Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems and Biocultural Heritage: Addressing Indigenous Priorities Using Decolonial and Interdisciplinary Research Approaches

Abstract

The food systems and territories of Indigenous Peoples sustain much of the world’s biodiversity, cultivated and wild, through agroecological practices rooted in Indigenous cosmovision and cultural and spiritual values. These food systems have a critical role to play in sustainability transformations but are widely threatened and have received limited research attention. This paper presents the results of four virtual workshops with Indigenous Peoples: a global workshop and local workshops with communities in coastal Kenya, northeast India and southwest China. Indigenous participants highlighted the role of their food systems in resilience to climate change, nutrition, sustainability and resilience to pandemics, and threats from agriculture, development and conservation policies. They called for research on the rapid loss of Indigenous knowledge; Indigenous Peoples’ land rights and food sovereignty; and the impacts of industrial agriculture on Indigenous food systems, stressing the need for decolonial approaches to revitalise Indigenous knowledge. The paper presents a decolonial and interdisciplinary framework for action-research on Indigenous food systems past and present, from farm to plate, drawing on the virtual workshops, Andean decolonising methods and historical approaches. It concludes that decolonising action-research, led by Indigenous Peoples, is urgently needed to reverse the rapid loss of food-related biocultural heritage.

Full text

Citation: Swiderska, K.; Argumedo,
A.; Wekesa, C.; Ndalilo, L.; Song, Y.;
Rastogi, A.; Ryan, P. Indigenous
Peoples’ Food Systems and
Biocultural Heritage: Addressing
Indigenous Priorities Using
Decolonial and Interdisciplinary
Research Approaches. Sustainability
2022,14, 11311. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su141811311
Academic Editors: Theano
Moussouri, Georgios Alexopoulos
and Diana Rahman
Received: 3 May 2022
Accepted: 12 July 2022
Published: 9 September 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
sustainability
Article
Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems and Biocultural Heritage:
Addressing Indigenous Priorities Using Decolonial and
Interdisciplinary Research Approaches
Krystyna Swiderska 1, *, Alejandro Argumedo 2, Chemuku Wekesa 3, Leila Ndalilo 3, Yiching Song 4,
Ajay Rastogi 5and Philippa Ryan 6,*
1International Institute for Environment and Development, London WC1V 7DN, UK
2Swift Foundation and Asociacion ANDES, Santa Fe, NM 87508, USA
3Kenya Forestry Research Institute, Wundanyi 80304, Kenya
4Farmer Seed Network, Nanning City 530000, China
5Lok Chetna Manch, Ranikhet 263645, Uttarakhand, India
6Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, London TW9 3AE, UK
*Correspondence: krystyna.swiderska@iied.org (K.S.); p.ryan@kew.org (P.R.)
Abstract:
The food systems and territories of Indigenous Peoples sustain much of the world’s bio-
diversity, cultivated and wild, through agroecological practices rooted in Indigenous cosmovision
and cultural and spiritual values. These food systems have a critical role to play in sustainability
transformations but are widely threatened and have received limited research attention. This paper
presents the results of four virtual workshops with Indigenous Peoples: a global workshop and local
workshops with communities in coastal Kenya, northeast India and southwest China. Indigenous
participants highlighted the role of their food systems in resilience to climate change, nutrition,
sustainability and resilience to pandemics, and threats from agriculture, development and conser-
vation policies. They called for research on the rapid loss of Indigenous knowledge; Indigenous
Peoples’ land rights and food sovereignty; and the impacts of industrial agriculture on Indigenous
food systems, stressing the need for decolonial approaches to revitalise Indigenous knowledge. The
paper presents a decolonial and interdisciplinary framework for action-research on Indigenous food
systems past and present, from farm to plate, drawing on the virtual workshops, Andean decolonising
methods and historical approaches. It concludes that decolonising action-research, led by Indigenous
Peoples, is urgently needed to reverse the rapid loss of food-related biocultural heritage.
Keywords:
indigenous peoples; biocultural heritage; indigenous food systems; traditional crops;
climate resilience; decolonizing action-research; indigenous cosmovision; interdisciplinary approaches
1. Introduction
Indigenous Peoples’ food systems have been described as those “integral to the cul-
tural food use patterns of Indigenous Peoples” [
1
] and include socio-cultural meanings,
practices and techniques, from seed selection to cultivation, harvesting, storage, processing,
preparation and cuisine [
2
]. According to the FAO White Paper on Indigenous Peoples’
food systems (prepared for the UN Food Systems Summit, 2021), Indigenous Peoples’ view
of life and knowledge systems have a critical role to play in food system sustainability
transformations, complementing scientific knowledge [
3
]. Indigenous Peoples’ food sys-
tems provide alternative regenerative, circular models which are vital for feeding humanity
sustainably [
3
,
4
]. They have sustained the well-being of Indigenous Peoples and a balanced
relationship with the natural environment for millennia [
5
]. Indigenous food systems
are inextricably connected to land, self-determination, livelihoods, health, cultural and
spiritual heritage [
5
] and conserve much of the world’s biodiversity, cultivated and wild [
6
].
Processes of domestication and selection that began 4000–12,000 years ago have generated
Sustainability 2022,14, 11311. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811311 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022,14, 11311 2 of 23
a wealth of “food-related biocultural diversity”—in the form of crops and livestock and
associated knowledge on their cultivation and use [7,8].
Indigenous and traditional peoples maintain the longest ongoing human experiences
with providing food under environmental change [
7
]. Their diverse Indigenous and
landrace crops and livestock species collectively tolerate a range of environmental stresses
and are frequently more resilient, nutritious and sustainable than modern high-yielding
varieties, requiring fewer external inputs [
9
–
11
]. Indigenous and traditional food systems
have also generated a wealth of agroecological and regenerative practices, underpinned
by Indigenous philosophies, values and beliefs that promote balance with nature [
12
,
13
].
Studies have shown that cultural values, festivals and beliefs play a key role in ensuring
the continued consumption and production of diverse traditional foods, while traditional
ecological values are transmitted through subsistence activities [
2
,
10
,
14
,
15
]. Many studies
have shown the benefits of Indigenous and traditional foods for food security and dietary
diversity [
3
,
10
]. The few studies to date analysing nutrition have shown a higher nutrient
intake from traditional than modern diets—from the Artic and Alaska, to Peru, India and
Botswana [16].
Despite their critical importance, the food systems, crops and knowledge systems of
Indigenous and traditional peoples are often perceived as “backward” or unproductive [
2
]
and are threatened by the industrialisation of agriculture and food, economic development
and globalisation, leading to widespread losses of food-related biocultural diversity in many
countries [
3
,
5
,
7
]. The modernisation of agri-food systems has helped reduce undernutrition
but has not resolved persisting micronutrient deficiencies and has contributed to rising
obesity and other diet-related diseases while being one of the most significant drivers of
environmental degradation, biodiversity loss and climate change [
6
,
7
]. Indigenous Peoples
are disproportionately affected by hunger and malnutrition, with women and girls suffering
the greatest burden, due to structural inequalities that result in lack of access to land and
other threats to Indigenous food systems including environmental degradation [5].
Indigenous and traditional food systems and crops have received far less research
attention than their modern equivalents, and many non-commercial subsistence crops
have been overlooked [
17
]. This paper aims to further understand the role of Indigenous
food systems in food security, resilience and sustainability, the research priorities of In-
digenous Peoples, and decolonial and interdisciplinary approaches for protecting and
revitalising Indigenous food systems. It presents the results of a series of virtual workshops
where Indigenous experts played a central role, held in 2020–2021 as part of the project
“Indigenous Food Systems, biocultural heritage and agricultural resilience” funded by
UKRI GCRF via the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC): a global workshop
and “local” workshops in coastal Kenya, northeast India and southwest China. This paper
also presents a framework for decolonial and interdisciplinary research on Indigenous
food systems past and present, from farm to plate, which can inform the design of future
research and equitable partnerships. The framework is based on the AHRC workshops and
also draws on the decolonising action-research approach used in the Potato Park, Peru [
18
],
and interdisciplinary research on Nubian crops and food systems past and present [
19
,
20
],
integrating ethnobotany, oral histories and archaeobotany.
Decolonial research approaches can revitalise Indigenous knowledge, address the
threats and structural inequalities that underlie the loss of traditional food systems and
lifestyles (e.g., loss of land and resource access) and generate strategies to leverage change [
5
].
They are shaped by Indigenous Peoples’ struggles to resist and survive the assault on their
culture; target local phenomenon instead of using theory from the west to identify a re-
search issue; and create locally relevant constructs, methods and theories derived from
local experiences and Indigenous knowledge [
21
]. They aim to promote Indigenous self-
determination, values and beliefs as a way of resisting dominant discourses [
5
,
22
]. They
seek to undo colonisation and “coloniality”—long-standing patterns of power that emerged
out of colonialism but continue to define culture and knowledge production well beyond
colonial administrations [
23
]. They begin with critiques of colonial relations in past research

Sustainability 2022,14, 11311 3 of 23
involving Indigenous Peoples and aim to ensure that research can be more respectful, eth-
ical, sympathetic and useful [
24
]. Gender is understood through an Indigenous cultural
lens, for example as gender balance and complementarity (or duality) rather than gender
equality, recognising that Indigenous societies were often not “oppressively patriarchal
prior to the experience of colonialism” [
5
]. A holistic and interdisciplinary approach linking
crops, wild foods, cuisine and cultural and spiritual heritage, past and present, is also
needed to effectively protect and revitalise Indigenous food systems [
2
]. Research to date
has tended to remain within disciplinary and sectoral silos, using very different approaches,
and focusing on elements of food systems rather than whole food systems from production
to consumption.
Research and policy have also tended to treat the cultural and biological heritage
embedded in Indigenous food systems separately. Section 2of this paper introduces
the concepts of biocultural heritage and food-related biocultural heritage and contrasts
Indigenous and Euro-western definitions of biocultural heritage. Section 3describes the
methodology, notably the series of virtual workshops with Indigenous Peoples. Section 4
explores the role of Indigenous food systems in climate resilience, sustainability, food
security, nutrition and resilience to pandemics, the threats they face and Indigenous Peoples’
priorities for research. It proposes a framework for decolonial and interdisciplinary research
on Indigenous food systems and biocultural heritage, past and present, from farm to plate.
The paper concludes that there is an urgent need for research to protect Indigenous food
systems and biocultural heritage, using a decolonial approach that reverses the historical
marginalisation of Indigenous knowledge and an action-oriented approach that strengthens
local capacity and institutions and supports strategies to secure rights to land and self-
determination, such as biocultural heritage territories.
2. Biocultural Heritage: A Holistic Food Heritage Framework
The concept of “food heritage” has tended to emphasise traditional practices, knowl-
edge and celebrations [
12
] and the importance of intangible aspects such as food memories
and identities [
25
], without specific reference to the related biological heritage of Indigenous
and traditional peoples, such as traditional crops and livestock breeds and biodiversity-rich
food producing landscapes [
7
]. Indigenous Peoples, on the other hand, have emphasised
the inextricable linkages between their cultural and biological heritage [
25
]. The concepts
of “biocultural heritage” and “food-related biocultural heritage” reflect these linkages,
providing holistic decolonial frameworks for understanding and revitalising Indigenous
and traditional food systems [
2
,
26
]. “Biocultural heritage” explicitly recognises the tangible
biological components of Indigenous Peoples’ food heritage—crop varieties, livestock
breeds and landscapes created and conserved over generations, the intangible cultural
and spiritual components and the links between them. “Food-related biocultural heritage”
can be understood as encompassing heritage across the food system from production to
consumption—including traditional seeds, crops, livestock, wild foods and landscapes,
and related knowledge, practices, tools, celebrations, values and beliefs for cultivation,
harvesting, hunting, processing, storage, preparation and cuisine.
The terms “biocultural heritage” and “biocultural diversity” have increasingly fea-
tured in conservation and heritage discourse, bridging the natural and social sciences and
highlighting the role of Indigenous and traditional peoples and subsistence landscapes
in conserving biodiversity [
27
–
30
]. In contrast to western conservation paradigms that
separate people and nature [
31
,
32
], these concepts promote recognition of Indigenous and
traditional peoples’ rights and responsibilities over their ancestral lands, biodiversity and
food heritage [27,28].
A number of definitions of “biocultural heritage” have emerged in recent years. In
2005, a group of Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers defined “Collective Biocul-
tural Heritage” as follows based on a proposal by Quechua leader Alejandro Argumedo
(Asociación ANDES Peru): “Knowledge, innovations and practices of Indigenous Peoples
and local communities which are often collectively held and are inextricably linked to

Sustainability 2022,14, 11311 4 of 23
traditional resources and territories, including the diversity of genes, varieties, species and
ecosystems, cultural and spiritual values, and customary laws shaped within the socio-
ecological context of communities” [
33
]. This definition reflects the holistic worldview of
Indigenous Peoples, where intangible knowledge and cultural values and tangible biolog-
ical heritage and landscapes are interdependent and cannot be separated. It is based on
long-term ethnographic observation and decolonial research with Quechua communities in
the Potato Park, Peru and draws on a wide range of Indigenous epistemologies. Research
with 11 Indigenous and tribal groups in five countries—Quechua (Peru), Kuna and Embera-
Wounaan (Panama), Maasai and Mijikenda (Kenya), Lepcha, Limbu, Yanadi and Adhivasi
(India) and Zhuang and Yan (China) identified multiple interlinkages and interdependen-
cies between the components of biocultural heritage as complex adaptive socio-ecological
systems, which, together, sustain resilient food systems and local economies [33].
This definition of biocultural heritage incorporates language from the Convention
on Biological Diversity, which the research sought to inform. By recognising traditional
knowledge, cultural values, biodiversity and landscapes as inextricably linked heritage, it
asserts Indigenous Peoples’ rights over biodiversity and territories. The idea of an “inex-
tricable link between cultural and biological diversity” first arose in the 1988 Declaration
of Belem at the first International Congress of Ethnobiology in Brazil, which directly in-
volved Indigenous and traditional peoples [
30
]. Biocultural heritage encompasses memory,
language, history, practices, values and ways of life within a particular territory and eco-
logical context [
31
]. Similarly, Virtanen (2019) understands the “biocultural heritage” of
the Apurinãpeople in Brazil “in the context of relational ontologies, in which nonhuman
entities and the natural environment cannot be separated from being a human”. “Apurinã
biocultural heritage is holistic and involves diverse cultural, ecological, spiritual and eco-
nomic aspects and knowledge”, it is about “past and future generations that are both linked
in the present” [34].
The above understandings of biocultural heritage developed with Indigenous Peoples
reflect their holistic cosmovision, the inextricable linkages between biological and cultural
heritage and the importance of spiritual beliefs [
3
,
26
,
33
]. By contrast, definitions developed
by western academics reflect a more reductionist and positivist worldview. Ekblom et al.
(2019) define biocultural heritage as consisting of four interactive elements that can only be
understood through landscape analysis (an interdisciplinary toolbox): ecosystem memories
(larger or “deep-time” practices shaping landscapes); landscape memories (smaller-scale
practices and their biological and built outcomes); place memories (practices related to
a specific place); and stewardship and change (building on local traditions, inclusivity
and equity for sustainable development) [
29
]. Bridgewater and Rotherham (2018) offer a
definition of “biocultural assets and heritage” as: “result from interactions between people
and nature at a given time in a given place”, for use in further academic work and especially
in the work of global biodiversity policy processes [30].
In this article, we build on the concept of biocultural heritage developed by Aso-
ciación ANDES, IIED and Indigenous partners [
2
,
14
]. Since this concept emerged from
Indigenous cosmovision and a process to assert Indigenous Peoples’ rights to land and
self-determination in the Potato Park, it provides a framework to confront the underlying
structural threats to Indigenous food systems—the erosion of rights to land and the domi-
nant agri-food model [
5
]. The concept provided the “original action-research framework
guiding the Potato Park’s work” which has revitalised a pre-colonial Andean food system
that provides one of the richest in-situ genetic reserves in the world [
7
,
26
]. It provides
a flexible framework that can be adapted and expanded to reflect key elements of food
heritage from production to consumption. However, it is not a substitute for Indigenous
Peoples’ own philosophies that underpin their food heritage. For example, the Andean
Ayllu concept where three Ayllus or communities—the human and domesticated, the
wild and the sacred—have to be in balance to achieve wellbeing (Sumaq Causay) [
31
]
(Figure 1); and the Subak cooperative water management system in Indonesia, which is a

Sustainability 2022,14, 11311 5 of 23
manifestation of the Tri Hita Karana Philosophy, which brings together the realms of the
spirit, the human world and nature [12].
Sustainability 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 24
framework guiding the Potato Park’s work” which has revitalised a pre-colonial Andean
food system that provides one of the richest in-situ genetic reserves in the world [7,26]. It
provides a flexible framework that can be adapted and expanded to reflect key elements
of food heritage from production to consumption. However, it is not a substitute for
Indigenous Peoples’ own philosophies that underpin their food heritage. For example, the
Andean Ayllu concept where three Ayllus or communities—the human and
domesticated, the wild and the sacred—have to be in balance to achieve wellbeing (Sumaq
Causay) [31] (Figure 1); and the Subak cooperative water management system in
Indonesia, which is a manifestation of the Tri Hita Karana Philosophy, which brings
together the realms of the spirit, the human world and nature [12].
Figure 1. The Andean Ayllu concept of Holistic Well-Being. Runa Ayllu: humans and domesticated
plants, animals, water, etc.; Sallqa Ayllu: wild plants and animals; Auki Ayllu: the sacred and the
ancestors; Ayni: reciprocity.
3. Materials and Methods
The results are based on four virtual workshops held as part of the AHRC project
development grant “Indigenous food systems, biocultural heritage and agricultural
resilience”, which sought to collaboratively design new interdisciplinary and decolonial
approaches to explore Indigenous Peoples’ food systems past and present, from farm to
plate. The workshops brought together Indigenous representatives from several regions,
Indigenous and traditional communities from Kenya, India and China, action-researchers
working on biocultural heritage and UK humanities experts. They were held virtually due
to the COVID-19 pandemic.
First, a global workshop was organised by IIED and RBG Kew in October 2020, on
“Indigenous food systems, biocultural heritage and the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs): Challenges, interdisciplinary research gaps and empowering methodologies” [2].
The workshop consisted of four webinars (each 2–3 h), which involved a mix of pre-
prepared presentations, panel discussions and free-form discussions, with at least 50% of
presentations in each webinar given by Indigenous Peoples:
• Webinar 1 “Opening keynotes and Potato Park (Peru)” (9 October) explored the role
of Indigenous food systems and crops in climate resilience, sustainability, nutrition,
health and well-being, key trends and challenges and responses needed. The webinar
entailed presentations by Indigenous experts from the Philippines, Kenya, FAO and
Centre for Indigenous Nutrition and Environment (CINE), and a live-streamed
Figure 1. The Andean Ayllu concept of Holistic Well-Being. Runa Ayllu: humans and domesticated
plants, animals, water, etc.; Sallqa Ayllu: wild plants and animals; Auki Ayllu: the sacred and the
ancestors; Ayni: reciprocity.
3. Materials and Methods
The results are based on four virtual workshops held as part of the AHRC project
development grant “Indigenous food systems, biocultural heritage and agricultural re-
silience”, which sought to collaboratively design new interdisciplinary and decolonial
approaches to explore Indigenous Peoples’ food systems past and present, from farm to
plate. The workshops brought together Indigenous representatives from several regions,
Indigenous and traditional communities from Kenya, India and China, action-researchers
working on biocultural heritage and UK humanities experts. They were held virtually due
to the COVID-19 pandemic.
First, a global workshop was organised by IIED and RBG Kew in October 2020, on
“Indigenous food systems, biocultural heritage and the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs): Challenges, interdisciplinary research gaps and empowering methodologies” [
2
].
The workshop consisted of four webinars (each 2–3 h), which involved a mix of pre-
prepared presentations, panel discussions and free-form discussions, with at least 50% of
presentations in each webinar given by Indigenous Peoples:
•
Webinar 1 “Opening keynotes and Potato Park (Peru)” (9 October) explored the role
of Indigenous food systems and crops in climate resilience, sustainability, nutrition,
health and well-being, key trends and challenges and responses needed. The webinar
entailed presentations by Indigenous experts from the Philippines, Kenya, FAO and
Centre for Indigenous Nutrition and Environment (CINE), and a live-streamed ses-
sion from the Potato Park biocultural territory where Quechua community experts
(researchers, elders, women, youth) presented their Andean food system using a
traditional story-telling format.
•
Webinar 2. “Indigenous food systems in China, India and Kenya” (13 October) ex-
plored the same issues as webinar 1, focusing on the Rabai Mijikenda community in
Kenya, Lepcha and Limbu communities in northeast India and Naxi and Moso in
Southwest China, with presentations by local researchers and Indigenous elders and
community researchers.

Sustainability 2022,14, 11311 6 of 23
•
Webinar 3. “Co-creating research agendas” (14 October) explored Indigenous Peoples’
research priorities relating to their food systems, including key issues and challenges,
research approaches, the role of academics and interdisciplinary research gaps.
•
Webinar 4. “Exploring research methods” (15 October) involved presentations on
interdisciplinary research methods by academics; and on decolonising action-research
methods by Indigenous experts from Peru, the Philippines and Botswana.
The global workshop was attended by over 130 participants, including 28 Indigenous
representatives from Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Arctic, 52 academics and four
UN agencies (including FAO Indigenous Peoples Unit). Indigenous presenters included
Quechua people from the Potato Park (Peru), and representatives of Mbororo pastoralists
(Chad), Kankanaey and Ibaloi (Philippines), Khasi, Lepcha and Limbu (India), Tharaka and
Mijikenda (Kenya), Bantu (Botswana), Naxi (China) and Yukaghir (the Arctic, Russia). The
perspectives of hunter-gatherers were reflected by a researcher with long-term fieldwork
experience in tropical forests of the Congo Basin, Sumatra and Borneo.
Three local workshops were then held virtually with Indigenous and traditional
communities in Kenya, India and China, from January to March 2021. The workshops
explored traditional food systems, crops and biocultural heritage, their roles in food security
and resilience, the threats and challenges they face and ways forward. They identified
key issues for research and research approaches, as the basis for developing a decolonial
and interdisciplinary research framework and funding proposal. Each workshop engaged
20–30 community members, along with 3–4 UK researchers and 2–3 local research partners,
in a 4-h webinar live-streamed from the community landscapes in Kenya and China and a
local town in India (due to connectivity issues):
•Rabai (a Mijikenda sub-tribe) sacred Kaya forest landscape in coastal Kenya;
•
The Stone Village in Yunnan (China) where four Naxi and Moso communities gathered; and
•
Kalimpong in northeast India where two Lepcha and Limbu communities gathered
(Lingsey and Lingseykha).
The local workshops consisted of pre-prepared presentations by different community
members—including community researchers, elders, women and youth—followed by ques-
tions and discussion. As with the Potato Park session, the workshops were largely designed
by communities and local partners and each started with a traditional ceremony or prayer
reaffirming the importance of cultural and spiritual values related to landscapes, food
and biodiversity. The travel budget for the workshops was used to purchase equipment
needed for live-streamed interactions from the field with good visual and sound quality
(using Zoom Meetings). The results of the virtual workshops were used to develop a broad
framework for decolonial and interdisciplinary research on Indigenous food systems past
and present, from farm to plate.
4. Results
4.1. Global Workshop on Indigenous Food Systems, Biocultural Heritage and the SDGs
4.1.1. Role of Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems in Food Security, Resilience and Sustainability
Indigenous representatives from different regions stressed the importance of their
ancestral food systems and biocultural heritage, based on centuries of accumulated wisdom,
for food security and sovereignty, cultural identity, spirituality, health and wellbeing,
environmental stewardship and climate resilience. Their food systems are diverse, entailing
farming, shifting cultivation, pastoralism, hunting and gathering, and fishing practices
and foodways, adapted to often harsh environments. However, they share a number of
common features that underpin their role in sustainability and food security:
Rich Biodiversity, Agroecology and Cultural Heritage
Indigenous food systems maintain balance with fragile environments [
4
]. They typi-
cally sustain high levels of biodiversity, including underutilised crops, wild foods, medici-
nal plants and crop wild relatives. The use of well-adapted Indigenous crop varieties and

Sustainability 2022,14, 11311 7 of 23
landraces, along with traditional agroecological practices (e.g., intercropping, agroforestry),
reduces the need for chemical inputs and promotes efficient use of natural resources and
conservation of biodiversity. In Rabai for example, over 60 different varieties of food plants
are used, including 21 Indigenous vegetables, 25 wild fruits, and 15 Indigenous crops
(e.g., cowpeas, sorghum, millet) and landraces (eg. cassava and maize). Farmers have
developed a cowpea variety that is high-yielding and pest and disease and drought tolerant
by crossing varieties from farms and forests. The Lepcha and Limbu in northeast India
grow about 50 different crops and have knowledge of 36 wild edibles and 38 medicinal
plants. In many Asian communities, home gardens play an important role in sustaining
heritage varieties and semi-domesticated foods for cultural use, nutrition and medicine.
Even shifting cultivation, often perceived as a driver of deforestation, is in fact a sustainable
practice [
4
]. Rituals are integral to Indigenous farming and food systems in the Peruvian
Andes, sustaining ecological values. Farming rituals are also practiced by Lepcha and
Limbu farmers in the Indian Himalayas, where most households maintain biodiverse home
gardens which are considered sacred, and by Naxi-Moso in northwest Yunnan - in Wumu
Village (China) “worship is around maize, rice and other food crops and medicinal plants”
(Jixian He, Village Elder). In Rabai, elders conserve sacred Kaya forests important for food
and climate resilience.
In the Potato Park, ancestral principles of Solidarity, Reciprocity and Balance between
the human, natural and sacred worlds, define how agriculture is practiced and ensure
an abundance of food, “this diversity of food could not exist without these principles
and without women” who play a key role transmitting them to younger generations
(Mariano Sutta, community researcher). The Potato Park biocultural heritage territory,
which is collectively governed by six Quechua communities, conserves one of the highest
levels of potato diversity in the world—with 1347 native varieties, according to traditional
classification (Nasario, community researcher)—and a wealth of other Andean crops,
livestock and wildlife [
30
]. Here, farmers have been dealing with potato blight for millennia
and know how to manage it using natural methods (seed selection and crop rotation). In
the Potato Park and Lepcha and Limbu communities, wildlife signals are still used to guide
farming activities and major farming activities are collective.
For the Tharaka in Kenya, seeds are sacred and “very important for cultural identity
and spirituality” (Simon Mitambo, Tharaka leader). In some cases, spirituality still governs
daily life and livelihoods, for example through spiritual leaders (Dongba) in Yumu Village,
a remote Moso village in Yunnan (near Tibet), and mountain gods that play a key role in
governance in the Potato Park. However, traditional values and food systems are changing
in many Indigenous communities due to modernisation, particularly amongst younger
generations and in less remote communities.
Climate Resilience and Adaptation
Indigenous food systems are a key part of the solution to climate change [
4
]. Maintain-
ing a diversity of crops reduces risk and enables adaptation to climate change, for example
in semi-arid coastal Kenya and in the Potato Park in the high Andes. In the northeast
Indian Himalayas, hardy local landraces of maize, millet, rice, buckwheat and naked wheat
safeguard against crop failure and dryland paddy can still be found in some villages. Tradi-
tional farmers in Peru, India, the Philippines and Kenya continue to use crop wild relatives,
which contain important resilience traits, to fortify domesticated crops. As Lino Mamani,
a Potato Park community researcher explained “we combine them [wild potatoes] with
domesticated potatoes so they can converse”. In the Philippines and northeast India, wild
plants are cultivated in home gardens to enrich domesticated populations. “People have an
intrinsic habit of trying out and conserving new species in their back gardens which act as
a traditional germplasm collections” (Nawraj Gurung, Lok Chetna Manch).

Sustainability 2022,14, 11311 8 of 23
Food Security and Nutrition
Indigenous food systems are often viewed as having low productivity, but many
are already achieving Zero Hunger, while “current food systems will not be able to feed
humanity sustainably unless they are reinvented with much stronger environmental consid-
erations” (Yon Fernandez-de-Larrinoa, FAO). Indigenous food systems seek to ensure food
security for future generations, for example through “seven-generation thinking” in Chad
and China. A study in Inuit communities in the Artic found that more protein and nutrients
are consumed with traditional foods compared to modern foods and that traditional foods
provide Vitamins C and A (Harriet Kuhnlein, CINE). In Yakutia in the Russian Artic, poor
nutrition and lack of vitamins and minerals associated with a shift to cooked modern diets
have caused many diseases for Indigenous Peoples (Vyacheslav Shadrin, global workshop).
In the Potato Park, women know about the health benefits of native crops and medicinal
plants, “we provide medicine to our kids through food” (Ricardina, Potato Park); and only
native crop varieties are planted because “modern varieties don’t produce well”. In Lepcha
and Limbu communities in northeast India, more than 80% of diets consist of locally grown
crops and livestock.
Resilience to Pandemics and Economic Development
COVID-19 has highlighted the vulnerability of global food chains and the resilience of
localised Indigenous food systems. “During the pandemic, there was not much shortage
of food in Lepcha and Limbu villages, in fact, people were growing more and eating
more healthy food” (Nawraj Gurung, Lok Chetna Manch). “Despite COVID-19, we have
plenty of food—the Potato Park has donated a ton of potatoes to people in need in Cusco”
during the pandemic, based on the ancestral principle of Solidarity (Aniceto, community
researcher). For the Tharaka people in Kenya, traditional seeds are sacred and play a
central role in cultural identity and spiritual well-being. As Simon Mitambo, Tharaka leader
explained “we need Indigenous seeds for cultural ceremonies, and when preparing to plant,
certain rituals must be performed to receive the gift of nature (rain). Most of the work on
Indigenous food systems and seeds is collective and so brings cohesion to the community.
During COVID-19, Indigenous seeds helped us to support one another”. Indigenous food
systems can also make important contributions to economic development and employment.
Pastoralism contributes about 40% of the national GDP in Chad (Hindou Ibrahim, Mbororo,
Chad). The Potato Park supports a number of collective micro-enterprises led by women
(e.g., ecotourism, gastronomy).
4.1.2. Threats to Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems
The workshop identified multiple threats facing Indigenous food systems, including
industrial development, modernisation, western education systems, urbanisation and
protected areas. Industrial agriculture and modern foods have had significant adverse
impacts; “the full impact of industrial agriculture at local level is not yet fully appreciated
by national policy makers who are eager to simply monetise agriculture” (Phrang Roy,
India). In Asia, commercial crops and plantations have replaced traditional farming in
many Indigenous communities, leading to the devaluation and erosion of Indigenous and
local knowledge, degradation of rice terraces, shrinking of swidden farming areas and
rapid changes in food, diets and nutrition. In Northern Thailand, for example, cash crop
expansion promoted by the government has had serious impacts on traditional agriculture,
particularly, rotational farming, and “has destroyed forests and caused soil erosion and
pollution from pesticides and herbicides” (Joji Carino, the Philippines). Modern education
has impelled young people to migrate to urban areas to study and work, losing their
cultural roots and identity. In northern Yunnan, with the influx of modern seeds, cash crops
and foods, Naxi food systems have become increasingly uniform, “diversity is disappearing
in food crops and ways of preparing them, and this threatens the whole Indigenous food
system. Before, food was for livelihoods and nutrition, and now, it is for money so that is
why diversity is declining”. (Haimei Liang, Naxi, Wumu Village leader). In Lingsey and

Sustainability 2022,14, 11311 9 of 23
Lingseykha, Kalimpong District, northeast India, some traditional foods have been lost
due to the influence of town and city food and aggressive food marketing. Traditional rice
cultivation is decreasing because of the Green Revolution and some traditional crops have
been lost (e.g., dryland paddy and foxtail millet). Restrictions on forest use have promoted
a shift to cash crops.
Similarly, agricultural modernisation and commercialisation in Africa have weakened
and eroded Indigenous food systems. In Kenya, “there has been a big push to promote
hybrid seeds and chemicals which undermine soil and water; colonial seed and intellectual
property laws threaten collective Indigenous seed systems; and the influence of multina-
tional corporations means it is not possible to promote laws that support Indigenous food
systems” (Simon Mitambo, Tharaka leader). In Rabai, industrial development has reduced
land for farming, reducing crop diversity and urbanisation, modernity, Christianity, proxim-
ity to Mombasa and youth outmigration are rapidly eroding cultural practices and beliefs,
weakening social cohesion. The Potato Park communities have protected their land against
mining by establishing a collectively governed biocultural heritage territory and register-
ing it as an “Agrobiodiversity Zone”, but still face threats from mining and Genetically
Modified Organisms (GMOs) - “we have to protect our lands from genetic contamination,
and privatisation of seeds” (Ricardina, Potato Park community researcher). Climate change
also threatens the diversity of potatoes “all crops are moving up the mountain so we are
losing varieties in the upper part”.
In the Russian Artic, the loss of Indigenous territories due to various types of industrial
development has almost destroyed a traditional hunting and fishing culture which is very
close to nature and has led to severe environmental degradation, “the main challenge facing
us is the loss of our lands; the way out of the extinction situation facing northern peoples
is to return to our former economic structure and traditional food culture” (Vyacheslav
Shadrin, Yukaghi). In Chad, the Mbororo are transboundary people and pastoralism is
“a sustainable land-use system because not all land can have cattle; but land that is vital
for pastoralist people is being sold off to sedentary people, and there are transboundary
issues impacting our food system and food sovereignty” (Hindou Ibrahim, Mbororo).
Hunter-gatherers in tropical forests are very culturally diverse but highly vulnerable, often
deprived of their right to self-determination and “forced to give up a way of life that most
authorities consider to be non-decent” (Edmond Dounias, French Research Institute for
Sustainable Development). They are victims of both the economic destruction of forests
and forest conservation policies that prohibit the use of essential resources.
In Thailand, Indigenous farmers can be imprisoned for rotational farming because
of a misconception in forest science that it causes deforestation, and forest laws do not
recognise the rights of Indigenous Peoples living in protected areas. However, a cabinet
resolution on recovering Karen livelihoods has recognised the traditional and dynamic
practice of rotational agriculture and its co-existence with the natural ecosystem (Joji
Carino, the Philippines). The resolution promulgates Special Cultural Zones for the revival
and maintenance of cultural identity, in harmony with nature. Revitalising rotational
agriculture has strengthened the local economy, and some young people have returned
to their communities to reclaim their cultural identity and alternative livelihoods. These
innovations in rotational farming combined with social enterprise development provide a
new and increasingly popular solution for young people.
4.1.3. Indigenous Peoples’ Research Priorities
Several Indigenous representatives at the global workshop stressed that research
should focus not only on their food systems but on the threats and challenges they face.
They highlighted three key issues requiring further research: the rapid loss of Indigenous
knowledge, Indigenous Peoples’ land rights and food sovereignty and the impacts of indus-
trial agriculture on Indigenous food systems. They called on researchers and academics to:
•
Fully engage Indigenous Peoples and support Indigenous-led research since con-
ventional externally-led research is not useful to Indigenous Peoples and “scientists

Sustainability 2022,14, 11311 10 of 23
can never fully understand Indigenous Peoples without actively engaging them in
research” (Hindou Ibrahim, Chad).
•
Respect the value of Indigenous knowledge and ancestral wisdom on the same level
as science, and recognise Indigenous Peoples as equal experts.
•
Mainstream the often overlooked Indigenous perspectives and knowledge in conven-
tional research, and go beyond multidisciplinarity to take a multicultural approach
that blends Indigenous knowledge and science.
•
Develop culturally appropriate research approaches with Indigenous Peoples that
support Indigenous methods of learning and knowledge transmission (e.g., story-
telling, observation, landscape walks).
•
Respect Indigenous Peoples’ rights as enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples, including the right to Free Prior and Informed Consent at
the community and individual levels, by providing full information about proposed
research and allowing communities to deny consent or place conditions.
•
Understand community decision-making processes and work with community institutions.
•
Support power equalising approaches for Indigenous communities and women, in-
cluding inter-community networking and meaningful engagement in policy processes.
•
Contribute to the body of knowledge of Indigenous Peoples for their own needs, rather
than as an object of investigation—research should facilitate learning and collective
analysis within communities, and “the community should be the first to benefit from
the knowledge produced” (Florence Daguitan, the Philippines).
Many Indigenous Peoples have started to revitalise their food systems, hence aca-
demics can expect Indigenous Peoples to do their own research based on Indigenous
knowledge, and can provide complementary analysis, for example, on the nutritional value
of Indigenous foods or methods for monitoring improved soil health—“there is a lot of
scope for collaboration, provided scientists and Indigenous Peoples respect each other”
(Florence Daguitan, the Philippines). A number of Indigenous representatives underlined
the need for research to address Indigenous Peoples’ problems, and take a decolonial
approach—research should:
•
Start by “decolonising the minds of Indigenous Peoples who have been brainwashed
to think that their foods are inferior” (Bagele Chilisa, Botswana).
•
“Debunk the notion that research is only done by the schooled” (Florence Daguitan,
the Philippines).
•
Use Indigenous research methods that frame research using Indigenous worldviews and
values, recognising the spiritual values of food and links to land (Bagele Chilisa, Botswana).
•
Use decolonising action-research methods where research is led by Indigenous elders
and authorities (including women), and guided by Indigenous epistemic principles
(e.g., relationality, reciprocity and balance with the natural world) (Alejandro Ar-
gumedo, Peru).
The importance of a “Multiple Evidence Base” approach was highlighted, where
Indigenous and western knowledge is valued equally, objectives are set jointly, knowl-
edge is created and validated within each knowledge system, and the results are shared,
bridging knowledge systems. “This can create a richer picture, to discover new things
that would not be discovered otherwise” (Pernilla Malmer, SwedBio at Stockholm Re-
silience Centre) [
35
]. The workshop also revealed differences in approaches to protecting
threatened Indigenous knowledge and food heritage, with Indigenous Peoples prioritising
protection for community-use and protection of rights, and non-Indigenous researchers
prioritising global conservation goals. Documentation in ethnobotanical publications and
public databases can be important to protect traditional knowledge and crops from loss.
For example, landraces are being lost and are generally poorly documented and conserved
ex-situ, hence their diversity and loss are not properly understood and they have been
overlooked until recently. However, external documentation and publication may not
directly benefit the communities whose knowledge is documented and can facilitate the
misappropriation of traditional knowledge or “biopiracy” (i.e., unauthorised commercial

Sustainability 2022,14, 11311 11 of 23
use). This is especially the case for medicinal plants and wild edible plants but generally
less so for crops that tend to be less commercially sought, with some notable exceptions
such as potatoes. In the Potato Park and Barter-Maize Park in Peru, communities have
documented their Indigenous knowledge about wild foods and native crops in community
biocultural databases, which protect traditional knowledge from loss while protecting
community intellectual rights.
4.1.4. Decolonising and Interdisciplinary Research Methods
Indigenous experts presented effective Indigenous methods for research on agri-food
systems. Florence Daguitan (Tebtebba, the Philippines) highlighted several tools:
•
Mapping while walking through the territory to strengthen the sense of place and
identity, and show the diversity of food crop varieties and animals breeds, locations
of wild food plants and animals, and how the whole territory contributes to the diet.
Communities can use GPS to construct a three-dimensional map and introduce some
“modern ways” of biodiversity inventory.
•
Traditional calendars to show the availability of different foods at different times of
year, when to plant different crops, when not to disturb wild animals in the forest and
fish in rice fields and rivers to give them time to mate and reproduce and indicators
for changes in seasons.
•
Story-telling to show how certain food is valued and why; changes in food production
and consumption; and how wild areas are protected and seeds are conserved.
•
Comparing and contrasting, for example, to show how community elders/leaders
were more proactive in the past in investigating community issues and concerns and
addressing these for the common good, abundance or scarcity of certain foods and
health of the environment in the past and today.
•Learning by doing, for example producing organic farm inputs, conducting soil tests
with scientists, using/testing traditional indicators, and introducing innovations in
rice farming systems.
•
Collective analysis of the results, which can lead to community policy formulation and
action, for example, banning junk food from entering the community and restoring
backyard gardens in every home.
Alejandro Argumedo (ANDES, Peru) presented a decolonising action-research ap-
proach developed with Quechua communities in the Potato Park, which has enabled them
to maintain a very large collection of native potatoes. Any action has to be developed
in line with Quechua learning principles of Yachay—knowledge learned through reflec-
tion, discussion and analysis; Llankay—practical learning; and Munay—learning with
the heart. Decolonisation means leadership by elders and community authorities, and
the participation of women and youth is key. Oral methods are used, but metrics are also
traditionally used to create and store data, such as the Inca Khipus (knots tied on string)
which has been used in the Potato Park to represent chromosomes in potatoes. Yupana,
a matrix ranking tool of the Incas is used to prioritise different wild food and medicinal
plants collected through participatory transect walks. Indigenous mixed methods research
combines qualitative and quantitative approaches, responds to Indigenous wellbeing ob-
jectives (Sumaq Causay) and is guided by principles from the Incas. Indigenous methods
used by the Quechua Potato Park and Barter-Maize Park communities promote Indigenous
knowledge transmission from elders to youth. “We have developed visual ways to collect
data, including a smartphone app that can use photo, video or voice recordings, which are
tools for traditional knowledge transmission. The information collected with the app is
automatically stored in a community database and is discussed by elders in knowledge
circles. It is used to solve community problems such as pests and diseases, or child malnu-
trition, and to maintain balance among the three Ayllus. Then the community assembly
sanctions the proposed actions and they become part of a Life Plan”.
Non-Indigenous experts highlighted the need for interdisciplinary approaches since
Indigenous food systems (IFS) and biocultural heritage span different disciplines. “Research

Sustainability 2022,14, 11311 12 of 23
has tended to focus on elements within food systems—e.g., farming systems and crops,
or foods and nutrition—rather than whole food systems from cultivation to cooking,
including harvesting, storage, processing and preparation, and how they connect with
material culture and intangible cultural and spiritual heritage” (Philippa Ryan, RBG Kew).
Ethnobotany bridges traditional knowledge, humanities and natural science by focusing
on the human uses of plants in their biocultural context. It can be used to document
Indigenous food heritage, including wild foods and crops from farm to plate, linking
crops, cuisine, values and beliefs, and traditional knowledge and western taxonomy, for
community livelihoods and conservation.
Oral history, including stories and songs, can facilitate understanding of threatened
or lost food heritage to inform community revitalisation efforts. It can generate insights
into often overlooked cultural and spiritual meanings of traditional seeds, farming and
food systems, over a significant historical duration. It can communicate food traditions
and heritage and the meanings and feelings involved in a particularly vivid manner; and
reclaim the voices and life experiences of Indigenous and subaltern groups such as women
farmers, who are either not heard or marginalised in written documents. “Too often in de-
velopment writings, the voices of subaltern groups tend to be subsumed by the researchers’
interpretation which is what ultimately becomes authoritative” (S. Hazareesingh, Open
University) [
36
]. Ethnobotanically-based oral histories can be useful for understanding
crop and food histories and temporal changes [
19
,
20
]. Historical sources can also provide
useful information about lost heritage, but Indigenous Peoples may not want to use colonial
interpretations. In the Philippines where “all history is colonial”, Indigenous Peoples in
the Cordillera have used historical sources to “reinterpret it in their own way and revive
their heritage” (Joji Carino, the Philippines). Archaeobotanical data can provide evidence
of long-term cultivation of Indigenous crops and landraces, which used to be major but
have become minor, and this can be used alongside evidence of present-day resilience to
show the importance of traditional crops for local agroecological contexts [37,38].
4.2. Local Workshops in Kenya, India and China
The local workshops in coastal Kenya, the Indian Himalayas and southwest China
enabled further understanding of the role of Indigenous crops and landraces in climate
resilience, food security and health, and the challenges facing Indigenous food systems
and ways forward, based on the knowledge of different community members (Table 1).
In semi-arid Rabai, Kenya “Indigenous crops (e.g., cowpeas) are very resilient to drought
and pests and diseases, and very nutritious, some are medicinal; we plant wild cowpeas
from sacred Kaya forests on-farm for adaptation to climate change” (Salma, community
researcher, Rabai). “Traditional foods and Indigenous vegetables are very important for
increasing immunity and that prevents us from getting sick” including from COVID-19
(Daniel Garero, Kaya elder). Aggressive promotion of hybrids by extension services has
led to erosion of hardy and nutritious Indigenous crops (e.g., cowpeas, sorghum, millets),
while modern education and youth out-migration to cities have reduced the transmission of
traditional food knowledge. This is compounded by industrial development (sand mining)
causing crop failure due to “massive pollution in the river”. Kaya forests traditionally
provide an important source of wild foods and medicinal plants but are being degraded as
Kaya elders are increasingly side-lined by youth influenced by modernisation.
In northeast India, forest conservation laws prohibit the Lepcha and Limbu customary
sustainable use and agroforestry systems, following the establishment of Neora Valley
National Park and Reserved Forest in Lepcha ancestral land. The communities link the
declining productivity of traditional crops to declining soil fertility and a shortage of
manure, as it is no longer possible to graze cattle in the forest to access quality fodder under
large trees. Forest quality has also declined since lack of ownership and fear of being fined
means communities are no longer conserving large trees and seeding the forest to protect
the fragile Himalayan ecosystem. Expansion of protected areas is a growing problem for
the livelihoods of hill tribes in the region.

Sustainability 2022,14, 11311 13 of 23
Table 1.
Key challenges facing Indigenous food systems in Yunnan China, northeast India and coastal
Kenya and ways forward: Summary of global and local workshops.
Naxi and Moso (Northwest Yunnan, China)
Challenges
•Diversity of crops and ways of preparing them are disappearing, with the influx of modern foods
•Food crops are becoming more uniform as they are now grown more for market than for subsistence
•Need to conserve agrobiodiversity for health and climate resilience
•Loss of TK transmission and male outmigration are reducing labour and food self-sufficiency
Ways Forward
•Need to revitalise IFS and traditional culture and develop ways to pass down culture
•The four villages need to work together to help protect and revitalise their biocultural heritage through common rules and
learning exchanges (e.g., on community seed banks and traditional Dongba culture)
•Need policy protection for intangible food and crop heritage
•Need participatory documentation of crop processing, seeds, wild foods, herbal medicines, traditional practices and culture,
and oral histories.
•Need to develop links to markets and ecotourism (e.g., special local foods, handicrafts, trekking)
Lepcha and Limbu (Kalimpong, West Bengal, India)
Challenges
•The IFS is threatened by policies that restrict the use of forest resources (including the use of fodder, wild edible plants and
other plant resources e.g. for making agricultural tools)
•
Some landraces of traditional crops grown are still grown but are declining in yield—such as maize, paddy rice, finger millet,
buckwheat, bread wheat and proso millet.
•
Dryland rice, wild millets and foxtail millet have mostly disappeared because of Green Revolution methods and introductions
of hybrid crops.
•Some traditional cuisines are declining, and are negatively impacted by modern food marketing
•Community seed-saving initiatives are in place but need more support
•TK about agrobiodiversity is declining with youth outmigration and modernization
Ways Forward
•Initiatives to promote traditional foods in markets and ecotourism
•Policy needs to protect the Indigenous cultures that maintain food diversity
•Crop diversity needs fuller documentation, including bean landraces (20+) which have not all been identified as species
•Rituals that sustain IFS need support
Mijikenda (Rabai, Kilifi county, Kenya)
Challenges
•Traditional farming, cultural practices and beliefs are diminishing very fast, due to proximity to Mombasa, youth
outmigration and non-Mijikenda religions
•
Loss of TK, reduced knowledge transmission between generations, marginalisation of Kaya elders and modern education (e.g.,
lack of integration of traditional foods in schools).
•High population density, limited land, climate pressures (increased drought) and mining pollution
•Some varieties of traditional crops, for example, sorghum, millet and yams, have been lost due to introduction of hybrids.
Ways Forward
•
Help to conserve wild and domesticated Indigenous vegetables and wild fruits, which supplement farming and are important
for nutrition and resilience to climate change.
•Strengthening collective governance structures (Kaya elders) for forest and landscape conservation
•Strengthening market links for Indigenous crops (e.g., cowpeas) and ecotourism to sustain cultivation
•Research on how modernity is affecting culture and knowledge transmission, links between loss of culture and Indigenous
crops, role of women and girls in IFS, household consumption of Indigenous foods, traditional ways of preserving food, and
how to propagate Indigenous foods.
•Promote benefits of Indigenous foods (health, climate, livelihoods etc.
Community members highlighted the need to protect and revitalise traditional crops,
wild foods, medicinal plants, home gardens, inter-connected forest-farm-food systems
and related cultural values and philosophies, for food security, resilience and income

Sustainability 2022,14, 11311 14 of 23
generation. They stressed that future research should generate tangible livelihood benefits
for communities, for ethical reasons and to engage youth, and should explore income-
generating opportunities and support micro-enterprise development (e.g., for traditional
crops, ecotourism, handicrafts). They also highlighted the need to continue the decolonial
Potato Park approach (used in a previous project), where 1–2 community researchers
are employed from each village to co-design, facilitate and conduct the research; and
Indigenous research methods are used that promote transmission of Indigenous knowledge.
This approach has strengthened community research capacity, inter-village networks and
livelihoods [39–41].
4.3. Developing a Decolonial, Interdisciplinary Framework for Research on Indigenous Food Systems
The results of the global and local workshops were used to develop a broad framework
for decolonial and interdisciplinary research on Indigenous food systems and biocultural
heritage past and present, from farm to plate. Given the virtual format, it was not possible
to engage in detailed discussions with communities on research questions, methods and
tools. However, the framework addresses the priorities identified by communities in
Kenya, India and China and can be used to inform future discussions with these and other
communities. As highlighted by workshop participants, Indigenous Peoples should take
the lead in designing or co-designing research questions, methods and tools, based on their
own knowledge, theories and methods, to ensure an ethical and decolonial approach that
revitalises traditional knowledge.
The research framework also draws on the Potato Park’s decolonising action-research
approach, integrating Indigenous research methods and tools. It aims to support community-
led processes to establish biocultural heritage territories, building on the successful Potato
Park. This collectively governed biocultural heritage territory has significantly increased
native potato diversity; enhanced food security, nutrition and livelihoods despite severe
climate change impacts; and strengthened Andean cultural and spiritual values that ensure
the conservation of agrobiodiversity and ecosystems, restoring the dominance of Quechua
religious festivals over Catholic ones [
42
]. The Potato Park provides a model for Indigenous
self-determination, using agrobiodiversity to assert Indigenous expertise, traditions and
rights [
43
]. The framework also integrates ethnobotany, oral histories and archaeobotany,
building on research on Nubia crops and food systems past and present [
19
]. Historical
approaches can facilitate understanding of lost and threatened heritage that communities
may wish to revitalise to address present-day challenges and can generate evidence of
long-term use of underutilised crops and hence suitability in local agroecological contexts.
The framework identifies five broad questions:
1.
What is the relationship between traditional crops, food heritage, landscapes and cultural and
spiritual values, and which of these are threatened or lost? What is the role of traditional
crops, wild edibles and semi-cultivated crops in culture and spirituality, sustainability,
food security, nutrition and resilience? What are the traditional methods for seed
management, cultivation, improvement, processing, storage and food preparation?
2.
How are farming and forest food systems interconnected today and in the past? How does
this affect outcomes for risk management, food security, nutrition, biodiversity con-
servation, cultural and spiritual values and holistic well-being?
3.
How are biological and cultural heritage interconnected? How are human farming/food
systems, wild ecosystems (forests, mountains, rivers) and the sacred/spiritual realms
interconnected in Indigenous worldviews, beliefs and practices?
4.
What tools and approaches are needed to protect Indigenous food systems and biocultural
heritage (or “food-related biocultural heritage”) and revitalise them as living heritage? How
can the Potato Park approach be adapted to different contexts?
5.
How can Indigenous agri-food histories contribute to local, national and global policy debates
on agriculture, biodiversity, climate resilience and development?
These questions seek a holistic understanding of food systems, linking crops and wild
foods with cuisine, landscapes, cultural and spiritual values and material heritage. They

Sustainability 2022,14, 11311 15 of 23
aim to better understand the relationship between food-related biodiversity and cultural
heritage at the local level and to deliver tangible benefits for community livelihoods and
rights by supporting practical tools, such as collectively governed biocultural territories
and micro-enterprises, as well as policy advocacy.
Three interlinked “work packages” were identified to address the research questions:
(1) Ethnobotany of farming and food systems: The first question on traditional crops and wild
foods could be explored through participatory transect walks in farmers’ fields, home
gardens and wild harvesting areas, involving community researchers, farmers and
botanists, to record local and scientific names and traditional knowledge about plant
uses. Indigenous community researchers can record data using specifically designed
smartphone apps linked to community databases. After collection, the results can
be analysed by community participants using Indigenous methods such as matrix
ranking, for example, to identify wild plants to prioritise for food, gastronomy and
medicine. Transects can also serve to assess the conservation status and trends in the
abundance of wild foods (based on the memories of elders), and the results can be
used to prepare maps of vulnerable species and conservation plans [
41
]. Focus group
discussions can then be held to further explore research questions about traditional
crops and wild foods and validate the findings. These should include elders, women,
men and youth; and it may be best to limit them to about 5–7 people to stimulate
discussion, and to hold them when neighbours usually gather. If further information
is needed, semi-structured interviews could be conducted with elders, at convenient
times. The discussions can be recorded by community researchers on smartphones in
Indigenous languages and later transcribed and translated [41].
(2)
Oral histories of farm-forest food heritage could then be conducted with key Indigenous
knowledge holders to further explore threatened or lost heritage (research questions
1-3), building on the ethnobotanical information collected (e.g., using crop/plant
lists with local, Indigenous and Latin names). Oral histories can be used to identify
key moments of change (e.g., the Cultural Revolution in China, the emergence of
protected areas in India, and agricultural modernisation campaigns in Kenya), and
explore the situation before and after. This can create stories of change that can be
shared more widely amongst communities and with policymakers. Unstructured
oral histories, such as stories and songs of elders and women (e.g., while women are
processing or cooking traditional foods), can provide insights into ancestral values and
worldviews and bring out the meanings and emotions attached to threatened or lost
heritage. Indigenous and archival sources may provide further detail, for example, on
local cosmovision, crop varieties, food and farming systems, before key moments of
change. Ethnobotanical information can also be compared with any existing regional
archaeobotanical data to provide a deep-time view of crop histories [38,44].
(3)
Tools to protect and revitalise food-related biocultural heritage: Key tools can be developed
and tested, building on the Potato Park experience but adapting them to different
biocultural and political contexts, such as mixed ethnic communities in sub-tropical
and temperate mountain forests in northeast India; dispersed terraced mountain
communities along the Jinsha river in Yunnan; and the densely populated semi-arid
Rabai Kaya forest landscape near Mombasa. The following tools were identified
by communities in the local workshops, reflecting key components of biocultural
heritage territories:
•Collective governance institutions (building on customary governance).
•Micro-enterprises (e.g., agro-ecotourism, value addition, traditional restaurants).
•
Tools to promote intergenerational TK transmission (e.g., revival of traditional Rome
in Kenya, Biocultural Festivals, Farmer Field Schools, tailored outputs for schools).
•
Awareness raising, for example through display panels on the findings for community
museums and registration of food heritage as Intangible Cultural Heritage (in China).

Sustainability 2022,14, 11311 16 of 23
The first step in any ethical research process should be an FPIC process where commu-
nity members and authorities can deliberate on the proposed research and adapt/reframe
the research objectives, questions and approach to reflect their own priorities, concepts and
cosmovision, or deny consent. Several participants at the global workshop stressed the
importance of FPIC to respect community rights and reduce power imbalances. In line with
the Potato Park approach, community researchers are then selected by village authorities
to design and conduct the research in each village and continue to work closely with these
authorities to whom they are primarily accountable, ensuring a community-led process.
Research design and training workshops are then held where the community researchers
select or refine the research questions and identify appropriate Indigenous methods and
tools and participatory methods. Local workshops are held to bring together participating
communities to share and co-analyse the results and jointly plan activities for the following
year, along with local annual biocultural festivals to disseminate the results, celebrate the
food-related biocultural heritage and promote local government support.
5. Discussion
The global workshop showed that Indigenous Peoples’ food systems in different
regions sustain high levels of crop diversity and resilient varieties for climate adaptation,
and provide nutritious diets through agroecological and sustainable practices, to meet the
food security needs of communities and future generations. It also showed that traditional
knowledge—not only farming and food practices but ancestral values, beliefs, rituals
and worldviews associated with nature—are critical for the continuation of these food
systems. The Quechua Potato Park communities stressed the importance of their holistic
worldviews and core values of Solidarity, Reciprocity and Balance with nature in ensuring
food security and biodiversity conservation. Research has found that the Naxi and Moso in
China, Lepcha and Limbu in India and Mijikenda in Kenya have similar traditional core
values of solidarity, reciprocity and balance with nature and in society, although these have
become weaker [13].
The global and local workshops also provide evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic
has had minimal impacts on the food security and health of Indigenous and traditional
communities that maintain traditional food systems in the Cusco region of Peru, Rabai,
coastal Kenya, Kalimpong, northeast India and Yunnan, southwest China. The communities
attributed this to the medicinal and immune-boosting properties of traditional crops and
medicinal plants, and to social cohesion associated with sacred seeds and traditional values
of solidarity. The Potato Park communities donated a ton of potatoes to people in need
in Cusco in line with their Solidarity values. The workshops showed the importance of
wild foods for meeting nutrition and health needs in different cultures and ecosystems,
and the role of home gardens in biodiversity conservation and nutrition (particularly in
Asia). Traditional farmers experiment with wild varieties in home gardens in Asia, and
use wild crop species to enrich domesticated crops and breed new resilient varieties in
Asia, Peru and Kenya. Restricting customary forest use in northeast India has negatively
impacted food security and weakened customary norms for sustainable use, while reducing
productivity on-farm and promoting a shift to cash crops.
The evidence presented at the workshops is supported by a growing number of studies
on the role of Indigenous food systems in sustainability, biodiversity conservation, food
security, nutrition and climate resilience, including the FAO submission to the 2021 UN
Food Systems Summit, and a High-Level Expert Seminar convened by FAO in
2018 [3,4,10]
.
A global assessment conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosys-
tem Services (IPBES) in 2019 found that biodiversity is generally declining less rapidly on
Indigenous Peoples’ lands than on other lands [
6
]. Studies have shown that traditional
farmers, pastoralists, fishers, hunters and gatherers typically conserve biodiversity through
adaptive management based on traditional knowledge [
15
,
45
], using strong protocols and
prohibitions against overharvesting and towards sustainable use [
10
]. Studies have also

Sustainability 2022,14, 11311 17 of 23
shown that shifting cultivation does not contribute to deforestation or carbon emissions,
and is important for sustaining agrobiodiversity, food security and cultural heritage [
46
,
47
].
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has identified the importance of
Indigenous knowledge and worldviews for resilience and adaptation to climate change [
48
].
Studies show that Indigenous cultivation and use practices maintain and further evolve
food-related biocultural diversity for local adaptation [
7
,
49
] and that Indigenous crop vari-
eties and local landraces typically withstand stress (e.g., drought, pests and diseases) better
than their modern equivalents, reducing the risk of crop failure in increasingly variable and
extreme climates [
9
,
49
–
51
]. Indigenous farming systems also typically emit less carbon due
to agroecological inputs and agroforestry practices [
3
,
10
]. Linking traditional and western
knowledge can achieve optimum productivity and resilience in risk-prone areas [50].
Indigenous foods have been found to contain essential micronutrients lacking in
regional diets (e.g., in NE India); while shifts to western diets are often associated with
declining health and nutrition [
10
]. The neglected crop varieties that Indigenous Peo-
ples cultivate are typically nutrient-dense, with higher nutritional value than modern
varieties [
10
,
11
]. Wild seeds, nuts, fruits, leaves, bush-meat and fish remain a significant
micronutrient source for millions of Indigenous and rural people worldwide [
52
]. Wild
food plants tend to be richer in micronutrients than cultivated crops [52,53]. Research has
found that people engaged in traditional activities in remote, biodiverse areas with little
reliance on market economies tend to be of normal weight [10].
The global and local workshops show that Indigenous food systems across regions face
multiple threats and are being rapidly eroded by policies that promote modern agriculture,
food and education, industrial development and globalisation. Economic development
and industrial agriculture have replaced traditional farming in many Asian communities,
leading to rapid changes in food, diet and nutrition. In Kenya, hybrid seeds and agro-
chemicals have been strongly promoted and policies are hard to change due to the links
between government and agribusiness. Hunter-gatherers in Africa and Asia are seriously
threatened by both development and protected areas, while the way of life of Arctic hunters
and fishers in Russia has been almost destroyed by industrial development. Rotational
farming and pastoralism are negatively perceived even though they are sustainable sys-
tems. Across these food systems, insecure rights to land and to self-determination are key
underlying threats.
Lemke and Delormier (2017) note that “interference by State and corporate actors
continues to dispossess Indigenous Peoples of their lands, resources and self-determination,
violating their rights to adequate food and nutrition” [
5
]. They and other studies identify
industrial agriculture as a key threat, driven by commercial interests. Strong biases against
traditional biodiverse production systems persist, yet intensive high-input monocultures
are vulnerable to climate risk and pests and diseases and are a key driver of biodiversity
loss and environmental degradation [
6
]. Protected areas based on colonial conservation
models have restricted traditional harvesting practices critical for food security and are not
effectively or equitably managed, a global biodiversity assessment found [15].
Evidence from the workshops suggests that replacing traditional farming systems
and crops with modern cash crops is leading to hidden losses for resilience, nutrition,
health, culture and social cohesion. Significant global declines in agrobiodiversity over
many decades is cause for alarm, narrowing the genetic base for food security and climate
change adaptation [
7
]. This diversity is only partially safeguarded in ex situ gene banks,
whose collections are no longer evolving in response to environmental and climatic change,
unlike those in the field [
7
]. There are also identified risks and gaps in ex situ strategies for
crop landraces, especially for some underutilised species [
54
]. Loss of biodiversity is likely
to also contribute to the loss of related traditional knowledge and values, given the links
between them [
55
]. The UN estimates that more than 20 Indigenous languages are lost each
year and that 50–95% of the world’s languages will be lost by 2100 [
56
]. The workshops
suggest that the revival of Indigenous food systems and interlinked biological and cultural
heritage is critical for responding to multiple crises associated with their decline (ecological,

Sustainability 2022,14, 11311 18 of 23
cultural, climatic, food, health). The revitalisation of traditional farming systems can bring
economic benefits that reverse the out-migration of youth, as in the case of the Karen
rotational farming in northern Thailand.
Indigenous participants at the global workshop called for research that focuses on the
challenges facing Indigenous Peoples and food systems. They highlighted three key issues
for research: the rapid loss of Indigenous knowledge; Indigenous Peoples’ land rights; and
the impacts of industrial agriculture on Indigenous food systems. They emphasised the
importance of Indigenous-led and decolonising research approaches to fully understand
Indigenous food systems and reverse their loss. Research should be guided by Indigenous
learning and holistic wellbeing concepts and should use Indigenous methods (e.g., story-
telling, participatory mapping and transects, matrix ranking and collective analysis to
identify practical actions). Community researchers in the local workshops called for
research to generate livelihood benefits. Key ethical practices include seeking collective and
individual FPIC and employing community researchers to take the lead in research design
and implementation and work closely with Indigenous authorities to ensure a community-
led approach. FPIC is a key ethical principle, enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Indigenous-led research can be supported by research
inputs from western disciplines based on respectful collaboration. Historical approaches
can support community efforts to revitalise Indigenous food systems which have already
undergone changes in many cases, such as oral histories that support oral traditions.
Taking a decolonial approach means integrating how cultures approach conservation
and development based on their own traditional experience and cosmovision and using
their own cultural concepts and objectives as the goal of the research [
40
]. Research has
shown that the Mijikenda in Kenya, Lepcha and Limbu in India and Naxi in China have
similar holistic well-being concepts as the Quechua Sumaq Kausay and Ayllu concepts,
that centre on the need for balance and reciprocity between the human, the wild and the
sacred and ancestral worlds [
13
]. For example, the Rabai Kaya elders’ understanding of
well-being is founded on the Mudzini concept, which recognises sacred elements and
symbols representing spirits, wild plants, humans, and domesticated plants and animals,
and their interactions within the landscape, emphasising the harmonious relationship
between humans and nature [
57
]. These Indigenous concepts can be used to adapt the
methodological framework to local biocultural contexts.
A growing body of literature has emerged on decolonising and Indigenous research
methodologies, which challenge existing approaches that have brought few benefits to
Indigenous Peoples but have subjected them to multiple harms [
5
,
21
,
23
,
24
]. Chilisa (2011)
argues that dominant Euro-Western research approaches represent a form of colonialism,
since researchers use external theories and methods, collect information, do the analysis and
interpret the findings to create generalisable theories, which are then used to inform further
research [
21
]. Even if Indigenous knowledge is recorded it is not used to define the research
problem, theories, concepts, methods and interpret the findings, so the process reinforces
external values and perceptions of reality, of what is true, what counts as knowledge and
what knowledge is important. Social science methods that originated in the west have
become universal and this is “stripping marginalised groups of their ancestral culture
and replacing it with Euro-Western culture”. Instead, research should give space to the
worldviews and frames of reference of those who have suffered a history of oppression and
marginalisation, which emphasise relationships amongst living beings (humans, animals,
etc.) and with the non-living.
In the Potato Park decolonising action-research approach, developed with Quechua
communities with support from Asociacion ANDES, community researchers identify the
research questions and methods and facilitate the research [
41
]. For example, the Potato
Park communities decided to conduct research to document the resilience of their food
systems. The community researchers gathered all data through a community survey. Sur-
vey questions were pre-approved by community members, who suggested the majority of
them, and the surveys were conducted in Quechua [
58
]. “This community-driven approach

Sustainability 2022,14, 11311 19 of 23
is important because it increases ownership of the results by communities, while researcher-
driven approaches are often ineffective and inefficient. It establishes an inter-community
network of researchers and creates employment in Indigenous communities” [
59
]. In-
digenous conceptual frameworks such as biocultural heritage and Sumaq Kausay/Ayllu
and decolonising methods can also enable a better understanding of food-related bio-
cultural heritage than western concepts and approaches because they are based on an
existing in-depth understanding of this heritage and are holistic and interdisciplinary.
Experience in the Potato Park shows that orally based research using smartphones and
tablets can offer reliable data collection methods and enable cross-language use in data
collection and analysis rather than using only dominant colonial languages [
60
]. Elders’
stories and Indigenous languages play an important role in maintaining knowledge about
biocultural heritage [58,60].
According to Chilisa (2011), decolonising approaches can be integrative, combining
western and Indigenous theories, but in their most advanced form, assumptions about
what counts as reality, knowledge and values are informed by an Indigenous research
paradigm [
21
]. Lemke and Delormier (2017) propose that ethical research with Indigenous
Peoples should be guided by principles of “respect, responsibility and relationships” [
5
].
They note that the co-creation of knowledge founded in recognition of the strengths of both
Indigenous and Euro-Western ways of knowing can contribute to creating new ways of
knowing regarding Indigenous Peoples’ food systems. They and others caution that “inte-
gration” of knowledge systems often results in “mining” Indigenous knowledge for western
science, whereas “bridging” knowledge systems can respect the integrity of each one.
Virtanen (2019) notes that even if a decolonising approach is used in the documentation
of traditional ecological knowledge, “individual research projects are limited in what they
can succeed in doing about Indigenous cultural heritage and territorial protection” [
34
].
The work of ANDES (Peru) and the Potato Park shows that individual research projects can
contribute significantly to heritage revitalisation and territorial protection, when Indigenous
Peoples play a leading role and an action-oriented approach is taken, that strengthens local
capacity and institutions and contributes to strategic processes to secure rights to land and
self-determination, such as the establishment of biocultural heritage territories [40,41].
Although the local workshops did not allow sufficiently in-depth discussions to
identify specific research questions, methods and tools with communities, they enabled
a good understanding of the challenges to be addressed and ways forward. The live-
streamed sessions allowed Indigenous Peoples to showcase their vast knowledge of food-
related biocultural heritage through inclusive dialogues from their communities. The
workshops showed that, when Indigenous Peoples play central roles as presenters and
experts, virtual formats can enable meaningful intercultural dialogue and be a power-
equalising force that can shift perspectives regarding traditional knowledge. Several
community members (including women and youth) can participate directly in discussions
from their own community/landscape, at a relatively low cost and respond to external
questions (in contrast to pre-recorded video formats). The virtual format enabled many
more Indigenous representatives and academics to participate in the global workshop than
would otherwise have been possible.
6. Conclusions
Indigenous Peoples’ food systems play vital roles in agrobiodiversity conservation,
climate resilience, food security and nutrition. They sustain high levels of resilient Indige-
nous crops and landraces, which are continuing to evolve and co-evolve in response to
climate change unlike those in gene banks, thus providing vital genetic reserves for climate
resilience and adaptation locally and globally. Indigenous food systems have also proved
resilient during COVID-19, ensuring food security and health in a range of contexts, from
the Potato Park in Peru, to India, Kenya and China. However, their importance is widely
overlooked, with Indigenous crops and knowledge being rapidly lost in favour of “mod-
ern” crops and practices. In fact, Indigenous and traditional crops and knowledge are not

Sustainability 2022,14, 11311 20 of 23
“old” but are continually evolving and adapting to change through experimentation and
the use of wild crops to enhance the resilience of domesticated varieties. Cultural values
and worldviews and spiritual beliefs underpin the continuation of resilient Indigenous
food systems.
Indigenous and traditional food systems face multiple threats from industrial agri-
culture, development, modern education and outmigration—which often affect both bio-
diversity and culture and are likely to be mutually reinforcing given the links between
them. The inextricable linkages between biodiversity and cultural heritage as perceived
by Indigenous Peoples should be reflected in definitions of Indigenous food heritage and
biocultural heritage, to avoid marginalising Indigenous cosmovision and develop effective
responses for their protection. There is an urgent need to protect and revitalise Indigenous
food systems and biocultural heritage in a context of growing climatic risk and uncertainty,
increasingly uniform and unsustainable agri-food systems, growing food insecurity, rising
non-communicable diseases associated with modern diets, and rapid loss of Indigenous
agroecological knowledge [
3
,
4
,
10
]. Lessons from Indigenous food systems can contribute to
the resilience and sustainability of food systems worldwide, while supporting the wellbeing
of Indigenous Peoples [3].
Further research is needed to address the myths and misunderstandings relating to
Indigenous food systems, counter dominant narratives which view them as backward and
environmentally damaging and promote the mainstreaming of traditional knowledge in
agricultural policies. Research should be equitable and decolonial and should address
Indigenous Peoples’ needs by supporting Indigenous leadership and research methods,
rather than using conventional methods which have marginalised Indigenous knowledge.
It should be action-oriented, supporting practical initiatives to strengthen rights to land
and self-determination, and should focus on whole food systems from farm to plate
to effectively protect threatened heritage. FPIC is a key ethical principle for respecting
Indigenous Peoples’ rights that should be integral to all research projects, as well as to all
policies and programs that affect Indigenous Peoples, in accordance with UNDRIP.
As the Potato Park experience shows, decolonising action-research and collective
biocultural heritage territories can revitalise Indigenous food systems, protect in situ gene
banks, strengthen local capacity to defend rights and help to build social movements to
resist threats and promote change. External researchers can play useful support roles
through respectful partnerships and should commit to becoming political activists, getting
the voices of Indigenous Peoples heard and promoting social transformation [21].
Biocultural heritage territories are landscape approaches for in situ conservation that
protect the many interlinkages between wild ecosystems and cultivated areas that support
food and nutrition security, climate adaptation, spiritual and ecological values. The Potato
Park model has been validated through scaling out to establish the Barter-Maize Park
in Cusco, Peru [
41
]. Emerging experience suggests that the approach can and should be
scaled out to different biocultural and political contexts in Rabai, Kenya, Northeast India
and Yunnan China, but needs to be adapted through culturally centred, community-led
processes. A key challenge to establishing biocultural territories in these contexts is that,
unlike in Latin America, decolonial and Indigenous movements are weak and the rights of
Indigenous and traditional peoples are often poorly recognised.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualisation: A.A., K.S. and P.R.; methodology: K.S., A.A. and P.R.;
resources: K.S. and P.R. (AHRC grant); writing—original draft preparation, K.S.; writing—review
P.R., C.W., L.N., A.R. and Y.S., and editing K.S.; funding acquisition, K.S. and P.R. (AHRC grant). All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This research was funded by the UKRI GCRF Collective Programme—Cultures and
Histories of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition, via the Arts and Humanities Research Council, grant
number AH/T004371/1.
Institutional Review Board Statement:
Ethical review and approval were waived for this study as
it was a project development grant involving a series of workshops.

Sustainability 2022,14, 11311 21 of 23
Informed Consent Statement:
The informed consent of Indigenous representatives was obtained for
sharing Indigenous and Local Knowledge at the workshops and documenting and publishing this
knowledge. All workshop participants quoted in this paper have given their consent.
Data Availability Statement:
See Global Workshop report: https://pubs.iied.org/sites/default/
files/pdfs/2021-06/20191IIED.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2022).
Acknowledgments:
Our sincere thanks to all the Indigenous experts and UK academics who participated
in the series of virtual workshops, and shared their wisdom, including the Rabai community in
coastal Kenya, Lingsey and Lingseykha in West Bengal, India, and the 4 Village Biocultural Heritage
Coalition in Yunnan, China. Thanks also to Asociación ANDES, the Potato Park and the Barter-Maize
Park “Tecnicos” (community researchers) for sharing their Indigenous concepts during the global
workshop and their Indigenous research methods and tools at a previous workshop in June 2019.
We are also grateful to all the research and NGO partners in the AHRC project, including Nawraj
Gurung (Lok Chetna Manch, India), who coordinated the local workshops and commented on the
draft methodological framework.
Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or
in the decision to publish the results.
References
1.
Kuhnlein, H.V.; Turner, N.J. Traditional Plant Foods of Canadian Indigenous Peoples: Nutrition, Botany and Use; Gordon and Breach
Science Publishers: London, UK, 1991.
2.
Swiderska, K.; Ryan, P. Indigenous Food Systems, Biocultural Heritage and the SDGs: Challenges, Interdisciplinary Research Gaps and
Empowering Methodologies; International Institute for Environment and Development: London, UK, 2021.
3. FAO. The White/Wiphala Paper on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2021. [CrossRef]
4.
FAO. High Level Expert Seminar on Indigenous Food Systems. In Building on Traditional Knowledge to Achieve Zero Hunger; FAO:
Rome, Italy, 2018.
5.
Lemke, S.; Delormier, T. Indigenous Peoples’ food systems, nutrition and gender: Conceptual and methodological considerations.
Matern. Child. Nutr. 2017,13 (Suppl. S3), e12499. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6.
IPBES. Global Biodiversity Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; IPBES: Bonn, Germany, 2019; Available online:
https://ipbes.net/global-assessment (accessed on 1 May 2022).
7.
Argumedo, A.; Song, Y.; Khoury, C.; Hunter, D.; Dempewolf, H.; Guarino, L.; de Haan, S. Biocultural Diversity for Food System
Transformation under Global Environmental Change. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021,5, 685299. [CrossRef]
8.
Larson, G.; Piperno, D.; Allaby, D.; Purugganan, M.; Andersson, I.; Arroyo-Kalin, M.; Fuller, D.Q. Current perspectives and the
future of domestication studies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014,111, 6139–6146. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9.
Blench, R. Neglected species, livelihoods and biodiversity in difficult areas: How should the public sector respond? In Natural
Resource Perspectives; Briefing Paper; ODI: London, UK, 1997; p. 23.
10.
Kuhnlein, H.; Erasmus, B.; Spigelski, D. Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems: The Many Dimensions of Culture, Diversity and Environment
for Nutrition and Health; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2009.
11. Cook, S. The Spice of Life: The Fundamental Role of Diversity on the Farm and on the Plate; IIED: London, UK, 2018.
12.
Rahman, D.; Moussouri, T.; Alexopoulos, G. The Social Ecology of Food: Where Agroecology and Heritage Meet. Sustainability
2021,13, 13981. [CrossRef]
13.
Swiderska, K.; Argumedo, A.; Song, Y.; Rastogi, A.; Gurung, N.; Wekesa, C.; Li, G. Indigenous Knowledge and Values: Key for Nature
Conservation; IIED Briefing Paper; IIED: London, UK, 2021.
14.
Swiderska, K.; Argumedo, A.; Song, Y.; Li, J.; Pant, R.; Herrera, H.; Mutta, D.; Munyi, P.; Vedavathy, S. Protecting community
rights over traditional knowledge: Implications of customary laws and practices. In Key Findings and Recommendations; IIED:
London, UK, 2009.
15. Natcher, D. Subsistence and the Social Economy of Canada’s Aboriginal North. North. Rev. 2009,30, 83–98.
16.
Kasimba, S.; Covic, N.; Motswagole, B.; Laubscher, R.; Claasen, N. Consumption of Traditional and Indigenous Foods and their
contribution to nutrient intake among children and women in Botswana. Ecol. Food Nutr. 2019,58, 281–298. [CrossRef]
17. Minnis, P. (Ed.) New Lives for Ancient and Extinct Crops; University of Arizona Press: Tucson, AZ, USA, 2014.
18.
Swiderska, K.; Argumedo, A. Indigenous Seed Systems and Biocultural Heritage: The Andean Potato Park’s Approach to Seed
Governance. In Seeds for Diversity and Inclusion: Agroecology and Endogenous Development; Pimbert, M., Nishikawa, Y., Macmillan,
P., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2022.
19. Ryan, P.; Hassan, M.; Saad, M. Nubia Past and Present. In Agriculture Crops and Food; British Museum: London, UK, 2018.
20.
Ryan, P.; Kordofani, M.; Saad, M.; Hassan, M.; Dalton, M.; Cartwright, C.; Spencer, N. Nubian agricultural practices, crops and
foods: Changes in living memory on Ernetta Island, northern Sudan. Econ. Bot. 2022, 1–23. [CrossRef]
21. Chilisa, B. Indigenous Research Methodologies, 1st ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2011.

Sustainability 2022,14, 11311 22 of 23
22.
Argumedo, A. Decolonising action-research: The Potato Park biocultural protocol for benefit-sharing. In Biodiversity and Culture:
Exploring Community Protocols, Rights and Consent; Participatory Learning and Action 65; Swiderska, K., Ed.; IIED: London, UK, 2012.
23.
Cummings, S.; Nyamwaya, M.; Shapland, P. A systemic approach to the decolonization of knowledge. In The Politics of Knowledge
in Inclusive Development and Innovation; Ludwig, D., Boogaard, B., Macnaghten, P., Leeuwis, C., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK,
2021. [CrossRef]
24. Smith, L. Decolonising Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples; Zed Books: London, UK, 1999.
25.
Kapelari, S.; Alexopoulos, G.; Moussouri, T.; Sagmeister, K.; Stampfer, F. Food Heritage Makes a Difference: The Importance of
Cultural Knowledge for Improving Education for Sustainable Food Choices. Sustainability 2020,12, 1509. [CrossRef]
26.
Graddy, T.G. Regarding biocultural heritage: In situ political ecology of agricultural biodiversity in the Peruvian Andes. Agric.
Hum. Values 2013,30, 587–604. [CrossRef]
27.
Maffi, L. Biocultural Diversity and Sustainability. In SAGE Handbook of Environment and Society; Sage Publications: Thousand
Oaks, CA, USA, 2007.
28.
Gavin, M.; McCarter, J.; Mead, A.; Berkes, F.; Stepp, J.; Peterson, D.; Tang, R. Defining biocultural approaches to conservation. Tree
2005,30, 140–145. [CrossRef]
29.
Ekblom, A.; Shoemaker, A.; Gillson, L.; Lane, P.; Lindholm, K.-J. Conservation through Biocultural Heritage–Examples from
Sub-Saharan Africa. Land 2019,8, 5. [CrossRef]
30.
Bridgewater, P.; Rotherham, I. A critical perspective on the concept of biocultural diversity and its emerging role in nature and
heritage conservation. People Nat. 2019,1, 291–304. [CrossRef]
31.
Swiderska, K.; Argumedo, A.; Pimbert, M. Biocultural Heritage Territories: Key to Halting Biodiversity Loss; IIED Briefing Paper;
IIED: London, UK, 2020.
32. Pretty, J. The intersection of biological diversity and cultural diversity: Towards integration. Conserv. Soc. 2009,7, 100–112.
33.
Swiderska, K. Banishing the Biopirates: A New Approach to Protecting Traditional Knowledge; Gatekeeper Series, 129; IIED: Lon-
don, UK, 2006.
34.
Virtanen, P. Ancestors’ times and protection of Amazonian Indigenous biocultural heritage. Alternative
2019
,15, 330–339.
[CrossRef]
35.
Tengo, M.; Brondizio, E.; Elmqvist, T.; Malmer, P.; Spierenburg, M. Connecting Diverse Knowledge Systems for Enhanced
Ecosystem Governance: The Multiple Evidence Base Approach. Ambio 2014,43, 579–591. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36.
Hazareesingh, S. Our Grandmother Used to Sing Whilst Weeding: Oral histories, millet food culture, and farming rituals among
women smallholders in Ramanagara district, Karnataka. Mod. Asian Stud. 2020,55, 938–972. [CrossRef]
37. Reed, K.; Ryan, P. Lessons from the past and the future of food. World Archaeol. 2019,51, 1–16. [CrossRef]
38.
Fuller, D.; Denham, T.; Arroyo-Kalin, M.; Lucas, L.; Stevens, C.; Qin, L.; Allaby, R.; Purugganan, M. Convergent Evolution and
Parallelism in Plant Domestication Revealed by an Expanding Archaeological Record. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
2014
,111,
6147–6152. [CrossRef]
39.
Lepcha, E.; Gurung, N.; Rastogi, A.; Swiderska, K. Safeguarding Lepcha and Limbu Cultural Values and Worldviews for Conservation
and Sustainable Development in the Eastern Himalayas, India; IIED: London, UK, 2021.
40.
Song, Y.; Li, G.; Zhang, Y.; Song, X.; Swiderska, K. Indigenous Naxi-Moso Cultural Values and Worldviews for Sustainable Development:
Four Village Biocultural Heritage Coalition, Yunnan, China; IIED: London, UK, 2021.
41.
Swiderska, K.; Stenner, T. The Maize Park Biocultural Heritage Territory in Lares, Peru. Case Study Guidance on Biocultural Heritage
Territories; IIED: London, UK, 2020.
42.
Asociacion ANDES. Resilient Farming Systems in Times of Uncertainty: Biocultural Innovations in the Potato Park, Peru; IIED Country
Report; IIED: London, UK, 2016.
43.
Coombe, R.; Weiss, L. Coombe & Weiss, 2015. Neoliberalism, Heritage Regimes and Cultural Rights. In Global Heritage A Reader;
Meskell, L., Ed.; Wiley Blackwell: West Sussex, UK, 2015.
44.
Helm, R.; Crowtherb, A.; Shiptonc, C.; Tengezad, A.; Fuller, D.; Boivinb, N. Exploring agriculture, interaction and trade on the
eastern African littoral: Preliminary results from Kenya. Azania 2012,47, 39–63. [CrossRef]
45.
Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, C. Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol. Appl.
2000
,10,
1251–1262. [CrossRef]
46.
Shen, S.; Wilkes, A.; Qian, J.; Yin, L.; Zhang, F. Agrobiodiversity and Biocultural Heritage in the Dulong Valley, China. Mt. Res.
Dev. 2010,30, 205–211. [CrossRef]
47.
Northern Development Foundation. Climate Change, Trees and Livelihoods: A Case study on the Carbon Footprint of a Karen
Community in Northern Thailand. 2011. Available online: http://unfcc.int/resources/docs/201/smsn/ngo/240.pdf (accessed
on 1 May 2022).
48.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Fifth Assessment Report. Synthesis Report. Summary for Decision-Makers; Intergovern-
mental Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.
49.
Bellon, M.; Dullo, E.; Thormann, I.; Burdon, J. In situ conservation-harvesting natural and human-derived evolutionary forces to
ensure future crop adaptation. Evol. Appl. 2017,10, 965–977. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50.
Swiderska, K.; Argumedo, A.; Song, Y.; Rastogi, A.; Gurung, N.; Wekesa, C. Biocultural Innovation: The Key to Global Food Security?
IIED briefing paper; IIED: London, UK, 2018.

Sustainability 2022,14, 11311 23 of 23
51.
Song, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Song, X.; Swiderska, K. Smallholder Farming Systems in Southwest China: Exploring Key Trends and Innovations for
Resilience; IIED: London, UK, 2016.
52.
Rowland, D.; Ickowitz, A.; Powell, B.; Nasi, R.; Sunderland, T. Forest foods and healthy diets: Quantifying the contributions.
Environ. Conserv. 2017,44, 102–114. [CrossRef]
53.
Borelli, T.; Hunter, D.; Powell, B.; Ulian, T.; Mattana, E.; Termote, C.; Engels, J. Born to eat wild: An integrated conservation
approach to secure wild food plants for food security and nutrition. Plants 2020,9, 1299. [CrossRef]
54.
Schmitz, S.; Barrios, R.; Dempewolf, H.; Guarino, L.; Lusty, C.; Muir, J. Crop Diversity, its Conservation and Use for Better Food
Systems. The Crop Trust Perspective. UN Food Systems Summit Brief. 2021. Available online: https://cdn.croptrust.org/wp/
wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FSS_Brief_Crop_Diversity.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2022).
55.
Pretty, J. Interdisciplinary progress in approaches to address social-ecological and ecocultural systems. Environ. Conserv.
2011
,38,
127–139. [CrossRef]
56. UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Indigenous Languages. Backgrounder; UNPFII: New York, NY, USA, undated.
57.
Wekesa, C.; Ndalilo, L.; Swiderska, K. Towards a Biocultural Heritage Territory in Rabai Cultural Landscape: Exploring Mijikenda
Cultural Values and Practices for Sustainable Development; IIED: London, UK, 2021.
58.
Sayre, M.; Stenner, T.; Arguemdo, A. You can’t grow potatoes in the sky: Building resilience in the face of climate change in the
Potato Park of Cuzco, Peru. Cult. Agric. Food Environ. 2017,39, 100–108. [CrossRef]
59.
Swiderska, K. Indigenous biocultural heritage for sustainable development. Project planning workshop, January 2019. Presentation
by Alejandro Argumedo on the ANDES decolonizing action-research methodology. IIED workshop report. 2019; unpublished.
60. Asociacion ANDES and the Potato Park. Biocultural Heritage Innovations in the Potato Park-SIFOR Qualitative Baseline Study, Peru;
IIED: London, UK, 2015.