Sacred Groves: Difference between revisions

From WikiDemocracy
Jump to navigationJump to search
← Older edit

Kirk (talk | contribs)

7 user groups
6,904 edits
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{#seo:
{{#seo:
 
|title=Sacred Groves and Sacred Natural Sites Around the World
|title=Sacred Groves: Biodiversity, Culture, and Community Conservation
|description=Explore sacred groves, forests, lakes, mountains, and landscapes worldwide, their biodiversity, cultural significance, threats, and community protection.
 
|keywords=sacred groves, sacred natural sites, sacred forests, sacred landscapes, biodiversity conservation, Indigenous stewardship, traditional ecological knowledge, biocultural conservation, community conservation, sacred waters
|description=Sacred groves and sacred natural sites are among the world's oldest community-based conservation systems, protecting biodiversity, forests, medicinal plants, water, carbon stores, traditional ecological knowledge, and cultural heritage.
|image=https://wikidemocracy.us/images/f/f2/Sacred_Landscapes_and_Conservation.png
 
|keywords=sacred groves, sacred forests, sacred natural sites, biodiversity conservation, community conservation, traditional ecological knowledge, indigenous conservation, forest conservation, ecosystem services, biocultural diversity, sacred landscapes, church forests, Kaya forests, Western Ghats, biodiversity, cultural heritage
 
|image=File:Placeholder.png
 
|image_width=300
|image_width=300
|image_height=200
|image_height=200
 
|type=article
|type=article}}
}}


[[Category:Sacred Groves]]
[[Category:Sacred Groves]]
[[Category:Sacred Natural Sites]]
[[Category:Biodiversity]]
[[Category:Biodiversity Conservation]]
[[Category:Nature Conservation]]
[[Category:Indigenous Peoples]]
[[Category:Cultural Heritage]]
[[Category:Religion and Nature]]
[[Category:Community-Based Conservation]]
[[Category:Community-Based Conservation]]
[[Category:Traditional Ecological Knowledge]]
[[Category:Indigenous Knowledge]]
[[Category:Forest Conservation]]
[[Category:Biocultural Diversity]]
[[Category:Ecosystem Services]]


__NOTOC__
__NOTOC__


== Sacred Groves ==
[[File:Sacred Landscapes and Conservation.png|thumb]]
 
Sacred groves are forests, woodland fragments, groups of trees, mountains, springs, caves and other natural areas protected because of their religious, spiritual or cultural significance. Found in many parts of the world, they represent some of humanity's oldest surviving forms of community-based environmental protection.
 
Their names, traditions and governing institutions differ greatly. They include sacred groves and ''devrai'' in India, Mijikenda Kaya forests in Kenya, Ethiopian Orthodox church forests, sacred forests in Ghana, Nigeria, Togo, Cameroon, Zimbabwe and Mozambique, Tibetan sacred mountains, Dai sacred forests in China, Shinto shrine forests in Japan and sacred woodland associated with churches, monasteries and pilgrimage sites in Europe.
 
Despite these differences, a common pattern appears repeatedly: cultural rules restrict activities that would otherwise remove trees, wildlife or other natural resources. Religious prohibitions, customary taboos, respect for deities or ancestors and community institutions can therefore produce ecological protection without the area necessarily having originated as a government nature reserve.
 
Modern ecological research increasingly recognizes these sites as important components of biodiversity conservation and as examples of the close relationship between biological and cultural diversity.
 
=== Ancient Systems of Community Conservation ===
 
Sacred groves demonstrate that conservation did not begin with modern national parks or environmental legislation. Communities have protected forests and other natural places for centuries or, in some cases, much longer.
 
Traditional rules may prohibit cutting trees, hunting animals, collecting plants, grazing livestock or entering particular areas except for religious ceremonies. Enforcement may depend less on formal policing than on religious belief, community expectations, customary authority and the perceived consequences of violating sacred rules.
 
These institutions can function as forms of local resource management. By limiting extraction, communities may unintentionally or deliberately preserve vegetation, wildlife habitat, water sources and ecological processes.
 
Studies from India, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and other regions show that the effectiveness of sacred-site conservation often depends on the continuing legitimacy of local institutions. Where customary authority remains strong, sacred forests can persist even when surrounding landscapes are heavily altered.
 
Sacred groves should therefore be understood not simply as patches of forest but as social-ecological systems. Their conservation value arises from the interaction of ecosystems, beliefs, community institutions, traditional knowledge and cultural identity.
 
=== Biodiversity Refuges ===
 
One of the strongest conclusions in the research is that sacred groves frequently act as refuges for biodiversity.
 
Many occur within landscapes that have been extensively converted to agriculture, plantations, settlements or other uses. The sacred forest may consequently preserve remnants of vegetation that once covered much larger areas.
 
Studies have documented sacred groves containing rare, endemic and threatened plants; medicinal species; old-growth trees; birds; butterflies; fungi; lichens and other organisms. Even very small groves can contribute to conservation when they retain species or habitats absent from the surrounding landscape.
 
India provides particularly extensive evidence. Sacred groves of the Western Ghats, Kerala, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Manipur, Uttarakhand, Odisha, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh and other regions have been studied for their tree diversity, medicinal plants, birds, fungi, lichens and ecological structure.
 
In the Western Ghats, sacred groves form networks of forest fragments within agricultural and coffee-growing landscapes. Research indicates that conserving these forests cannot be separated from management of the surrounding landscape because wildlife, plants, water and ecological processes move across the boundaries of individual groves.
 
Northeastern India provides another important example. Sacred groves of Meghalaya and Manipur preserve exceptionally rich vegetation and culturally important medicinal plants. Himalayan sacred forests similarly protect useful plants, old trees and forest habitats through religious traditions associated with temples and local deities.
 
=== Africa's Sacred Forests ===
 
Sacred forests are widespread across Africa and provide some of the strongest comparative evidence that culturally protected landscapes can contribute to biodiversity conservation.
 
Research in Ghana has shown that sacred forests can retain trees and other biodiversity in landscapes where substantial forest loss has occurred. Traditional beliefs, taboos and community institutions remain important components of their protection.
 
Studies in southwestern Nigeria document high tree diversity, natural regeneration, biomass and carbon storage in sacred groves. Other research emphasizes that successful protection depends on combinations of customary authority, cultural values, formal institutions and socioeconomic conditions.
 
Sacred forests in Togo and Benin preserve considerable plant diversity, although research also demonstrates that sacred status does not automatically prevent ecological damage. Wood harvesting, fire and other disturbances can occur within culturally protected forests.
 
Studies from Cameroon similarly document both ecological value and continuing forest loss caused by agriculture, harvesting, population pressure and weakening customary institutions.
 
Sacred forests in Zimbabwe and Mozambique provide particularly important evidence of the relationship between cultural institutions and forest persistence. Research comparing sacred and nonsacred areas has found that traditional protection can reduce forest loss and create refuges from disturbance.


=== Kenya's Kaya Forests ===
[https://wikidemocracy.us/images/1/17/The_Invisible_Fences_Humanity_s_Oldest_Conservation_System.mp4 Video]
[https://wikidemocracy.us/images/a/aa/How_sacred_sites_shield_global_biodiversity.m4a Audio]


The sacred Mijikenda Kaya forests of coastal Kenya are internationally important examples of the connection between culture and biodiversity.
== Sacred Groves and Sacred Natural Sites Around the World ==


The forests developed around fortified settlements known as Kayas and became sacred places associated with Mijikenda identity, ancestors and customary authority. Traditional restrictions on access and resource extraction contributed to the survival of fragments of the once much more extensive coastal forest ecosystem.
Sacred groves are groups of trees or areas of woodland valued and maintained because of their spiritual, religious, ancestral, or ceremonial significance. They belong to a broader category of '''sacred natural sites''', which includes forests, mountains, caves, springs, rivers, lakes, wetlands, islands, and marine environments. These places connect communities with nature through living traditions, collective memory, customary responsibilities, and religious practice.


Ecological studies have documented high woody-plant diversity, medicinal and ethnobotanical resources and threatened species within Kaya forests. Even very small sacred sites along the Kenyan coast can contain significant concentrations of biodiversity.
Although much research has focused on India and Africa, related traditions occur throughout the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Oceania. Their names, meanings, and management systems differ considerably. A sacred lake, pilgrimage mountain, or ancestral territory should be understood through the traditions of its custodians, even when researchers discuss these places within a shared conservation framework.


The Sacred Mijikenda Kaya Forests are also recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, emphasizing that their cultural and natural significance cannot easily be separated.
=== Spiritual Significance and Community Stewardship ===


Their conservation illustrates a recurring lesson from sacred natural sites worldwide: protecting biodiversity may require maintaining the cultural institutions responsible for protecting the landscape.
Sacred places may be associated with deities, ancestors, creation narratives, burial traditions, pilgrimage, healing, or ceremonial gatherings. Their protection can involve restrictions on tree cutting, hunting, grazing, fishing, collecting plants, or entering particular areas. Some restrictions apply throughout the year, while others depend on seasons, ceremonies, or community membership.


=== Ethiopian Church Forests ===
Stewardship may rest with Indigenous nations, village institutions, clans, families, religious communities, or designated custodians. Ecological benefits often arise from these responsibilities, but biodiversity protection is not necessarily the original or primary purpose of the site. Protecting a sacred place also sustains relationships, obligations, identities, and ways of understanding the world.


Ethiopia's church forests represent another striking form of sacred conservation.
=== Biodiversity and Ecological Functions ===


In parts of the Ethiopian highlands, extensive native forest has been replaced by farmland. Thousands of Ethiopian Orthodox churches, however, remain surrounded by fragments of native woodland protected because of their religious significance.
Sacred groves can preserve native vegetation within landscapes otherwise dominated by farming, settlement, or resource extraction. Research documents their importance for trees, medicinal plants, birds, fungi, lichens, and other organisms. Depending on their condition and surroundings, they may also support soil protection, carbon storage, local cooling, water regulation, and the movement of wildlife between habitats.


These forests appear as ecological islands within agricultural landscapes. Studies have documented native woody plants, birds, carbon storage and other ecological values within them.
Their ecological value varies. A systematic review identifies significant conservation benefits alongside geographical and taxonomic research gaps. A separate meta-analysis finds that sacred forests generally support biodiversity comparable to nearby forested areas, with stronger advantages for plants than for other groups. Sacred status therefore does not guarantee that every site has greater biodiversity than a nonsacred forest.<ref>[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10531-021-02296-3 Sacred Natural Sites and Biodiversity Conservation: A Systematic Review — Piero Zannini et al., 2021.]</ref><ref>[https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/csp2.13055 Sacred Forest Biodiversity Conservation: A Meta-Analysis — Megan K. Sullivan et al., 2023.]</ref>


Research also reveals important limitations. Although the forests may persist geographically, their internal ecological quality can decline because of grazing, wood collection, edge effects, isolation and inadequate tree regeneration.
=== India: Diverse Sacred-Grove Traditions ===


Church forests therefore illustrate both the potential and vulnerability of sacred-site conservation. Cultural protection may prevent complete forest clearance while additional ecological management is needed to ensure long-term regeneration and resilience.
India contains many distinct sacred-grove traditions, including forests in the Western Ghats, Khasi and Jaintia sacred groves in Meghalaya, Umang Lai groves in Manipur, and deity-associated forests in the Himalaya. Their governance ranges from family custodianship to village institutions and religious bodies.


=== Ecosystem Services and Climate Benefits ===
Studies describe their roles in conserving native plants, medicinal knowledge, forest regeneration, and water resources. Research also shows that the surrounding landscape matters: even a protected grove can be affected by isolation, agricultural change, pollution, or development beyond its boundaries. Networks of groves and compatible land uses can therefore be important alongside protection of individual sites.


Sacred groves provide benefits extending beyond species conservation.
=== Africa: Forests, Sacred Wildlife, and Waters ===


Research identifies numerous ecosystem services associated with sacred forests, including:
African examples include Ghanaian and Yoruba sacred groves, forests maintained through customary institutions in Cameroon and Mozambique, Kenya’s Mijikenda Kaya forests, and Ethiopia’s Orthodox church forests. These places combine ecological functions with religious practice, community history, and cultural authority.


* watershed protection;
The broader picture includes sacred lakes, waterfalls, wetlands, and relationships with particular animals. Research at Lake Tseny in Madagascar documents sacred sites and associated taboos alongside measurements of water quality. Accounts from Uganda describe the revival of custodianship around forests, rivers, wetlands, and fish-spawning areas.
* spring and stream conservation;
* groundwater recharge;
* erosion control;
* soil conservation;
* nutrient cycling;
* pollination;
* seed conservation;
* microclimate regulation;
* forest products;
* medicinal plants;
* wildlife habitat;
* biomass storage; and
* carbon sequestration.


Several studies have measured substantial biomass and soil carbon within sacred groves. Research from central India, Kerala, Nigeria and Ethiopian church forests suggests that these sites can make locally important contributions to carbon storage.
Ghana’s Tanchara community provides an example of organised protection: traditional leaders developed a biocultural community protocol in response to mining threats affecting sacred groves and water supplies.<ref>[https://www.iied.org/g03405 Sacred Groves versus Gold Mines: Biocultural Community Protocols in Ghana — Bernard Guri Yangmaadome et al., IIED, 2012.]</ref>


Their climate significance should not be exaggerated simply because individual groves are often small. Their importance lies partly in the cumulative effect of thousands of forest patches and in their ability to preserve ecological functions within otherwise heavily modified landscapes.
=== The Americas: Sacred Waters and Ancestral Landscapes ===


Sacred groves may therefore contribute simultaneously to biodiversity conservation, climate adaptation, carbon storage and local environmental resilience.
The Americas contain many sacred natural sites, although they are not always described as groves. Blue Lake at Taos Pueblo, Zuni Salt Lake, Bears Ears, Juristac, and other places connect natural features with ceremony, ancestral narratives, and Indigenous responsibilities to land.


=== Medicinal Plants and Traditional Ecological Knowledge ===
These examples also demonstrate that protecting a sacred place may require protecting its watershed, groundwater, access routes, or surrounding territory. The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition’s management plan presents an interconnected approach to land stewardship grounded in the knowledge and perspectives of five Tribal Nations.<ref>[https://bearsearscoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/FINAL_BENM_LMP_04132023.pdf A Collaborative Land Management Plan for the Bears Ears National Monument — Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, 2022.]</ref>


Medicinal plants are among the most frequently documented biological resources within sacred groves.
Further examples include Maya sacred waters and community forests, Wixárika pilgrimage landscapes in Mexico, Mapuche sacred places in Chile, and the U’wa understanding of their Colombian homeland as a living sacred territory. These traditions show why individual sites sometimes need to be understood as parts of larger cultural landscapes.


Studies throughout India have recorded large numbers of medicinal species associated with sacred forests. Some groves preserve plants that have become uncommon in nearby areas because of agricultural conversion, harvesting or other pressures.
=== Europe: Groves, Holy Islands, and Monastic Forests ===


The plants themselves are only part of the conservation value. Sacred landscapes may also preserve knowledge concerning medicinal uses, forest management, seasonal cycles, rituals and relationships among plants, animals and people.
European examples include sacred groves in Greece, Baltic sacred places, Sámi offering sites, Irish holy wells, and woodlands associated with monasteries. Lindisfarne connects Christian pilgrimage with coastal wetlands, while Bulgaria’s Rila Monastery lies within a landscape of protected mountain forests.


Traditional ecological knowledge can therefore be conserved together with biological diversity.
These traditions are neither uniform nor static. Research on Sámi offering sites describes changing practices and differing expectations among local communities, tourists, and other visitors. Conservation can involve safeguarding cultural meaning and appropriate behaviour alongside the physical condition of a place.


This relationship is particularly important because loss of cultural knowledge may eventually weaken ecological protection. When younger generations no longer recognize religious restrictions or customary management systems, sacred status alone may become insufficient to protect a forest.
=== Asia and Oceania: Sacred Mountains, Lakes, and Country ===


=== Culture as a Conservation Institution ===
Beyond India, examples include Korean village groves, Japanese sacred mountains and islands, Himalayan Buddhist landscapes, and sacred waters in Central and Southeast Asia. On Coron Island in the Philippines, Tagbanwa initiatives connect the management of sacred lakes with ancestral rights and control of tourism.


Sacred groves challenge the assumption that effective conservation must always depend on government ownership or conventional protected areas.
Nepal’s Tsum Valley illustrates how Buddhist commitments to nonviolence can support community rules concerning hunting, trapping, animal welfare, and burning. In Australia, the Budj Bim landscape connects Gunditjmara creation narratives with waterways and longstanding aquaculture. Native Hawaiian traditions likewise extend sacred relationships into islands and surrounding seas.


Religious belief and customary law can operate as powerful conservation institutions. Taboos may restrict hunting or tree cutting. Sacred boundaries may prevent agricultural expansion. Ritual practices may regulate when people enter forests or gather resources.
Such examples demonstrate that a sacred landscape can be actively inhabited and managed. Cultural continuity does not require an environment untouched by people.


In some cases these informal institutions have survived for generations despite major political and economic changes.
=== Threats and Pressures ===


Their effectiveness, however, varies considerably. Sacredness does not guarantee ecological protection. Some groves experience logging, grazing, fire, invasive species, dumping, development or conversion.
Sacred natural sites face agricultural expansion, mining, logging, infrastructure, pollution, invasive species, and climate change. Small forest fragments can be particularly vulnerable to isolation, edge effects, and declining regeneration.


Research therefore increasingly emphasizes cooperation between customary institutions and modern conservation systems rather than replacing one with the other.
Cultural pressures also matter. Displacement, insecure tenure, exclusion from management, and disruption of knowledge transmission can weaken custodianship. Tourism may provide resources for protection while also creating crowding, waste, inappropriate access, or commercialisation. Even continuing religious use does not necessarily prevent ecological damage.


Government agencies, conservation organizations and scientists can provide ecological monitoring, restoration expertise and legal protection, while local communities and religious institutions provide knowledge, legitimacy, cultural continuity and day-to-day stewardship.
=== Conservation, Rights, and Research ===


=== Threats to Sacred Groves ===
Effective protection combines attention to ecological conditions with respect for custodians’ authority, knowledge, and priorities. Depending on the community and site, useful approaches include recognition of customary tenure, community management, restoration, visitor controls, watershed protection, and collaboration with conservation agencies.


Sacred groves face many of the same pressures affecting natural ecosystems generally.
Documentation and mapping should respect consent and confidentiality. Some knowledge, locations, and ceremonial practices are not intended for public circulation. Heritage recognition can help, but designation alone does not ensure that spiritual values or custodians’ roles are respected.<ref>[https://doi.org/10.3390/land11010097 How Might World Heritage Status Support the Protection of Sacred Natural Sites? — Bas Verschuuren, Alison Ormsby, and Wendy Jackson, 2022.]</ref>


Major threats documented in the research include:
Research should examine both ecological outcomes and the institutions sustaining them. Long-term monitoring, appropriate comparison sites, and greater attention to understudied regions and organisms can improve understanding without assuming that all sacred places function in the same way.
 
* agricultural expansion;
* urbanization;
* road and infrastructure construction;
* illegal or excessive wood harvesting;
* grazing;
* fire;
* dumping and pollution;
* invasive species;
* fragmentation;
* declining forest regeneration;
* population pressure;
* erosion of customary institutions; and
* changing religious and cultural attitudes.
 
Small size and isolation create additional problems. A grove may remain legally or culturally protected while ecological conditions deteriorate because surrounding habitat has disappeared.
 
Research in the Western Ghats, for example, has documented sacred groves that disappeared entirely or experienced declining forest cover and biomass despite their traditional protection.
 
Ethiopian church forests provide a similar warning: the physical forest patch may persist while canopy condition and regeneration decline.
 
Conservation therefore requires attention not merely to whether a sacred grove still exists but to its ecological condition and surrounding landscape.
 
=== Restoration and Landscape Conservation ===
 
Sacred groves can also become centers of ecological restoration.
 
Research from India documents cases in which degraded sacred forests have recovered through renewed community involvement, religious commitment and active restoration. Conservation programs increasingly combine biological inventories, community participation, management planning and restoration.
 
Connecting groves with other forests may be particularly important. Small isolated forests can contribute far more to biodiversity when incorporated into networks of habitat corridors, agricultural landscapes and formal protected areas.
 
This landscape approach treats sacred groves as ecological stepping stones and refuges rather than isolated islands.
 
Restoration can also reinforce cultural traditions. Recovering native vegetation, protecting springs, restoring ceremonial sites and documenting traditional knowledge can strengthen both biological and cultural heritage.
 
=== Sacred Natural Sites and Modern Conservation Policy ===
 
Modern conservation policy is beginning to recognize that important biodiversity exists outside conventional protected areas.
 
Sacred natural sites may complement national parks, reserves and other formally protected landscapes because they often occur in locations not represented in government conservation networks.
 
One emerging approach is recognition of suitable sacred natural sites as Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures, commonly known as OECMs. OECMs are areas outside conventional protected areas that nevertheless achieve sustained biodiversity conservation.
 
Research from South Africa, Italy and Japan examines the potential for sacred forests and religious landscapes to contribute to this approach.
 
India has also developed mechanisms such as Biodiversity Heritage Sites that can provide formal recognition to biologically and culturally important areas, including sacred landscapes.
 
Formal recognition must nevertheless be approached carefully. Sacred sites are living cultural landscapes rather than simply parcels of conservation land. Conservation programs that ignore custodians, religious traditions or community rights risk undermining the institutions that preserved these places in the first place.
 
=== A Global Biocultural Conservation Network ===
 
Taken together, sacred groves can be viewed as a dispersed global network of biocultural refuges.
 
They differ greatly in religion, ecology, size and management. A Khasi sacred forest in Meghalaya, Mijikenda Kaya in Kenya, Ethiopian church forest, Ghanaian sacred grove, Tibetan sacred mountain, Japanese shrine forest and Italian sacred woodland arose from different historical traditions.
 
Yet they demonstrate a similar principle: cultural values can influence landscapes strongly enough to produce measurable ecological consequences.
 
This does not mean that traditional systems are automatically successful or that they should replace modern conservation science. Research documents degradation as well as conservation success.
 
Instead, sacred groves demonstrate the value of combining ecological science with cultural knowledge, community institutions and locally legitimate forms of stewardship.
 
=== Research Gaps ===
 
Despite a large literature, important gaps remain.
 
Research is geographically uneven, with India receiving much more scientific attention than many other regions. Studies also tend to emphasize trees and flowering plants more heavily than animals, fungi, microorganisms and other groups.
 
Long-term monitoring is limited. Many studies describe biodiversity at a particular moment but cannot determine whether ecological conditions are improving or deteriorating over decades.
 
More research is also needed comparing sacred groves with similar nonsacred habitats. Such comparisons can help separate the ecological effects of sacred protection from differences in elevation, soils, forest type or surrounding land use.
 
New approaches including satellite imagery, geographic information systems, DNA sequencing, carbon measurement and biodiversity monitoring can complement traditional ecological knowledge and community observation.


=== Conclusion ===
=== Conclusion ===


Sacred groves demonstrate that biodiversity conservation is as much a cultural and institutional process as a biological one.
Sacred groves form part of a worldwide diversity of sacred natural sites. Their significance extends from small woodland patches to lakes, mountains, watersheds, islands, and ancestral territories. They can conserve biodiversity while sustaining cultural identity, spiritual practice, and community knowledge.


For centuries, communities have protected forests, trees, water sources and other natural places because they were considered sacred. The resulting landscapes often preserve biodiversity, medicinal plants, old trees, wildlife habitat, traditional ecological knowledge, water resources and carbon stocks within regions transformed by agriculture and development.
Their future depends on the continued relationships between people and places, together with practical protection from environmental damage. Conservation is strongest when it recognises these relationships and supports the communities responsible for maintaining them.


Their survival cannot be taken for granted. Urbanization, resource extraction, fragmentation, weakening customary institutions and ecological degradation threaten many sacred sites.
=== References ===


The evidence suggests that the most durable conservation strategies will not simply convert sacred groves into conventional protected areas. Instead, they will recognize and strengthen the cultural institutions that created them while adding legal protection, ecological monitoring, restoration and landscape-scale conservation where appropriate.
<references />
 
Sacred groves consequently offer more than isolated examples of traditional conservation. They demonstrate a broader principle for twenty-first-century environmental policy: protecting biological diversity can be strengthened by protecting the cultural relationships, knowledge systems and community institutions that have enabled people to care for particular places across generations.


__TOC__
__TOC__




Retrieved from "https://wikidemocracy.us/wiki/Sacred_Groves"