1. Early and Continued Engagement
Our projects emphasise that partnerships with Indigenous Peoples and local communities should begin early and continue throughout the research process.

Engagement should go beyond simple consultation.

For our project in Panama, for example, the proposed research emerged from a year-long consultation process, grounded in a much longer-standing relationship between one project partner and an Indigenous council².

In Ethiopia, ongoing dialogue between researchers and communities strengthened mutual understanding and helped reduce the risk of misconceptions³. A similar approach was taken by our researchers in Madagascar, where Indigenous Peoples and local communities were regularly updated on research progress and invited to evaluate the successes and challenges⁴.

2. Community-Led Research Framing

Much social and natural science research starts with a tightly defined set of research questions, the framing of which is usually led solely by researchers. Our projects demonstrate how this approach must be reconfigured to accommodate IPLCs perspectives and needs.

Experiences from Colombia highlight that meaningful engagement in research needs to be about more than just involving IPLCs in data collection – it begins with co-creating meaningful research questions that matter to the communities themselves⁵. This is supported by work in Indonesia which suggests that engagement with IPLCs is dependent on research questions being informed and shaped by them from the outset⁶.

The process of defining research questions can potentially be complex, as research in Peru and Ecuador reveals. Farmer-led research often follows its own logic and pace in ways that differ from formal institutional projects⁷.

Yet, experience from Ecuador and Viet Nam suggests that ultimately communities are more willing to engage in research activities when research agendas and research questions align with their needs.

3. Informed Consent

In our work with IPLCs, consent, often expressed as Free, Prior, Informed Consent (FPIC), is a fundamental principle – and sometimes legal requirement. For example, for a project working in Malaysia, engagement is based on a voluntary agreement made with full knowledge of the project’s scope, purpose, risks, and benefits⁹.

Gaining consent is not always a quick process. In Cambodia, trust and flexibility were required to gain consent and community support for the project. As a result, communities valued the opportunity to determine the project’s focus and to highlight the importance of their own knowledge¹⁰.

In some cases, FPIC is not just as an ethical necessity but also of practical importance too. For instance, a project in Ecuador found it fundamental for reinforcing community confidence and fostering long-term collaboration¹¹.

4. Communications and Transparency

Good communication with IPLCs emerged as a key attribute of project implementation. Our project in Guatemala detailed communication’s importance for a range of project needs including how information is to be used, how impartiality in data collection is assured, and how communities retain decision-making power over research that affects them¹².

The importance of communications tailored to specific groups was highlighted by one of our projects in Ethiopia that used communication approaches specifically designed for different groups to ensure gender and social inclusivity¹³.

However, good communication goes beyond the flow of information between researchers and IPLCs. Experiences in Colombia and the Dominican Republic suggest that projects can also act as a communication channel between members of the community¹⁴. 

5. Power Dynamics

Attention to power dynamics was important across various contexts. In Malaysia this required awareness of researchers’ own effect on those dynamics and the need to continually reflect on their power and impact on IPLCs¹⁵.

In Malawi and Uganda, power was a consideration in the implementation of fieldwork, where workshops required taking language and social dynamics into account to encourage the engagement of community members¹⁶.

Understanding power dynamics was also critical in relation to outcomes and ownership with our project in Peru. This highlighted the important role of good facilitators in ensuring that project participants, including women, whose involvement may be constrained by household power dynamics, can take ownership of the research and engage with confidence¹⁷.

‘One aspect of the project is to examine local governance structures and their power dynamics to support the effectiveness and equity of forest restoration in relation to local communities’¹⁸.

6. Traditional Knowledge

One of the core delivery principles of all GCBC projects is the requirement to consider and integrate local and Indigenous knowledge into research. It is therefore unsurprising that this was prominent in the approaches of our projects. A few selected responses variously show how Indigenous and local knowledge has made fundamental contributions.

In Ethiopia it was found that community members were more willing to collaborate when their knowledge was treated as important and central¹⁹. Whilst for a project in Colombia, the belief that IPLCs hold valuable knowledge was considered the starting point for the project²⁰.

From another project in Colombia, there is recognition that Indigenous and local knowledge has transformed the way the project is conceptualised and supported²¹. In Indonesia it was noted that understanding food and land management practices led to a better appreciation of how food security is currently addressed²².

7. Shared Benefits

The production of knowledge through research alone does not guarantee that Indigenous Peoples and local communities will benefit. Ensuring that communities gain from the process is therefore a key challenge for GCBC projects. For example, a project in Ecuador found that community engagement deepens when they perceive direct, equitable benefits, such as training and technical assistance²³. 

In the Cham Islands in Viet Nam the project has learnt that engagement requires continuous consultation, mutual trust, and tangible local benefits²⁴. Training was also noted from Kenya as one of various tangible short-term benefits that could strengthen participation whilst longer term project outcomes were yet to be delivered²⁵.

“We believe that IPLCs should benefit tangibly and intangibly from our research”²⁶.

8. Trust

Beyond the specific points noted above, a particular issue permeates and unites the responses. That issue is trust. Many of the responses were, explicitly or implicitly, about how trust is built between researchers and communities and how trust leads to better research outcomes.

• • • Building trust is essential; this means recognising community knowledge systems, ensuring transparent communication and co-developing research goals²⁷.
    • An emerging insight from the first stakeholder workshop is that successful integration of traditional and scientific knowledge depends on long-term dialogue andtrust-building²⁸.
    • Securing the genuine engagement of local and Indigenous communities requires creating relationships grounded in mutualtrust, cultural respect, and continuous communication²⁹.
    • Field visits and workshops, where researchers listen before proposing solutions, have also been essential to build trust and gain a better understanding of real-world challenges farmers are faced with³⁰.
    • Trust has been built through regular consultations with local fishers and community representatives on seagrass habitats, ensuring their knowledge informs research design and monitoring³¹.