Ărramăt: an example of Indigenous Peoples’ holistic approach of health and well-being
Abstract
Status quo frameworks are highly Eurocentric and narrow in scope protecting; biodiversity conservation in many parts of the world and reflect a kind of dichotomized conservation that has created and perpetuated patterns of poverty, food insecurity, and socio-economic marginalization, particularly among Indigenous Peoples. By dichotomized conservation, we mean an approach to conservation that is not taking into consideration the intrinsic interdependence of environment, people, and all the species. It is the management of conservation of different ecosystems and species separately. This framework is opposed to the Indigenous approach to conservation in which people cannot think about their health and well-being without thinking about the health and well-being of Mother Earth. New conceptualizations of biodiversity are needed that are holistic in nature and confront these historical and systemic patterns of exclusion of Indigenous Peoples.
1. Introduction
Language is one of the fundamental preconditions to human development, dialogue, reconciliation, tolerance, cultural and linguistic diversity, and the peaceful existence of human society. People need language to communicate with one another and also transmit from generation to generation knowledge, ideas, beliefs and traditions, which are essential for their recognition, well-being, evolution and peaceful coexistence. (United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) 2016)
The current biodiversity crisis reveals the inadequacies of the current governance system that have long discounted the value of nature to people (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystems 2019); more inclusive frameworks and approaches to stewarding nature and people that recognize the holistic worldviews of Indigenous Peoples are necessary (Brondizio et al. 2019; Nitah 2021). These worldviews are embedded in the more than 4000 Indigenous languages spoken around the planet.
Concepts such as Ărramăt, from the Tuareg language of the Sahel and Sahara region, for example, are based on many generations of living in and with nature, both physically and spiritually and represent significant depths of knowledge for stewarding biodiversity in ways that also yield benefits to human health and well-being. With the intention of revealing more about the complex ways in which nature and people are interconnected, this paper presents some examples of these concepts from diverse Indigenous cultures and languages drawn from the knowledges and lived experience of Indigenous women, men, and those of diverse gender identities (authors). Indigenous concepts of people–nature have some similarities with academic frameworks of eco-health (Johnston et al. 2007), OneHealth (Gibbs 2014), the growing body of work on biocultural diversity (Kassam et al. 2009; Gavin et al. 2015), and social–ecological systems (Berkes et al. 2000). On the other hand, they are rich and unique in their vision of people and nature as both spiritually and physically interconnected. Although there is significant diversity among concepts offered by the seven Indigenous Peoples highlighted in this paper, what is universal is that Indigenous Peoples view nature as sacred. What is done to the land, is done to the people. This should guide how we move forward in addressing the biodiversity crisis globally.
These insights from Tuareg, Cree, Dene, and Māori languages have much to offer global leaders as they embark on the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework 2022. Implementing the GBF within existing institutions will be challenging. These institutions are siloed and fragmented along many different jurisdictional, disciplinary, and policy lines. They reflect a kind of dichotomized approach to biodiversity conservation that ignores the intimate physical and spiritual interconnections between Indigenous Peoples and their homelands. The failure of states such as Canada, Mali, Peru, and others to recognize these interconnections has created or perpetuated patterns of poverty, food insecurity, and socio-economic marginalization and poor health and well-being for Indigenous Peoples (Stephens et al. 2006). By dichotomized conservation we mean an approach to conservation that does not take into consideration the intrinsic interdependence of the physical and spiritual world, and people with all the species and elements of Mother Earth. It is the management of conservation of different ecosystems and species separately. While there are small efforts being made in emerging protocols and conventions like the GBF, to reconcile historic wrongs associated with conservation, systems are slow to change. Much of the work of conservation continues to be carried out in disciplinary and government silos that continue to exist in many regions of the world and in global forums. Moving beyond these barriers, requires ways of thinking and approaches that embrace rather than fragment our relationship to Mother Earth.
2. Literature review
2.1. Global context
Efforts at biodiversity conservation within many regions have tended to be highly Eurocentric with narrow efforts at protecting nature at the expense of Indigenous Peoples (i.e., green colonialism), perpetuating and deepening patterns of poverty, food insecurity, and socio-economic marginalization. For example, “land grabbing” (in the name of conservation) and criminalization of Indigenous practices (Spence 1999; Colchester 2004; Brockington and Igoe 2006; Sandlos 2011; Fairhead et al. 2012; Parlee et al. 2018) have resulted in food insecurity and related illnesses (e.g., malnutrition, Type II diabetes) (Kuhnlein et al. 2004; Montenegro and Stephens 2006; Pedersen and Benjaminsen 2008; Gracey and King 2009; Reading 2009; Grant et al. 2010; Anderson et al. 2016), economic exclusion (i.e., poverty) (Goldman 1998; Neumann 1998; Brockington et al. 2012; World Bank 2019), cultural discontinuity (Greenwood and Leeuw 2007; King et al. 2009), conflict (Sindiga 1995; Laungaramsri 2000; Negi and Nautiya1 2003; Dowie 2011), and hopelessness (Berry et al. 2010; Davies et al. 2011; Kirmayer et al. 2011; Trzepacz et al. 2014). The exploitation of Indigenous territories has led to the contamination of food resources (Kuhnlein and Chan 2000), water insecurity (Mitchell 2019), and extirpations of many wild species (e.g., boreal caribou) (Brondizio et al. 2019). Unhealthy relationships between people and nature have also created scenarios in which wildlife diseases (e.g., COVID-19) have had devastating global impacts (Khetan 2020). Although these stresses are significant and growing, Indigenous Peoples are also leaders in the stewardship of biodiversity and in caring for their communities. Indigenous Peoples make up 5% of the global population, yet 80% of the world’s biodiversity is located on their lands (Aguilar 2019; Schuster et al. 2019). Present governance systems and processes must be decolonized (and new institutions be innovated) to better recognize this leadership that is based on diversity and multi-generational systems of knowledge, practices, and belief systems, hereafter defined as Indigenous knowledge (IK) (Howitt 2001; Stephens et al. 2006; Jentoft 2014; LaDuke 2017).
2.2. Indigenous knowledge and languages
For millennia, Indigenous Peoples have received the knowledge of nature from nature; they have been able to transmit it from generation to generation. As the biodiversity crisis has emerged, more and more researchers and actors are aiming to learn from Indigenous Peoples and diverse knowledge around the world. According to Jessen et al. (2022), IK can be defined as “the collective term to represent the many place-based knowledges accumulated across generations within myriad specific cultural contexts’’ (Introduction section).
Indigenous knowledge is embedded in Indigenous languages, which are intrinsically linked to the land, to Indigenous’ ways of life. It is estimated that there are over 400 Indigenous languages globally. In addition to being an indicator of cultural complexity and diversity, these languages and their complexity reflect the complexity and diversity of ecosystems. (UNPFII 2016). Many of those Indigenous languages are at risk, so too are the Indigenous cultures and knowledge systems to which those languages belong. These risks can be attributed to numerous factors including the legacies of colonization and the increasing pressures of globalization. According to the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, no less than 40% of the estimated 6700 languages spoken in 2016 were in danger of disappearing (UNPFII 2016).
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has mapped and correlated species and language richness globally with the aim of describing spatial patterns in how nature and culture are interconnected (Fig. 1). However, this effort at correlation also has limitations. First, the notion that species richness alone is a good indicator of biodiversity has been heavily critiqued. The effort to quantify on a standardized scale of 0–100 globally (implying the same baseline of species richness may once have existed) is also problematic. This may be read in two ways. The map may imply on the one hand that some areas where there is low language and species richness (e.g., high arctic) are less valuable than other areas of higher richness (e.g., central America). On the other hand, one might interpret that those areas ranked as having low ecological and cultural diversity are of higher risk, where threats or stresses (e.g., climate change, resource development) may have more catastrophic implications than in areas of higher biocultural diversity that may be able to absorb stress more easily.
Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
The linkages between biodiversity and cultural diversity, at the end of the day, are more integrated and complex than this quantitative representation implies. Dichotomies of culture on a y-axis and biodiversity on an x-axis belie the rich and integrated ways that people, cultures, and ecosystems are interconnected. It is within this context that this paper provides examples of Indigenous concepts of biodiversity, grounded in Indigenous language terminology, with the intent to provide holistic approaches to biodiversity through Indigenous concepts from their languages.
2.3. Holistic concepts of people and nature
Biodiversity is defined commonly in academia as “Biodiversity—the diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems” (IPBES 2018a, 2018b, page XIV). However, it has diverse meanings in many contexts and the term has evolved over time and within different institutional and disciplinary contexts and cultures around the globe.
Within many Indigenous cultures, there are more holistic terms for ecosystems and biodiversity that take into consideration more social–economic and cultural values and relationships (Berkes et al. 1998). Indigenous language terminology is fundamental to the understanding of these holistic concepts. Some examples include nene (Denesọłine), askiy (Cree), netukulimk (Mi'kmaq) (Prosper et al. 2011), ayllu (Quechua) (Argumedo and Wong 2010), and “Māori concept of whakapapa” (Harmsworth and Awatere 2013). Such holistic conceptualizations are, however, not necessarily universal and some have been changed significantly by colonization. For example, “[i]n Sámi languages, the word “nature” (in North Sámi luondu) has earlier been used as the nature or character of someone or something; the Sámi people still do not talk about “going to nature”, even though a new word “luondu” was incorporate to their vocabulary with the meaning of “nature” (Guttorm 2021).
2.4. Policy context
Although there are some shifts toward interdisciplinarity, general scientific definitions of biodiversity tend to be narrowly biophysical. Most can be traced back to Eurocentric assumptions and values about people as separate from nature. These Eurocentric definitions are, in large, a pillar around which the biodiversity crisis is understood and managed and have implications directly for Indigenous Peoples and their homelands. In the GBF, for example, there is a growing interest in and reference to Indigenous Peoples and knowledge systems. However, the foundational focus on biodiversity is grounded in the science of ecosystems or ecology, which refers mainly to plants, animals, and fungi and their interaction habitats, such as forests, wetlands, mountains, lakes, rivers, deserts, and agricultural landscapes—defined as “non-living” (United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity 2022). This scope is notably narrower than many Indigenous worldviews, in which nature and people and physical and spiritual worlds are seen as interconnected and alive.
While these definitions live mainly in a glossary of terms and may seem only academic, they have implications for how the biodiversity crisis is understood and set the scope (and limitations) of imagination, innovation, and action in what and how it is addressed. For example, the Global Environmental Fund established a funding program related to the implementation of the GBF. Implicitly this funding program includes only those biodiversity issues that fall within the scope of “biodiversity” as defined within the framework. Since this definition does not include Indigenous worldviews and values, there is a challenge of inequity, not only around questions of whose knowledge matters but also whose environments are conserved and how. This discussion in this paper on Indigenous concepts of biodiversity confronts this inequity in knowledge and power within biodiversity conservation by addressing new ideas emergent directly from Indigenous Peoples. However, it is important to note that there is no pan-Indigenous concept. The meaning of nature varies from one Indigenous People to another. It generally takes into account different elements, such as the environment to which these Peoples belong (oceans, deserts, mountains, forests, etc.) and the spiritual links they have developed and maintained with this environment.
3. Approach
3.1. Learning from Indigenous languages
This paper shares some narratives about these concepts of biodiversity that emerged from seven Indigenous Peoples who are sisters and brothers within the Ărramăt Project. Ărramăt is a 6-year project funded by the New Frontiers in Research Fund in Canada, intended to support Indigenous-led research about biodiversity and Indigenous health globally. Although these concepts of biodiversity and Indigenous health are dichotomized in our proposal, this paper aims to re-pack what is usually unpacked and rendered into academic and government silos.
The individuals who have shared their stories have brought their knowledges forward as part of their own personal experience and connection to their communities and cultures, as well as ecological environments. The intent of this project was not to invent new concepts of biodiversity but to document existing worldviews, definitions, and perspectives on the meanings of biodiversity that are based on generations of knowledge as reflected within the Indigenous cultures and languages.
The work here focuses on Indigenous languages, which provide a window into the holistic worldview. In other words, through the knowledges embedded in Indigenous languages, we can better understand the relationship with “things” around us. Given that there is significant complexity and variability in ecosystems, cultures, relationships, and uses to nature, it is key to recognize that “biodiversity” also has diverse and complex meanings. These narratives can also vary by positionality factors, such as gender, age, and experience within ecosystems and communities.
We are particularly attentive to the words or terms that are used, and the meanings those have for the individuals and communities that are sharing them, as well as the similarities and differences with mainstream notions of biodiversity that appear in GBFs.
4. Deepening and expanding our understanding of biodiversity through Indigenous storytelling
4.1. Tuareg—Ărramăt
The Ărramăt concept is an illustration of the holistic vision of Indigenous Peoples regarding the relation and the balance between beings and non-beings elements of the nature. Several Indigenous partners of this project generously contributed to this article by sharing concepts and words in their own languages, as well as elements of their systems of beliefs, their ways of approaching and solving problems, and by providing some examples on how those concepts are related to stewardship of biodiversity, health, and well-being. With their authorization, we will now present to you some elements they shared (Fig. 2).
4.2. Mi'kmaq—Netukulimk
For the Mi'kmaq, Netukulimk expresses that “man and nature are one”, “everything comes from the land”, and “all that the earth holds are sacred” (M'sɨt No'kmaq et al. 2021, p.846). Sherry Pictou shared that “Netukulimk is achieving adequate standards of community nutrition and economic well-being without jeopardizing the integrity, diversity, or productivity of our environment” (Pictou 2021). This vision suggests a relationship of interdependence between human beings and the earth, and confers a spiritual place to Mother Earth. Like a mother, the earth nourishes us, allows us to develop, instills us values, and teaches us laws, including those allowing us to maintain the balance between us, the living species, and non-living ones. That is also what the Elder Albert Marshall and his collaborators remind us of when they say, “[t]hese values and belief systems are at the core of how we should govern and conduct ourselves on the lands and waters. Understanding natural laws can give us the power to act in a good way” (M'sɨt No'kmaq et al. 2021, p.851).
4.3. Tłı̨chǫ—Gonàowo
In Tłı̨chǫ language, there is Gonàowo. According to Zoe (2022), this concept can be defined as “[o]ur Way of Life”. He adds, “it is about keeping our stories valid, which was challenged by the colonization narrative over many generations.” For him, Gonàowo continues to sustain them as they continue their ways of implementing their core values to their lands, language, culture and way of life, in the spirit of “Strong Like Two People”. Here again, there is an explicit inextricably relation of the Tłı̨chǫ people with the land.
4.4. Cherokee—Nvwatohiyadv
Similarly, Clint Carroll introduced us to the Cherokee concept of Nvwatohiyadv, which means “peace and harmony among all beings and life” (the “v” is pronounced as “uh”). It is written, in Cherokee’s syllabary, 
. “He explained that” [w]ithin this word, there is tohi (
), which is also used to express well-being (Carroll 2021). Thus, Clint shared that the Cherokee Medicine Keepers, established in 2008 as a group of Elders and wisdom-keepers who advise the Cherokee Nation Secretary of Natural Resources, used this concept to name the inaugural tribal conservation tract established in March 2021. He added that the full name they gave to that place is 
, nvwatohiyadv nvwoti'i—“the peaceful place of medicine”. According to Caroll, this tract of tribal trust land is the site where the Medicine Keepers and tribal staff gather and teach land-based knowledge through the Cherokee Environmental Leadership Program. He said, “This program trains our youth and future leaders in Cherokee language and environmental knowledge, as well as in Western scientific knowledge and approaches to land management” (Carroll, C. 2021). This initiative is a concrete manifestation of the concept in the life of Cherokee people.
. “He explained that” [w]ithin this word, there is tohi (), which is also used to express well-being (Carroll 2021). Thus, Clint shared that the Cherokee Medicine Keepers, established in 2008 as a group of Elders and wisdom-keepers who advise the Cherokee Nation Secretary of Natural Resources, used this concept to name the inaugural tribal conservation tract established in March 2021. He added that the full name they gave to that place is , nvwatohiyadv nvwoti'i—“the peaceful place of medicine”. According to Caroll, this tract of tribal trust land is the site where the Medicine Keepers and tribal staff gather and teach land-based knowledge through the Cherokee Environmental Leadership Program. He said, “This program trains our youth and future leaders in Cherokee language and environmental knowledge, as well as in Western scientific knowledge and approaches to land management” (Carroll, C. 2021). This initiative is a concrete manifestation of the concept in the life of Cherokee people.4.5. Quechua—Sumak Kausay
In the Andes, according to Argumedo (2022), the Sumak Kausay (“buen vivir” in Spanish), which can be translated as “harmonious existence”, is a socio-political paradigm rooted in the Quechua people’s cosmovision. It describes a holistic vision that encompasses diverse but complementary aspects of well-being. He also shared that Sumaq Kausay is achieved only when we create balance between the realms of human activity, the natural environment, and the sacred. In addition, he stated that balance and harmony require reciprocity and respect for differences (duality and complementarity). For him, in opposition to the “market-is-king model of capitalism”, Sumak Kausay expresses, in the day-to-day experiences of Indigenous Peoples, a way of doing things that is community-centric, ecologically balanced, and culturally sensitive. The interrelation that exists between the planet health and the life (beings) is well illustrated in the etymology of Sumaq Kausay, where Sumak refers to the ideal and beautiful fulfillment of the planet; and Kawsay means “life”, a life with dignity, plenitude, balance, and harmony (Argumedo 2022).
4.6. Aymaran—Sumak Qamaña
Similarly, according to Maria-Eugenia Choque Quispe, the Aymara language has Suma Qamaña, which can be translated as “good living”, as it is seen by Indigenous Peoples. For her, it is “a comprehensive, holistic vision, aimed at living well, without discrimination or exploitation, with full social, political, economic and spiritual justice”. To illustrate the balance encompassed in this concept, she referred to its usage by traditional authorities called “jilaqatas, mallkus” or second greater. They exercise their system in parity: any conflict is fixed in parity (man–woman), in another words, any decisions for conflict resolution are made in parity” (Quispe 2021).
4.7. Tayal—Gaga
In the Tayal language, the word Gaga “refers to the morality, cosmology and balanced relationship between people and the environment. It entails the ethical responsibility between different beings”. Wasiq Silan stated that Tayal people say “kwara gnxan ta ita tayal hiya ga siki maki gaga nya”, meaning “all our life as Tayal should follow Gaga”. According to her, in Tayal law, a person should act according to Gaga. That means that a person establishes relationships with humans, animals, land, rivers, fish, millet, and all entities in an ethical way that all could sustain and flourish in the web of life (Silan 2021).
4.8. Pgaz K’nauy—K’nauy
In the Pgaz K’Nauy (or Karen) relational epistemology, personhood, which can be translated as K’Nauy, is extended to the non-humans with whom people interact (Ribó et al. 2021). Prasert Trakansuphakon reported the existence of many other words in the Karen language, such as Hti mux kauj pez, which can be translated as “happy water-plain land” and means “good/healthy land and good water”. Another concept is Doo baf hsgif cauv, translated as “the right time to use fallow and connecting/continue of fallow land”, and which means “good land for good farming”. This cosmovision is found on how, for example, the Karen people approach farming. According to Trakansuphakon, for Karen People, “good (soil) land and water” create good production, healthy both human and biodiversity (nature). Another expression is “good peaceful (social-political) human and nature” contributes to good health and rich biodiversity (Trakansuphakon 2021).
4.9. Māori—Kaitiakitanga
In the Māori language, according to Jones (2021), the concept of Kaitiakitanga reflects the rights and obligations of guardianship and it is an expression of the kin relationship that is central to the Maori bond/link/relationship with the natural world. For him, Māori People see themselves as a part of a complex network of relationships that makes up the natural world, and caring for the natural world is caring for a system of which one is an inextricable part. Kaitiakitanga has been used a lot in the discussion around resource management law. For example, the Waitangi Tribunal used it in the Ko Aotearoa Tēnei Report to connect all the different paths. This concept encompasses either a relationship a community may have with a particular performative of work, such as a song, or a haka, or a relationship a community may have with the natural environment (Jones 2021).
4.10. North Sámi—Birgejupmi
Birgejupmi is a North Sámi term for “life sustenance, livelihood, survival capacity, and the way people (individuals and communities) maintain themselves in a certain area with its respective resources, which exist or can be found in the natural and social environment”. It requires know-how skills, resourcefulness, reflexivity, professional, and social competence. It ties together people, communities, humans and non-human beings, landscape and natural environment, the ecosystem, healthy social and spiritual development, and identity.”
Irja Seurujärvi-Kari shared that “[t]he term birgejupmi derives from the verb birget—to maintain life, which is used widely in everyday talk. Birgejupmi means life skills and collectively cumulated knowledge that a society and people need to be able to master their life in a holistic way. Therefore, children have been traditionally raised to be iešbirgejeaddji—independent, self-supporting, able to deal with unexpected situations and solve challenges, both individually and together with others, in a given environment with its resources. Good life maintenance traditionally means good reciprocal relationships between human and non-human beings and the environment in terms of sustainability. Reciprocity, in this connection, means the maintenance of healthy societies and healthy environment with its diversity and resources” (Porsanger and Guttorm 2011, pages 17−21).
4.11. Shor—Ада чер
Similarly, the Shor People have the concept of Ада чер, which has several meanings including “this is the land of our ancestors”, “that is the earth where you are born and live”, but also “the place where our people is born, where the culture is formed”. Besides the physical and material considerations, Ада чер encompasses a spiritual significance for the Shor: “[i]t is also our memory.” According to Arbachakov and Arbachakov (2021), “biodiversity is maintained through a healthy and intact ecosystem, and one of the main elements of such a system is clean air and clean water. Preservation of a high level of biodiversity makes it possible to preserve and maintain the traditional way of life and, accordingly, traditional nutrition and traditional medicine.” They stressed the “importance to understand that the preservation of the traditional way of life ensures the mental health of people” (Arbachakov and Arbachakov 2021; Arbachakov 2022). Therefore, the Shor’s cosmovision also suggests a holistic approach to biodiversity and human health (Arbachakov and Arbachakov 2021; Arbachakov 2022).
4.12. Tuareg—Ărramăt
It emerges from all these Indigenous concepts that there is an inextricable link between human beings and Mother Earth. She has laws and teachings that she passes onto us, and we need to respect them to keep the balance we all need to continue to exist. In the second part of this chapter, we will share with you the path to indigenize our research project application through the utilization of an Indigenous word: Ărramăt. To adopt a concept that reflects all the dimensions of our project, in particular the holistic approach, the ethic for our working relationships among us and the Indigenous territories, we initiated virtual talks and discussions with linguists, Elders, women, and youth from the Kel Tamasheq (Solimane et al. 2021).
Several words were suggested, including Essoufou, which is a concept that is used to assess health and well-being both for beings and non-beings but more for comparison. For example, when MW asks someone who is sick about her/his health, if he/she feels better, he/she will respond by saying: “essofegh imanin acheli dagh”, which I translated from Tamasheq to English as: I feel/or prefer myself better today. However, all the people interviewed agreed on the concept of Ărramăt, which is defined in the dictionary as being a magical effectiveness, the good health, the physical strength, according to Prasse et al. (1998). For the interviewees of this project, this concept means both a state of balance among ihenzuzagh (environment, habitat), irezedjen (animals), deg adam (human beings), and a state of (full) health and well-being of the last.
The meaning of an Ărramăt state appears through several elements in the traditional livelihood of Kel Tamasheq and in their worldview. For example, for these People, the state of Ărramăt is shared by environment, animals, and humans. We say that some ihenzuzagh have the Ărramăt or contain the Ărramăt, which means that they are free of any echar (wrong) or elaroret (something that disturbs). Also, it means that humans can live in harmony among themselves as well as with other beings and nature, as this land gives enough resources (water, grass, beautiful landscape) to feed people, their livestock, and other beings, consequently maintaining their physical, mental, and spiritual health and well-being.
However, the Ărramăt is not guaranteed; it is not a static state. For example, ihezenzuzagh (environment, habitat) can lose it if they are overused because they are inhabited in a disrespectful way, or by a high number of animals or humans, or for a long period. This is precisely what has justified the transhumance that is practiced by the Kel Tamasheq, not only to find new grazing pastures, but also to preserve the timchar, which is the space from which the camp will move. No one should exhaust or degrade the balance and respect that guide the relationships within an ecosystem. Everyone should leave the land in a state from which it can regenerate during the next season (Mahmoud 1992). Also, in lands of high pastoralism where nomadism during the rainy season has been abandoned, where pastures have been overexploited, this has led to irreversible desertification of the land. On the other hand, in the low pasture areas where the exploitation of pastures has been alternated, the vegetation has not been degraded (Barral 1974). So, pastoralism as a mode of environmental management is beneficial for the well-being of pastures, animals, and humans. This way of life contributes to Ărramăt.
In addition, nomadic pastoralists follow specific indicators of decrease in Earth’s wealth that can guide the choice of ihenzuzagh, as well as the choice of the moment and the place to which it is necessary to move. These indicators can be observed at different levels:
a.
From the environment: Tichikwalene (whirlwind) and Eylal (mirages) in hot season, for the Kel Tamasheq who still practice nomadism, one of these two events/signs suggests the moment to move closer to water points. There is also tidjarakene (clouds), which announces akessa or raining season (wintering). Alemoz (plants of the Brassicaceae family) and Takana (cram cram or Cenchrus biflorus) announce the post-wintering season. It is the period when the Kel Tamasheq move in search of fresh grass for the well-being of animals. Amaldja (Acacia nilotica fruits) announces tadjrest or cold season, where movements happen toward places where there is salt (salt lick). There is also the water which becomes cloudy, adelogh, which is a sign of imbalance, and which indicates that it is time to leave these timshar, because without water there is no life for animals nor for humans and there is a disbalance in nature. The Kel Tamasheq have a proverb that relates this central place of water people: aman iman, “water is life” or is “the soul” (Ansary et al. 2021). This proverb suggests that besides physical dependency, these people have also a spiritual relationship with water.
b.
The animals: the sharp decrease of milk, the polyphagy, and the decrease of libido for the herd are signs of iba en Ărramăt, or “lack” of Ărramăt, which translates as not reaching a state of health and well-being.
c.
The humans: tebehewt en elem which is skin’s dull appearance. The skin loses its radiance, its natural tone, and becomes dry and loses its brightness. There is also a state of fatigue.
These indicators are occasionals and disappear when people change timshar. However, in this case of climatic crisis, such as drought, it is unfortunately a state of generalized faintness and for all ihenzuzagh in a given region, thus having impacts on other elements of nature. In this case, movements are unusual, uncontrolled, and can extend to territories that are not the ones where Kel Tamasheq are used to nomadize for grazing their herds. This can also explain several inter-communal conflicts between pastoralists nomads and sedentary farmers.
Besides these observable indicators, there are also what we call teneyast or “prospection”. These indicators are collected either by sending a member of the camp to the place where the people are considering moving by asking people who live there when meeting them at the market, during a baptism, a wedding, or for a cup of tea. Some examples of questions that are usually asked for that purpose are: “Are the animals good?”, “Are the animals mating?”, and “Do cows have enough milk?”.
5. Conclusion
The global biodiversity crisis is attributed in part to inadequate approaches that manage biodiversity as a system separated from people. Eurocentric conceptualizations of the environment are a biophysical pool of limitless resources to be exploited for commercial and consumer benefit (Arias-Maldonado 2013). The elevation of Indigenous traditional knowledges is a journey to be made with nature, with human beings, with non-living and living, and often with Indigenous Peoples as the only interlocutors. These Peoples have been able to develop relationships with other living beings that are symbiotic, balanced, and respectful with the rest of the ecosystem of which they are part.
Our experience within the Ărramăt Project shows the promise of research led by Indigenous Peoples based on Indigenous worldviews, knowledges, and languages. This work is being done according to ethical relationships among the environment, animals, and people where all living things are kept in balance (as well reflected in the Kel Tamasheq concept of Ărramăt). The teachings transmitted by Mother Earth, whether it is the governance area, as illustrated by the Māori concept of Kaitiakitanga, or balance/equity in relation with each other, expressed by Mi'kmaq concept of Netukulimk, place Indigenous Peoples as key players in contributing to solutions to the biodiversity crisis and to promote the health and well-being of Mother Earth and all who dwell on her. Beyond this important potential of Indigenous Peoples as interlocutors with nature, they hold rights for self-determination. This is why the process of indigenization of research involving Indigenous territories and knowledges, as well as Indigenous Peoples themselves, is mandatory.
The insights shared in this paper from Tuareg, Cree, Dene, and Māori cultures and languages have much to offer global leaders who are now challenged to implement the GBF. Status quo approaches to dichotomized conservation will not achieve the transformation needed to protect Mother Earth. We must find new ways to understand and protect people and nature as an integrated whole as challenged by the Whapmagoostui Cree Elder: “If the land is not healthy, how can we be?” (Adelson 2000, p13.).
Acknowledgements
As part of the Ărramăt Project team, make this acknowledgment of the obligations and commitments we have made towards a transformative shift of Indigenous health and well-being in the context of conservation and biodiversity. Indigenous knowledges, languages and ancestral ways have the power to heal Mother Earth, the sacred life-giver. We acknowledge the disruption and destruction represented by colonialism and its ongoing legacy.
References
Adelson N. 2000. “Being Alive Well”: health and the politics of Cree well-being. University of Toronto Press.
Aguilar G. 2019. IUCN Director General’s Statement on International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples 2019. IUCN. Available from https://www.iucn.org/news/secretariat/201908/iucn-director-generals-statement-international-day-worlds-Indigenous-peoples-2019 [accessed November 2022].
Anderson T.J., Grégoire J., Pearson G.J., Barry A.R., Couture P., Dawes M., 2016. 2016 Canadian cardiovascular society guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in the adult. Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 32(11): 1263–1282.
Ansary A., Ahmed W.A., Hado H.A. 2021. Oumar, Assadeck ag personal communication to Zoé Boirin-Fargues. Tuareg People. Live in Mali. WhatsApp group “CKAA sympathisants.” Personal communication to Zoé Boirin-Fargues.
Arbachakov A. 2022. Shor Nation. Lives in Federation of Russia. E-mail, subject “Manuscript /рукопись.” personal communication to Zoé Boirin-Fargues to Zoé Boirin-Fargues.
Arbachakov A., Arbachakov L. 2021. Shor Nation. Live in Federation of Russia. E-mail, subject “Manuscript /рукопись.” personal communication to Zoé Boirin-Fargues.
Argumedo A. 2022. Quechua People. Lives in Cuzco, Peru. E-mail subject “Equivalent of Ărramăt concept in your language.” Personal communication to Zoé Boirin-Fargues.
Argumedo A., Wong B.Y.L. 2010. The ayllu system of the Potato Park (Peru). Sustainable use of biological di-versity in socio-ecological production landscapes, 52, 84.
Arias-Maldonado M. 2013. Rethinking sustainability in the Anthropocene. Environmental Politics, 22(3): 428–446.
Barral H. 1974. Mobilité et cloisonnement chez les éleveurs du nord de la Haute-Volta: les zones dites “d'endodromie pastorale.” Etudes sur l'élevage, 11(2): 127–135. Available from https://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/pleins_textes_4/sci_hum/04163.pdf [accessed March 2022].
Berkes F., Folke C., Colding J. (Editors). 2000. Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press.
Berkes F., Kislalioglu M., Folke C., Gadgil M. 1998. Minireviews: Exploring the Basic Ecological Unit: Ecosystem-like Concepts in Traditional Societies. Ecosystems 1: 409–415.
Berry H.L., Butler J.R., Burgess C.P., King U.G., Tsey K., Cadet-James Y.L. 2010. Mind, body, spirit: co-benefits for mental health from climate change adaptation and caring for country in remote Aboriginal Australian communities. New South Wales Public Health Bulletin, 21(6): 139–145.
Brockington D., Igoe J. 2006. Eviction for conservation: a global overview. Conservation and Society, 4(3): 424–470.
Brockington D., Duffy R., Igoe J. 2012. Nature unbound: conservation, capitalism and the future of protected areas. Routledge.
Brondizio E.S., Settele J., Diaz S., Ngo H.T. 2019. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
Carroll C. 2021. Cherokee Nation. Lives in Boulder, United States. E-mail subject “Equivalent to Arramat concept.” Personal communication to Zoé Boirin-Fargues.
Colchester M. 2004. Conservation policy and Indigenous peoples. Environmental Science & Policy, 7(3): 145–153.
Davies K., Tropp L.R., Aron A., Pettigrew T.F., Wright S.C. 2011. Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes: a meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(4): 332–351.
Dowie M. 2011. Conservation refugees: the hundred-year conflict between global conservation and native peoples. MIT press.
Fairhead J., Leach M., Scoones I. 2012. Green grabbing: a new appropriation of nature? Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(2): 237–261.
Gavin M.C., McCarter J., Mead A., Berkes F., Stepp J.R., Peterson D., Tang R. 2015. Defining biocultural approaches to conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30(3): 140–145.
General Assembly. 2020. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 18 December 2019. United Nations. Available from https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N19/426/26/PDF/N1942626.pdf?OpenElement [accessed March 2022].
Gibbs E. P. J. 2014. The evolution of One Health: a decade of progress and challenges for the future. Veterinary Record, 174(4): 85–91.
Goldman M. (Editor). 1998. Privatizing nature: political struggles for the global commons. Pluto Press.
Gracey M., King M. 2009. Indigenous health part 1: determinants and disease patterns. The Lancet, 374(9683): 65–75.
Grant R.F., Barr A.G., Black T.A., Margolis H.A., McCaughey J.H., Trofymow J.A. 2010. Net ecosystem productivity of temperate and boreal forests after clearcutting—a Fluxnet-Canada measurement and modelling synthesis. Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology, 62(5): 475–496.
Greenwood M., de Leeuw S. 2007. Teachings from the land: Indigenous people, our health, our land, and our children. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 30(1).
Guttorm H.E. 2021. Becoming Earth: rethinking and (re-)connecting with the Earth, Sámi Lands and relations. In Bridging cultural concepts of nature: Indigenous places and protected spaces of nature. Edited by R.H. Andersson, D. Cothran, S. Kekki. Helsinki University Press. pp. 229–258.
Harmsworth G.R., Awatere S. 2013. Indigenous Māori knowledge and perspectives of ecosystems. In Ecosystem services in New Zealand—conditions and trends. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, New Zealand. pp. 274–286.
Howitt R. 2001. Frontiers, borders, edges: liminal challenges to the hegemony of exclusion. Australian Geographical Studies, 39(2): 233–245.
IPBES. 2018a. The IPBES assessment report on land degradation and restoration. In Secretariat of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Edited by L. Montanarella, R. Scholes, A. Brainich. Bonn, Germany. p. 744.
IPBES. 2018b. Summary for policymakers of the assessment report on land degradation and restoration of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. In Intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Edited by R.J. Scholes, L. Montanarella, E. Brainich, E. Brainich, N. Barger, B. ten Brink et al. Available from https://www.ipbes.net/node/28328 [accessed November 2024].
Jentoft S. 2014. Walking the talk: implementing the international voluntary guidelines for securing sustainable small-scale fisheries. Maritime Studies, 13(1): 16.
Jessen T.D., Ban N.C., Claxton N.X., Darimont C.T. 2022. Contributions of Indigenous Knowledge to ecological and evolutionary understanding. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 20(2): 93–101.
Johnston P., Everard M., Santillo D., Robèrt K.H. 2007. Reclaiming the definition of sustainability. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 14(1): 60–66.
Jones C. 2021. Ărramăt Webinar Series—Māori Relationships with the Natural World and Legal Personality of Landscape Features in Aotearoa [Video]. Vimeo. Available from https://vimeo.com/543773276/82f6f48a71 [accessed April 2022].
Kassam A., Friedrich T., Shaxson F., Pretty J. 2009. The spread of conservation agriculture: justification, sustainability and uptake. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 7(4): 292–320.
Khetan A.K. 2020. COVID-19: why declining biodiversity puts us at greater risk for emerging infectious diseases, and what we can do. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 35(9): 2746–2747.
King M., Smith A., Gracey M. 2009. Indigenous health part 2: the underlying causes of the health gap. The Lancet, 374(9683): 76–85.
Kirmayer L.J., Dandeneau S., Marshall E., Phillips M.K., Williamson K.J. 2011. Rethinking resilience from Indigenous perspectives. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 56(2): 84–91.
Kuhnlein H.V., Chan H.M. 2000. Environment and contaminants in traditional food systems of northern Indigenous Peoples. Annual Review of Nutrition, 20(1): 595–626.
Kuhnlein H.V., Receveur O., Soueida R., Egeland G.M. 2004. Arctic Indigenous Peoples’ experience the nutrition transition with changing dietary patterns and obesity. The Journal of Nutrition, 134(6): 1447–1453.
LaDuke W. 2017. The Winona LaDuke chronicles: stories from the front lines in the battle for environmental justice. Fernwood Publishing.
Laungaramsri P. 2000. The ambiguity of “watershed”: the politics of people and conservation in northern Thailand. SOJOURN: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 15(1): 52–75.
M'sɨt No'kmaq A., Beazley K.F., Hum J., Joudry S., Papadopoulos A., Pictou S., et al. 2021. “Awakening the sleeping giant”: re-Indigenization principles for transforming biodiversity conservation in Canada and beyond. FACETS, 6, 839–869.
Mahmoud M. 1992. Le Haut Gourma Central (VIème région de la république du Mali). 2nd ed. Université Paul Valéry, Montpellier, 110pp.
Mitchell F.M. 2019. Water (in) security and American Indian health: social and environmental justice implications for policy, practice, and research. Public Health, 176, 98–105.
Montenegro R.A., Stephens C. 2006. Indigenous health in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Lancet, 367(9525): 1859–1869.
Negi C.S., Nautiya1 S. 2003. Indigenous peoples, biological diversity and protected area management—policy framework towards resolving conflicts. The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 10(2): 169–179.
Neumann R.P. 1998. Imposing wilderness: struggles over livelihood and nature preservation in Africa (Vol. 4). University of California Press.
Nitah S. 2021. Indigenous peoples proven to sustain biodiversity and address climate change: now it’s time to recognize and support this leadership. One Earth, 4(7): 907–909.
Parlee B.L., Sandlos J., Natcher D.C. 2018. Undermining subsistence: barren-ground caribou in a “tragedy of open access.” Science Advances, 4(2): e1701611.
Pedersen J., Benjaminsen T.A. 2008. One leg or two? Food security and pastoralism in the northern Sahel. Human Ecology, 36, 43–57.
Pictou S. 2021. Bear River First Nation. Lives in Nova Scotia, Canada. E-mail subject “Equivalent of Ărramăt concept in your language.”. Personal communication to Zoé Boirin-Fargues.
Porsanger J., Guttorm G. 2011. Concepts of traditional knowledge, livelihood and tradition bearers. In Working with traditional knowledge: communities, institutions, information systems, law and ethics: writings from the Arbediehtu Pilot Project on documentation and protection of Sami traditional knowledge. Edited by J. Porsanger, G. Guttorm. Sámi allaskuvla /Sámi University of Applied Sciences. pp. 17–24.
Prasse K.-G., Alojaly G., Ghabdouane M. 1998. Lexique: Touareg- Français. Museum Tusculanum Press. Université De Copenhague.
Prosper K., McMillan L.J., Davis A.A., Moffitt M. 2011. Returning to Netukulimk: Mi'kmaq cultural and spiritual connections with resource stewardship and self-governance. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 2(4).
Quispe M.E.C. 2021 Aymara People. Lives in La Paz, Bolivia. Email subject “Equivalent of Ărramăt concept in your language.” Personal communication to Zoé Boirin-Fargues.
Reading J. 2009. The crisis of chronic disease among Aboriginal peoples: a challenge for public health, population health and social policy. Centre for Aboriginal Health Research, University of Victoria.
Ribó I., Samachitloed S., Noopan P., Satrakom C., Kotchamit P. 2021. “Kox Kwai Kauv kox kwai”: ecopoetic symbolisation in Pgaz k'nyau oral poetry. Journal of Ethnology and Folkloristics, 15(1): 103–139.
Sandlos J. 2011. Hunters at the margin: native people and wildlife conservation in the Northwest Territories. UBC Press.
Schuster R., Germain R.R., Bennett J.R., Reo N.J., Arcese P. 2019. Vertebrate biodiversity on Indigenous-managed lands in Australia, Brazil, and Canada equals that in protected areas. Environmental Science & Policy, 101, 1–6.
Silan W. 2021 Tayal People. Lives in Helsinki, Finland. E-mail subject “Equivalent of Ărramăt concept in your language.” Personal communication to Zoé Boirin-Fargues.
Sindiga I. 1995. Wildlife based tourism in Kenya: land use conflicts and government compensation policies over protected areas. Journal of Tourism Studies, 6(2): 45–55.
Solimane A.A., Zakaria M., Ayaya M.A.A., Aboubacrine S.W., Yehia N.A., Hama M.A., Attaher K.W. 2021. Tuareg People. Solimane and Zakaria live in France. All others live in Mali. WhatsApp group “CKAA sympathisants.” Personal communication to Zoé Boirin-Fargues.
Spence M.D. 1999. Dispossessing the wilderness: Indian removal and the making of the national parks. Oxford University Press.
Stephens C., Porter J., Nettleton C., Willis R. 2006. Disappearing, displaced, and undervalued: a call to action for Indigenous health worldwide. The Lancet, 367(9527): 2019–2028.
Trakansuphakon Prasert. 2021 Sgaw Karen People. Lives in Chang Mai, Thailand. E-mail subject “Equivalent of Ărramăt concept in your language.” Personal communication to Zoé Boirin-Fargues.
Trzepacz D., Guerin B., Thomas J. 2014. Indigenous Country as a context for mental and physical health: yarning with the Nukunu Community. The Australian Community Psychologist, 26(2):38–53.
United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. 2022. Sustaining life on earth: how the convention on biological diversity promotes nature and human well-being. CBD. Available from https://www.cbd.int/convention/guide/ [accessed December 2022].
United Nations Environmental Programme. 2020. Indigenous Peoples and the nature they protect. United Nations Environmental Programme. Available from https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/Indigenous-peoples-and-nature-they-protect [accessed October 2021].
United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII). 2016. Report of the expert group meeting on the theme “Indigenous languages: preservation and revitalization (articles 13, 14 and 16 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples)”. United Nations, Economic and Social Council, https://daccessods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?OpenAgent&DS=E/C.19/2016/10&Lang=E [accessed October 2021].
United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. 2019. Registration for the high-level event for the closing of the 2019 Int. Year of Indigenous Languages. United Nations, Economic and Social Council. Available from https://www.un.org/development/desa/Indigenouspeoples/news/2019/11/high-level-event-iyl/ [accessed December 2022].
Walet Aboubacrine T. 2018. Savoirs endogènes et développement de l’élevage en milieu Touareg. Univ Européenne.
World Bank. 2019. Understanding poverty. World Bank. Available from https://www.worldbank.org/en/understanding-poverty [accessed November 2022].
Zoe J.B. 2022. Tłı̨cho People. Treaty 11 Territory. Lives in the Northwest Territory, Canada. E-mail subject “Equivalent of Ărramăt concept in your language.” Personal communication to Zoé Boirin-Fargues to Zoé Boirin-Fargues.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
FACETS
Volume 10 • 2025
Pages: 1 - 10
Editor: Candace Nykiforuk
History
Received: 25 October 2023
Accepted: 16 May 2024
Version of record online: 28 February 2025
Notes
This paper is part of a collection entitled “Ărramăt, the intersections of biodiversity conservation and Indigenous health and well-being”.
Copyright
© 2025 The Authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement
This manuscript does not report data.
Key Words
Sections
Subjects
Authors
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: MWA, BP
Data curation: MWA, ZB
Formal analysis: MWA
Funding acquisition: MWA, BP, SP
Investigation: MWA, BP, AA, CC, MECQ, HG, CJ, IS, WS, PT, SP
Methodology: MWA, BP
Project administration: MWA, BP, ZB, SP
Resources: MWA, BP, AA, CC, MECQ, HG, CJ, IS, WS, PT, SP
Supervision: MWA
Visualization: MWA
Writing – original draft: MWA, BP, ZB
Writing – review & editing: MWA
Competing Interests
The authors declare there are no competing interests.
Funding Information
Arramat: Biodiversity Conservation and the Health and Well-being of Indigenous Peoples: NFRF-T, 2020
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Other Metrics
Citations
Cite As
Mariam Wallet Aboukakrine, Brenda Parlee, Zoé Boirin-Fargues, Alejandro Argumedo, Clint Carroll, Maria Eugenia Choque Quispe, Hanna Guttorm, Carwyn Jones, Irja Seurujärvi-Kari, Wasiq Silan/I-An GAO (高怡安), Prasert Trakansuphakon, and Sherry Pictou. 2025. Ărramăt: an example of Indigenous Peoples’ holistic approach of health and well-being. FACETS.
10: 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2023-0191
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
There are no citations for this item