The biological knowledge and associated values and beliefs of Indigenous and other long‐resident Peoples are often overlooked and underrepresented in governance, planning and decision‐making at local, regional, national and international levels. Ethnobiology—the study of the dynamic relationships among peoples, biota and environments—is a field that places Indigenous Peoples' ecological knowledge and ways of knowing at the forefront of research interests, particularly in relation to the importance of biocultural diversity in sustaining the Earth's Ecosystems. In this paper, we examine the nature and significance of Indigenous Peoples' knowledge systems concerning environmental sustainability, as documented in collaborative ethnobiological research. We emphasize the diverse aspects of Indigenous knowledge in conservation, and the role played by ethnobiologists in respectfully highlighting this knowledge, and link these to the Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Global Assessment's key levers and leverage points for enabling the transformative change required for achieving more sustainable lifeways. Drawing on diverse ways of knowing—respectfully, collaboratively, ethically and reciprocally—can help provide more detailed knowledge of local ecosystems, and guide all humans towards greater sustainability. From environmental monitoring, to building relationships with plants and the land, to ecological restoration, there are many lessons and ways in which the intersections between Indigenous knowledge and ethnobiology can inform and contribute to the future of humanity and other life on earth. Read the freePlain Language Summaryfor this article on the Journal blog.

Knowledge and practices of indigenous peoples relating to local plants used for food, medicine, materials, and other purposes are threatened in many parts of the world. The reasons for declining knowledge and use of traditional resources are complex and multifaceted. We review a series of case examples of culturally valued food plants in British Columbia and identify a suite of interacting social and environmental factors that have resulted in decreased use of and dwindling cultural knowledge about these plants over the past 150 years. Reasons for this loss include compounding influences of changing knowledge systems owing to religious conversion and residential schools, loss of indigenous languages, loss of time and opportunity for traditional practices owing to participation in the wage economy, increasing urbanization of indigenous populations, loss of access to traditional resources, restriction of management practices for sustaining these resources, and most recently, forces of globalization and industrialization. Efforts to renew and restore traditional practices and relationships with plants and environments must recognize the cumulative effects of these factors and find ways to retain and reinforce the knowledge and practices still held by individuals and communities, to reverse some of the negative influences on cultural retention, and to develop new, relevant, and effective ways to revitalize languages, cultures, and ethnobotanical knowledge within contemporary contexts.

Biodiversity loss undermines the long-term maintenance of ecosystem functions and the well-being of human populations. Global-scale policy initiatives, including the Convention on Biological Diversity, have failed to curb the loss of biodiversity. This failure has led to contentious debates over alternative solutions that represent opposing visions of value-orientations and policy tools at the heart of conservation action. We review these debates and argue that they impede conservation progress by wasting time and resources, overlooking common goals, failing to recognize the need for diverse solutions, and ignoring the central question of who should be involved in the conservation process. Breaking with the polarizing debates, we argue that biocultural approaches to conservation can guide progress toward just and sustainable conservation solutions. We provide examples of the central principles of biocultural conservation, which emphasize the need for pluralistic, partnership-based, and dynamic approaches to conservation.

Whitney, C. K., N. J. Bennett, N. C. Ban, E. H. Allison, D. Armitage, J. L. Blythe, J. M. Burt, W. Cheung, E. M. Finkbeiner, M. Kaplan-Hallam, I. Perry, N. J. Turner, and L. Yumagulova. 2017. Adaptive capacity: from assessment to action in coastal social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 22(2):22. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09325-220222