMGHD) toward a greater understanding of climate patterns to ensure adaptation planning is informed by the right data by building on indigenous knowledge systems.[2] By coupling participatory methods and mobile apps, local communities are also encouraged to contribute their observations to the VMGHD. In terms of mitigation, Indigenous Peoples in Ecuador are using their Indigenous Knowledge to sustainably manage their forest resources through community-built Life Plans.[3]

Crucial to understanding the potential that Indigenous knowledge can play in climate action, and the role of Indigenous Peoples as climate leaders, is the example of Australian First Nation fire knowledge (see Box 1.1). Through the Green Climate Fund’s Readiness Programme, seven developing countries[4] are given the building blocks to improve their management of wildfires through knowledge transfer from Indigenous Peoples of Australia, a demonstration of Indigenous Knowledge as a source of innovation.

Being a financial mechanism of the UNFCCC, the Fund receives guidance from the Conference of Parties (COP), the decision-making body of the UNFCCC. Keenly concerned with the need to ensure that all knowledge was made available for decision-making, and aware of the importance of Indigenous Knowledge for adaptation to climate change, the COP made a particular point of highlighting the issue in several decisions[5] inter alia to request the Fund to ‘enhance consideration of local, indigenous and traditional knowledge and practices and their integration into adaptation planning and practices, as well as procedures for monitoring, evaluation and reporting’. A key response by the GCF Board has been the decision to recognize that ‘traditional, local and indigenous knowledge and practices is sufficient to form the basis for the demonstration of impact potential for GCF-supported activities’ (subparagraph (h) of Decision B33/12 in Green Climate Fund, 2022). In practice therefore, partners may work with the GCF to elaborate rationale for climate impact based on available knowledge.

These case studies demonstrate just a few avenues through which Indigenous Knowledge for climate action is promoted and supported at the Fund. These avenues would not be possible without a deliberative approach to Indigenous Knowledge that is embedded both into the operations and institutional framework of the Fund. These also demonstrate the richness and possibilities of the contributions that Indigenous Peoples, and their knowledge systems, can bring to solving the various global challenges of our time. What is clear is that in order to achieve collective action one needs to reach beyond mutual respect and address the need for strategic and dedicated resourcing that overcomes historic biases and builds inclusivity into the institution.

References

Ellen, R. and Harris, H. 2000. Introduction. In: R. Ellen, P. Parker and A. Bicker (eds.) Indigenous environmental knowledge and its transforma tions: Critical Anthropological Perspectives. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Harwood, pp. 1–34.

Green Climate Fund. (2019). Indigenous Peoples Policy. Decision B.19/11, Document GCF/B.19/05, Nineteenth meeting of the Board, 26 February – 1 March 2018. Available online at: https://www.greenclimate.fund/document/indigenous-peoples-policy

Green Climate Fund. (2002a). Decisions of the Board – thirty-third meeting of the Board, 17 – 20 July 2022. Available online at: https://www.greenclimate.fund/document/gcf-b33-19

Green Climate Fund. (2002b). Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group. Terms of Reference. Available online at: https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/ipag-tor_1.pdf

Orlove, B.S., Chiang, J.C.H. and Cane, M.A. 2000. Forecasting Andean rainfall and crop yield from the influence of El Nino on Pleiades visibility. Nature, 403: 69–71.

Orlove, B., Chiang, S., John, C.H. and Cane, M.A. 2002. Ethnoclimatology in the Andes. American Scientist, 90: 428–35.

Marin, A. 2010. Riders under storms: contributions of nomadic herders’ observations to analysing climate change in Mongolia. Global Environmental Change, 20: 162–76.

Nakashima, D.J., Galloway McLean, K., Thulstrup, H.D., Ramos Castillo, A. and Rubis, J.T. (2012). Weathering Uncertainty: Traditional Knowledge for Climate Change Assessment and Adaptation. Paris, UNESCO, and Darwin, UNU, 120 pp.

Nakashima, D.J., Krupnik, I., and Rubis, J.T., (2018). Indigenous Knowledge for Climate Change Assessment and Adaptation. Local and Indigenous Knowledge 2. Cambridge University Press and UNESCO: Cambridge and Paris.

Nakashima, D.J., Rubis, J.T., Bates, P., Avila, B. (2017). Local Knowledge, Global Goals. SC/UNESCO-LINKS/WS/2017, SC-2018/WS/1. Paris, UNESCO. 46 pp. illus. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000259599

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2023) Report of the Green Climate Fund to the Conference of the Parties and guidance to the Green Climate Fund. Decision 16/CP.27 Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twenty-seventh session, held in Sharm el-Sheikh from 6 to 20 November 2022 Addendum Part two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its twenty-seventh session FCCC/CP/2022/10/Add.2 https://unfccc.int/documents/626563

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2022) Report of the Green Climate Fund to the Conference of the Parties and guidance to the Green Climate Fund. Decision 6/CP.26 Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twenty- sixth session, held in Glasgow from 31 October to 13 November 2021. Addendum Part two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its twenty-sixth session. FCCC/CP/2021/12/Add.1 https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cp2021_12_add1E.pdf

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2015). Report of the Adaptation Committee. Decision 4/CP.20 Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twentieth session, held in Lima from 1 to 14 December 2014. Addendum Part two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its twentieth session. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2014/cop20/eng/10a02.pdf#page=6%22

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2012). Governing Instrument for the Green Climate Fund. Attached as an Annex to 3/CP.17 Report of the Conference of the Parties on its seventeenth session, held in Durban from 28 November to 11 December 2011. Addendum Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its seventeenth session. FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1 Available online at: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cop17/eng/09a01.pdf

United Nations General Assembly. (1992). Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I) Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_CONF.151_26_Vol.I_Declaration.pdf

Weatherhead, E., Gearheard, S. and Barry, R.G. 2010. Changes in weather persistence: insight from Inuit knowledge. Global Environmental Change, 20: 523–28.

[1] United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

[2] https://www.greenclimate.fund/project/fp035

[3] https://www.greenclimate.fund/project/fp019

[4] For example https://www.greenclimate.fund/document/advancing-national-approach-fire-management-guatemala; https://www.greenclimate.fund/document/traditional-savanna-fire-management-readiness-proposal-facilitate-emissions-reductions

[5] Decision 4/CP.20, Paragraph 4 (UNFCCC, 2015), Decision 6/CP.26, Paragraph 7 (UNFCCC, 2022), Decision 16/CP.27, Paragraph 20.