Indigenous peoples in Canada score far worse on indicators of well-being than the general public due to historical and ongoing processes of colonisation. It is also well recognised that Indigenous peoples are the most impacted and vulnerable populations affected by climate change. Currently proposed climate change ‘solutions’ are derived from the same Western colonial mindset which caused the crisis in the first place, so it is logical that we look for alternative approaches. Indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) have allowed Indigenous peoples to survive centuries of environmental degradation brought about by European colonisation, as well as thrive for millennia. International declarations have specifically recognised the potential of IKS to help alleviate climate and other environmental crises. Indigenous peoples must therefore be enabled to undergo decolonisation processes, so that we may all benefit from the revitalisation of Indigenous ways of relating to the Earth in mutually beneficial ways.

The IPCC has begun to acknowledge, albeit slowly, the importance of Indigenous knowledge (IK) systems in contributing to understandings of climate change and effective climate action. Yet Indigenous Peoples (IPs) and IK systems remain largely excluded and marginalised from the IPCC global assessment reports. IPCC scientists and leaders have a unique and specific obligation to IK systems that does not extend to other knowledge systems. IK is the knowledge of rights holders and therefore acknowledging and respecting the self-determination of IPs over their knowledge – including how it is used, interpreted, and synthesised – is imperative. There are examples of IPs organising themselves in other international spaces that could inform how the IPCC can approach a stronger, more durable engagement with IPs. Perhaps the ultimate challenge for the IPCC is that when bringing IK systems together with other knowledge systems, the framing of evidence must reflect the diversity of these distinct and discrete ways of knowing. Examples from the lived experience of the Inuit Circumpolar Council in engaging with the IPCC demonstrate diverse channels for engagement, yet significant limitations persist.

This chapter is concerned with the potential role of African languages in current-day information communication systems contributing to the creation of local knowledge societies. The characteristics of the concepts Information Society and Knowledge Society as well as criteria for defining these concepts are discussed. This will take place against the backdrop of international assessments of the status and development of African countries being transformed to knowledge societies. The role of language in the creation of knowledge societies is highlighted referring to the impact of the Internet as one of the mediators of knowledge. In many postcolonial countries, an awareness of local knowledge has given rise to the acknowledgement of Indigenous Knowledge Systems, which in principle strive towards the expression of knowledge in a particular vernacular. It is argued that while it is absolutely necessary to capture and disseminate particular types of knowledge in local languages, it is equally important to open up these troves of knowledge to global societies. The final section focuses on the nature of digital resources and the potential role of Digital Humanities (DH) and language technologies in the creation of new knowledge, and the scope it provides for new types of research moving away from traditional research paradigms in the humanities and social sciences.

Mobilising indigenous and local knowledge systems has the potential to make their critical knowledge about landscapes and biodiversity meaningful as evidence in conservation and governance. Collaborative approaches to conservation must be equitable and just to be effective in the long term. The Multiple Evidence Base (MEB) is an inclusive approach to combining diverse sources of evidence. We review uptake of the MEB approach and its application in science and policy–practice processes and present three cases using this approach. These demonstrate synergies between indigenous and local knowledge and conservation science and how cross-fertilisation leads to stronger partnerships and better outcomes. However, this depends on recognition of the complementarity and respect for the integrity of diverse knowledge systems. The cases also illustrate ways to create conditions for dialogue and navigating power inequalities and cultural differences in knowledge partnerships. Ultimately, the MEB approach contributes to a conceptual mindshift to mobilise all useful knowledge for maintaining the life-supporting ecosystems on Earth.