Why Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) is critical for high quality Nature-based Solutions
Why does Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) matter? Read some of the top insights from the latest Climate Resilient by Nature learning program, ahead of the upcoming webinar.
If you work in climate adaptation, conservation or community development, chances are you’ve heard Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) talked about a lot more in recent years. And that’s a good thing.
But let’s be honest — too often, TEK still shows up as a nice extra. Something to “integrate” into projects that are otherwise designed, governed and timed somewhere else.
New research from the Climate Resilient by Nature (CRxN) Learning Program makes this really clear: that approach doesn’t work.
High‑integrity Nature‑based Solutions (NbS) aren’t just about what we do in ecosystems. They’re about how decisions are made, who holds power, and whether stewardship actually lasts once a project ends. That’s exactly why TEK matters so much.
First: TEK isn’t “local data” - it’s a living governance system
One of the most important points found through our research is that TEK isn’t simply a collection of observations about seasons, species, soils, or water. TEK is a cumulative, intergenerational, place-based system that includes ecological knowledge, customary law and institutions, cultural values and spiritual responsibilities, and governance structures that regulate access, use, and care. In other words, TEK includes both knowledge and authority. The research says this plainly: when you separate knowledge from decision making power, you aren’t “using TEK” - you’re extracting information. ‑based system that includes‑making power, you aren’t “using TEK”
That matters because NbS are inherently political. When projects bring in outside expertise and keep decision making external (while “integrating” TEK as an input), NbS can inadvertently reproduce the same colonial dynamics that have historically dispossessed Indigenous Peoples and undermined local governance. ‑making external
Second: TEK is what makes NbS work - ecologically and socially
The research finds consistent evidence across Australia, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific that NbS centred on TEK and embedded in Indigenous/community governance deliver more durable outcomes across biodiversity, climate adaptation, and livelihoods. Why? Because TEK improves NbS quality in four big ways:
It improves ecological “fit” - TEK is deeply specific to place- local soils, water cycles, species behaviour, seasonal variability, and disturbance regimes. That helps NbS avoid generic, one-size-fits-all models that fail once conditions shift. ‑size‑fits‑all models that fail once conditions
It strengthens legitimacy and compliance - Where customary governance is strong, NbS are often extensions of existing stewardship institutions, not external projects imposed on top of them. That legitimacy drives stronger participation, monitoring, and long-term rule enforcement. ‑term rule enforcement.
It supports cultural continuity (which is an enabling condition for stewardship) - Biodiversity outcomes are tied to the survival of languages, cultural practices, and governance systems that carry ecological knowledge. Cultural continuity is not a “co-benefit” - it’s part of the machinery of stewardship.‑benefit”
It shifts power (and that shift improves outcomes) - “Biocultural NbS” are defined not by project type, but by who holds authority. The research distinguishes NbS that treat communities as knowledge contributors to external objectives, versus NbS where communities are rightsholders and decision-makers shaping objectives, trade-offs, implementation, and monitoring. That difference drives better equity and stronger sustainability. ‑holders and ‑offs,
Third: The real risk is recognising TEK without shifting power
One of the sharpest warnings in the research is that NbS can fail - or cause harm - when TEK is acknowledged but not empowered. That includes situations where TEK is documented without clear consent and governance; communities are consulted but not resourced, projects are built around donor timelines, not ecological timeframes; benefit sharing is vague, inequitable, or externally defined; and monitoring focuses only on biophysical metrics while missing governance and cultural impacts.‑sharing is vague, inequitable, or externally defined
The research repeatedly returns to a simple truth: participation without power is tokenism, and tokenism undermines both justice and effectiveness.
So, what should practitioners do?
For those of us designing and delivering NbS — especially across Australia, Southeast Asia and the Pacific — the implications are pretty clear.
Start with rights, tenure and authority. Before jumping into activities, we need to understand who holds rights to land and water, which institutions govern stewardship, and where decision‑making authority really sits.
Co‑design early — not after the concept note is locked in. Objectives, trade‑offs, benefit‑sharing and success measures need to be shaped with communities from the start.
Treat FPIC as a process, not paperwork. Consent needs to be revisited as projects evolve, and properly resourced with time, accessibility and facilitation.
Align finance and timelines with stewardship. TEK operates on intergenerational timeframes. Short project cycles create real risks. Durable NbS need longer‑term, flexible support for Indigenous‑ and community‑led institutions.
And finally, measure what makes NbS last. That means tracking governance quality, equity, cultural continuity and knowledge transmission — not just biophysical outputs.
Indigenous/local leadership structures. ‑quality NbS monitoring must include cultural continuity, governance quality, equity, and intergenerational transmission‑defined with TEK holders and reported through Indigenous/local leadership structures.
A simple way to remember it
If TEK is central, communities are not just participants - they are decision-makers. If TEK is central, culture is not a co-benefit - it is an enabling condition. And if TEK is central, NbS are not “delivered” by outsiders - they are strengthened through Indigenous and community stewardship systems that already exist.
At the end of the day, high‑integrity NbS are a governance choice. And the research is clear: when authority, rights and knowledge stay together, NbS are more legitimate, more resilient, and far more likely to endure
Want to learn more? Register for our upcoming webinar on why Traditional Ecological Knowledge Matters on Thursday, May 14, 3:00 PM - 4:30 PM.