Frontiers are Frontlines: Ethnobiological Science Against Ongoing Colonialism

Abstract

Ethnobiologists are capable of making transformative scientific contributions when they participate in localized direct actions and acts of colonial dissent. Direct action tactics like blockades, protests, and re-occupations of territories are often used as (alternative) approaches for marginalized and disenfranchised communities who face expensive and oppressive justice systems. As natural resource extraction and development in settler nations continues to have uneven impacts on Indigenous Peoples and communities, this research reviews the long history of resistance to colonial expansion on the “frontier” of northwestern British Columbia, Canada. Currently, an emergent trend for legalizing and legitimizing resource extraction in rural and frontier communities is through consultation and impact assessment processes. These processes can undermine scientific rigor and hierarchies of knowledge that undercut Indigenous Peoples' knowledge, and rights to use and be on their territories. Using ethnobiological research methods to fuse cultural and natural scientific prescriptions of land use, we consider how cultural resistance camps—primarily Lelu Island, but also Madii Lii—are troves of Tsm'syen and Gitxsan experiential knowledge and cultural exchange, while resisting powerful and well-funded liquid natural gas (LNG) development in traditional territories. Ethnobiologists working in these contexts are challenged to support and stand behind their Indigenous colleagues to transform the frontier into a frontline and foster rigorous scientific research alongside Indigenous resistance.

Recognizing Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ rights and agency in the post-2020 Biodiversity Agenda

“…Transformative change that includes IPLC's agency in biodiversity policy requires recognizing IPLC stewardship and their effective role in sustaining nature (Armstrong and Brown 2019), promoting IPLC decision-making rights, respecting IPLC laws, principles, and customary practices, and addressing Indigenous peoples' relations with states (Whyte 2017). Transformative change also requires accounting for the negative impacts of agricultural activities, resource extraction, or infrastructural development on nature and for the rights of IPLC (and society in general) to resist such nature damaging activities (IPBES 2019a, b).…”

Integrating Historical Ecology and Environmental Justice

“…Despite the recognition of the environmental identities of local peoples, or perhaps because of it, researchers may become aware of significant harm that has already been done during the work of past scholarship. Thus, more than recognition may be warranted; there may need to be explicit acknowledgment of this history and the harms that have been caused (Armstrong and Brown 2019; McAlvay et al 2021). Restorative justice in such a scenario would incorporate local and/or Indigenous voices in ways that “contest colonial hardships and embolden comprehensive aims at robust living” (Whyte 2014, 602).…”

“…Despite the recognition of the environmental identities of local peoples, or perhaps because of it, researchers may become aware of significant harm that has already been done during the work of past scholarship. Thus, more than recognition may be warranted; there may need to be explicit acknowledgment of this history and the harms that have been caused (Armstrong and Brown 2019;McAlvay et al 2021).…”

Understanding Policy Coherence and Interplay Governing Biodiversity Conservation and Associated Livelihood Practices in Karnali Province, Nepal

“…IPLC continues to face obstacles in drafting and endorsing biodiversity policy at local, regional, and global levels (Witter et al, 2015). Endorsing new biodiversity conservation policy tools requires recognizing IPLC contributions and potential social impacts, creating equitable and constructive representative spaces in formal decision-making bodies, and developing financial mechanisms that allow indigenous people and local community stewardship in biodiversity policy design and implementation (Armstrong & Brown, 2019) and state acknowledgment of territorial rights, IPLC laws, principles, and customary practices that simultaneously improve local livelihoods (Tengö et al, 2014). Implementation mechanisms and institutional arrangements for the transformation of policy objectives into implementation were largely subjugated by government officials, which in turn obstructed the achievement of the policy outcomes and led to policy failure (Aryal et al, 2021).…”