Current global environmental policy reverberates with talk of a new “Anthropocene epoch” defined by “human domination”, in which a “perfect storm” of catastrophic threats is forcing a singular “great transition” towards “planetary management”. Under growing “environmental authoritarianism”, democracy is increasingly seen as a “failure”, a “luxury”, or even “an enemy of nature”. If charge is to be taken of the “control variables of the Earth”, some say democracy must be “put on hold”. One way of seeing this trend, is that scientific and policy knowledges are becoming increasingly imprinted by the preoccupations of incumbent power with rhetorics of control. Under this growing political mood, it seems there is ‘no alternative’ but compliance – or irrational denial and existential doom. Yet there are alternative ways to address the gravity of current ecological and social imperatives. It can be recognised, for instance, that democratic struggle is the principal means by which knowledges and practices of Sustainability were shaped in the first place. In this view, concentrated power and fallacies of control are more problems than solutions. Here, history can show that the greatest ongoing forms of transformative progress (like release from colonialism, racism or patriarchy), owe more to plural knowledges and values and unruly hope-inspired agonistic contention, than to single orderly technical “transitions” based on formally-integrated science or fear-driven structured control.

/pdf/emancipating-transformation-from-controlling-the-transition-2hjymi3kjz.pdf

Emancipating transformation: from controlling ‘the transition’ to culturing plural radical progress

Our review highlights how traditional ecological knowledge influences people's adaptive capacity to social- ecological change and identifies a set of mechanisms that contribute to such capacity in the context of community-based biodiversity conservation initiatives. Twenty-three publications, including twenty-nine case studies, were reviewed with the aim of investigating how local knowledge, community-based conservation, and resilience interrelate in social-ecological systems. We highlight that such relationships have not been systematically addressed in regions where a great number of community conservation initiatives are found; and we identify a set of factors that foster people's adaptive capacity to social-ecological change and a number of social processes that, in contrast, undermine such capacity and the overall resilience of the social- ecological system. We suggest that there is a need to further investigate how climate variability and other events affect the joint evolution of conservation outcomes and traditional ecological knowledge, and there is a need to expand the current focus on social factors to explain changes in traditional ecological knowledge and adaptive capacity towards a broader approach that pays attention to ecosystem dynamics and environmental change.

/pdf/community-based-conservation-and-traditional-ecological-35sjxqw3fa.pdf

Community-Based Conservation and Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Implications for Social-Ecological Resilience

Federally-recognized tribes must adapt to many ecological challenges arising from climate change, from the effects of glacier retreat on the habitats of culturally significant species to how sea leave rise forces human communities to relocate. The governmental and social institutions supporting tribes in adapting to climate change are often constrained by political obstructions, raising concerns about justice. Beyond typical uses of justice, which call attention to violations of formal rights or to considerations about the degree to which some populations may have caused anthropogenic climate change, a justice framework should guide how leaders, scientists and professionals of all heritages and who work with or for federally-recognized tribes understand what actions are morally essential for supporting tribes’ adaptation efforts. This paper motivates a shift to a forward-looking framework of justice. The framework situates justice within the systems of responsibilities that matter to tribes and many others, which range from webs of inter-species relationships to government-to-government partnerships. Justice is achieved when these systems of responsibilities operate in ways that support the continued flourishing of tribal communities.

Justice forward: Tribes, climate adaptation and responsibility

Vertebrate biodiversity on indigenous-managed lands in Australia, Brazil, and Canada equals that in protected areas

The concept of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), along with synonymous or closely related terms like indigenous knowledge and native science, has some of its origins in literatures on international development and adaptive management. There is a tendency to want to determine one definition for TEK that can satisfy every stakeholder in every situation. Yet a scan of environmental science and policy literatures reveals there to be differences in definitions that make it difficult to form a consensus. What should be explored instead is the role that the concept of TEK plays in facilitating or discouraging cross-cultural and cross-situational collaboration among actors working for indigenous and non-indigenous institutions of environmental governance, such as tribal natural resources departments, federal agencies working with tribes, and co-management boards. This is a philosophical paper that explores how the concept of TEK is defined in science and policy literatures and what purpose it serves for improving cooperative environmental and natural resources stewardship and management between indigenous and non-indigenous institutions. The philosophical method applied here is one that outlines numerous possible meanings of a concept (TEK, in this paper) and the implications of each meaning for science and policy. In science and policy literatures, there are different definitions of TEK. Controversy can brew over TEK when people hold definitions that are based on different assumptions. There are two kinds of assumptions about the meaning of TEK. The first kind refers to assumptions about the mobilization of TEK, or what I call knowledge mobilization. The second kind involves assumptions about how to understand the relationship between TEK and disciplines like ecology or biology, or, in other words, the relation between TEK and science. Different positions that fall under the two kinds of assumptions (knowledge mobilization; TEK and science) can generate disagreements because they imply differences about “whose” definition of TEK gets privileged, who is counted as having expert authority over environmental governance issues, and how TEK should be factored into policy processes that already have a role for disciplines like forestry or toxicology in them. In light such disagreements, I argue that the concept of TEK should be understood as a collaborative concept. It serves to invite diverse populations to continually learn from one another about how each approaches the very question of “knowledge” in the first place, and how these different approaches can be blended to better steward natural resources and adapt to climate change. The implication is that environmental scientists and policy professionals, indigenous and non-indigenous, should not be in the business of creating definitions of TEK. Instead, they should focus more on creating long term processes that allow the different implications of approaches to knowledge in relation to stewardship goals to be responsibly thought through.

/pdf/on-the-role-of-traditional-ecological-knowledge-as-a-2pdpeh02de.pdf

On the role of traditional ecological knowledge as a collaborative concept: a philosophical study

Involving Indigenous peoples and traditional knowledge in natural resource management produces more equitable and successful outcomes. Unfortunately, argue Anne Ross and co-authors, even many "progressive" methods fail to produce truly equal partnerships. This book offers a comprehensive and global overview of the theoretical, methodological, and practical dimensions of co-management. The authors critically evaluate the range of management options that claim to have integrated Indigenous peoples and knowledge, and then outline an innovative, alternative model of co-management, the Indigenous Stewardship Model. They provide detailed case studies and concrete details for application in a variely of contexts. Broad in coverage and uniting robust theoretical insights with applied detail, this book is ideal for scholars and students as well as for professionals in resource management and environmental policy. [Back cover]

https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:261187/LeftCoastPress.pdf

Indigenous Peoples and the Collaborative Stewardship of Nature: Knowledge Binds and Institutional Conflicts

Parallels exist between the academic theory of a dwelling approach to resilience and the Indigenous Stewardship Model developed on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. In both approaches, sustainable resource management depends on a practical environmentalism that creates linkages between local community members and their surrounding ecosystem. Research on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation reveals that Lakota people possess a conservation ethic that stems from their physical connection to place. However, tribal, state, and federal land policies create structural barriers that reduce access of Lakota households to the land, which in turn reduces adaptability and resilience in their ecological practice. To overcome these barriers, Lakota households envision local stewardship of reservation lands and resources. Particular emphasis is placed on the intergenerational transfer of knowledge to Lakota youth, to transcend local and political conflict, and to reestablish social and cultural relationships with the reservation’s ecology.

Richard Sherman

Papers

Indigenous Peoples and the Collaborative Stewardship of Nature: Knowledge Binds and Institutional Conflicts

Practical Environmentalism on the Pine Ridge Reservation: Confronting Structural Constraints to Indigenous Stewardship

Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge