The sustainability transition - Environmental and Human Security in the Arctic - page 91

socio-ecological systems is severely limited, there is also ample reason to con-
clude that other types of knowledge have much to contribute to our efforts
to navigate the sustainability transition. Consider the case of indigenous or
traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) as an illustration (Berkes 1999). TEK
is largely experiential, typically place-based and generally long on diachronic
or longitudinal observations. Those who possess such knowledge may not be
able to generalize across a range of situations involving coupled human/natu-
ral systems, but they are often able to say a lot about the behaviour of specific
socio-ecological systems over comparatively long periods of time. Knowledge
of this type is often holistic, despite the fact that it does not rest on the
sort of systematic observations that constitute a hallmark of Western science.
Grafting TEK onto scientific analyses is apt to be a losing proposition. At
best, such efforts provide certain data that are useful from a scientific point
of view. Often, the result is a highly unequal encounter in which the most
important insights of TEK are lost.
From the perspective of policymaking, the lesson here is that the contri-
butions of different types of knowledge should be embraced on their own
terms and that there is much to be said for establishing multiple channels
rather than endeavouring to assimilate other types of knowledge into a single
stream labelled 'science'. Our ability to forecast the behaviour of dynamic
socio-ecological systems is limited; policymakers will have to cope with rela-
tively high levels of uncertainty under the best of circumstances. In such a
setting, it makes sense to take advantage of insights arising from different
sorts of knowledge in weighing the pros and cons of a range of policy options.
When these insights converge in the sense of producing similar assessments of
the relative merits of individual options, policymakers can have greater confi-
dence in proceeding to make their choices. In contrast, when the assessments
flowing from different types of knowledge diverge, policymakers will want to
be particularly careful in weighing the relative merits of the options available
to them. The cautionary implications of divergence may prove just as valuable
to the policy process as the confidence-building implications of convergence.
Devise effective responses to uncertainty
Despite our best efforts, high levels of uncertainty constitute a fact of life in
efforts to manage coupled human/natural systems. Recasting our thinking
about ecosystems to consider turbulent and often non-linear processes is hard
enough. But, when we add in the central role of human actions as driving
forces in socio-ecological systems, an appreciation of the critical role of uncer-
tainty is unavoidable. Of course, science strives to reduce uncertainty, and
there is a convincing case for providing strong support for scientific work that
can reduce the impact of uncertainty in this realm. But it is pointless to cling
to naive hopes in this context. Despite our best efforts to reduce uncertainty,
there is no escaping the fact that decision making under uncertainty is, and