Maria Tengö saw in the north of Thailand that scientists can learn a thing or two from indigenous peoples. “People from the local Hin Lad Nai community reported keeping certain types of wild bees in hives. Scientists said: that doesn’t exist, those bees cannot be kept in hives. Until they saw it with their own eyes.”
In addition to scientific knowledge, there are also other sources of knowledge to solve environmental problems, says Tengö, who gave her inaugural speech in mid-November as professor by special appointment of human-nature relations in the Anthropocene at Wageningen University & Research. She tries to bring these sources together and let them talk to each other. In East Africa, India, Brazil, Thailand and Sweden. She wants to initiate a transformation.
Because, she says, nature is declining worldwide. She cites Ipbes, the United Nations scientific biodiversity panel. Nearly half of all ecosystems on land and in the sea have been seriously affected by human activity over the past fifty years, analyzed the Ipbes in 2019. Plants and animals are dying out at an accelerated rate. A central driver of this decline, according to Ipbes, is the dominant worldview in which man places himself above nature and uses nature at will. Short-term profit and economic growth are central. To reverse the decline, that dominant worldview must change, wrote the Ipbes last year.
Do you think it is possible to change that dominant image?
“The current model is unsustainable. We see this in all the problems it causes. We must explore alternatives, even if we don’t know where we will end up. Then I am not just thinking of technical solutions, such as artificial meat. But also opportunities to change that dominant worldview. There are other ways of looking at and interacting with nature. Indigenous peoples can offer us inspiration. You can already find alternatives in countries such as Sweden and the Netherlands. There are many initiatives to combine agriculture and nature again. Or consider the rewilding movement, which is bringing large grazers and hunters such as the wolf back into the landscape.
“With my chair I want to join such initiatives. I want to facilitate dialogues and encounters that highlight other aspects of our relationship with nature than just that resource-think.”
Do indigenous peoples deal better with nature?
“Research shows that they live on more than a quarter of the world’s land, and these areas are home to 80 percent of all biodiversity. Indigenous peoples do not live solely from nature, as is the case in that dominant worldview. But also with and in nature. They see themselves as part of it.”
Is science open to indigenous knowledge?
“A major barrier is the idea that science must validate and validate indigenous and local knowledge. You get an unequal power relationship. But they are different knowledge systems. Indigenous knowledge is more holistic. In northern Tanzania, where I did my PhD research, the land is managed as an ecosystem. Scientists who came to measure yields only looked at the two main crops, corn and beans, and said: mmm, that’s disappointing. While vegetables such as pumpkin were also grown. And herbs, which scientists labeled as weeds. In addition, there was barter with the lowlands, where the soil is more fertile, but where there are also more frequent periods of drought. The system therefore also takes food security into account.
“The imbalance of power can ensure that someone with local knowledge does not dare to contradict a scientist. He may also have difficulty transferring the knowledge. That is why walking workshops are so important. You go out with the different groups. If you are where it happens, you can explain everything much better than in an office. The scientist sees it with his own eyes. He can ask much more specific questions: why did you plant that plant there and not here?”
What is important then?
“There must be respect for each other’s knowledge. And you must dare to address and explore the source of tensions and conflicts. This is often avoided.”
And does that work?
“Things still often go wrong. I am reminded of the example of Northern Thailand that I mentioned at the beginning. There, indigenous people practiced rotational agriculture, alternating crops in forested areas. But in the 1990s, the trees were felled, with government permission. Most villages switched to other forms of agriculture, except three villages, which wanted to restore the forest, based on the principles of rotational agriculture. That worked out beautifully. The forest has returned. They grow rice in part of the area. They have rotation fields where they grow something for 2 or 3 years and then leave it fallow for a while. There are fruit trees and coffee mixed in the forest. The entire system is rich in biodiversity and very productive.
“It was nice to see how scientists responded to it. Because they usually value such a restored forest less than a primary forest. But they had fun, were impressed by the stories. And what did the government do next? He wants to designate the area as a nature reserve. And that means people have to get out. Because that is another example of the problematic view of man and nature: that they should be separated. You thereby deny that we are dependent on nature. And that people and nature can work together.”
In the Netherlands there is great pressure on agriculture to change. Less focus on production, more nature. How do you view that?
“In Sweden we are moving in the same direction. That change is desperately needed. But also difficult, because the government has been steering the agricultural system towards more production for decades. And now she is hitting the farmers for going in this harmful direction. That is not very constructive. Mutual respect and dialogue are fundamental if you want to move forward.”
Are you also going to give lectures to your Wageningen students in the open air?
“That is already happening in Wageningen, and I agree with that. It is also explicitly encouraged by the Natuurcollege foundation, which established my chair.”
And do you have any tips for looking at nature differently?
“The first step is to reflect on your own assumptions and realize that they run very deep.”