I want to respond to a reading that has made me reflect on what I have tried to achieve with this blog. It is called "Many worlds, many nature(s), one planet: indigenous knowledge in the Anthropocene" and can be found here.
Across my blog, I have explored how Indigenous knowledge recasts nature, global environmental change studies and environmental protection in the Anthropocene.
I've weaved a narrative that Indigenous communities are positioned uniquely in relation to nature - they are, on the one hand, experiencing the most immediate and severe effects of global environmental change like extreme weather events. However, they also have a unique expertise that means they are extremely well-equipped to create sustainable solutions like new modes of environmental governance as they have maintained resilient relationships with natural environments for centuries.
The point I want to hone in on is that Indigenous conceptions of nature are complementary to the Anthropocene. In my previous blog posts I've discussed the epoch as a signal of a "post-nature" globe. My opinion has changed. I think a better understanding is that humans are agents of environmental change; we produce many worlds and many natures (Tickner & Blaney, 2012). Indigenous knowledge systems are diverse and hybrid and don't address a "static nature" but represent flexible means of adapting to ecosystems from historical interactions within them. Threats to Indigenous communities are diverse and often intangible; the degradation of the Whanganui represented the endangerment of a valued ancestor for the Māori, for example.
Nature is not something that we can fit into a single mold of ideal environmental governance. In the Anthropocene, the epoch of great global environmental change, solutions must be informed by a spectrum of Indigenous knowledge systems about self, community and nature - man's cosmological dependence on nature - that goes beyond appreciation or token gestures of the inclusion of Indigenous perspectives.
There is a need for a 'worldist' environmentalism that appeals for speaking and listening among "multiple worlds of tradition and modernity", domains of reality and natures (Ling, 2014). International relations must re-centre to incorporate non-Western concerns and traditions regarding nature which have been turned subaltern in order to decolonise 'environmentalism'. The authors of the paper call for "epistemological parity" to reverse the subordination of Indigenous voices.
I'll leave you with some fantastic insights from Heather Davis about decolonising the Anthropocene and global environmental change.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
Hi Jacob! Thank you for your insightful comment. The first thing that environmental governance should do is listen to the lived experiences of Indigenous communities facing global environmental change.
I would recommend that for natural resources/ecosystems that have specific value to Indigenous communities, something like a rights-based framework like I discussed in the case of the legal personhood of the Whanganui river has good potential. This type of context-specific and community-centred approach can illuminate value of natural assets that aren't typically prioritised in Western environmental governance, like cultural and ancestral value, and highlight how the functioning of these natural amenities and the local communities are interdependent.
For less tangible things like air or the oceans, I am really interested in…
I really like the focus on the value of non-Western epistemological and ontological approaches to the environment, and Indigenous Thought. Seeing as there is such a diversity of Indigenous communities across the world, how do you suggest incorporating all of their conceptions of nature in environmental policy?