Indigenous sovereignties: relational ontologies and environmental management

Abstract

Indigenous nations have always and continue to assert their sovereignties to resist colonialism. This paper makes explicit the ways in which environmental management has been and continues to act as a tool of colonialism, particularly by privileging Western science, institutions, and administrative procedures. We argue that to decolonise environmental management, it is crucial to understand and challenge the power relations that underlie it—asking who makes decisions and on what worldview those decisions are based. Indigenous ways of being deeply challenge the foundations of environmental management and the colonising power structures that underlie it, and invite further thought about posthuman and relational ontologies. We provide a range of case studies that showcase the role of Indigenous nations in redefining and reimagining environmental management based on Indigenous sovereignties, knowledges, and ways of being. The case studies emphasise the crucial connection between Indigenous decision‐making authority and self‐governance for the enhanced protection and health of the environment. We argue that Indigenous agency, grounded in Indigenous governance and sovereignties, is driving innovation and decolonising environmental management by making space for new ways of thinking and being “in place”.

Crafting Wounaan Landscapes: Identity, Art, and Environmental Governance in Panama's Darién. By Julie Velásquez Runk. 2017. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 313 pp.

“…Velásquez Runk demonstrates that integrating indigenous ontologies can help direct which resources are protected and how in a manner that benefits local communities as well as conservationists. This echoes the work of other anthropologists who note integrating ontology into conservation can strengthen local adoption of and active participation in conservation polices (Fernández-Llamazares and Cabeza 2018; Schroeder and González 2019), develop more nuanced conservation programs based on local ecological knowledge (Rist and Dahdouh-Guebas 2006), and promote indigenous decision-making authority and self-governance while decolonizing environmental management (Muller et al 2019).…”

“Whiteness” and natural resource management: let's talk about race baby, let's talk about sovereignty!

“…Therefore, both Western science and government disallow the fullness of Indigenous epistemology by attempting to squeeze slices of Indigenous ecological knowledges into a Western framework. In so doing, the opportunities for Indigenous worldviews to provide environmental solutions is limited (see Muller et al, ).…”

“…We suggest that if white people can question their own cultural assumptions and problematise their own approaches instead of focusing on the Other, then new ways of conceptualising and addressing challenges will emerge. Such labours will enable non‐Indigenous practitioners to more equitably co‐develop new solutions with First Nations' partners or, where possible, resource First Nations to self‐determine their own solutions—a nation‐building approach where First Nations in the driving seat (Cornell, ; Cornell & Kalt, ; Hemming et al, ; Muller, et al, In press).…”

Knowledge Pluralism in First Nations’ Salmon Management

“…Some of this work has cautioned against "integration" efforts that feature an artificial dichotomization of these knowledge systems, appropriation of one knowledge into another based on perceived utility to western scientific management objectives, or conditional validation where non-scientific knowledges are only accepted as legitimate if they match assumptions in western science (Weiss et al, 2013;Mistry and Berardi, 2016;Reid et al, 2020). Such integration efforts serve to echo harmful colonial histories, displace Indigenous values and worldviews, limit the agency of Indigenous peoples and marginalize their own decision-making processes, precipitate negative ecological and socio-cultural outcomes, and contribute to Indigenous peoples' distrust of Federal governments (Whyte, 2013;Coombes et al, 2014;Muller et al, 2019). In this article, we build on work that challenges this legacy and pushes toward equitable, just, and decolonized practices in resource management.…”

“…Mistry and Berardi (2016) among others (Whyte, 2013;Weiss et al, 2013;Reid et al, 2020) note that science has been framed as superior in accuracy, rigor, objectivity, modernity and reliability. Some academic literature has specified science as different from IK/TEK through its systematic processes and positivist or reductionist perspectives and in noting that science is perceived, if erroneously, to be more objective and less culturally embedded than Indigenous ways of knowing (Weiss et al, 2013;Muller et al, 2019). Hypothesis and experiment-driven science and (especially quantitative) data is often contrasted with place-based, relationally-driven, experiential knowledge shared through storytelling, ceremony, and other oral traditions (Ban et al, 2018;Wheeler and Root-Bernstein, 2020).…”