How Can Local Knowledge Improve Natural Resource Decisions?

A new perspective article proposes co-assessment as a practical pathway for integrating diverse knowledge systems into biodiversity governance.

Biodiversity policy increasingly recognises that scientific data alone cannot capture the full picture of how ecosystems are changing. Indigenous peoples and local communities hold deep knowledge of their environments, often spanning generations, yet this knowledge is rarely integrated into formal decision-making processes. A new perspective article published in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, with project-funded co-authorship, argues that co-assessment — the structured integration of Indigenous and local knowledge with scientific knowledge — offers a practical way forward for natural resource governance.

What is co-assessment?

Co-assessment brings together knowledge holders from different traditions to jointly evaluate the state of natural resources and inform management decisions. Unlike consultative approaches where local knowledge is simply collected and fed into a scientific framework, co-assessment treats both knowledge systems as equally valid sources of evidence. The article draws on examples from Arctic communities, where Indigenous peoples have monitored wildlife, sea ice, and vegetation for centuries, to show how co-assessment can produce richer and more locally relevant assessments than either knowledge system could achieve alone.

The authors identify several conditions for effective co-assessment: equitable engagement between knowledge holders, clear communication protocols, respect for intellectual property and cultural sensitivities, and mechanisms for scaling local findings to inform broader policy. They also highlight the importance of long-term relationships and trust-building, noting that one-off engagements rarely produce meaningful integration.

Why does this matter for farmland biodiversity?

The principles outlined in this article resonate strongly with FRAMEwork’s approach to biodiversity monitoring. Farmer clusters depend on the knowledge and observations of farmers themselves, people who understand their land in ways that remote sensing and standardised surveys cannot fully capture. The case for integrating practitioner knowledge with scientific monitoring is central to FRAMEwork’s citizen science and monitoring programmes, which aim to make biodiversity assessment accessible and meaningful for the people who manage the land.

The article also speaks to the growing emphasis in international biodiversity policy, including the Global Biodiversity Framework, on the role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in monitoring and governance. By providing a clear conceptual framework for co-assessment, it offers guidance that is relevant well beyond the Arctic, including for European agricultural landscapes where local knowledge is often undervalued in formal monitoring systems.

Read the paper

The full article is available from Trends in Ecology & Evolution. For more on FRAMEwork’s approach to integrating practitioner knowledge into biodiversity monitoring, see our related publications on citizen science protocols for farmer clusters and citizens monitoring the Global Biodiversity Framework. Browse all FRAMEwork publications at framework-biodiversity.eu/publications.