Editing IPCC:AR6/SROCC/Chapter-1 (section)

== CCB.4 Indigenous Knowledge and Local Knowledge in Ocean and Cryosphere Change ==

<div id="section-1-8-2indigenous-knowledge-and-local-knowledge-block-1"></div>

'''Authors''' : Susan Crate (USA), William Cheung (Canada), Bruce Glavovic (New Zealand), Sherilee Harper (Canada), Hélène Jacot Des Combes (Fiji/France), Monica Ell Kanayuk (Canada), Ben Orlove (USA), Joanna Petrasek MacDonald (Canada), Anjal Prakash (Nepal/India), Jake Rice (Canada), Pasang Yangjee Sherpa (Nepal), Martin Sommerkorn (Norway/Germany)

'''Introduction'''

This Cross-Chapter Box describes how Indigenous knowledge (IK) and local knowledge (LK) are different and unique sources of knowledge, which are critical to observing, responding to, and governing the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate (See SROCC Annex I: Glossary for definitions). International organisations recognise the importance of IK and LK in global assessments, including [http://web.unep.org/about/majorgroups/indigenous-peoples-and-their-communities UN Environment] , [http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/blog/2016/8/8/Indigenous-knowledge-ancient-solutions-to-today-s-challenges.html UNDP] , [http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/priority-areas/links/related-information/what-is-local-and-indigenous-knowledge/ UNESCO] , [http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/priority-areas/links/related-information/what-is-local-and-indigenous-knowledge/ IPBES] , and the [http://web.worldbank.org/archive/website00297C/WEB/0__CONTE.HTM World Bank.] IK and LK are referenced throughout SROCC, understanding that many climate change impacts affect, and will require responses from, local communities (both Indigenous and non-Indigenous) who maintain a close connection with the ocean and/or cryosphere.

Attention to IK and LK in understanding global change is relatively recent, but important ( ''high confidence)'' . For instance, in 1980, Alaskan Inuit formed the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission in response to the International Whaling Commission’s science that underestimated the Bowhead whale population and, in 1977, banned whaling as a result (Huntington, 1992 <sup>[[#fn:r498|498]]</sup> ). The Commission facilitated an improved population count using a study design based on IK, which indicated a harvestable population (Huntington, 2000 <sup>[[#fn:r499|499]]</sup> ). There are various approaches for utilising multiple knowledge systems. For example, the Mi’kmaw Elders’ concept of Two Eyed Seeing: which is ‘learning to see from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous knowledges, and from the other eye with the strengths of Western [scientific] knowledges, and to use both together, for the benefit of all’ (Bartlett et al., 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r500|500]]</sup> ), to preserve the distinctiveness of each, while allowing for fuller understandings and actions (Bartlett et al., 2012: 334 <sup>[[#fn:r501|501]]</sup> ).

'''Knowledge Co-production'''

Scientific knowledge, IK and LK can complement one another by engaging both quantitative data and qualitative information, including people’s observations, responses and values (Huntington, 2000 <sup>[[#fn:r502|502]]</sup> ; Crate and Fedorov, 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r503|503]]</sup> ; Burnham et al., 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r504|504]]</sup> ; Figure CB4.1). However, this process of knowledge co-production is complex (Jasanoff, 2004 <sup>[[#fn:r505|505]]</sup> ) and IK and LK possess uncertainties of a different nature from those of scientific knowledge (Kahneman and Egan, 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r506|506]]</sup> ), often resulting in the dominance of scientific knowledge over IK and LK in policy, governance and management (Mistry and Berardi, 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r507|507]]</sup> ). Working across disciplines (interdisciplinarity; Strang, 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r508|508]]</sup> ), and/or engaging multiple stakeholders (transdisciplinarity; Klenk and Meehan, 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r509|509]]</sup> ; Crate et al., 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r510|510]]</sup> ), are approaches used to bridge knowledge systems. The use of all knowledge relevant to a specific challenge can involve approaches such as: scenario building across stakeholder groups to capture the multiple ways people perceive their environment and act within it (Klenk and Meehan, 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r511|511]]</sup> ); knowledge co-production to achieve collaborative management efforts (Armitage et al., 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r512|512]]</sup> ); and working with communities to identify shared values and perceptions that enable context-specific adaptation strategies (Grunblatt and Alessa, 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r513|513]]</sup> ). Broad stakeholder engagement, including affected communities, Indigenous Peoples, local and regional representatives, policy makers, managers, interest groups and organisations, has the potential to effectively use all relevant knowledge (Obermeister, 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r514|514]]</sup> ) and produce results that reduce the disproportionate influence that formally educated and economically advantaged groups often exert in scientific assessments (Castree et al., 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r515|515]]</sup> ).

<div id="section-1-8-2indigenous-knowledge-and-local-knowledge-block-2"></div>

<span id="figure-cb4.1"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Figure CB4.1'''

<span id="figure-cb4.1-knowledge-co-production-using-scientific-knowledge-indigenous-knowledge-ik-andor-local-knowledge-lk-to-create-new-understandings-for-decision-making.-panels-a-b-and-c-represent-the-use-of-one-two-and-three-knowledge-systems-respectively-illustrating-co-production-moments-in-time-collars.-panel-a-represents-a-context-which-uses-one-knowledge-system-for"></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Figure CB4.1 | Knowledge co-production using scientific knowledge, Indigenous knowledge (IK) and/or local knowledge (LK) to create new understandings for decision making. Panels A, B, and C represent the use of one, two, and three knowledge systems, respectively, illustrating co-production moments in time (collars). Panel A represents a context which uses one knowledge system, for […]'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:1f5724b8c65a6a5f67ae534076517bc9 IPCC-SROCC-CB_4_1.jpg]]

Figure CB4.1 | Knowledge co-production using scientific knowledge, Indigenous knowledge (IK) and/or local knowledge (LK) to create new understandings for decision making. Panels A, B, and C represent the use of one, two, and three knowledge systems, respectively, illustrating co-production moments in time (collars). Panel A represents a context which uses one knowledge system, for example, of IK used by Indigenous peoples; or of LK used by farmers, fishers and rural or urban inhabitants; or of scientific knowledge used in contexts where substantial human presence is lacking. Panel B depicts the use of two knowledge systems, as described in this Cross-Chapter Box in the case of Bowhead whale population counts and in Himalayan flood management. Panel C illustrates the use of all three knowledge systems, as in the Pacific case in this Cross-Chapter Box. Each collar represents how making use of knowledge from different systems is a matter of both identifying available knowledge across systems and of knowledge holder deliberations. In these processes, learning takes place on how to relate knowledge from different systems for the purpose of improved decisions and solutions. Knowledge from different systems can enrich the body of relevant knowledge while continuing independently or can be combined to co-produce new knowledge.

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-1-8-2indigenous-knowledge-and-local-knowledge-block-3"></div>

'''Contributions to SROCC'''

Observations, responses, and governance are three important contributions that IK and LK make in ocean and cryosphere change:

''Observations'' : IK and LK observations document glacier and sea ice dynamics, permafrost dynamics, coastal processes, etc. (Sections 2.3.2.2.2, 2.5, 3.2.2, 3.4.1.1, 3.4.1.1, 3.4.1.2, 4.3.2.4.2, 5.2.3 and Box 2.4), and how they interact with social-cultural factors (West and Hovelsrud, 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r516|516]]</sup> ). Researchers have begun documenting IK and LK observations only recently (Sections 2.3.1.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, Box 4.4, 5.4.2.2.1).

''Responses'' : Either IK or LK alone (Yager, 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r517|517]]</sup> ), or used with scientific knowledge (Nüsser and Schmidt, 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r518|518]]</sup> ) inform responses (Sections 2.3.1.3.2, 2.3.2.2.2, 3.5.2, 3.5.4, 4.4.2, Box 4.4, 5.5.2, 6.8.4, 6.9.2). Utilising multiple knowledge systems requires continued development, accumulation, and transmission of IK, LK and scientific knowledge towards understanding the ecological and cultural context of diverse peoples (Crate and Fedorov, 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r519|519]]</sup> ; Jones et al., 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r520|520]]</sup> ), resulting in the incorporation of relevant priorities and contexts into adaptation responses (Sections 3.5.2, 3.5.4, 4.4.4, 5.5.2, 6.8.4, 6.9.2, Box 2.3).

''Governance'' : Using IK and LK in climate decision and policy making includes customary Indigenous and local institutions (Karlsson and Hovelsrud, 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r521|521]]</sup> ), as in the case when Indigenous communities are engaged in an integrated approach for disaster risk reduction in response to cryosphere hazards (Carey et al., 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r522|522]]</sup> ). The effective engagement of communities and stakeholders in decisions requires using the multiple knowledge systems available (Chilisa, 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r523|523]]</sup> ; Sections 2.3.1.3.2, 2.3.2.3, 3.5.4, 4.4.4, Table 4.4, 5.5.2, 6.8.4, 6.9.2; Sections 2.3.1.3.2, 2.3.2.3, 3.5.4, 4.4.4, Table 4.9, 5.5.2, 6.8.4, 6.9.2).

'''Examples from regions covered in this report'''

''IK and LK in the Pacific'' : Historically, Pacific communities, who depend on marine resources for essential protein (Pratchett et al., 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r524|524]]</sup> ), use LK for management systems to determine access to, and closure of, fishing grounds, the latter to respect community deaths, sacred sites, and customary feasts. Today a hybrid system, Locally Managed Marine Protected Areas (LMMAs), is common and integrates local governance with NGO or government agency interventions (Jupiter et al., 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r525|525]]</sup> ). The expected benefits of these management systems support climate change adaptation through sustainable resource management (Roberts et al., 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r526|526]]</sup> ) and mitigation through improved carbon storage (Vierros, 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r527|527]]</sup> ). The challenges to wider use include both how to upscale LMMAs (Roberts et al., 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r528|528]]</sup> ; Vierros, 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r529|529]]</sup> ), and how to assess them as climate change adaptation and mitigation solutions (Rohe et al., 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r530|530]]</sup> ; Section 5.4).

''IK and Pikialasorsua'' q: Pikialasorsuaq (North Water Polynya), in Baffin Bay, is the Arctic’s largest polynya, or area of open water surrounded by ice, and is also one of the most biologically productive regions in the Arctic (Barber et al., 2001 <sup>[[#fn:r531|531]]</sup> ). Adjacent Inuit communities depend on Pikialasorsuaq for their food security and subsistence economy (Hastrup et al., 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r532|532]]</sup> ). They use Qaujimajatuqangit, an IK system, in daily and seasonal activities (ICC, 2017). The sea ice bridge north of the Pikialasorsuaq is no longer forming as reliably as in the past, resulting in a polynya that is geographically and seasonally less defined (Ryan and Münchow, 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r533|533]]</sup> ). In response, the Inuit Circumpolar Council initiated the Pikialasorsuaq Commission who formed an Inuit-led management authority to (1) oversee monitoring and research to conserve the polynya’s living resources; (2) identify an Indigenous Protected Area, to include the polynya and dependent communities; and (3) establish a free travel zone for Inuit across the Pikialasorsuaq region (ICC, 2017; Box 3.2) .

''LK in the Alps'' : Mountain guides and other local residents engaged in supporting mountain tourism draw on LK for livelihood management. A study at Mont Blanc lists specific cryosphere changes which they have observed, including glacial shrinkage and reduction in ice and snow cover. As a result, the categorisation of the difficulty of a number of routes has changed, and the timing of the climbing season has shifted earlier (Mourey and Ravanel, 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r534|534]]</sup> ; Section 2.3.5).

''LK to manage flooding'' : Climate change is increasing glacial melt water and rain-induced disasters in the Himalayan region and affected communities in China, Nepal, and India use LK to adapt (Nadeem et al., 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r535|535]]</sup> ). For instance, rains upstream in Gandaki (Nepal) flood downstream areas of Bihar, India. Local communities’ knowledge of forecasting floods has evolved over time through the complexities of caste, class, gender and ecological flux, and is critical to flood forecasting and disaster risk reduction. Local communities manage risk by using a diverse set of knowledge, including phenomenological (e.g., river sound), ecological (e.g., red ant movement) and riverine (e.g., river colour) indicators, alongside meteorological and official information (Acharya and Prakash, 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r536|536]]</sup> ; Section 2.3.2.3).

'''Knowledge Holders’ Recommendations for Utilising IK and LK in Assessment Reports'''

''Perspectives from the Himalayas'' : IK and LK holders in the Himalayas have conducted long-term systematic observations in these remote areas for centuries. Contemporary IK details change in phenology, weather patterns, and flora and fauna species, which enriches scientific knowledge of glacial retreat and potential glacial lake outbursts (Sherpa, 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r537|537]]</sup> ). The scientific community can close many knowledge gaps by engaging IK and LK holders as counterparts. Suggestions towards this objective are to work with affected communities to elicit their knowledge of change, especially IK and LK holders with more specialised knowledge (farmers, herders, mountain guides, etc.), and use location- and culture-specific approaches to share scientific knowledge and use it with IK and LK.

''Perspectives from the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC), Canada'' : Engaging Inuit as partners across all climate research disciplines ensures that Inuit knowledge and priorities guide research, monitoring, and the reporting of results in Inuit homeland. Doing so enhances the effectiveness, impact, and usefulness of global assessments, and ensures that Inuit knowledge is appropriately reported in assessments. Inuit seek to achieve self-determination in all aspects of research carried out in Inuit homeland (e.g., Nickels et al., 2005). Inuit actively produce and use climate research (e.g., ITK, 2005; ICC, 2015) and lead approaches to address climate challenges spurred by great incentive to develop innovative solutions. Engaging Inuit representative organisations and governments as partners in research recognises that the best available knowledge includes IK, enabling more robust climate research that in turn informs climate policy. When interpreted and applied properly, IK comes directly from research by Inuit and from an Inuit perspective (ICC, 2018). This can be achieved by working with Inuit on scoping and methodology for assessments and supporting inclusion of Inuit experts in research, analysis, and results dissemination.

<span id="the-role-of-knowledge-in-peoples-responses-to-climate-ocean-and-cryosphere-change"></span>
=== 1.8.3 The Role of Knowledge in People’s Responses to Climate, Ocean and Cryosphere Change ===

<div id="section-1-8-3-the-role-of-knowledge-in-peoples-responses-to-climate-ocean-and-cryosphere-change-block-1"></div>

To hold global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, substantial changes in the day-to-day activities of individuals, families, communities, the private sector, and governance bodies will be required (Ostrom, 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r478|478]]</sup> ; Creutzig et al., 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r479|479]]</sup> ). Enabling these changes at a meaningful societal scale requires sensitivity to communities and their use of multiple knowledge systems to best motivate effective responses to the risks and opportunities posed by climate change ( ''medium confidence'' ) (1.8.2, Cross-Chapter Box 4 in Chapter 1). Meaningful engagement of people and communities with climate change information depends on that information cohering with their perception of how the world works (Crate and Fedorov, 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r480|480]]</sup> ). The values and identities people hold affect how acceptable they find the behavioural changes, technological solutions and governance that climate change action requires (Moser, 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r481|481]]</sup> ).

Education and climate literacy contribute to climate change action and adaptation ( ''high confidence'' ). Although public understanding of humanity’s role in both causing and abating climate change has increased in the last decade (Milfont et al., 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r482|482]]</sup> ), levels of climate concern vary greatly globally (Lee et al., 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r483|483]]</sup> ). Educational attainment has the strongest effect on raising climate change awareness (Lee et al., 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r484|484]]</sup> ), and research documents the value of evidence-based climate change education, particularly during formal schooling (Motta, 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r486|486]]</sup> ). People further understand climate change as a serious threat when they experience it in their lives and have knowledge of its human causes (Lee et al., 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r487|487]]</sup> ; Shi et al., 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r488|488]]</sup> ). Education and tailored climate communication strategies that are respectful of people’s values and identity can aid acceptance and implementation of the local to global-scale approaches and policies required for effective climate change mitigation and adaptation (Shi et al., 2016; Anisimov and Orttung, 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r489|489]]</sup> ; Sections 3.5.4, 4.4), while also supporting CRDPs (see also Cross-Chapter Box 2 in Chapter 1, and FAQ1.2).

Human psychology complicates engagement with climate change, due to complex social factors, including values (Corner et al., 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r490|490]]</sup> ), identity (Unsworth and Fielding, 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r491|491]]</sup> ), ideology (Smith and Mayer, 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r492|492]]</sup> ) and the framing of climate messaging. Additionally, psychology effects adaptation actions, motivated by perceptions that others are already adapting, avoidance of an unpleasant state of mind, feelings of self-efficacy and belief in the efficacy of the adaptation action (van Valkengoed and Steg, 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r493|493]]</sup> ). Better understandings of the psychological implications across diverse communities and social and political contexts will facilitate a just transition of both emissions reduction and adaptation (Schlosberg et al., 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r494|494]]</sup> ). Impacts of climate change on natural and human environments (e.g., extreme weather) or human-caused modifications to the environment (e.g., adaptation) will raise further psychological challenges. This includes psychological impacts to the emotional wellbeing of people adversely affected by climate change (Ogunbode et al., 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r495|495]]</sup> ), resulting in solastalgia (Albrecht et al., 2007 <sup>[[#fn:r496|496]]</sup> ), a distress akin to homesickness while in their home environment (McNamara and Westoby, 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r497|497]]</sup> ).

<span id="approaches-taken-in-this-special-report"></span>