Community-based monitoring of Indigenous food security in a changing climate: global trends and future directions

Enhancing the resilience of different food systems to climate change via monitoring is an important global health opportunity of the 21st century [1]. Through routine monitoring and assessments of climate-related risks and their interplay with food security, along with linking early warnings to early responses, food and nutrition crises can be better managed [2, 3]. Such efforts are especially crucial now as climate change increasingly challenges food security⁸ [4, 5]. Changes in extreme weather events [6, 7], temperature and rainfall variability [8, 9], and sea level [10], threaten food security by decreasing global food production and increasing the risk of hunger and undernutrition [3, 11]. Projections indicate these food-related health impacts will far exceed all other climate-related health risks [12]. The effects of climate change on food systems are expected to be widespread, complex, and variable, both geographically and temporally [13]. Investing in food systems adaptation to climate change across scales, particularly via monitoring, decreases the risks and uncertainties for food and health systems [14].

The impacts of climate change will not be evenly distributed [16], with Indigenous peoples⁹ facing complex challenges to their food systems [17, 18]. Food systems encompass a number of activities which give rise to a number of food security outcomes (i.e. stability of food access, utilization, and availability); we use the term 'Indigenous food systems' to refer to systems of production, process, distribution, and consumption, which are specific to particular geographic regions [19, 20]. Several factors make Indigenous food systems particular sensitive to climate change impacts. These include: histories and ongoing pressures of colonialism and land dispossession that have disconnected Indigenous peoples from their land and local knowledge of food practices [21, 22], high burden of existing food security challenges [18], structural inequities characterized by lack of access to land and other resources [23–25], and habitation in areas undergoing rapid environmental change, biodiversity loss, and competing demands for land for food production [26]. Indeed, Indigenous communities in many countries tend to be more food insecure than their non-Indigenous counterparts [27–29]; for example, Indigenous peoples in the United States including American Indians and Alaska Natives were twice as likely to be food insecure compared to non-Indigenous peoples [30]. Around 97% of Indigenous Batwa households in Uganda were found to be food insecure, which was substantially higher than the national Ugandan average of 20% [31]. Furthermore, Indigenous peoples often have close relationships with the environment for subsistence; as such, even subtle changes in the environment can have large impacts on their food security [32, 33], including reducing access to, and availability of, Indigenous foods [34, 35].

A food security monitoring system can help reduce climate change impacts on vulnerable food systems [37]. The information captured by the monitoring system can be used for several purposes: to contribute to monitoring the implementation of international commitments (e.g. Sustainable Development Goals, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Paris Agreement); to identify vulnerable areas; to serve as an early warning system for impending food crises [38–40]; and, to inform climate change adaptation¹⁰ strategies [41, 42]. However, such monitoring systems currently face several major challenges. Due to the diverse conceptualizations of food security, measurement tools, and intended uses of information, it is often not clear what exactly is being assessed when we measure food security [43]. Secondly, food security monitoring is typically done through population-based surveys at the national level [2, 40, 44]. These surveys are generally not designed to provide nuanced understandings of food security among populations, do not adequately engage with Indigenous communities [44–46], and are not appropriate for understanding food security of certain population groups [39, 47]. For example, a widely used and adapted income-based measure, the Household Food Security Survey Module does not capture Indigenous food cultures [48, 49]; instead, it presents a static snapshot of food security even though Indigenous food systems vary substantially by household and season [17]. Finally, measures of attributing food security challenges to climate change are not well-developed [50, 51]; thus, it is not clear whether challenges are due to climate change or other factors. Yet, overcoming these challenges is key to understanding current and projected food security and climate-related food shocks [2].

Community-based monitoring (CBM) is often considered a promising strategy to improve monitoring of, and local adaptation to, environmental change [52–54]. CBM is an approach whereby groups collaborate to track and respond to issues of common community concern [52]. This approach can take several forms ranging from community-directed monitoring initiatives originating from communities' interests and needs to initiatives that simply involve communities in data collection [55]. Similarly, the potential benefits of CBM also vary, including: improved understanding of long-term trends; reduced cost of research by leveraging existing infrastructure; skills development and employment opportunities for local monitors; and provision of timely and relevant information for local decision-making [53, 56, 57]. Moreover, as many Indigenous communities have been monitoring the environment for centuries [58, 59], there are opportunities to use both Indigenous and Western knowledge systems in CBM to develop a deeper understanding of pressures on the environment as they arise [60]. CBM can be a key component of community-based adaptation by working with Indigenous communities and knowledge systems to prepare for the food-related health impacts of climate change [61].

Considering the promise of CBM, the disproportionate food security challenges experienced by Indigenous communities, and the high sensitivity of Indigenous food systems to climate change, the goal of our review was to understand and learn from how CBM has been used globally to track and respond to Indigenous food security and climate-related food challenges. Specifically, our objectives were to review and synthesize the published literature on CBM of Indigenous food security in a climate change context. In doing so, we accumulate the knowledge and experiences of developing, implementing, and evaluating CBM systems worldwide. Moreover, we highlight how Indigenous food security monitoring is different from general food security monitoring. This is a step toward informing community-based adaptation efforts for addressing food security challenges of Indigenous communities worldwide.

We examined the published literature using a systematic review methodology for climate change adaptation outlined by Berrang-Ford et al (2015) involving a stepwise process of selection, extraction, analysis, and synthesis of the literature [62]. To guide our review and synthesis of trends and gaps, we posed the following question: What does the published literature tell us about Indigenous CBM of food security in the context of climate change?

Search strategy

Citation management

Relevance screening and eligibility

Data extraction and synthesis

Overview of relevant articles

There were 3986 articles identified through the database search (figure 1). After removal of duplicates and non-relevant articles, and the addition of articles from reference lists, a total of 86 articles were included. See supplementary file for the full list of included articles and selected article characteristics. The inter-rater reliability for title/abstract article screening and full-text article screening was 0.80 and 0.71, respectively, indicating 'substantial agreement' [64].

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

Diversity of approaches to CBM of Indigenous food security

Most studies were published in the past decade and were primarily from Canada

Initially, there was a limited the number of articles published following 2001, when articles were first found. The number of publications increased more than two-fold from 2013 onwards. The majority of reviewed articles reported on CBM in North America (n = 32), followed by South America (n = 24), Australia and Oceania (n = 11), Africa (n = 6), and Asia (n = 4) (figure 2). Several studies were conducted across multiple continents (n = 9). Among the 31 studies published in North America, most were from Canada (n = 28). There was also a varied distribution of Indigenous group representation, with most studies focused on Indigenous groups in Canada (n = 28), specifically First Nations (n = 12), Inuit (n = 10), and multiple groups (n = 6). Studies also focused on Indigenous groups of South America (n = 25), specifically multiple groups (n = 10), Kaxinawa (n = 3), Isoseno-Guarani (n = 3), Waiwai (n = 1), Xerente (n = 1), Makushi (n = 1), Matsigenka (n = 1), Kitchwa (n = 2), Purepecha (n = 1), Andean (n = 1), and Amerindian (n = 1). There were some articles on multiple groups from different continents (n = 9), Indigenous groups of Oceania (n = 11), Indigenous groups of Africa (n = 6), Indigenous groups of Asia (n = 4), and Native Americans (n = 3).

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

Wildlife was a prominent type of food monitored

More articles focused on men's participation in monitoring

Climate change indicators were rarely assessed in CBM

More than half (56%) of studies (n = 48) explicitly mentioned climate change in the context of food security (figure 3). There was no clear trend over time to suggest a general movement towards increasing consideration of climate change in articles. While the majority of articles mentioned climate change as justification for pursuing CBM, a limited number of articles (n = 8) described the implementation/evaluation of a community-based food security monitoring system including climate change indicators. The studies that did consider climate change were mostly situated in Arctic regions [71, 75–78]; for example, a study in Alaska employed a participatory CBM system to explore environmental conditions likely associated with climate change, health, and food security outcomes [76]. In another study, an integrated CBM system in Nunavik, Canada tracked climatic and ice conditions to support safe access to land and other resources [71].

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

Varying degrees of Indigenous community engagement in monitoring

This paper systematically examines trends in peer-reviewed publications on CBM. We found the number of articles on CBM of Indigenous food security were limited but growing. Since 2013, there has been an increase in the number of publications on this topic by more than two-fold. This trend is consistent with previous studies on broader environmental CBM [52, 69] and reflects the need to include different sources of knowledge and different knowledge users in monitoring efforts, instead of conventional monitoring approaches which are typically externally driven [55, 94]. Furthermore, the increasing interest in CBM is part of a broader trend around the need to address the disproportionate food security and climate change impacts often experienced by Indigenous communities globally [18, 27–29]. The articles captured in this review mainly reported on CBM in North America, and specifically Canada. This finding could be explained by the current and projected severity of climate change impacts in the Arctic (such as Arctic Canada) compared to the rest of world [95], and the need to understand and address such impacts through CBM. Indeed, there has been a significant growth in research on, and funding for climate change in Canada's North [33]. This geographic distribution of articles also highlights gaps in CBM research in many regions where community-level vulnerability is thought to be significant, particularly in low- and middle-income regions such as Africa and Asia. Gaps could point to a lack of resources or priority for CBM research in these regions; however, it is possible that CBM is occurring in these regions, but do not engage with Indigenous communities specifically, nor include research components to CBM, and thus may not be documented in published journals. Nevertheless, climate change impacts on Indigenous food systems is a global phenomenon [17], and this review highlights potential gaps where CBM could be further developed and implemented.

Approximately one third of the reviewed articles provided gender-disaggregated data; this research gap results in an incomplete understanding of how Indigenous women, men, and gender-diverse people may differentially participate in, and experience CBM. We encourage authors and journal editors to integrate assessment of gender into all manuscripts [67]. Among the articles that provided gender-disaggregated data, all articles highlighted the perspectives of both women and men in the design of the monitoring system. When examining the implementation of the monitoring system, articles generally emphasized participation of men only or both men and women. The quality of participation or reasons for participation were unclear due to lack of reporting in these articles; however, the predominant focus on men in monitoring efforts could be due to the role of many Indigenous men in hunting, fishing, and natural resource management in several contexts [85, 87, 91]. Challenges to women's participation in, and benefit from, monitoring efforts could be due to failure to recognize and address gendered power imbalances in project objectives or inadequate considerations of gender in the program design [96, 97]. A better understanding of the gendered nature of CBM, as well as the relationship between climate, food, and gender, are important for planning and designing a CBM system that reflect gender equity. Critically, an examination of the underlying social-cultural-political processes that determine differential gender exposure and sensitivity to climate change and adaptive capacity, as well as gender equity in monitoring is recommended [98].

Considering the history of unethical research conducted on and not with Indigenous communities [99, 100], there is increasing demand for the recognition of Indigenous peoples' contributions and knowledge in the context of research [101], including climate change research [102, 103]. Prioritizing collaborative publications is an emerging avenue for acknowledging Indigenous peoples' contributions to research [104]. While Indigenous peoples' observations of climate change are increasingly reported in the published literature [105], we found the inclusion of Indigenous peoples as co-authors did not appear to follow the same trend. We found less than half (42%) of reviewed articles on CBM had a co-author with an affiliation to an Indigenous organization or community. If a monitoring system is community-led and community-based, there is a need to consider whether co-authorship is appropriate, recognizing that some community members may request not to be authors for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, steps need to be taken to avoid risks including tokenistic inclusion, implied support for findings, and misappropriation of knowledge [104, 106]. Multiple evidence-based (MEB) approaches offer a way forward for Indigenous and non-Indigenous collaborators to work together in developing CBM systems that respects and reflects different contributions [107]. MEB approaches view Indigenous, local, and scientific knowledge systems as generating different manifestations of knowledge, that when viewed as complementary, can generate new insights to support decision-making and action [59]. MEB approaches are recognized under the Convention for Biodiversity as a way of ensuring equitable participation of diverse knowledge systems in monitoring biodiversity targets [59], as well as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services to enhance understanding of governance of biodiversity and ecosystems [108]. The Paris Agreement article 7.5 also supports MEB approaches by acknowledging adaptation action 'should be based on and guided by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional knowledge, knowledge of indigenous [sic] peoples and local knowledge systems, with a view to integrating adaptation into relevant socioeconomic and environmental policies and actions, where appropriate' [109, p. 25].

Variations in the level of Indigenous community engagement in CBM were observed. Articles on CBM of Indigenous food security were mostly classified as either collaborative monitoring (51%) or externally driven monitoring (37%). This finding is consistent with a review of environmental CBM in the Arctic region which found that 47% of systems involved community members in collaboration while 30% involved community members in data collection only [53]. The higher number of articles describing collaborative monitoring could be explained by the broader trend of engaging Indigenous communities in research and monitoring practices, whereas externally-driven monitoring is likely influenced by conventional, government or researcher implemented monitoring approaches [110], as well as requests by Indigenous communities for external monitoring support [53, 94]. However, successful CBM generally occurs when communities monitor things they personally connect with and care about, rather than for externally-driven needs [111, 112]. Moreover, in the context of climate research, studies initiated with and by Indigenous community members tend to indicate more responsible community engagement than studies initiative by outside researchers alone [113]. Community engagement is also important for generating local ownership and understandings of environmental change, and to facilitate the development of local climate change adaptation responses [114].

We reviewed the articles that described the implementation of CBM and found less than half of these articles reported evaluation findings. The limited focus on evaluation could be explained by challenges of evaluating climate change adaptation programs and policies including assessing attribution, creating baselines, absence of measurable outcomes, and monitoring over long time horizons [51, 115]. Climate change adaptation is also a relatively new field with little consensus on what constitutes effective adaptation, and how the success of adaptation efforts should best be measured [116]. Nevertheless, in the context of CBM, it is important that communities and researchers work together towards a consensus to ensure that CBM is translated into responses to address climate change impacts and enhance food systems resilience. Evaluations of CBM can also help identify monitoring gaps, inform governance systems on monitoring progress, and justify continued support for CBM [117, 118]. Moreover, a better understanding of CBM processes and outcomes can serve to develop an evidence base that will inform future climate change adaptation efforts [119].

Only one formal autonomous monitoring scheme was reported in the published literature [82]. This finding is consistent with a recent review of environmental CBM approaches which found no formal autonomous monitoring schemes [69]. It is likely that monitoring is carried out without documentation in the published literature, as many Indigenous communities often monitor environmental changes and the health of their land [53]. Further, communities participating in monitoring may not be interested in research related to CBM nor publishing in the literature, but instead interested in mobilizing CBM to support local decision-making [69]. There may also be challenges in understanding autonomous monitoring stemming from disciplinary obstacles and difficulties describing and characterizing such systems [82, 120]. Nevertheless, greater research attention to autonomous climate change monitoring and adaptation—case studies outlining the process and outcomes of such activities—could provide important insights to inform climate change adaptation strategies along with a strong foundation for further documentation of CBM efforts [82].

Four pillars are often referred to when explaining the concept of food security: availability, access, utilization, and stability [15]. For most of articles on CBM of Indigenous food security reviewed in this paper the specific pillar of food security was not explicitly mentioned, and food stability was not mentioned at all. The absence of focus on specific food security pillars could be due to articles focusing on proxies or indicators of food security (e.g. wildlife, climate change). Moreover, the objectives of CBM may be to address conservation or natural resource management goals rather than addressing food security challenges directly [52, 84, 85, 121]. This finding highlights the need to clarify what is being assessed when food security is being monitored (e.g. which food security pillar is being addressed), so that monitoring approaches can be coordinated and allow comparisons to be made across studies and contexts. Where the food security pillar was specified, we found that CBM typically focuses on food availability and access, consistent with studies on impacts of climate change on food security [11, 122]. Less is known about the role of climate change on food stability and utilization. Considering and specifying broader determinants of food security in monitoring systems, together with climate change indicators (e.g. seasonality, rain variability), could support more accurate, transparent, and consistent monitoring of food system resilience to climate change.

Conventional food security monitoring tends to fail to probe for information that may be relevant to Indigenous food security, such as the status of Indigenous food systems or environmental change [2, 38, 39]. This review found articles focused on food security themes that extended beyond common metrics of food security (e.g. market foods, poverty) including wildlife, natural resources, environmental change, and fisheries. However, not all aspects of food security considered important to Indigenous peoples were captured in CBM systems such as land and knowledge of local food practices [21, 22]. This review, then, begs the following questions: who is CBM of Indigenous food security serving? Does a conventional definition of food security (i.e. four pillars including availability, access, utilization, and stability) adequately capture the dynamic nature of Indigenous food systems? If a conventional definition of food security is used to guide the development of a CBM system with Indigenous communities, does this definition lead to the creation of systems that overlook critical components of Indigenous food systems? We encourage researchers to grapple with these questions when developing food security monitoring systems with Indigenous communities. Where food security was defined broadly, we argue that definitions and metrics should consider components highlighted above that are important for Indigenous communities. Furthermore, given the diverse Indigenous groups, food systems, and food practices, it is necessary to incorporate race, ethnicity, and culture when exploring food security [123]. Indeed, Indigenous food security can be better understood by considering the social and economic benefits that Indigenous food systems provide [124]. The importance of monitoring Indigenous food security, and having an inclusive definition of food security, is only increasing given the current and projected changes in climate and its disproportionate impact on Indigenous food systems [35]. Supporting Indigenous communities in defining and monitoring food security, and linking monitoring responses to decision-making and action, will be crucial for community-based adaptation.

Climate change was explicitly mentioned in more than half of the reviewed articles with climatic indicators explored in only a few articles. The limited consideration of climatic indicators could be explained by the lack of consensus on how food systems resilience to climate change should be assessed [125, 126]. Food system resilience can be defined as the 'capacity over time of a food system and its units at multiple levels, to provide sufficient, appropriate and accessible food to all, in the face of various and even unforeseen disturbances' [127, p. 19]. Measuring resilience in this context is challenging because the concept of food system resilience has not been well defined for climate change [128] and the links between resilience of food systems and climate change are not straight forward [125]. Moreover, limited conceptual tools and frameworks are available to guide such assessments [128, 129]. However, many Indigenous communities have knowledge of climate and weather, and have developed adaptation strategies for ensuring food security. For example, Indigenous knowledge systems such as sky and astronomical observations, animal behaviours, and wind direction played a key role in determining when farmers prepare the fields and the nature of crops they plant in a particular season [130]. As such, incorporating Indigenous knowledge in the design of food security and climate change metrics could help improve our understanding of how climate change impacts on food systems can be assessed over time.

Our review and synthesis highlight examples of how CBM is being used worldwide to address food-related climate change impacts. The analysis of trends shows a growing interest in CBM over time, with steady interest in considerations of climate change. The gaps identified in this study might be useful for communities, researchers, and decision-makers in developing, refining, or evaluating similar monitoring efforts. While our paper is comprehensive and systematic, we note several important limitations. First, to examine research that has been conducted on CBM, we included only published articles. We acknowledge that a substantial body of work may be found in the grey literature [69]. Analyzing the grey literature is recommended for future research to better understand the full spectrum of CBM practice occurring within Indigenous communities, especially of autonomous monitoring systems which may be investigated or evaluated outside of research and the published literature. Secondly, the categorization of the monitoring approach of articles, along with considerations of gender, were based on the information presented in each article. We acknowledge the articles themselves may not fully elaborate on the extent to which community engagement was considered. Greater elaboration on these processes of community engagement in articles will benefit knowledge sharing among Indigenous and scholarly communities. Finally, reporting and synthesizing evaluative findings can provide further insights into the effectiveness, impact, and sustainability of CBM systems. Overall, this study provides important insights into the trends and future directions in CBM of Indigenous food security based on experiences from around the world and as reported in the published literature.

The monitoring of food security with, for, and by Indigenous communities is a growing area of research and practice. This trend follows the recent global trend of engaging Indigenous communities, integrating diverse sources of knowledge, and addressing the disproportionate food security and climate change challenges experienced by Indigenous communities. The reviewed articles highlight the importance of considering indicators of wildlife and environmental change in food security monitoring systems, considerations that are typically excluded in conventional food security monitoring efforts. While many articles acknowledged the impact of climate change on food security, few articles explicitly explored climatic indicators. This finding is reflective of the limited understanding of how food systems resilience to climate change should be assessed. We also found many examples of collaborative CBM but limited examples of autonomous CBM. Exploring these trends highlight key research opportunities for supporting monitoring and adaptation of food systems. First, we encourage articles to reflect and report on the processes and outcomes of CBM. Furthermore, the development and inclusion of food security and climate change metrics in CBM are also recommended. Finally, a greater attention to autonomous monitoring and adaptation could help inform more effective responses to climate change. When viewed as a whole, our findings provide an evidence-base of research on CBM worldwide to address Indigenous food security challenges, serving as a resource to inform future community-based adaptation efforts.

Funding contributions were provided by the Graduate Student Excellence Entrance Scholarship (to SL), the Ontario Veterinary College PhD Scholarship (to SL), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), and the Network of Centres of Excellence of Canada (ArcticNet). Thank you to Hannah Tait Neufeld and Erin Nelson for helpful feedback on earlier drafts.

SL led all stages of the review including developing the research question; designing the search strategy; extracting, analyzing, and interpreting the data; and writing the paper. WD and SLH supervised and contributed to all stages of the review. KS, AP, JF and PJG contributed to data interpretation and manuscript editing. CZ contributed as a secondary reviewer and to the design of the screening tool. The IHACC Research Team contributed to the conceptualization and development of the broader research questions and contributed to manuscript editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

The authors declare no competing interests.