DOI: 10.1111/ejed.

12238

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Indigenous knowledge and implications for the

sustainable development agenda

Giorgia Magni

International Bureau of Education

(IBE-UNESCO), Route des Morilllons 15,
Abstract
1218 Geneva, Switzerland With the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,
the international community committed to address a great number of
Correspondence
challenges. Among those emphasised by the SDGs, some are highly
Giorgia Magni, International Bureau of
Education (IBE-UNESCO), Route des relevant for indigenous groups. Education, poverty, access to justice
Morilllons 15, 1218 Geneva, Switzerland. and climate change are only a few of the issues affecting indigenous
Email: gm2535@[Link]
people’s lives. Yet, indigenous groups are not passive actors. Despite
being at the mercy of climate hazards and misleading political deci-
sions, the knowledge system they have developed throughout the
centuries has helped them to successfully respond to ecological and
development challenges. By exploring indigenous cultures and their
knowledge systems in greater depth, this article aims to understand
how the sustainable development agenda can benefit from these dif-
ferent forms of traditional knowledge. More particularly, it will
attempt to explain the main notions in which traditional knowledge is
rooted and analyse means of knowledge maintenance and transmis-
sion. It will then explore the relationship between indigenous
knowledge, sustainable practices and land and resource management,
as well as climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction strat-
egies. These ideas will be supported by a discussion on the need to
guarantee indigenous people full access to land and justice in order
for them to fully realise their rights. The conclusion reflects on the
importance of fostering an integrated system of knowledge in which
indigenous groups are involved in knowledge sharing practices and
decision making processes.

1 | INTRODUCTION

Almost 20% of our planet is home to some 370 million indigenous people, described as ‘first’ or ‘original’ people with
an historic and cultural bond with the land or territories in which they live (UNESCO, 2016a; UN, 2010). For centuries,
they have been subject to invasion and oppression and have often seen their knowledge eclipsed by Western
knowledge, imposed on them by Western institutions. For indigenous communities worldwide, maintaining their rights,
traditions and knowledge in a system that is still dominated by Western worldviews has been a constant struggle. Yet,

Eur J Educ. 2017;52:437–447. [Link]/journal/ejed V

C 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd | 437
438 | MAGNI

many have managed to survive by adapting in different ways to adverse climate conditions and creating sustainable
livelihood systems. Their diverse forms of knowledge, which are deeply rooted in their relationship with the environ-
ment and cultural cohesion, have allowed many of these communities to maintain a sustainable use and management
of natural resources, protect their environment and strengthen their resilience, whilst facing new and complex
circumstances.
Awareness of indigenous populations’ sustainable way of living, together with the deterioration of the conditions
of the planet, have recently developed the interest of the international community in indigenous knowledge and prac-
tices. Indigenous knowledge has thus become a sort of ‘remedy for many of the problems [caused] by development
strategies during the last decades’ (Agrawal, 1995, p. 420). Disciplines such as ecology, biodiversity and environmental
conservation, land and natural resources management, health and education are among those that are impacted by the
use of this knowledge system (Agrawal, 1995, 2002; Nakashima, Galloway Mclean, Thulstrup, Ramos Castillo, & Rubis,
2012; Warren, von Liebenstein, & Silkkerveer, 1993).

2 | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE

Martínez Cobo, Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protec-
In 1986, Jose
tion of Minorities, provided an innovative definition of indigenous people, stating that ‘On an individual basis, an indig-
enous person is one who belongs to these indigenous populations through self-identification as indigenous (group
consciousness) and is recognized and accepted by these populations as one of its members (acceptance by the group).
This preserves their sovereign right and power to decide who belongs to them, without external interference’

Martínez Cobo
(UNDESA, 2004, p. 2). By giving the term ‘indigenous’ such a high connotation of empowerment, Jose
has shed light on the active engagement of indigenous groups worldwide. They have become a symbol of self-
identification, self-determination, sovereignty and resilience in the fight for social justice. Indigenous groups are,
indeed, constantly fighting and lobbying for their right of access to their lands. Additionally, they are advocating for the
preservation and transmission of their knowledge and traditions and for the right to have their voices heard at the
national and international levels. The perspective of indigenous people as active agents of change underscores this
article.
The idea of empowerment embedded in the definition of indigenous people is also echoed in the definition and
significance of their knowledge. Indigenous, traditional or local1 knowledge means the knowledge and know-how that
are unique to a given society or culture. Cultural traditions, values, beliefs, rules and taboos and worldviews of local
people are embedded in this knowledge (AIPP, IWGIA, & SDC, 2012; Dei, 1993). It is indeed the backbone of their
social, economic, scientific and technological identity (Odora Hoppers, 2001).
Indigenous knowledge is a complex, complete, dynamic and practical system with scientific and logical validity
(Bates, 2009; Battiste, 2002; Sillitoe, 1998). It ‘represents generations of creative thought and action within each
individual community, as it struggles with an ever-changing set of conditions and problems’ (Warren, 1996, p. 3). The
strong contextual and cultural connections make indigenous knowledge an essential part of indigenous peoples’ lives
as it provides the necessary means for their survival. Separating indigenous knowledge from its socio-cultural context
becomes meaningless and dangerous, as it may lead to misleading interpretations and misuse of this knowledge
(McCall, 1988; UNESCO, 2009).

2.1 | Buen vivir as an alternative for progress

The increasing interest of the international community in indigenous knowledge situates its systems as ‘possible alter-
native[s] for progress’ (Briggs, 2005). This is the case, for instance, of the notion of buen vivir, derived from the reaction
of Latin and Central American indigenous groups to the negative impact of development strategies on their people and
territories. The idea of buen vivir, which literally translates as living well, encompasses a set of values and norms that is
shared by different indigenous communities worldwide and represents a new conceptualisation of development which
comprises aspects such as the rights to land and resources, culture, identity and self-determination (Gudynas, 2011;
MAGNI | 439

Tauli-Corpuz, 2005; UNPFII, 2010). These elements have increasingly constituted the basis of indigenous peoples’
resistance against policies and projects which have negatively affected their populations. Community and communitari-
anism, the harmonious and interdependent relationships between human-nature-universe and notions of equality and
complementarity are some of these values (Cunningham, 2010b; Gudynas, 2011; Mollo, 2011). The main reference for
natural and cultural property is not the single individual, but the community as a whole. The members of indigenous
communities reach and maintain harmonious relationships through a system of equality and respect for all, particularly
women and elders, since they are the primary holders and transmitters of traditional knowledge. Other essential condi-
tions related to the well-being of indigenous groups are sufficient food, strong values of caring, reciprocity and solidar-
ity, freedom to express identity and to practise one’s culture, and a safe and non-polluted environment (UNPFII, 2010).
The efforts made by indigenous communities worldwide to promote and legitimise the notion of buen vivir have
resulted in the adoption of regional, national and local perspectives which differ slightly, despite sharing some common
principles and values (Cunningham, 2010a,b; Gudynas, 2011; Mollo, 2011; UNPFII, 2010). For instance, in Latin
America, the idea has been considered by academics, indigenous leaders, communities and politicians as a guiding prin-
ciple for a new regimen of development that incorporates the vision of indigenous peoples as well as their traditional
knowledge and must be carried out in a collective way (Cunningham, 2010a; Gudynas, 2011; Gudynas & Acosta,
2011). The notion of living well has become so strong in the region that Bolivia and Ecuador have included the
~a and sumak kawsay,2 respectively, in their constitutions. Nevertheless, despite the great
concepts of suma qaman
contribution of the notions of living well to aspects such as social organisation and economic structure, more efforts
are needed to transform these into the whole society’s way of living.

2.2 | Systems of knowledge transmission

2.2.1 | The family and the community
Indigenous knowledge is a ‘living process to be absorbed and understood’ (Battiste, 2002, p. 15). It is passed on from
generation to generation. Factors such as age, gender, experience, political power and occupation influence knowledge
transfer. This may generate different systems within the same community and affect a person’s quality and quantity of
indigenous knowledge (Briggs, 2005; Grenier, 1998; Scoones & Thompson, 1994).
Indigenous groups conceive education as a learning for life experience (Kanstrup-Jensen, 2006). Thus, they ensure
the preparation of the individual to fully become a member of their community through approaches based on learning
by doing (Preston, 1975, 1982 in Ohmagari & Berkes, 1997), consisting of observations, actions, and interactions with
both adult members of the community and the environment (UNESCO, 2009). Experiential learning, such as practical
demonstrations, and oral approaches, storytelling, myth narration, metaphors, or songs are also typically used (Battiste,
2002), which makes indigenous languages vital elements for the survival of indigenous knowledge.
In indigenous communities, women and elders play a special role (Ramphele, 2004; Tebtebba Foundation, 2009).
They are not only the main caregivers, but also the custodians of traditional knowledge, culture and biological diversity
(Cunningham, 2010b; Howell, 2003). Elderly people are the custodians of indigenous knowledge and consequently one
of the most valuable sources of transmission (Dweba & Mearns, 2011). In successful education initiatives, such as the
Alaska Rural Systemic Initiative, they play a central role in instructional planning, curriculum design and programme
implementation in culturally responsive schools. Additionally, they are responsible for carrying out knowledge transmis-
sion activities in cultural camps (Barnhardt, 2008; Barnhardt & Kawagley, 2005).
The importance attributed to indigenous women and elders by indigenous societies does not reduce the chal-
lenges nor improve the conditions of these specific groups. Most of the time, indigenous women are underestimated

mez-
and find themselves in a vulnerable position (Gururani, 2002; Ramphele, 2004; Rocheleau, 1991; Schmink & Go
Garcia, 2015); whereas, in the case of elders, the growing inter-generational gap often culminates in resistance to the
acquisition of traditional practices (Ohmagari & Berkes, 1997; Rocheleau, 1991). The invisibility of women and the
inter-generational gap are affecting the ability of indigenous communities to maintain their knowledge. This has severe
consequences for younger generations as it weakens their social capital, which may reduce, in turn, their ability to
respond to ecological and socioeconomic challenges (Ford, Pearce, Duerden, Furgel, & Smit, 2010). Initiatives at the
440 | MAGNI

national and international levels that promote gender equality and aim at closing the inter-generational gap are key to
thwarting this knowledge loss.

2.2.2 | Formal schooling

So far, we have discussed indigenous knowledge transmission as a ‘family and community affair’, but what happens to
indigenous knowledge when indigenous children access formal education? Research has demonstrated that the past
and current conceptualisation of formal education systems under Western or national norms that promotes homogeni-
sation rather than plurality has resulted in an unquantifiable amount of indigenous knowledge loss since the beginning
of the 20th century (Mato, 2015; Stavenhagen, 2015). Among the factors identified as responsible for the Westernisa-
tion of the education system are curricula which usually lack contextual relevance and devalue indigenous knowledge
(Barnhardt & Kawagley, 2005; Maurial, 1999; UNESCO, 2009); assessment strategies (Barnhardt & Kawagley, 2005);
faculty attitude (Radoll, 2015); and teaching methodologies, such as the language of instruction (Batibo, 2009; Wong-
busarakum, 2009). In relation to this, it is worth mentioning that 40% of the population worldwide do not have access
to an education in their mother tongue. This is particularly true for indigenous populations who are often left behind,
since they do not fully enjoy their rights to have an education in their own language (UNESCO, 2016b; UN, 2010).
There have been attempts to include or restore indigenous knowledge and practices through formal schooling in
many regions of the world. Intercultural universities in Latin America (Mato, 2008; Schmelkels, 2004) and the Alaska
Rural Systemic Initiative (Barnhardt, 2008; Barnhardt & Kawagley, 2005) are two successful examples. Both demon-
strate the positive impact of education initiatives that are characterised by dialogue, power balance in the decision
making process and mutual respect between the different parties involved. They represent what indigenous peoples
are asking for in terms of formal schooling reform, i.e., a culturally-appropriate education with inclusive school curricula
reflecting cultural diversity, recognising indigenous languages, and using alternative pedagogical approaches based on
different knowledge systems and worldviews (Aikman, 2011; Stavenhagen, 2015). This is the case of Guatemala where
indigenous groups set the right to receive a bilingual and intercultural education as a precondition for the peace pro-
cess in the country (UNESCO, 2016b).
These examples show that education can be both the cause of and the potential cure for the loss of indigenous
knowledge (UNESCO, 2009). In the Agenda 2030, having a relevant education for indigenous children means that
curricula and classroom practices can no longer ignore indigenous knowledge (Breidlid, 2016). It is therefore crucial to
develop and implement education initiatives that aim at integrating knowledge systems and to find a balance among
them. These types of initiatives will provide precious ‘insights into ways by which we can extend the scope of our edu-
cation systems to prepare all students [. . .] to make a fulfilling and sustainable life for themselves’ (Barnhardt, 2008, p.
114) and consequently for their communities. Besides the fact that some countries, such as Paraguay, are making
progress in improving the quality of education for indigenous children by adapting their national policies, curricula and
pedagogical practices (UNESCO, 2016b), governments, educational institutions and indigenous communities need to
increase their joint efforts to develop and implement reforms, create more intercultural and inclusive education
systems, and empower indigenous peoples.

2.3 | Putting indigenous knowledge into practice

2.3.1 | Sustainable practices and land and resource management
For indigenous communities, territories are vital, as it is here that social, economic, cultural and environmental activities
take place. Sustainable production and consumption practices as well as resource conservation and management
techniques are among these activities, mainly based on traditional knowledge and customary systems of governance
(Cunningham, 2010a; Hiwasaki, Luna, & Shaw, 2014).
For centuries, indigenous populations have been carrying out practices that are adapted to their lands. Among
those that they have recognised as viable and sustainable are rotational farming, shifting cultivation, pastoralism,
fishing, agroforestry, and hunting and gathering (International Indigenous Peoples’ Summit on Sustainable Develop-
ment, 2002). Sustainable and resilient ways of living are also promoted by the use of multiple resources and a high
MAGNI | 441

diversity of crops, as well as the development of specific techniques and technologies to carry out their activities in
environmentally-friendly and cost-effective ways. These have allowed indigenous people to ‘ensure food security while
conserving the diversity of wild and domestic plants’ (Nakashima et al., 2012, p. 57). Indigenous communities also use
cosmovision, which refers to the perspectives, conceptualisations and valorisations that determine their worldviews
and relationships (OREALC, 2017) and spiritual practices to ensure biological diversity, ecological equilibrium and a
healthy environment, as well as hunting and agricultural activities (Gonz

ales, Machaca, Chambi, & Gomel, 2010; Luzar
& Fragoso, 2013).

2.3.2 | Land and resource management: Community and women’s role and new livelihood
strategies
In indigenous societies, the community’s central role transforms territories into collective spaces where fauna, flora
and human beings live together in harmony. They maintain this harmony through social mechanisms and customary
governance structures for the good functioning of relationships and land management (Nakashima et al., 2012) which
include forms of labour exchange, such as the minga or minka and ranti ranti in the Andean Region (Cunningham,
2010b) or the ug-ugbo in the Philippines (AIPP et al., 2012; UNPFII, 2010); common property management practices,
such as the kaitiakitanga in New Zealand (Dodson, 2015; Kahui & Richards, 2014); and water and food protection and
conservation techniques such as the godha and thagalok systems used by the Jumma groups in Bangladesh or the lamp-
isa system practised by the Pidlisan-Kankanaeys people in the Cordillera region of the Philippines (Tebtebba Founda-
tion, 2009).
Indigenous women, because of their role as custodians of biodiversity, also play a very important role in environ-
mental sustainability and in production, management, preservation and consumption practices (Shiva, 1992). They play
a special role in food security and sustainable resource management. For instance, in shifting cultivation practices,
women are responsible for 70% of the work, from the initial selection of seeds, to weeding the fields, and gathering,
processing, and managing the surplus products (AIPP, IWGIA, FAO, & REGNSKOGFONDET, 2014). They also play a
key role in soil and water management (Rocheleau, 1991) and in household gardening (Rubaihayo, 2004; Tebtebba
Foundation, 2009). Studies carried out in Laos and India have demonstrated that these practices equip them with a
deep knowledge about seeds, crops and plant varieties. This knowledge is then transferred to younger generations,
which, once again, highlights the importance of women in the preservation of biodiversity (AIPP et al., 2014).
The communitarian way of living of indigenous people highlights concepts such as reciprocity and collectivity of
the economic subject. Hence, for indigenous populations natural resources are not marketable. What they produce is
generally used for their own consumption, whilst the surplus is redistributed equally among the community or used in
exchanges with other communities (Cunningham, 2010b). But the recent access to markets to sell products and buy
goods has changed the way of living of many indigenous groups who now have more opportunities for cash income
(AIPP et al., 2014; Tauli-Corpuz, 2005). This has affected their traditional livelihood, with changes in behaviour from
community-oriented to individualised and the abandonment of traditional sustainable practices (AIPP et al., 2014;
Barkin, 2001; Ford, Smit, & Wandel, 2006; Nakashima et al., 2012). In some countries, indigenous communities have
begun to introduce complementary activities, such as ecotourism to increase their life opportunities, whilst at the same
time respecting the environment and the cultural diversity of their territories (Azevedo Luíndia, 2008; Barkin, 2001).
Those in Bolivia, for instance, have included notions of eco-tourism alongside those of land production and manage-
ment in the curriculum of the Indigenous Intercultural University of Kawsay (Saavedra, 2008).

2.3.3 | Climate change and disaster risk reduction strategies

Indigenous peoples live in the most vulnerable ecosystems. Adverse ecological phenomena that are responsible for
climate change and biodiversity loss directly affect their territories. This has negative effects on many social and
cultural aspects of their lives. For instance, the great loss of fauna and flora has affected traditional indigenous
practices and rituals (Kronik & Verner, 2010; LEAD, 2013; Salick & Byg, 2007), and the increasing shortage of
freshwater and food has been responsible for health issues, especially among children (Tebtebba Foundation, 2009).
Yet, indigenous peoples have managed to survive in these circumstances, always finding ways to resist and adapt to
442 | MAGNI

environmental changes (Nakashima et al., 2012). Research has recently illustrated the great value of indigenous
traditional knowledge, not only in preventing and in mitigating the effects of natural disasters, but also in relation to
early warning, preparedness, response and post-disaster recovery (Rautela & Karki, 2015).
Adaptation mechanisms are influenced by ‘cultural features, social capital, productive practices, and socioeconomic
and political situations’ (Verner, 2010). Thus, adaptation and coping strategies vary according to indigenous group liveli-
hoods, ecosystems, climate change impacts and threats. Despite these differences, similarities have been found across
indigenous groups located in different regions of the world, but experiencing similar weather conditions.
Traditional responses to adverse climate change conditions adopted by indigenous people include: (a) diversifica-
tion of resources; (b) changes in the varieties and species used; (c) changes in the timing of activities; (d) changes in the
techniques used; (e) changes in location; (f) changes in resources and/or lifestyles; (g) exchange with other groups; and
(h) resource management. These strategies are not usually employed in isolation, so indigenous communities may use
more than one adaptation strategy simultaneously (Salick & Byg, 2007). Examples include the flexibility of resource
use, local environmental knowledge and skills, intercommunity trade and multi-cropping systems (AIPP et al., 2012;
Berkes & Jolly, 2001). The latter technique helps to minimise the risk of harvest failure, since cultivated crops have
different reactions to the consequences of climate change (AIPP et al., 2012).
Concerning disaster risk reduction, the adoption of different strategies by different indigenous groups mainly
depends on the natural hazards they experience. Among the strategies observed by researchers are prevention
strategies based on weather forecasting and the modification of agricultural practices to limit the damages to crops.
Others include construction practices to prevent the population and the livestock from a wide variety of damages
(Macchi et al., 2008; Mercer, Dominey-Howes, Kelman, & Lloyd, 2007).
Additionally, the close relationship of indigenous groups with their territories has helped them to use their
traditional knowledge to interpret the behaviour of nature and, in this way, forecast weather conditions. Thanks to the
ability to read and interpret natural signs, such as animals and plant behaviours, water and sea movement and changes
in the celestial bodies, many groups worldwide have been able to survive and prevent the worst destruction from
natural hazards (Green, Billy, & Tapim, 2010; Howell, 2003; Orlove, Chiang, & Cane, 2000; Rautela & Karki, 2015).

3 | MITIGATION STRATEGIES, LAND RIGHTS AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE

The international community has increasingly recognised the importance of indigenous knowledge for environmental
sustainability. For instance, the Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
identifies indigenous and traditional knowledge as ‘major resource[s] for adapting to climate change’ and highlights the
need for ‘[i]ntegrating such forms of knowledge with existing practices [to] increase the effectiveness of adaptation’
(2014, p. 19). Nevertheless, international acknowledgment has not increased the participation of indigenous groups in
decision making processes. Hence, their actions mostly remain ignored and/or when they react to assert their rights,
they are often violently stopped (UN, 2010). Additionally, the measures agreed upon at local, national and international
levels to mitigate the negative effects of climate change, such as the Kyoto Protocol, have severely damaged indige-
nous territories, increasing poverty and marginalisation (Tebtebba Foundation, 2009). For instance, the introduction of
oil palm plantations for biofuel production in many regions of the world has caused the destruction of millions of
hectares of forests on which indigenous communities depend for a living. It has also increased the levels of pollution,
the deterioration of indigenous economies and the number of social conflicts between indigenous groups, govern-
ments and private corporations (UNPFII, 2007).
The negative effects of mitigation strategies, together with the exploitation of natural resources, the implementa-
tion of development initiatives and the pressure of climate change have added further complications to indigenous
peoples’ battles for their rights (Mollo, 2011). Indigenous well-being is based on the respect for nature and on the
access to land, two vital elements around which indigenous peoples organise their lives, not only in terms of economic
resources, but also of socio-cultural practices (Mollo, 2011). The preservation of indigenous knowledge cannot succeed
without indigenous groups having full control over their lands and resources (Agrawal, 1995; Thomas, 2003). States
MAGNI | 443

worldwide therefore need to reorient their policies to enhance indigenous communities’ participation in land manage-
ment and decision making processes and allow them to obtain free, prior, informed consent on issues related to their
lands and territories.3 If indigenous peoples ‘are regarded as dialogic partners, they will become their own change
agents through participatory and sustainable development’ (Pemunta, 2013, p. 23). Key to this is also the support and
recognition by States of indigenous people’s customary rights to land and resources (AIPP & NORAD, 2015).
It is also worth noting that a legal recognition of their rights is not enough, as concretising this recognition at the
national and local levels remains a challenge (UN, 2010). Even in those countries where laws on land and property
rights exist, the State needs to find ways to enable indigenous people to use existing laws to defend their rights and
interests, thus guaranteeing their full enjoyment of individual and collective rights.
Education has a pivotal role, since it promotes ‘greater decision making and indigenous self-determination’

s
(Aikman, 2011, p. 21). An initiative such as the Communal Justice Programme of the Universidad Mayor de San Andre
in Bolivia, which, since its foundation in 2001 has trained more than 300 specialists in Communal Justice and 8,000
promoters in Human and Fundamental Rights, is an examples of a successful programme that aims to inform indige-
nous populations of their property rights (Mallea Rada, 2008). More programmes will be necessary to increase their
opportunities to uphold and realise them.

4 | INTEGRATION OF KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS AND THE IMPLICATION

FOR THE AGENDA 2030

So, far, this article has acknowledged the importance of indigenous knowledge to address global challenges by explain-
ing its meanings, forms and functions; by understanding the ways in which it is put into practice and its implications;
and by highlighting the importance for indigenous populations to be able to fully realise their rights. But how can we
ensure the effective integration of indigenous knowledge to address the main concerns of the Agenda 2030?
Research has demonstrated that participatory approaches are key to ensure the right and balanced representation
of different knowledge systems, particularly of traditional and scientific knowledge. Additionally, these approaches are
essential to promote cross-cultural understanding of these knowledge systems whose successful complementarity has
been widely documented in relation to climate change adaptation strategies (Kronik & Verner, 2010), the prevention
and reduction of the risks caused by natural hazards (Mercer, Kelman, Taranis, & Suchet-Pearson, 2010), and the
maintenance of biodiversity conservation (Prakash, 2004). In this regard, researchers have developed participatory
frameworks for the integration of traditional and scientific knowledge systems. For instance, the framework of Mercer
et al. (2010) combines four specific steps: (a) community engagement, (b) identification of vulnerability factors within
the community, (c) identification of both indigenous and scientific strategies to cope with factors affecting the
vulnerability of indigenous people, and (d) the development of an integrated strategy. Another example is the one
developed by Hiwasaki et al. (2014) regarding the integration of indigenous and scientific knowledge for hydro-
meteorological hazards in Indonesia, the Philippines and Timor-Leste. One of its relevant characteristics is the
involvement of the community from the outset.
As previously mentioned, participatory approaches allow for the preservation of indigenous knowledge in the
communities. They limit the loss of indigenous knowledge and its tragic implications for indigenous communities which
are facing issues such as their inability to adapt, prevent and reduce natural disaster in time (Kronik & Verner, 2010).
Fostering dialogue and creating partnerships between indigenous populations, civil societies, governments, develop-
ment partners, management agencies and scholars from different disciplines (Gorjestani, 2004; Krupnik & Ray, 2007;
Sillitoe, 1998) are essential for promoting the conservation of indigenous knowledge and the integration of the two
knowledge systems. In order for participatory approaches to be successful, both knowledge systems need to be con-
sidered as having the same validity and value. Unfortunately, research has pointed out that, even in participatory
approaches, power relations are still an issue, with non-indigenous populations tending to present themselves as
experts in the field and indigenous population as lacking knowledge (Cockburn, 2015). Therefore, efforts should be
made to ensure that the knowledge of all stakeholders involved is treated as equally valid, important and useful.
444 | MAGNI

With the adoption of the new Sustainable Development Agenda, the international community committed to
address a great number of challenges, many of which directly affect indigenous peoples’ lives. Their knowledge and
know-how, deeply rooted in their harmonious relationship with nature and community, have proven to be efficient to
respond to some of these challenges. However, it is not enough. Their survival and knowledge systems are under con-
stant threat from environmental hazards and development initiatives. Knowledge loss has already increased the vulner-
ability and risk for indigenous populations. Mobilising the national and international community is therefore important.
Crucial in this regard is the recognition of indigenous peoples and their knowledge as valuable allies in the fight against
climate change and sustainable development challenges and in maintaining global biodiversity. In the light of the new
Agenda 2030, joint efforts are urgently required to develop and implement suitable initiatives to empower indigenous
peoples to uphold and realise their rights and be involved in decision making processes, thus becoming active agents
of change.

NOTES
1
In this article, the terms ‘traditional’ and ‘local’ are used as synonyms of ‘indigenous’.
2
Suma qaman~a and sumak kawsay mean living well; in harmony with nature and the universe, with the former laying greater
emphasis on the communitarian life (Gudynas, 2011).
3
Adapted from the presentation ‘New perspectives for IPCC’s 6AR: focus on the local’ by Valerie Masson-Delmotte, at the
international conference Resilience in a Time of Uncertainty: Indigenous Peoples and Climate change, 26–27 November 2015,
Paris, France.

RE FE RE NCE S
Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and Change, 26,
413–439.
Agrawal, A. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and the politics of classification. International Social Science Journal, 54, 287–
297.
Aikman, S. (2011). Education and indigenous justice in Africa. International Journal of Educational Development, 31, 15–22.
AIPP, IWGIA, FAO, & REGNSKOGFONDET. (2014). Shifting cultivation, livelihood and food security: New and old challenges
for indigenous peoples in Asia. Retrieved from [Link]
cultivation_livelihoodfood_security.pdf
AIPP, IWGIA, & SDC. (2012). Indigenous peoples and climate change adaptation in Asia. Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact.
Retrieved from [Link]
[Link]
AIPP, & NORAD. (2015). Recognition of indigenous peoples’ customary land rights in Asia. Retrieved from [Link]
org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/[Link].org_wp-content_uploads_2015_07_CLR-[Link]
Azevedo Luíndia, L. (2008). Ecoturismo de pueblos indígenas: Propuestas sostenibles. La Paz: Fondo para el Desarrollo de los
Pueblos Indígenas de Ame
rica Latina y el Caribe.

n comunitaria para el manejo sustentable de recursos rurales. Sociedades Rurales, Produccio
Barkin, D. (2001). Participacio
n
y Medio Ambiente, 2, 61–71.
Barnhardt, R. (2008). Creating a place for indigenous knowledge in education. In D. A. Gruenewald & G. A. Smith (Eds.),
Place-based education in the global age: Local diversity (pp. 113–133). New York: Psychology Press.
Barnhardt, R., & Kawagley, A. O. (2005). Indigenous knowledge systems and Alaska native ways of knowing. Anthropology
and Education Quarterly, 36, 8–23.
Bates, P. (2009). Learning and Inuit knowledge in Nunavut, Canada. In UNESCO (Ed.), Learning and knowing in indigenous
societies today (pp. 95–105). Paris: UNESCO.
Batibo, H. (2009). Transmitting indigenous knowledge through the school curriculum in a diminishing biocultural environ-
ment: The case of Botswana. In UNESCO (Ed.), Learning and knowing in indigenous societies today (pp. 87–93). Paris:
UNESCO.
Battiste, M. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and pedagogy in First Nations education: A literature review with recommendations.
Ottawa: Apamuwek Institute.
Berkes, F., & Jolly, D. (2001). Adapting to climate change: Social-ecological resilience in a Canadian western Arctic
community. Conservation Ecology, 5, 18.
MAGNI | 445

n, conocimientos indígenas y desarrollo en el Sur global: Cuestionando los conocimientos para un
Breidlid, A. (2016). Educacio
futuro sostenible. Buenos Aires: CLACSO.
Briggs, J. (2005). The use of indigenous knowledge in development: Problems and challenges. Progress in Development
Studies, 5, 99–114.
Bustamante, R. R. (2006). Pluri-, multi-issues in the reform process: Towards new water legislation in Bolivia. In UNESCO
(Ed.), Water and indigenous peoples (pp. 118–129). Paris: UNESCO.
Cockburn, J. (2015). Local knowledge/lacking knowledge: Contradictions in participatory agroecology development in
Bolivia. Anthropologica, 57, 169–183.

n del “buen vivir” de los pueblos indígenas en latinoame
Cunningham, M. (2010a). Acerca de la visio
rica. Asuntos Indeginos,
1–2, 52–55.
Cunningham, M. (2010b). Laman laka: Our indigenous path to self-determined development. In V. Tauli-Corpuz,
L. Enkiwe-Abayao, & R. De Chavez (Eds.), Towards an alternative development paradigm: Indigenous peoples’ self-
determined development (pp. 89–115). Manila: Tebtebba Foundation.
Dei, G. (1993). Sustainable development in the African context: Revisiting some theoretical and methodological issues.
African Development, 18, 97–110.
Dodson, G. (2015). Advancing local marine protection, cross cultural collaboration and dialogue in Northland (Unitec ePress
Research Report Series). Retrieved from [Link]
Dweba, T. P., & Mearns, M. A. (2011). Conserving indigenous knowledge as the key to the current and future use of
traditional vegetables. International Journal of Information Management, 31, 564–571.
Ford, J. D., Pearce, T., Duerden, F., Furgel, C., & Smit, B. (2010). Climate change policy responses for Canada’s Inuit
population: The importance of and opportunities for adaptation. Global Environmental Change, 20, 177–191.
Ford, J. D., Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Vulnerability to climate change in the Arctic: A case study from Arctic Bay,
Nunavut. Global Environmental Change, 16, 145–160.
Gonz
ales, T., Machaca, M., Chambi, N., & Gomel, Z. (2010). Latin American Andean indigenous agriculturalists challenge
current transnational system of science, knowledge and technology for agriculture: From exclusion to inclusion. In
V. Tauli-Corpuz, L. Enkiwe-Abayao, & R. De Chavez (Eds.), Towards an alternative development paradigm: Indigenous
peoples’ self-determined development (pp. 163–204). Manila: Tebtebba Foundation.
Gorjestani, N. (2004). Indigenous knowledge: The way forward. In World Bank (Ed.), Indigenous knowledge: Local pathways
to global development. Knowledge and Learning Group (pp. 45–55). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Green, D., Billy, J., & Tapim, A. (2010). Indigenous Australians’ knowledge of weather and climate. Climatic Change, 100,
337–354.
Grenier, L. (1998). Working with indigenous knowledge: A guide for researchers. Ottawa: International Development
Research Center.
Gudynas, E. (2011). Buen Vivir: Today’s tomorrow. Development, 54, 441–447.

n de la idea del progreso. In M. Rojas (Coord.), La medicio
Gudynas, E., & Acosta, A. (2011). El buen vivir o la disolucio
n
del progreso y del bienestar–Propuestas desde Am
erica Latina (pp. 103–110). Mexico: Forum for Scientific and Techno-
logical Consultation.

veloppement. Revue internationale des
Gururani, S. (2002). Le savoir des femmes du tiers monde dans le discours sur le de
sciences sociales, 54, 353–363.
Hiwasaki, L., Luna, E., & Shaw, R. (2014). Process for integrating local and indigenous knowledge with science for
hydro-meteorological disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in coastal and small island communities.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 10, 15–27.
Howell, P. (2003). Indigenous early warning indicators of cyclones: Potential application in coastal Bangladesh. London:
Benfield Greig Hazard Research Centre.
International Indigenous Peoples’ Summit on Sustainable Development. (2002). Kimberley Declaration. Kimberley, South
Africa.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report - Summary for policymakers.
In R. K. Pachauri & L. A. Meyer (Eds.), Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 1–35). Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.
Kahui, V., & Richards, A. C. (2014). Lessons from resource management by indigenous Maori in New Zealand: Governing
the ecosystems as a commons. Ecological Economics, 102, 1–7.
Kanstrup-Jensen, A. (2006). Indigenous education and knowledge: A de-legitimised concept in the” Education for All”
strategies. Aalborg: Institut for Historie, Internationale Studier og Samfundsforhold.
446 | MAGNI

Kronik, J., & Verner, D. (2010). Indigenous peoples and climate change in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington, DC:
The World Bank.
Krupnik, I., & Ray, G. C. (2007). Pacific walruses, indigenous hunters, and climate change: Bridging scientific and
indigenous knowledge. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 54, 2946–2957.
LEAD. (2013). Indigenous peoples and climate change in Africa: Report on case studies of Namibia’s Topnaar and Haijjom
communities. Windhoek: Legal Assistance Centre.
Luzar, J. B., & Fragoso, J. M. (2013). Shamanism, Christianity and culture change in Amazonia. Human Ecology, 41,
299–311.
Macchi, M., Oviedo, G., Gotheil, S., Cross, K., Boedhihartono, A., Wolfangel, C., & Howell, M. (2008). Indigenous and
traditional peoples and climate change: Issues Paper. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature
(IUCN).
Mallea Rada, J. A. (2008). El programa de te
cnicos superiores en justicia comunitaria de la Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias
Políticas de la Universidad Mayor de San Andre
s. In D. Mato (Coord.), Diversidad cultural e interculturalidad en
educaci
on superior. Experiencias en Am
erica Latina (pp. 107–114). Caracas: UNESCO-IESALC.

n superior. Experiencias en Am
erica Latina.
Mato, D. (Coord.). (2008). Diversidad cultural e interculturalidad en educacio
Caracas: UNESCO-IESALC.
Mato, D. (2015). Pueblos indígenas, estados y educacio
n superior. Aprendizajes de experiencias en varios países
de Ame
rica Latina potencialmente u

tiles a los procesos en marcha en Argentina. Cuadernos de Antropología Social, 41,
5–23.
Maurial, M. (1999). Indigenous knowledge and schooling: A continuum between conflict and dialogue. In L. M. Semali &
J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), What is indigenous knowledge?: Voices from the academy (pp. 59–77). New York: Routledge.
McCall, M. (1988). The implications of Eastern African rural social structure for local-level development: The case for
participatory development based on indigenous knowledge systems. Regional Rural Dialog, 9, 41–72.
Mercer, J., Dominey-Howes, D., Kelman, I., & Lloyd, K. (2007). The potential for combining indigenous and Western
knowledge in reducing vulnerability to environmental hazards in small island developing states. Environmental Hazards,
7, 245–256.
Mercer, J., Kelman, I., Taranis, L., & Suchet-Pearson, S. (2010). Framework for integrating indigenous and scientific
knowledge for disaster risk reduction. Disasters, 34, 214–239.

n sobre el desarrollo. OBETS: Revista de
Mollo, E. C. (2011). El vivir bien, una propuesta de los pueblos indígenas a la discusio
Ciencias Sociales, 1, 19–34.
Nakashima, D. J., Galloway Mclean, K., Thulstrup, H. D., Ramos Castillo, A., & Rubis, J. T. (2012). Weathering uncertainty:
Traditional knowledge for climate change assessment and adaptation. Paris: UNESCO and Darwin: UNU.
Odora Hoppers, C. A. (2001). Indigenous knowledge systems and academic institutions in South Africa. Perspectives in
Education, 19, 73–85.
Ohmagari, K., & Berkes, F. (1997). Transmission of indigenous knowledge and bush skills among the Western James Bay
Cree women of subarctic Canada. Human Ecology, 25, 197–222.
OREALC. (2017). Indigenous knowledge and practices in education in Latin America: Exploratory analysis of how indigenous
cultural worldviews and concepts influence regional educational policy. Santiago: UNESCO.
~o
Orlove, B. S., Chiang, J. C., & Cane, M. A. (2000). Forecasting Andean rainfall and crop yield from the influence of El Nin
on Pleiades visibility. Nature, 40, 68–71.
Pemunta, N. V. (2013). The governance of nature as development and the erasure of the Pygmies of Cameroon.
GeoJournal, 78, 353–371.
Prakash, S. (2004). Using indigenous knowledge to raise agricultural productivity. In The World Bank (Ed.), Indigenous
knowledge: Local pathways to global development (pp. 215–218). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Radoll, P. (2015). Aborigenal peoples, education and information and communication technologies in Australia. In N. J.
Bidwell & H. Winschiers-Theophilus (Eds.), At the intersection of indigenous and traditional knowledge and technology
design (pp. 19–32). Santa Rosa: Informing Science Press.
Ramphele, M. (2004). Women’s indigenous knowledge: Building bridges between the traditional and modern. In The
World Bank (Ed.), Indigenous knowledge: Local pathways to global development (pp. 13–17). Washington, DC: The World
Bank.
Rautela, P., & Karki, B. (2015). Weather forecasting: Traditional knowledge of the people of Uttarakhand Himalaya.
Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International, 3, 1–14.
Rocheleau, D. E. (1991). Gender, ecology, and the science of survival: Stories and lessons from Kenya. Agriculture and
Human Values, 8, 156–165.
MAGNI | 447

Rubaihayo, E. B. (2004). The contribution of indigenous vegetables to household food security. In The World Bank (Ed.),
Indigenous knowledge: Local pathways to global development (pp. 212–214). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Saavedra, J. L. (2008). Universidad Intercultural Indígena Originaria Kawsay. In D. Mato (Coord.), Diversidad cultural e

n superior. Experiencias en Am
erica Latina (pp. 115–124). Caracas: UNESCO-IESALC.
interculturalidad en educacio
Salick, J., & Byg, A. (2007). Indigenous peoples and climate change. Oxford: Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research.
Schmelkels, S. (2004). La política de la educacio
n bilingu
€e intercultural en Me
xico. In I. Hernaiz (Coord.), Educacio

n en la

n intercultural bilingu
diversidad. Experiencias y desafíos de la educacio €e (pp. 185–196). Buenos Aires: IIPE-UNESCO.
Schmink, M., & Go
mez-Garcia, M. A. (2015). Under the canopy: Gender and forests in Amazonia. Bogor: Center for
International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
Scoones, I., & Thompson, J. (1994). Knowledge, power, and agriculture: Towards a theoretical understanding. In
I. Scoones, J. Thompson, & R. Chambers (Eds.), Beyond farmer first (pp. 16–31). London: Intermediate Technology
Publications.
Shiva, V. (1992). Women’s indigenous knowledge and biodiversity conservation. India International Centre Quarterly, 19,
205–214.
Sillitoe, P. (1998). The development of indigenous knowledge: A new applied anthropology. Current Anthropology, 39,
223–252.
Stavenhagen, R. (2015). Indigenous peoples’ rights to education. European Journal of Education, 50, 254–257.
Tauli-Corpuz, V. (2005). Indigenous peoples and the Millennium Development Goals. Indigenous Perspectives, 7, 8–27.
Tebtebba Foundation. (2009, February 24–27). Asia Summit on Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples. Bali, Indonesia.
Thomas, W. H. (2003). One last chance: Tapping indigenous knowledge to produce sustainable conservation policies.
Futures, 35, 989–998.
UN. (2010). State of the world’s indigenous peoples. Retrieved from [Link]
SOWIP/press%20package/[Link]
UNDESA. (2004, January 19–21). Workshop on data collection and disaggregation for indigenous peoples: The concept
of indigenous peoples. New York, United States.
UNESCO. (2009). Learning and societies today. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2016a). Education for people and planet: Creating sustainable futures for all. Global education monitoring report
2016. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2016b). If you don’t understand, how can you learn (GEMR Policy Paper. 24). Paris: UNESCO.
UNPFII. (2007, May 14–25). Sixth session E/C.19/2007/CRP.6. Oil palm and other commercial tree plantations, mono-
cropping: Impacts on indigenous people’s land tenure and resource management systems and livelihoods. New York,
United States.
UNPFII. (2010, April 19–30). Ninth session E/C.19/2010/CRP.4 25. The human development framework and indigenous
peoples’ self-determined development or development with culture and identity. New York, United States.
Verner, D. (2010). Reducing poverty, protecting livelihoods and building assets in a changing climate: Social implications of cli-
mate change in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Warren, D. M. (1996). Comments on article by Arun Agrawal. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor, 4, 3–4.
Warren, D. M., von Liebenstein, G. W., & Silkkerveer, L. (1993). Networking for indigenous knowledge. Indigenous
Knowledge and Development Monitor, 1, 2–4.
Wongbusarakum, S. (2009). Loss of traditional practices, loss of knowledge, and the sustainability of cultural and natural
resources: A case of Urak Lawoi people in the Adang Archipelago, Southwest Thailand. In UNESCO (Ed.), Learning and
knowing in indigenous societies today (pp. 73–85). Paris: UNESCO.

How to cite this article: Magni G. Indigenous knowledge and implications for the sustainable development
agenda. Eur J Educ. 2017;52:437–447. [Link]