Keywords

Introduction

Climate change is the challenge of our age. It impacts, in potentially catastrophic ways, Indigenous life worlds, knowledge systems and the environments that they are inextricably connected to (Macchi, 2008; Whyte, 2014; Wildcat, 2013). Indigenous peoples cannot afford to wait for outside help to manage the impacts of climate on their territories and cultures (Alden Wily, 2016; Ramos-Castillo et al., 2017). Further, Indigenous peoples face rising global expectations that their traditional ecological knowledge can be harnessed and used in conjunction with Western science to build stronger and enduring adaptation to change (IPBES, 2019).

Navigating the tension that arises from this attempt to make Indigenous and non-Indigenous interests adhere is a singular challenge, and does not occur in a vacuum, but within, on the one hand, ages old Indigenous stewardship of land and seas, and on the other, a political and historical legacy of dispossession, racism and economic disadvantage, caused by colonisation and globalisation. What role can Indigenous peoples play as they seek both to respond to the impacts of climate change, and yet assert their sovereignty and voice on the international stage as well as within their own territories? It is the exploration of this question, how the world’s oldest living cultures are adapting to climate change that is the subject of this book.

The book is underpinned by an exploration of the role that Indigenous knowledge plays in driving various forms of adaptation. There are many definitions of Indigenous knowledge to draw upon, most famously perhaps is Berke’s (1999, 8) definition of Indigenous knowledge as Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) which he defines as a “cumulative body of knowledge practice and belief evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural transmission”. Indigenous knowledge has also been characterised as a process, one that is fluid, dynamic and flexible (Gomez-Baggethun & Reyes-Garcia, 2013), continually evolving, local, culturally specific, and holistic in nature, usually orally transmitted, and closely related to the survival of a people (Cuerrier et al., 2015; Dudgeon & Berkes, 2003; Pearce et al., 2015; Zimmerman, 2005). Usher (2000) defines TEK as: “all types of knowledge about the environment derived from experience and traditions of a particular group of people”. The term “Traditional Climatic Knowledge” has also been suggested (Reedy et al., 2014, 2) and is defined as “an evolving corpus of knowledge that is based on observations and correlations of environmental resource managers concerning climate and climatic changes and the resulting or perceived impact on plants, cultivation and ecosystems.”

However, we argue that the deployment of this knowledge is not just about content, nor is it just located in the distant past, but rather that Indigenous peoples are using, maintaining, revitalising, and creating new knowledges, in the now, based on traditions of knowledge maintenance going back centuries. We argue that the hallmark of Indigenous adaptation is this skill and an inherent belief in the capacity to continually renew and invigorate culture and knowledge, despite and notwithstanding the impact of colonisation, climate change and globalisation.

Indeed, Indigenous knowledge making did not simply stop with colonisation or other stressors but continues to be gathered and layered. In the context of climate change, we argue that recent historical knowledge, often derived or gathered during periods of colonisation (as much as millennia old knowledge) adds to what is a significant corpus of knowledge about climate impacts, and could be helpful in determining how climate change is understood, communicated and responded to (Nursey-Bray et al., 2020). This sophisticated capacity to adapt knowledge rooted in millennia of experience and apply it to new challenges like climate change, has resulted in a diverse range of adaptation and initiatives which collectively provide insights into how the world may build climate futures. Indigenous knowledge in all its forms is a living thing, and its use and legitimation, however it is spatially constituted in practice and time, can help build decolonised adaptation programs.

In acknowledging all forms of Indigenous knowledge, it is also important to understand that the way language is used to relay that knowledge is important, and further, that when discussing an issue like climate change, it is important to ensure that all parties to the discussion are talking about the same thing. When we discuss ‘Indigenous’ peoples, what is meant by that? Who are we talking about? When we consider ‘adaptation’, ‘climate change’, ‘vulnerability’ and ‘resilience’, what is understood by these terms, which are used flexibly and often loosely by different actors. Further, and as will be discussed later, how these terms are deployed and used to advance various dominant knowledge and power agendas are often rejected and countered by Indigenous peoples. Thus, a crucial first step in advancing any conversation about Indigenous adaptation is to clarify what is meant by all these terms.

The Key Terms

‘Indigenous’

One of the most important of these of course, is the word “Indigenous”. This is because non- Indigenous interpretations of who is or isn’t Indigenous is too often used as a weapon of power to control Indigenous peoples and the flow of resources to them, despite the ways in which they may culturally identify themselves. It is also important because the ebb and flow of resources to Indigenous peoples to address climate change will start with this definition – and thus determine who is or isn’t the recipient of any financial support – or inclusion in climate governance by governments and others.

Unsurprisingly, the term ‘Indigenous’ has been the subject of debate within the United Nations for a long time. Indeed, it is not a term that is used at all in some cases: in Alaska for example the term “Alaska Native”is used while the Constitution of Canada uses the term “Aboriginal”. “First Nations” is also a widely used term in Canada, the United States and increasingly in Australia. In Russia, Indigenous peoples are defined according to the size of their population, and groups of less than 50,000 people are legally defined as “Indigenous numerically-small peoples” whereas non-Russian peoples with a population size of over 50,000 are denied Indigenous status. In China, Indigenous peoples are referred to as ethnic minorities and in the Pacific, as “local peoples”. In the Asian region, Indigenous Peoples are referred to as tribal peoples, hill tribes, scheduled tribes, janajati, orang asli, orang asal, masyarakat adat, masyarakat hukum adat, adivasis, ethnic minorities or nationalities. In Africa, as shown in the perspective provided by Lawrence Guodaar and Douglas Bardsley below, the term is even more complicated.

Perspective 1.1Indigeneity in Africa: Implications for climate change adaptation.

Lawrence Guodaar and Douglas K. Bardsley

…being Indigenous to a place is not in itself what makes a people an Indigenous people. (Barnard, 2006, 1)

The nature of Indigeneity in Africa appears to be more complex than we ever thought. This complexity is not only manifest in the cultural diversity of the varied ethnic and tribal groups, but also how Indigeneity is conceptualised amongst ethnic groups and Indigenous societies in Africa. Migration patterns and their concomitant cultural assimilations of ethnic groups, coupled with the challenges of ancestral home and territorial boundary identification, especially during the pre-colonial period, add to this complexity. As a result, the process of gaining or claiming Indigenous status in many African societies has subtly changed over time. Occupancy of land was one of the approaches by which many African societies established their Indigenous status during the pre-colonial period (Toledo, 2001). During that period, the search for water and pasture for livestock, especially during drought periods generated many of the human migration patterns in Africa. Such demands not only helped many tribal groups adapt to the climatic risks, but currently, traditional mobility is also a means for claiming Indigenous rights to natural resources. Tribal identity is also a conduit to Indigeneity in different jurisdictions, especially in Eastern and Western Africa. For example, in Kenya, Indigenous status can be claimed if one is part of a recognised tribal group, such as the Maasai (Balaton-Chrimes, 2013). Such Indigenous ethnic or tribal groups usually have unique cultures, secret histories and ancestral homes.

Colonisation in Africa however, propelled many Africans to unify and strengthen their cultural identity as a group or groups with a common destiny. From the European colonial era, Africans were generally considered Indigenous in their own right irrespective of their ethnic orientation, while the colonial ‘masters’ were classified as non-Indigenous. For instance, in Botswana all Africans including the majority and minority groups were considered Indigenous (Pelican & Maruyama, 2015). However, in the post-colonial period, the nature of Indigeneity in Africa, particularly sub-Saharan Africa took on a new dimension. Many ethnic groups have utilised the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) criteria of self-identification as a means of achieving Indigenous status. Thus, different ethnic groups in Africa claim Indigenous status for places where they do not ‘originally’ belong, in the sense of a pre-colonial heritage with place. Though such groups may claim to be Indigenous in their own right, they are usually not recognised locally, or at least not over all of the claimed areas. Such claims of Indigeneity by migrant settlers could partly be due to their more recent attachment to places and the opportunities they have generated in building livelihood resilience within a local environment.

In view of the anticipated climate change risks in the future, many ethnic groups, and particularly pastoralists in Africa are expected to continue to migrate to different (environmentally favourable) landscapes in an attempt to adapt through improved livelihood resilience. This trend will increase the complexity of claims over land or associated natural resources and how Indigeneity is defined.

There have already been instances where this ambiguity has created competition and conflict between migrant settlers and natives in many regional landscapes in the Sahel (Turner, 2004). The usurpation and control of environmental resources such as land, water, minerals (e.g. gold, oil etc.) and forests by non-Indigenous migrant settlers has the potential to trigger violent tribal conflict (Gleditsch et al., 2007). In fact, it is expected that many vulnerable Indigenous communities in many parts of Africa may continue to be antagonistic towards migrant-settlers through reprisal conflicts. Such conflicts could be exacerbated by the increasing demand from Indigenous people to adapt to climate change through the effective management of the already scarce local resources.

The complexity of the nature of Indigeneity in the African context thus will need to be better understood so as to enable effective decision-making to manage the future challenges of climate change and livelihood disruption. Indigeneity needs to carefully conceptualised within certain defined criteria to generate a broader acceptance within and between African countries. It is imperative that traditional authorities and governments provide these frameworks and criteria to avert conflict between Indigenous and non-Indigenous ethnic groups, to promote peaceful coexistence and sustainable development and build adaptive capacity to respond to climate change (Photo 1.1).

Photo 1.1
figure 1

Community Gathering in the Afar region Ethiopia. (Credit: Rahwa Kidane)

Full size image

One of the most commonly used definitions for Indigenous is that of Jose R. Martinez Cobo, the Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, where he notes:

Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system (Cobo, 1986, 15).

This definition picks up on the idea of Indigenous groups being first peoples, as well as culturally distinct peoples. A long connection with land and sea is another key element - the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues also defines Indigenous peoples as those who have historical continuity, who self-identify at an individual level, have acceptance at a community level, maintain strong links to territories and resources, distinct political, social, linguistic systems, and assert a desire to keep and maintain culture. The International Labour Organisation (ILO), (1989, Article 1, 2) in its Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, defines Indigenous peoples as those:

People in independent countries who are regarded as Indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present State boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.

Historical continuity is understood to include, occupation of ancestral lands, common ancestry with original occupants, common culture and language, and ongoing residence on that land. Important in this definition is the recognition of colonisation as both a point of impact but also the basis on which to define oneself in contrast to. The World Health Organisation (WHO, 1999, 1) defines Indigenous peoples as follows: -

Indigenous populations are communities that live within, or are attached to, geographically distinct traditional habitats or ancestral territories, and who identify themselves as being part of a distinct cultural group, descended from groups present in the area before modern states were created and current borders defined. They generally maintain cultural and social identities, and social, economic, cultural and political institutions, separate from the mainstream or dominant society or culture.

Other definitions such as that used in Australia, recognise self-identification and acceptance by other members of the relevant cultural group as identifying factors (Department of Aboriginal Affairs, 1981, 2). In New Zealand, the Maori Affairs Restructuring Act 1989, the Rununga Iwi Act 1990 and the Maori Land Act 1993 define a Maori as a person of the Maori race of New Zealand or a descendant of any such person (Dennis-McCarthy, 2020). In Sweden, the Sami must define himself or herself as Sami and either speak the Sami language as a home language or have a parent or grandparent who spoke the language as a home language.

While these definitions reflect the many different ways by which Indigenous peoples are identified within different nations, the importance of continuity and affiliation with traditional territories, cultural group (self) acceptance, the impacts of forms of colonisation (but not for all groups) and being first peoplesFootnote 1 are shared in common. As a starting point, we suggest that collaborative climate adaptation, wherever in the world it may be, start by recognising how Indigenous peoples identify themselves, not how they are constructed by outsiders.

Western Scientific Terms

Further, the climate change field remains dominated by a Western scientific lexicon (see Table 1.1), and as a result, language continues to play havoc with how climate adaptation can be pursued in cultural contexts.

Table 1.1 Summary of key terms used by the IPCC for climate change
Full size table

This language and these definitions have been used to establish how climate change is talked about world-wide, whether in science, policy or media. Yet, they do not necessarily reflect Indigenous understanding and conceptualisation of the same terms, which is challenging if different parties are trying to work together. These differences in understanding about what key climate terms mean has significant impacts for Indigenous peoples trying to work out how to adapt to climate change and many end up talking at cross purposes with non- Indigenous agencies, governments, policy makers and scientists.

For example, many Indigenous cultures do not have a single phrase such as ‘climate change’ to reflect their own lifeworld descriptions of the climate, weather and change. Indeed, even the idea that climate change is (a) a scientific process and (b) human induced, is contested by some Indigenous groups who assert that it is God or other ancestors that are causing these changes.

In writing this book with and about many Indigenous groups we have also discovered that the idea of adaptation is not constructed by Indigenous peoples as a meteorologically derived and scientific term, but in fact represents a collective cultural adjustment over time to multiple issues and impacts that have affected their knowledge and livelihoods. Time is also constructed differently when discussing the idea of adaptation: for Indigenous peoples, their life worlds construct belonging and identities over a vast timescale, sometimes, as in Australia, over millennia. Climate change and adaptation are thus part of an enduring pattern of survival and existence that has been part of Indigenous lives and world views always.

However, Western science, although it does explore climate per se over millennia, constructs climate change as the recent acceleration of emissions into the atmosphere and associated warming and other trends. It is understood as a scientific, not a cultural process, and a process that commenced with the industrial scale of burning fossil fuels a mere 250 years ago. Adaptation in a Western context, is adaptation to this recent and accelerated climate change.

Vulnerability and resilience are also understood in quite different ways: the deployment of the Western scientific definitions for them, while setting the benchmark for global understanding of how to construct climate change, have, whether intended or not, been used to entrench dominant constructions of how Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples react and respond to climate change. As discussed in later chapters, these constructions while familiar tropes in Western management -differ from Indigenous conceptions of what is understood as vulnerability and resilience, thus resulting in climate policy and governance arrangements that do not provide space for Indigenous involvement – and what Indigenous peoples may perceive is appropriate. Many Indigenous peoples for example reject what is a dominant binary construction of them being ‘vulnerable’ or ‘resilient’. Language matters, right from the very beginning.

Adaptation then, which is the core consideration of this book, is not a new concept for Indigenous peoples nor only grounded in climate change contexts. Rather, climate adaptation for Indigenous peoples embodies all the old ways of seeing and doing that have been the basis of their survival for millennia and which now form the foundation of their own, contemporary responses to the challenge of current climate change.

Climate adaptation in this context is not just about the application of selected ‘bits’ of Indigenous knowledge; nor the naïve incorporation of culturally palatable content: it is about the recognition of Indigenous sovereignty and governance, and a legitimisation of all forms of Indigenous knowledge as a process of survival, an assertion of agency and a vehicle for an ongoing expression of Indigenous culture and healing.

In this context and moving forward, we argue that adaptation, from an Indigenous perspective, begets a completely different approach: for both adaptation that is Indigenous led, and for Western adaptation programs that seek to use Indigenous knowledge. Policy makers need to ensure that Indigenous knowledge is used not just because it is important to the world but do so in ways that also supports Indigenous agency and future worlds (ILO 2017). A world where Indigenous conceptions of adaptation are accepted, and Indigenous voices embedded into governance and planning.

We conclude that adaptation in Indigenous worlds, is not only the application of old ways and knowledge systems to new days but is also an assertion of agency built on patterns of survival that continue to create innovative ways forward.