Indigenous Ecological Knowledge of marine and freshwater organisms and ecosystems on Sea Country: from past absences to future inclusion

Introduction

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of Australia possess enduring and wholistic knowledge of marine and freshwater organisms and ecosystems on Sea Country. As integral parts of the ecosystem, they have continuously cultivated and harvested marine and freshwater resources, ensuring sustainability. Indigenous Ecological Knowledge (IEK) of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of Australia is expansive and place based, reflecting the diversity of lands and language groups and spanning multiple marine and freshwater ecosystems, from temperate to tropical regions along the extensive coastline of Australia (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies 2023).

The aim of this perspective piece is to draw attention to and elevate the value of IEK of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of Australia in marine and freshwater research on Sea and Land Country. To achieve this, we will first define and distinguish between Indigenous knowledge (IK), Traditional Ecological knowledge (TEK), and IEK from non-Indigenous Western science knowledge and provide some well-known examples of marine and freshwater IEK. We will then explore the reasons for why IEK is rare in the literature, why it is fundamental and sophisticated, and how to increase IEK in marine and freshwater research in the future. In doing so, we aim to understand these past absences to ensure the future inclusion of marine and freshwater IEK, Indigenous research, and researchers so that together we can better repair, restore, and sustain organisms and ecosystems on Land and Sea Country.

IEK and examples of marine and freshwater IEK in the literature

Indigenous Knowledge (IK) can be considered as inclusive of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and Indigenous Ecological Knowledge (IEK) (Berkes 2012; Jessen et al. 2022). Berkes (2012) defines IK as:

the local knowledge held by Indigenous peoples or local knowledge unique to a given culture or society. It is used as the broader category within which Traditional Ecological Knowledge fits [p. 9].

Similarly, Berkes et al. (2000) and Jessen et al. (2022), an ecologist, defines IK as distinct and complimentary to non-Indigenous Western science knowledge, sharing common properties and contributing to an understanding of ecological processes, conservation and management, and evolution (Jessen et al. 2022), and cautions ‘against overemphasising the differences between Western science and Traditional Knowledge’ (p. 1251).

Berkes et al. (2000) defines TEK as:

a cumulative body of knowledge, practice, and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of living beings (including humans) with one another and with their environment [p. 1252].

Problems have been raised with the use of the term ‘traditional’ in ‘Traditional Ecological Knowledge’, because, for some, it means time-tested and wise, and for others it means outdated, simple, and static (Berkes 2012). Berkes (2012) stated that the term ‘Indigenous Knowledge’ also has problems because it ‘implies a kind of knowledge that is restricted to Indigenous people. Second, it implies that there is a category of knowledge that can be clearly labelled as Indigenous’ (p. 9), and there are epistemological issues with thinking that there is a distinct knowledge that can be separated from others. Much of IK expands beyond the natural world to include how humans interact with it, extending to ethnoscience aspects such as ethnoagriculture, ethnobotany and ethnozoology. In addition, IK can also include other non-ecological concepts such as ethnoastronomy or human health and culture, for example, basketry (Berkes 2012). Here we have evolved from our earlier work on TEK (Gibbs et al. 2024) to advocate for the use IEK to describe ecological knowledge and to avoid negative interpretations of the word ‘traditional’.

In this perspective piece, we acknowledge that IEK is ecological knowledge handed down through generations and the associated practices. This includes knowledge learnt from the environment, places of teaching that support this knowledge, and the interconnections among all living things. IEK must be conceptualised as a wholistic system that delivers and propagates knowledge and practices from the past and present into future environments and relationships to promote sustainability. It is important to understand the relationships between humans and other animals, other animals and the environment, and humans and the environment. IEK promotes knowledge of relationships through teachings and practices, moulding a knowledge system that is wholistic in nature, involving understanding each of these relationships and promoting the equality of all organisms and ecosystems. We should make note that globally, knowledge can and has been shared across long distances between Indigenous communities in Australia and globally through songlines and storylines (Fernández-Llamazares and Cabeza 2018; Neale and Kelly 2020). These songs and stories contain knowledge about environmental changes, such as understanding the effects of potential species migration and what this could look like in a new habitat, and its impacts on arrival.

Some of the best-known examples of marine and freshwater IEK include harvesting of pipis when blue tiger butterflies appear, so that pipis could be safely eaten (Godfrey 1988, 1989; Mather 2022; Table 1), sustainable management of food (e.g. shell middens and fish; Kelly 2014; Gibbs et al. 2024; Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania 2024; Table 1), and understanding of the interactions between marine life cycles and the environment (e.g. oyster settlement on rocks and ropes). IEK was also used by colonists to catch fish and whales (Welz 2002; Muller 2012a, 2012b; Hoorn 2023; Mathis 2023). These examples have been used to co-develop seasonal calendars and highlight the deep connection between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of Australia to Sea Country (Woodward and Marrfurra McTaggart 2019). They reflect their understanding of seasonal changes of marine and freshwater organisms, interactions between organisms and people, and the sustainable management of food resources on Sea Country, and highlight how human–animal connections can be mutually beneficial. However, much of what we know about some of these examples, such as middens, are through Western scientific or Western anthropological lenses (Lourandos 1968, 1980; Godfrey 1988, 1989; Cann et al. 1991). There has been a near complete absence of Indigenous-led marine and freshwater research in Australia. Only recently has the notable absence of IEK in the marine and freshwater literature begun to reverse (Reeder-Myers et al. 2022; Gibbs et al. 2023, 2024).

Why is IEK missing?

Major reasons for the absence of IEK in the literature include disruptions of colonialism, the reluctance of scientists and managers to discuss or seek advice on IEK, the potential and valid reluctance, based on previous negative experiences, of IEK holders to communicate, the impersonal style of science research (Ryba et al. 2019), which may be incompatible with Indigenous ways of knowing and being, and Western academia’s view of IEK as ‘primitive, folkloric, anecdotal, unscientific, and lacking in rigour and objectivity’ (Berkes 2012; Ens et al. 2015; Knopf 2015; Jessen et al. 2022). As a result, IEK has been overlooked and undervalued in mainstream policy discussions.

To begin, perhaps the greatest barrier to inclusion is for Western science to understand that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of Australia rightly have a distrust of Western science research with concerns about ownership of knowledge (Blair 2015). Blair (2015) emphasised that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of Australia have been ‘researched to death’ and, although they are ‘actively engaging in research in ways never before seen’ (p. 463), there remains the problematic history of the nature of Indigenous research (Nakata 2007), which includes being treated as ‘the other’. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of Australia, research to date ‘involves an emotional rollercoaster journey that savours humiliation, depression, anger, pain, outrage, guilt, and anxiety. It is not simply an intellectual process’ (Blair 2015 p. 464).

As Blair (2015) stated that ‘research has traditionally been conducted by non-Indigenous researchers who have interpreted our peoples, cultures and languages through their cultural and social lens. This has resulted in false representations of us and our cultures’ (p. 473). Rigney (2006) reminded us that non-Indigenous researchers must play a subsidiary role in Indigenous research, privileging and supporting the pursuits of Indigenous researchers and Indigenous researchers should lead projects. In doing so, we help raise the profile of Indigenous researchers, and better protect against the misrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the cultures.

However, many non-Indigenous researchers have built their academic careers on being ‘experts’ in all things Indigenous, essentially reproducing them as opposed to according the right of Indigenous peoples to speak for themselves and engage in self-reflection in research. Given the colonial nature of ‘Aboriginalism’ research and the skewed distribution of power between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Australia, it becomes the role of non-Indigenous researchers and universities in fact to support the work of Indigenous communities and their researchers to create avenues to facilitate such support [Rigney 2006, p. 44].

In addition to developing this understanding, while progress towards integrating IEK into the published scientific literature remains slow, the urgency for Western science to recognise the value of IEK is high (Ogar et al. 2020). The threats of ongoing habitat degradation, climate change, invasive species, and other forms of environmental change continue to threaten marine organisms and ecosystems. In recent years, following Australia’s endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007 (UNDRIP), there has been a needed shift towards the inclusion of IEK in environmental policy strategies such as Australia‘s’ State of the Environment report, Nature Positive summits, and the Sustainable Oceans Plan, all of which recognise the crucial role of IEK in effective stewardship of Sea Country during our current biodiversity and ecosystems crisis (Beck et al. 2011; Bartlett et al. 2012; Ogar et al. 2020; Bergstrom et al. 2021; Dielenberg et al. 2023). There has also been revitalised Australian National Science and Research Priorities that emphasise the importance of elevating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders knowledge systems to solve some of our greatest environmental challenges. This renewed focus on IEK and the broader calls for ‘Indigenising’ academic spaces opens up opportunities for Western science and IEK to repair, restore, and sustain marine organisms and ecosystems.

The elevation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge systems in research science priorities creates some challenges with alignment of funding cycles and the time needed to facilitate community liaison, which cannot be rushed. More importantly, it is likely to increase well-meaning Western scientists that lack cultural competency and an understanding of the methodologies of Indigenous studies, who subsequently cause harm through facilitating intrusive, paternalistic, and exploitative research, embodying a contemporary tool of colonialism by producing ‘terra nullius research’ (Martin and Mirraboopa 2003; Martin 2008, p. 203).

Further, although some nations across Australia widely preserved IEK, such as areas in the Torres Strait Islands and Arnhem Land, in other nations colonialism severely disrupted the intergenerational processes of sharing IEK, which has led to the loss of valuable IEK (Norwood 2021). However, many ranger groups, such as the Gamay and Girringun Rangers, are actively working to revitalise and apply IEK (Rist et al. 2019). Despite the significant efforts of these ranger groups such as Gamay, this work continues to sit outside the academic space and can be seen as not ‘measuring up’ to science knowledge (Jessen et al. 2022).

Why is IEK important to include?

Incorporating IEK offers significant advantages, including access to long-term and place-based knowledge. One of the common challenges in marine and freshwater research is the lack of long-term data and studies. In contrast, IEK provides long-term place-specific knowledge of a diversity of marine ecosystems across Australia, accumulated over thousands of generations. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of Australia also have a long history of sustainably managing marine and freshwater ecosystems, emphasising interconnectivity. Their approaches offer models for contemporary conservation efforts.

IEK is also important to restore ecological knowledge of marine and freshwater organisms and ecosystems. The reluctance to embrace IEK and Indigenous-led marine and freshwater research has led to a loss of valuable ecological insights, eroded cultural heritage, and resulted in potentially ineffective policies. IEK developed over thousands of years and provides a deep understanding of marine and freshwater species’ behaviour, habitats and changes, through being intertwined with cultural identify (Rose 1996).

Further, the marginalisation of IEK contributes to the enduring impacts of colonisation, which disrupted intergenerational transmission of knowledge (Blair 2015). As a consequence, policies can be ineffective and damaging to the health and well-being of Aboriginal and Torres Strait peoples of Australia. For example, an excerpt from the Lake Condah Restoration Project Conservation Management Plan described that the restoration recreated cultural identity, increased feelings of connection to country, and allowed the Gunditjmara people to learn about how ‘previous generations cared for and used the land’, and to ‘pass what we learn onto the next generation so that traditions and knowledge are never lost again’ (Bell and Johnston 2008, p. 8; Rose et al. 2016). Practice shows that co-management approaches, involving and potentially integrating both IEK and Western scientific knowledge, improve policy outcomes and improve ecosystem sustainability (Norwood 2021; Fredericks et al. 2025).

How to include IEK?

Rist et al. (2019) provided a comprehensive example of Indigenous-led collaborative governance of how marine IEK is being included between Indigenous, government and non-government agencies. How to do so more effectively has also been discussed widely (Rist et al. 2019; Reeder-Myers et al. 2022; Hatch et al. 2023). Incorporating IEK can enrich conservation efforts and lead to more wholistic and culturally respectful ecosystem management (Bartlett et al. 2012).

Further, to ensure the future inclusion of IEK, Western marine and freshwater research needs to privilege IEK, Indigenous-led research and publication. Rigney (2006) stated that there should be a ‘Privileging Indigenous Voices in Research’ and encouraging ‘new engagement with Indigenous Australians to bring research methodologies and practices in line with the priorities of Indigenous peoples’ (p. 46). For example, one strategy becoming increasingly common is the role of a boundary spanner (Hatch et al. 2023). A boundary spanner is a person who can break down the barriers or ‘boundaries’ between Indigenous and Western researchers through managing mutual expectations and fostering cooperation and exchange (Ebers 1997; Williams 2002), being either a researcher or a non-researcher who understands the research process. Even though a boundary spanner does not need to be Indigenous, as Rigney (2006) suggested, if research is conducted by Indigenous Australians, then this may better serve and inform the Indigenous struggle for self-determination. The role of the boundary spanner is to create an avenue for allowing knowledge to be accepted and acknowledged within different spaces, such as that of the Western scientific academic world, in a method that fosters an equitable exchange, and sometimes unbalanced in favour for the Indigenous community, to rectify the past actions and disrespect experienced by Indigenous communities.

The boundary spanner seeks cultural revitalisation, giving agency and identity back to the Indigenous communities, what has historically been taken away. This process of forming relationships is built on trust and has been shown to create pathways for the exploration and understanding of knowledge gaps previously seen within the Western academy (Bonta et al. 2017; Reeder-Myers et al. 2022; Hatch et al. 2023). There are Indigenous researchers who already have connections and complimentary skills with Western scientists, and they may also act as boundary spanners between other Indigenous researchers and communities. Leadership in other areas such as the setting of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge in national and state conservation priorities (Department of Climate Change, Energy the Environment and Water 2024), and the complimentary inclusion into national fora such as the Global Nature Positive Summit, will accelerate the inclusion of IEK; however, there also risks for Indigenous communities as outlined in this perspective piece.

Conclusions

In summary, this perspective piece has described the differences within IK, which includes both TEK and IEK. It has highlighted the shift towards IEK over TEK and examined the reasons for the absences of IEK. Additionally, it proposes some novel approaches to increasing IEK in marine and freshwater research, including the role of the boundary spanner who may or may not be a researcher or Indigenous.

We are at a moment of rebalancing and beginning the journey of respecting IEK and elevating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge systems as the original marine and freshwater researchers, with thousands of years expertise in managing aquatic organisms and ecosystems. This moment offers an opportunity to address historical wrongs by developing effective strategies and policy for the future inclusion of Indigenous research and Indigenous researchers in marine and freshwater research, to protect, restore, and sustain marine and freshwater organisms and ecosystems on Sea Country.