![](https://lbo2.localbiodiversityoutlooks.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Target-12-—-Reducing-risk-of-extinction.png)
Target 12: Reducing the risk of extinction
By 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained.
Key messages
- Many IPLCs view plants and animals relationally through kinship—having spirit, due care obligations, and moral standing equal to humans. Relational values often motivate people to protect and restore threatened species.
- IPLCs measure species recovery using, for example, cultural indicators; community-based monitoring and information systems; indigenous and local knowledge; and community governance and management.
- Partnerships with IPLCs have great potential but must ensure mutual respect, reciprocity, benefit-sharing, accountability and cultural safety.
Significance of Target 12 for IPLCs
In many places, threatened species are integral to IPLC livelihoods, values, identities and human rights.1 Traditional knowledge, expressed through stories, songs, prayers and languages, is linked to species’ ongoing existence, survival and recovery.2 Humans exist in sacred kinship relationships with other-than-human beings that bear custodianship obligations.3 IPLCs create biocultural habitats and manage the environment in ways that can support recovery.4 Restoring threatened species is part of their wider healing relationships with the environment, based on mutuality, accountability, and reciprocity.5 Given that the root causes of endangerment change over time, it is also important to recognise that IPLCs have long experience of adapting to change and will best navigate the turbulence if their territorial and species management systems are respected.
IPLCs may have different beliefs about endangerment and extinction than scientists or society, and these should be respected.6 Target 12 should accommodate the full range of IPLC governance regimes, values, evidence and motivations.7 IPLCs exist in many different political, legal, cultural and historical contexts. Inappropriate governance regimes imposed on IPLCs, regimes that do not take their contexts, institutions and constraints into account, can result in non-cooperation and failure.8
![The Arctic landscape. Credit: US Fish & Wildlife Service.](https://lbo2.localbiodiversityoutlooks.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/13483698026172_Web-Ready_1110px_RGB.jpg)
The Arctic landscape. Credit: US Fish & Wildlife Service.
Processes involving species used by IPLCs should be led, self-managed or co-managed by IPLCs, and take fully into account their governance, institutions, values, languages, concepts, sustainable uses, methodologies, traditional knowledge and evidence bases.9 IPLCs are in the best position to monitor and develop indicators for species that are relevant to them and that are compatible with their specific circumstances, and to manage knowledge and data that may or may not be shared. Funding and support for these kinds of activities need to be upscaled and made accessible to them.
Contributions and experiences of IPLCs towards Target 12
IPLCs are contributing to threatened species recovery in many ways. They are extremely knowledgeable about the behaviours, habits, habitats, associations, relationships, distribution, abundance and many other aspects of threatened species. They can use this knowledge to manage the species on their lands and to aid scientists and planners. They often manipulate their environments to create ‘biocultural habitats’ that support threatened species, through techniques such as traditional burning and soil fertility management. Through sustainable use and innovations, they can prevent local impacts and avoid endangerment.
Actions to support threatened species recovery often occur on a site- and species-specific level on IPLC lands and territories, but many threats come from outside their jurisdiction and/or span multiple jurisdictions (for example, climate change, population growth, urbanisation, habitat fragmentation, dispersal barriers and pollution10). A broad interdisciplinary approach, often at multiple scales, is required for long-term success.11 Species’ range shifts, local eradication, feral animals, and disease also complicate recovery.12 Recovery may be fragile if the underlying causes of endangerment, including social and biophysical drivers, are not mitigated and plans are not flexible enough to adapt to change.13 It should also be recognised that although IPLCs may not have caused endangerment, they are often asked to carry conservation burdens.
Below is a small sample of approaches IPLCs have taken, which range from political measures to self-monitoring and management to partnerships.
- In Australia, three-quarters of listed threatened vertebrate species overlap indigenous lands.14 Traditional owners are establishing indigenous protected areas (IPAs) and, at the same time, identifying biocultural hotspots and providing expert knowledge on threatened species15 For example, the Threatened Species Recovery Hub is working with Aboriginal rangers and communities to monitor and recover the threatened greater bilby (Macrotis lagotis), a small nocturnal mammal.16 More broadly, the hub supports the development of community protocols and indigenous-led processes.17 Similarly, the Country Needs People campaign supports Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Indigenous Protected Areas and species protection activities.18
- In Guatemala, indigenous communities monitor community forests for forest health and for endangered birds, mammals and plants.19 They maintain a community-based monitoring and information system that tracks status, trends, cultural values and practices associated with threatened species, and provides information for them to manage their forests.
- In Samoa, indigenous hunters have provided detailed information on the critically endangered tooth-billed pigeon (Didunculus strigirostris). Information on its detection, behavioural ecology, food sources and terrestrial habits is providing the basis for short-term conservation recommendations.20
- In the United States, Joint Secretarial Order 3206,21 related to the Endangered Species Act and tribes, recognises that tribes often bear conservation burdens for harms they have not caused. It employs a mitigation hierarchy of actions to prevent endangerment; preferentially imposes burdens on those who have caused the harms; and, when harms are unavoidable, minimises tribal burdens in consultation with tribal authorities.
- In Ghana, the Ashanti people’s management of their forest reserve is dictated by strongly held cultural beliefs, spiritual connections to the forest, and taboos. Their forests were found to be largely undisturbed, with closed canopies and high amounts of commercial timber. Comparatively, forests managed by the forestry commission of Ghana had poor structure and productivity, indicating that the traditional system of management is a useful tool for conservation.22
- The Buffalo Treaty is a modern-day inter-tribal alliance among US Tribes and First Nations in Canada with the long-term aim of allowing the free flow of the buffalo (bison), across the international border and restoring its central role in the food, spirituality and economies of many American Indian tribes and First Nations. It is guided by traditional elders to steer the younger generation back to a path of cultural and ecological balance by closing the gap left by the near extinction of the buffalo, thus renewing the ancient cultural and spiritual relationships with buffalo and grasslands in the Northern Great Plains.
Box 28: Chief Dana Tizya-Tramm, Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation
The Gwich’in have relied heavily on the strength and vitality of the Porcupine caribou herd for thousands of years for their food security. Credit: Minden Pictures.
![The Gwich’in have relied heavily on the strength and vitality of the Porcupine caribou herd for thousands of years for their food security. Credit: Minden Pictures.](https://lbo2.localbiodiversityoutlooks.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/H7NMD8_Web-Ready_1110px_RGB.jpg)
Case study: The Gwich’in and the porcupine caribou herd, North America
The porcupine caribou herd (Rangifer tarandus granti) is an iconic group of animals in North America with a range that stretches from Alaska in the United States to the Northwest Territories in Canada. In the world’s longest mammal migration, the porcupine travels over 2,400 kilometres each year across the traditional territory of the Gwich’in nation. The porcupine and the Gwich’in now face complex persistent threats that include ineffective interjurisdictional management, impacts from industrial activity, and climate change.
— Read the full case study
Box 29: Alexandra McGregor and Wanli Ou, AFN Fisheries
A traditional Mi’kmaw fisher from Pictou Landing, Mi’kmaq territory. Credit: Amy Moulton.
![A traditional Mi’kmaw fisher from Pictou Landing, Mi’kmaq territory. Credit: Amy Moulton.](https://lbo2.localbiodiversityoutlooks.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/3_Durney-Nicholas-a-traditional-Mikmaw-fisher-from-Pictou-Landing-Mikmaq-territory.jpg)
Case study: Indigenous eels in Canada
Pimizi (the Anishinaabemowin word for ‘eel’) has long co-existed with the indigenous peoples of the Canadian eastern seaboard on Big Turtle Island. Otherwise known as the American eel (Anguilla rostrata), this serpentine creature has been vital to the health and wealth of indigenous peoples for thousands of years.
— Read the full case study
Where partnerships between IPLCs and researchers are based on mutual respect, reciprocity, benefit-sharing, accountability and cultural safety, evidence shows that they have significantly furthered collective understanding of species’ ecological distribution ranges, baselines and trends.23 However, it is also evident that historic and remembered prejudice and biases against indigenous ways of knowing and being cast long shadows, and, too often, they continue to characterise the scientific approach to IPLCs.
“Two-way healing” / “two-way knowing” / “both-way learning”24 can promote transformative change in IPLCs and society for living in harmony with nature.25
Where mutual respect and trust is in place, or emerging, there are real opportunities for working with IPLCs on targeted recovery efforts, and, through those, commitment to supporting their ways of life, thinking, wellbeing and human rights.
Opportunities and recommended actions
- IPLCs should be supported to upscale initiatives to reduce species extinctions, including monitoring and reporting species recovery actions at national and international levels.
- Governments, donors and relevant actors should provide continued support for community-based initiatives for reducing risk of extinction, including community-based monitoring and information systems.
- Governments and all relevant actors should ensure coordination and co-operation across scales and jurisdictions, and involve IPLCs in developing laws, policies and planning processes to protect their rights and interests. Successful recovery of threatened species over the long run requires mitigating the underlying causes of endangerment, as well as cumulative and combined impacts.
- All actors should mainstream species protection into production landscapes and biocultural habitats.
- All actors should recognise and value the range of IPLC institutions, values, concepts, contexts, interests and rights that maintain their ways of life and prevent species endangerment; they should also avoid imposing conservation burdens that could degrade the custodianship of IPLCs and their relationships to nature.
Key resources
- Armitage, D., Mbatha, P., Muhl, E.-K., Rice, W. and Sowman, M. (2020) ‘Governance principles for community-centered conservation in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework’. Conservation Science and Practice 2:e160. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.160
- Garnett, S.T., Burgess, N.D., Fa, J.E., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Molnár, Z., Robinson, C. J., Watson, J.E. M., Zander, K.K., Austin, B., Brondizio, E.S. et al. (2018) ‘A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation’. Nature Sustainability, 1(7), 369–74. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-0180100-6
- Malmer, P., Masterson, V., Austin, B. and Tengö, M. (2020) ‘Mobilisation of indigenous and local knowledge as a source of useable evidence for conservation partnerships’. In (Eds): Sutherland, W.J., Brotherton, P.N.M., Davies, Z.G., Ockendon, N., Pettorelli, N. and Vickery, J.A.: Conservation research, policy and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 82–113.
- Reyes‐García, V., Fernández‐Llamazares, Á., McElwee, P., Molnár, Z., Öllerer, K., Wilson, S.J. and Brondizio, E.S. (2018) ‘The contributions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to ecological restoration’. Restoration Ecology 27(1): 3–8.
References
- Burgess, C.P. et al. (2005) ‘Healthy Country: Healthy People? Exploring the health benefits of Indigenous natural resource management’. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 29(2), pp. 117-22.
—
Haggerty, J.H. et al. (2018) ‘Restoration and the affective ecologies of healing: Buffalo and the Fort Peck tribes’, Conservation & Society 16(1), pp. 21-29.
—
Knox, J.H. (2017) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Issue of Human Rights Obligations Relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment: Biodiversity Report. A/HRC/34/49. Geneva: United Nations Human Rights Council and Winston-Salem: Wake Forest University.
—
Magga, P. and Tervaniemi, S. (2018) ‘Belonging to Sápmi – the Sámi conceptions of home and home region’ in Eriksen, T.H., Valkonen, S. and Valkonen, J. (eds.) Knowing from the Indigenous North: Sámi approaches to history, politics and belonging. Routledge.
—
Marselle, M.R., Stadler, J., Korn, H., Irvine, K.N., Bonn, A. (2019) ‘Biodiversity and health in the face of climate change: Challenges, opportunities and evidence gaps’, in Marselle, M., Stadler, J., Korn, H., Irvine, K. and Bonn, A. (eds) Biodiversity and health in the face of climate change. Springer, Cham.
—
McGinnis, A., Kincaid, A.T, Barrett, M.J., Ham, C. (2019) ‘Strengthening animal-human relationships as a doorway to indigenous holistic wellness’. Ecopsychology 11(3), pp. 162–73.
—
Russell, R., Guerry, A.D., Balvanera, P., Gould, R.K., Basurto, X., Chan, K.M.A., Klain, S., Levine, J. and Tam, J. (2013) ‘Humans and nature: How knowing and experiencing nature affect well-being’, Annual Review of Environment and Resources 38(1).
—
Widenhorn, S. (2013) ’Towards epistemic justice with indigenous peoples’ knowledge? Exploring the potentials of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the philosophy of buen vivir’, Development 56(3), pp. 378–86. - Fernández-Llamazares, Á. and Cabeza, M. ‘Rediscovering the potential of indigenous storytelling for conservation practice’, Conservation Letters 11(3).
—
Fernández-Llamazares, Á. and Lepofsky, D., ‘Ethnobiology through song’, Journal of Ethnobiology 39(3).
—
Peterson, D., Hanazaki, N. and Li, F. (2019) ‘Understanding canoe making as a process of preserving cultural heritage’, Ethnobiology Letters 10(1).
—
Nabhan, G.(2020) ‘Interspecific relationships affecting endangered species recognized by O’Odham and Comcaac cultures’, Ecological Applications 10(5).
—
Nabhan, G.P., and Martinez, D. (2012) ‘Traditional ecological knowledge and endangered species recovery: Is ethnobiology for the birds?’, Journal of Ethnobiology 32(1), pp. 1-5.
—
Reyes-García, V. and Fernández-Llamazares, Á. (2019) ‘Sing to learn: The role of songs in the transmission of indigenous knowledge among the Tsimane’ of Bolivian Amazonia’, Journal of Ethnobiology 39(3), pp. 460-477.
—
Sato, A.Y., Price, M.R. and Vaughan, M.B. (2019) ‘Kāhuli: Uncovering indigenous ecological knowledge to conserve endangered hawaiian land snails’, Society and Natural Resources: An International Journal 31(3). - Atleo, U.E.R (2012) Principles of Tsawalk: An Indigenous Approach to Global Crisis. University of British Colombia Press.
—
International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, International Women’s Biodiversity Network, Forest Peoples Programme et al. (2018) ‘Submission on scope, content and structure for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, including scale and scope for action necessary to make progress towards the 2050 vision, and strategy and targets for resource mobilization and collective action’. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/strategic-plan/Post2020/postsbi/iifb3.pdf
—
Kennett, R., Jackson, M. Morrison, J. and Kitchens, J. (2010) ‘indigenous rights and obligations to manage traditional land and sea estates in North Australia: The role of Indigenous rangers and the I-Tracker Project’, Policy Matters – the CEESP Journal 17.
—
Reo, N.J. (2019) ‘Inawendiwin and relational accountability in Anishnaabeg Studies: The crux of the biscuit’, Journal of Ethnobiology 39(1), pp. 65-75.
—
Snively, G. and Williams, W.L. (2016) Knowing Home: Braiding Indigenous Science with Western Science (Book 1). British Colombia: University of Victoria.
—
Fernández-Llamazares, Á. and Cabeza, M. (2017) ‘Rediscovering the potential of indigenous storytelling for conservation practice’, Conservation Letters 11(3).
—
Fernández-Llamazares, Á. and Lepofsky, D., (2019) ‘Ethnobiology through song’, Journal of Ethnobiology 39(3).
—
Peterson, D., Hanazaki, N. and Li, F. (2019) ‘understanding canoe making as a process of preserving cultural heritage’, Ethnobiology Letters 10(1).
—
Nabhan, G. (2020) ‘Interspecific relationships affecting endangered species recognized by O’Odham and Comcaac cultures’, Ecological Applications 10(5).
—
Nabhan, G.P., and Martinez, D. (2012) ‘Traditional ecological knowledge and endangered species recovery: Is ethnobiology for the birds?’, Journal of Ethnobiology 32(1), pp. 1-5.
—
Reyes-García, V. and Fernández-Llamazares, Á. (2019) ‘Sing to learn: The role of songs in the transmission of indigenous knowledge among the Tsimane’ of Bolivian Amazonia’, Journal of Ethnobiology 39(3), pp. 460-477.
—
Sato, A.Y., Price, M.R. and Vaughan, M.B. (2019) ‘Kāhuli: Uncovering indigenous ecological knowledge to conserve endangered Hawaiian land snails’, Society and Natural Resources: An International Journal 31(3). - Anderson, M.K. (2013) Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s Natural Resources. University of California Press.
—
Baker, L., Olubode, O.S., Tanimola, A.A. and Garshelis, D.L. (2014) ‘Role of local culture, religion, and human attitudes in the conservation of sacred populations of a threatened ‘pest’ species’, Biodiversity and Conservation 23, pp. 1895–1909.
—
Bird, R.B., Tayor, N., Codding, B.F., Bird, D.W. (2013) ‘Niche construction and dreaming logic: aboriginal patch mosaic burning and varanid lizards (Varanus Gouldii) in Australia’, Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 280(1772).
—
Bridgewater, P. and Rotherham, I.D. (2019) ‘A critical perspective on the concept of biocultural diversity and its emerging role in nature and heritage conservation’, People and Nature 1(3).
—
Garí, J.A. (2001) ‘Biodiversity and indigenous agroecology in Amazonia: The Indigenous Peoples of Pastaza’, Etnoecológica 5(7), pp. 21-37.
—
Verschuuren, B., Subramanian, S.M. and Hiemstra, W. (2014) Community well-being in biocultural landscapes: Are we living well? Practical Action Publishing.
—
Pungetti, G., Oviedo, G. and Hooke, D. Sacred species and sites: Advances in biocultural conservation. Cambridge University Press. - Eckert, L.E., Ban, N., Tallio, S-C. and Turner, N. (2018) ‘Linking marine conservation and indigenous cultural revitalization: First Nations free themselves from externally imposed social-ecological traps’, Ecology and Society 23(4).
—
Kimmerer, R. (2011) ‘Restoration and reciprocity: The contributions of traditional ecological knowledge’, Human Dimensions of Ecological Restoration, pp. 257–76.
—
Kimmerer, R. (2015) Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants. Penguin.
—
Morishige, K., Andrade, P., Pascua, P. and Steward, K. (2018) ‘Nā Kilo ʻĀina: Visions of biocultural restoration through indigenous relationships between people and place’, Sustainability 10(10).
—
Whyte, K. (2019) ‘Too Late for indigenous climate justice: Ecological and relational tipping points’, WIREs Climate Change 11(1). - Heise, U.K. (2016) Imagining extinction. University of Chicago Press.
—
Whyte, K.P. (2018) ‘Indigenous science (fiction) for the Anthropocene: Ancestral dystopias and fantasies of climate change crises’, Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 1(1-2). - Godden, L. and Cowell, S. (2016) ‘Conservation planning and Indigenous governance in Australia’s Indigenous Protected Areas’, Restoration Ecology 24(5).
—
Hill, R., Grant, C., George, M., Robinson, C.J., Jackson, S. and Abel, N. (2012) ‘A typology of Indigenous engagement in Australian environmental management: Implications for knowledge integration and social-ecological system sustainability’, Ecology and Society 17(1).
—
Pert, P.L., Hill, R., Maclean, K., Dale, A., Rist, P., Schmider, J., Talbot, L., Tawake, L. (2015) ‘Mapping cultural ecosystem services with rainforest aboriginal peoples: Integrating biocultural diversity, governance and social variation’, Ecosystem Services 13, pp. 41-56.
—
Bocchino, C., Hugu, S., Rodriguez, A., Rajaobelinirina, J.E., Nolan, M. (2014) ‘Enhancing the diversity, quality and vitality of governance of protected and conserved areas’. Proceedings of Stream 6 of the IUCN World Parks Congress, Sydney 2014. - Duncan, T., Villarreal‐rosas, J., Carwardine, J., Garnett, S. T., & Robinson, C. J. (2018). ‘Influence of environmental governance regimes on the capacity of indigenous peoples to participate in conservation management’. PARKS: The International Journal of Protected Areas and Conservation, 24(2), pp. 87-102.
—
Long, J.W. and Lake, F.K. (2018) ‘Escaping social-ecological traps through tribal stewardship on national forest lands in the Pacific Northwest, United States of America’, Ecology and Society 23(2).
—
Eckert, L.E., Ban, N., Tallio, S-C. and Turner, N. (2018) ‘Linking marine conservation and Indigenous cultural revitalization: First Nations free themselves from externally imposed social-ecological traps’, Ecology and Society 23(4).
—
Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2012) Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books.
—
Waller, D. M., and N. J. Reo. (2018) ‘First stewards: Ecological outcomes of forest and wildlife stewardship by indigenous peoples of Wisconsin, USA’, Ecology and Society 23(1). - Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C.M., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., Elmqvist, T. and Folke, C. (2017) ‘Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—Lessons learned for sustainability’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26-27, pp.17-25.
- Liu, J., Hull, V., Batistella, M., DeFries, R., Dietz, T., Fu, F., Hertel, T.W., Izaurralde, R.C., Lambin, E.F., Li, S., Martinelli, L.A., McConnell, W.J., Moran, E.F., Naylor, R., Ouyang, Z., Polenske, K.R., Reenberg, A., de Miranda Rocha, G., Simmons, C.S., Verburg, P.H., Vitousek, P.M., Zhang, and F., Zhu, C. (2013) ‘Framing sustainability in a telecoupled world’, Ecology and Society 18(2).
- Wilder, B.T., O’Meara, C., Monti, L. and Nabhan, G.P. (2016) ‘The importance of Indigenous knowledge in curbing the loss of language and biodiversity’, BioScience 66(6), pp. 499–509.
- Blackburn, T.M., Bellard, C., and Ricciardi, A. (2019) ‘Alien versus native species as drivers of recent extinctions’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 17(4), pp. 203–207.
—
Bond, M.O., Anderson, B.J., Henare, T.H.A. and Wehi, P.M. (2019) ‘Effects of climatically shifting species distributions on biocultural relationships’, People and Nature 1(1).
—
Hilland, A. (2013) ‘Extinguishment by extirpation: The Nuxalk Eulachon crisis’. Master of Laws thesis, University of British Columbia.
—
Kai, Z., Woan, T.S., Jie, L., Goodale, E., Kitajima, K., Bagchi, R. and Harrison, R.D. (2014) ‘Shifting baselines on a tropical forest frontier: Extirpations drive declines in local ecological knowledge’, PLoS ONE 9(1).
—
Thompson, P.L. and Fronhofer, E.A. (2019) ’The Conflict between adaptation and dispersal for maintaining biodiversity in changing environments’, PNAS 116(42). - Lindenmayer, D. (2017) ‘Five things about long-term monitoring.’ St Lucia: Decision Point Online. Available at: http://decision-point.com.au/article/five-things-about-long-term-monitoring/
—
Lindenmayer, D.B., Piggott, M.P. and Wintle, B.A. (2013) ‘Counting the books while the library burns: why conservation monitoring programs need a plan for action’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11(10), pp. 549–55. - Renwick, A.R., Robinson, C.J., Garnett, S.T., Leiper, I., Possingham, H.P. and Carwardine, J. (2017) ‘Mapping Indigenous land management for threatened species conservation: An Australian case-study’, PLoS ONE 12(3).
—
Leiper, I., Zander, K.K., Robinson, C.J., Carwadine, J., Moggridge, B.J. and Garnett, S.T. (2018) ‘Quantifying current and potential contributions of Australian indigenous peoples to threatened species management’, Conservation Biology 32(5), pp. 1038-1047. - Ens, E.J., Finalyson, M., Preuss, K., Jackson, S. and Holcombe, S. (2012) ‘Australian approaches for managing ‘country’ using Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge’, Ecological Management & Restoration. 13(1), pp. 100–107.
—
Ens et al. (2015) ‘Indigenous biocultural knowledge in ecosystem science and management: Review and insight from Australia’, Biological Conservation 181, pp. 133–49. - Threatened Species Recovery Hub (n.d.) ‘Indigenous action in threatened species research and management’. St Lucia: Threatened Species Recovery Hub. Available at: http://www.nespthreatenedspecies.edu.au/projects/collaborations-with-indigenous-people-in-threatened-species-research-and-management
- Threatened Species Recovery Hub (n.d.)’ The importance of Indigenous Peoples to the conservation of Australia’ s threatened species’. Submission to the Senate Inquiry on Australia’s faunal extinction crisis. Submission 159, Attachment 7. Brisbane: Threatened Species Recovery Hub. Available at: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=6affc0b8-8305-496c-bf99-99d5a49fdb71&subId=659993
- Country Needs People, (n.d.) ‘Country Needs People: Protecting nature, transforming lives’. Available at: https://www.countryneedspeople.org.au/country_needs_people
- Asociación Sotz’il (n.d.). ‘Monitorio Biológico Cultural: Fortaleciendo la Gestión Colectiva Indígena para la Conservación y Manejo Sostenible de Bosques Comunales en la Cadena Volcánica Occidental y Los Cuchumatanes Fase II.’ Poster presentation. Chimaltenango: Asociación Sotz’il.
- Serra, G., Sherley, G., Failagi, S.A. and Foliga, S.T. (2018) ‘Traditional ecological knowledge of the Critically Endangered Tooth-Billed Pigeon Didunculus Strigirostris, endemic to Samoa’, Bird Conservation International 28(4), pp. 620–42.
- Kraniak, D. (2015) ‘Conserving endangered species in Indian Country: The success and struggles of Joint Secretarial Order 3206 nineteen years on’, Colorado Natural Resources, Energy & Environmental Law Review 31(1), pp. 321–59.
—
Wood, J. (2015) ‘Endangered species, endangered treaties: Protecting treaty rights, economic development, and tribal consultation under Secretarial Order 3206’, American Indian Law Journal 4(1). - E. A. Asante, E.A., Ababio, S. and Boadu, K.B. (2017) ‘Use of indigenous cultural practices by the ashantis for the conservation of forests in Ghana’. SAGE Open 7(1).
- Mistry, J. and Berardi, A. (2016). ‘Bridging indigenous and scientific knowledge’, Science, 352(6291), pp. 1274– 1275.
—
Sterling, E.J., Filardi, C., Toomey, A., Sigouin, A., Betley, E., Gazit, N., Newell, J., Albert, S., Alvira, D., Bergamini, N., Blair, M.E. et al. (2017) ‘Biocultural approaches to well-being and sustainability indicators across scales’, Nature Ecology & Evolution 1, pp. 1798–1806.
—
Skroblin, A., Carboon, T., Bidu, G., Chapman, N., Miller, M., Taylor, K., Taylor, W., Game, E.T. and Wintle, B.A. (2019). ‘Including Indigenous knowledge in species distribution modelling for increased ecological insights’, Conservation Biology.
—
Garnett, S. T., Burgess, N.D., Fa, J.E., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Molnár, Z., Robinson, C. J., Watson, J.E. M., Zander, K.K., Austin, B., Brondizio, E.S. et al. (2018). ‘A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation’, Nature Sustainability, 1(7), 369–374. - Ens, E. (2012) ‘Conducting two-way ecological research’, in Altman, J. and Kerins, S. (eds.) People on Country, Vital Landscapes, Indigenous Futures. The Federation Press.
—
Preuss, K. and Dixon, M. (2012) ‘”Looking after Country Two-Ways”: Insights into Indigenous Community-Based Conservation from the Southern Tanami’, Ecological Management & Restoration 13(1), pp. 2–15.
—
Snively, G. and Williams, L.B. (2008) ‘”Coming to Know”: Weaving Aboriginal and Western science knowledge, language, and literacy into the science classroom’, L-1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature 8(1).
—
Verschuuren, B., Zylstra, M., Yunupingu, B. and Verschoor, G.M. (2014) ‘Mixing waters: A cross cultural approach to developing guidelines for fishers and boaters in the Dhimurru Indigenous Protected Area, Australia’, PARKS: the International of Protected Areas and Conservation 21, pp. 73–88. - Colloff et al. (2017) ‘Transforming conservation science and practice for a postnormal world’, Conservation Biology 31(5), pp. 1008–17.