Recasting traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) in pastoralist systems: the detection of creeping crises

I

For me, the best starting point on the above topic is the literature review and analysis of in A. Sharifian, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, H. T. Wario, Z. Molnár, and M. Cabeza (2022) “Dynamics of pastoral traditional ecological knowledge: a global state-of-the-art review” Ecology and Society 27(1):14 https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12918-270114.

They conclude in part:

Notwithstanding the number of studies on pastoral TEK, our review showed that knowledge erosion may be the dominant type of knowledge transition occurring among pastoralists worldwide. However, knowledge adaptation and hybridization were shown to be critical in the implementation of solutions to new social- ecological challenges in many areas of the world, despite the fact that they continue to be under-researched. Changes in pastoral TEK are caused by many interwoven drivers. Although documentation of pastoral TEK in scientific papers and reports is a helpful start, safeguarding pastoral TEK requires a fundamental shift across sectors in how such knowledge systems are recognized, affirmed, and sustained. We argue that research on pastoral TEK could help advance policy on pastoralism (e.g., by highlighting the ways in which pastoralism contributes to planetary sustainability, and the contexts that facilitate or undermine such contributions). More specifically, research on TEK dynamics could bring into focus the different transition types and help avoid the common mischaracterization of all knowledge changes as symptoms of vulnerability and loss.

To repeat: Yes, TEK has been eroded, but to leave it at that is very much to mischaracterize what has been and is happening. Cases of adaptation and hybridization are also documented, the authors insist.

I want to suggest that cases of recasting this knowledge also merit attention. For example, terms like “traditional,” “indigenous” and even “local” knowledge do not adequately capture, I believe, the unique ability of some pastoralists to recognize systemwide patterns and formulate local scenarios so as to ensure provision of reliable (safe and continuous) pastoralist services, at least in real time (Roe 2020). Here I want to suggest another, but related, way of looking at TEK, this time from the crisis management literature.

II

Creeping crises have come into clearer focus during the last two decades (‘t Hart and Boin 2001; Boin, Ekengren and Rhinard 2020). Think of the Covid-19 pandemic, the overprescription of antibiotics, and the lead-up to the now Climate Emergency. Boin et al define these crises as follows:

A creeping crisis is a threat to widely shared societal values or life‐sustaining systems that evolves over time and space, is foreshadowed by precursor events, subject to varying degrees of political and/or societal attention, and impartially or insufficiently addressed by authorities.

(accessed online at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/rhc3.12193)

Boin et al focus on a number of problems in catching these crises in time. A particular one is that of detection:

But it appears that the early phases of these creeping crises, when damage potential is building, are not always easy to detect. What we need are indicators of escalation and damage potential (some researchers speak of “precursor events”). . .

I want to suggest that TEK among some pastoralists is not an entire knowledge base, static or evolving, as much as it is a sub-set of detection practices activated because drought is always a creeping crisis waiting to happen, if not actually happening.

Knowing-how to catch precursor events is a special kind of knowledge and, more, its key is detection–not just identifying but also responding to–those precursors. Detecting when to move herds, detecting where wildlife are, detecting what are better grazing and water options, and detecting how to do all this and more in real time are ways in which the threat potential of dry seasons–and by extension, droughts–are managed.

III

So what? Even where it is true that “animals can sense, and in some instances, detect inconsistencies, changes, and occurrences in their surroundings and thereby predict coming climate events” (Hassan, Stites and Howe 2024), there can be no guarantees of detecting such in time. What then is the added purchase of seeing TEK as a special kind of knowing-how around that “detect”?

My answer returns us to the Sharifian et al quote above. The sentence that follows–and with which they conclude their fine review–is:

By focusing on knowledge hybridization and adaptation, future research efforts could pay justice to the immense and powerful cultural continuity that is a hallmark of pastoral societies worldwide, and affirm their ongoing struggles to foster social- ecological resilience over the long run.

That continuity is also immensely and powerfully sociotechnical. The constant search for better detection practices, at least among some pastoralists, shows why. By way of follow-on, I would appreciate any references to pastoralist literature, such as in Hassan et al, that centers on or discusses practices/processes of detection explicitly.

---

Other sources.

‘t Hart, P. and A. Boin (2001). “Between Crisis and Normalcy: The Long Shadow of Post‐Crisis Politics.” In Managing Crises: Threats, Dilemmas, Opportunities, eds. U. Rosenthal, A. Boin, and L. C. Comfort. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Hassan, R., E. Stites, and P. Howe (2024). Pastoralists’ Perspectives on Early Warning, Anticipatory Action, and Emergency Response. Boston: Feinstein International Center, Tufts University.

Roe, E. (2020). A New Policy Narrative for Pastoralism? Pastoralists as Reliability Professionals and Pastoralist Systems as Infrastructure, STEPS Working Paper 113, Brighton: STEPS Centre.

My special thanks to Saverio Krätli for the useful tips.