Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this forum. This post outlines answers to questions 1, 2, 5, 8, and 10. The responses to the following questions are informed by a narrative literature review on the role of Pacific Islander worldviews in shaping sustainable, nutrition-sensitive food systems. I conducted this research under the supervision of Dr. Liesel Carlsson (PhD, RD) from the Department of Nutrition and Dietetics at Acadia University. The term “cultural communities” was the term used in this review, and while this term is inclusive of various local groups, much of the review draws specifically from “Indigenous” worldviews within the Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs).
I would also like to acknowledge that I am a female of European descent and approach the topic from a Western worldview, which shapes my ontology and epistemology. My perspective may overlook other viewpoints, potentially leading to unintentional bias. The following answers are informed by Western research methodologies, and lacks direct collaboration with Indigenous Peoples living in the Pacific Islands.
Question #1: Do you agree with the guiding principles indicated above?
The guiding principles outlined are strong, but I believe some terms, particularly "local communities" and "Indigenous Peoples," would benefit from further clarification. These terms are central to the discussion, yet there is inherent complexity in distinguishing between them. Due to centuries of migration, cultural exchange, and globalization, the lines between "Indigenous Peoples" and "local communities" are often fluid. It is important to define these boundaries clearly within the context of this report to ensure a shared understanding among contributors and minimize potential confusion.
Moreover, considering that this report is specific to Indigenous Peoples I question whether a principle should be added that ensures genuine Indigenous participation and leadership in the crafting of this report. This may help ensure that potential biases introduced by those from Westernized backgrounds are minimized. This may also help ensure this report moves from being about Indigenous and local knowledge systems, to engagement with and among these ways of knowing and being for more accurate and respectful representation. I believe there should be an explicit commitment to directly engaging Indigenous communities, especially marginalized people within those communities whose voices may otherwise be overlooked.
Question #2: Should the objectives include mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples food and knowledge systems, and lessons learned from them, for the benefit of all, or solely for the benefit of Indigenous Peoples as rights holders?
I believe the report should be for the benefit of all, whilst prioritizing and respecting Indigenous rights and perspectives. We all participate in and share the same interconnected global food system – nature does not discern between people. Nutritional, environmental, and sustainability challenges—such as food insecurity and climate change— transcend socially constructed group divides (i.e. cultural, racial, ethnic and gender etc). While Indigenous Peoples are often disproportionately affected by these challenges due to systemic inequalities, isolating the report solely to benefit Indigenous Peoples as rights holders may limit the broader applicability of their knowledge as it relates to the global food system and global policy considerations.
Fostering collaboration between knowledge systems – Indigenous and otherwise – rather than isolating them, may help holistically address global issues. For example, Indigenous Peoples in the PICTs tend to operate from a place-based, relationship-driven framework and incorporate a holistic and relational understanding of the world, while Western paradigms tend to prioritize the individual, and can be characterized by a science-based and market-driven approach (Kealiikanakaoleohailani et al., 2016). Initially, Indigenous PICT and Westernized worldviews appear contradictory and conflicting in what they represent, but understanding that both knowledge systems offer complementary insights in terms of scope, content, and governance of social-ecological aspects can be a significant step forward to effective collaboration in addressing global issues (Tengö et al., 2017). Science-based methods of gathering knowledge can lead to rapid significant advances in fields such as nutrition, food, and health that Indigenous methods may lack, where PICT methods may offer a holistic view of complex systems, making managing and evaluating sustainability comprehensively with less likeness of adverse consequences such as ecological destruction and social disintegration. Kealiikanakaoleohailani et al. argue that incorporating westernized tools in a place-based, relationship-driven framework could enhance sustainability efforts (2016).
That said, I understand this process is not without its nuances and complexities as intellectual and cultural rights are often associated with knowledge. Hence, it is important to be mindful and respectful about the conditions under which knowledge can be shared (Tengö et al., 2017). The challenge, therefore, is to “mainstream” this knowledge in a way that honours its origins and benefits Indigenous communities, rather than exploiting their resources or knowledge without proper consent or compensation.
Question #5: How should oral knowledge and traditions be documented and referenced in the development of the report?
The approach to documenting oral knowledge should prioritize the leadership and agency of Indigenous Peoples, ensuring that they lead the process of sharing and documenting their knowledge. This will help maintain accuracy and integrity and may better protect respectful use of information.
In the PICTs, Indigenous knowledge is described and disseminated through creative means such as art (drawings, weaving, carvings etc.), and oral traditions (i.e. storytelling, songs, chants, poems, comedies etc.), which both work to reinforce ethics, values, ecological and nutrition knowledge (Lilomaiava-Doktor, 2020; Teariki et al., 2023). In the report, visual methods to capture concepts may be a valuable method to consider including, such as pictures of art (i.e. in PICTs woven mats depict interconnectedness) or visuals of the traditional Fijian calendar (which is an association framework based on natural phenomena which guide sustainable resource management) (McMillen et al., 2014). In addition to visuals, considering that oral tradition is central for many Indigenous Peoples, incorporating audio files which capture oral traditions in their most authentic form could possibly be effective.
In addition, word choice is also important to consider as words have variable and subjective connotations. For many Indigenous communities in the PICTs, “sustainability” and “food security” are not a new concepts, and are often core pillars of existing mental models and worldviews. However, terms like these often have cultural origins rooted in Western contexts, which are typically derived from North American and European worldviews. It may be important to explore how terms such as “sustainability” and “food security” resonate with Indigenous cultures rooted in alternate worldviews before they are expanded into frameworks/policy intended to guide global efforts. It may be important to consider how Indigenous cultures may use different words to describe those same concepts in different ways that don’t directly translate into the English language and have more robust connotations that may be lost in translation. For example, Indigenous Hawaiians have many words that support concepts such as sustainability but approach them from socially-rooted worldviews such as: solesolevaki (~collective reciprocal labour), mahele (~sharing), hōʻihi (~respectful reciprocity) (Vaughn et al., 2016). Language is powerful, and thoughtful attention to translation and context can better align the report with Indigenous perspectives and allow for more effective communication between parties.
Question #8: Could you please indicate relevant references that should be taken into account?
Teariki, M. A., & Leau, E. (2023). Understanding Pacific worldviews: principles and connections for research. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 19(2), 132–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/1177083X.2023.2292268
These authors discuss how the principles of holism and relationality are the foundation of the Pacific worldviews; based on the “intricate relationships and connections, over time and space, between people, the natural world, non-living, and living things” which in turn, create the ‘whole’ (Teariki et al., 2023, p. 138). This concept is further captured in “Vā/ Te Vā/Teu le va/ Tā-Vā/ Tauhi Va”, which refers to the Pacific theory of space and time. It views “space” not as something empty that separates, but as something relational that connects and holds distinct entities together within the “Unity-that-is-All” across past, present, and future timelines (Teariki et al., 2023). Central to this theory are the concepts of ‘symmetry’ and ‘balance’, which are guided by principles of reciprocity and respect for wellbeing of all animate and inanimate objects involved (including humans, natural world, God, and the spirit world) (Teariki et al., 2023).
Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C. M., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., Elmqvist, T., & Folke, C. (2017). Weaving knowledge systems in Ipbes, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for Sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005
Tengö et al. (2017) propose an evidence-based framework to navigate how to effectively utilize place-based knowledge and multiple forms of evidence. This aims to bridge knowledge systems through “weaving”, which ensures the integrity of each thread of knowledge. In doing so, it is an approach that, when applied to governance, can be used to improve sustainability by fostering equitable and empowering knowledge-sharing processes. They suggest:
1) mobilising by engaging with past knowledge and experience
2) translating to enable mutual comprehension for all involved
3) negotiating to develop mutually respectful representations of knowledge
4) synthetizing broadly accepted common knowledge to suit the purpose
5) applying common knowledge to make decisions of multiple forms of evidence.
Question #10: Which best practices or strategies to promote cross-cultural understanding should be highlighted in the report?
As eluded to, Indigenous and western research methods often differ greatly because they are based on inherently different worldviews – and approaching this report using Indigenous research methods may be an important consideration. Using a collaborative participatory based research methodology that empowers Indigenous Peoples, such as Talalona, may be a consideration (Vunibola, 2023).
The reference by Tengö et al. (2017) above captures a theoretical framework to bridge different knowledge systems. An example of how this concept has manifested at a practical level, can be seen in the designation of a Community-Based Subsistence Fishing Area in the rural community of Hä‘ena, located in Kaua‘i Hawai’i. This is a prime example how Indigenous governance methods rooted in Indigenous worldviews were established within a broader legislative framework largely built on the foundation of a Western worldview. These regulations were informed by three ancestral norms: hōʻihi (~respectful reciprocity), konohiki (~inviting ability to organize people for collective tasks), and kuleana (~rights based on responsibilities) (Vaughn et al., 2016). This process has resulted in increased agency over access to food, and ability to manage foodways in culturally relevant ways. This example demonstrates how differing paradigms built on inherently different worldviews can be weaved together at a policy level to support food security and sustainability (Vaughn et al., 2016).
References:
Kealiikanakaoleohaililani, K., Giardina, C.P. Embracing the sacred: an indigenous framework for tomorrow’s sustainability science. Sustain Sci 11, 57–67 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0343-3
Lilomaiava-Doktor, S. (2020). Oral traditions, cultural significance of storytelling, and Samoan understandings of place or Fanua. Native American and Indigenous Studies, 7(1), 121–151. https://doi.org/10.5749/natiindistudj.7.1.0121
McMillen, H. L., Ticktin, T., Friedlander, A., Jupiter, S. D., Thaman, R., Campbell, J., Veitayaki, J., Giambelluca, T., Nihmei, S., Rupeni, E., Apis-Overhoff, L., Aalbersberg, W., & Orcherton, D. F. (2014). Small islands, valuable insights: systems of customary resource use and resilience to climate change in the Pacific. Ecology and Society, 19(4). http://www.jstor.org/stable/26269694
Teariki, M. A., & Leau, E. (2023). Understanding Pacific worldviews: principles and connections for research. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 19(2), 132–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/1177083X.2023.2292268
Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C. M., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., Elmqvist, T., & Folke, C. (2017). Weaving knowledge systems in Ipbes, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for Sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005
Vaughan, M. B., & Ayers, A. L. (2016). Customary Access: Sustaining Local Control of Fishing and Food on Kaua‘i’s North Shore. Food, Culture & Society, 19(3), 517–538. https://doi-org.ezproxy.acadiau.ca:9443/10.1080/15528014.2016.1208339
Vunibola, S. (2023). “want to help someone? shut up and listen”: Foreign aid, maladaptation, and community development practices in the Pacific. Development Policy Review, 41(S2). https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12751
Mackenzie Burkhart