Course:CONS200/2025WT2/The Politics of Knowledge: Western Scientific Conservation Knowledge Versus Indigenous Conservation Values

In response to the Industrial Revolution beginning in the 18th century and continuing further in North America in the 19th century emerged the Western Conservation Movement. This movement called for more effort to manage and protect natural resources and emphasized sustainable resource use and more governmental regulation. Those with large influence like Theodore Roosevelt helped to advance this cause with legislative policies for protected lands but some conservationists opposed preservative conservation methods in contrast to conventional conservation practices. In recent years, traditional ecological knowledge systems have gained more recognition as a viral approach to effective conservation because they offer more locally-based methods of natural resource conservation that challenge the ideas of conventional Western scientific models. Today, it is clear that conservation efforts need to include both the scientific approach and the indigenous perspective in order to achieve our conservation goals.

Historical Context

The Western Conservation Movement

The conservation movement began in Europe in the 1700s with scientific forestry practices in France and Prussia aimed at regulating timber use. Early conservation efforts focused on preventing resource overuse. In the 19th century, rapid industrial expansion in the U.S. led to severe environmental degradation as private companies exploited land without regulation. This prompted conservationists to push for government intervention. The movement gained momentum when John Evelyn’s 1662 work Sylva highlighted deforestation concerns, making it one of the earliest calls for sustainable forest management.

By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, figures like President Theodore Roosevelt championed conservation, leading to the creation of national parks and forests, the U.S. Forestry Service, and placing 230 million acres under federal protection. The Wilderness Act of the 1960s further set aside land for limited human impact. Conservationists were divided between two approaches: conservation, which advocated for sustainable resource management, and preservation, which sought to keep land untouched.

Examples of conservation thinking include John Evelyn’s Sylva (1662) – one of the earliest calls for sustainable forestry, George Perkins Marsh – recognized the interconnectedness of ecosystems and warned against deforestation’s impact on water systems and even the scientific forestry movement in Europe (18th century) – systematic timber management practices adopted in France, Prussia, and later the British Empire. Theodore Roosevelt’s also had major conservation policies like federal protection of land, national parks, and the establishment of the U.S. Forestry Service.

Indigenous Conservation Values

Indigenous groups from around the world have many different conservation practices. The Haida people, on Canada’s west coast, strive towards creating sustainable economic opportunities and protecting the cultural and ecological values using conservation. In New Zealand, the Māori apply restrictions such as on fishing or for allowing an area to recover. Despite their differences, the Haida and Māori demonstrate how Indigenous knowledge plays a crucial role in conservation.

The Haida Nation

The Haida people, located on the west coast of Canada, for a long time have practiced sustainable management of marine and forest ecosystems through traditional ecological knowledge. In forests, they use selective harvesting of cedar trees, only taking mature trees while allowing younger ones to grow to ensure the long-term health of the forest. The cedar tree holds cultural significance, the trees are used for totem poles, canoes, and clothing, highlighting the importance of its preservation. When it comes to marine management, the Haida people protect herring spawning areas, valuing the species' vital role in marine ecosystem and advocating against overfishing. With efforts the people of the Haida nation made, including initiatives like the Haida Gwaii Watchmen Program. “The watchmen” refer to the totem poles that were set up around the villages and had three men at the top with high hats. The watchmen would keep a look out for approaching enemies, now it is known as a program dedicated to employing local indigenous people to tour visitors around the island, so the tourists get firsthand knowledge of the land. The people of Haida Gwaii work hard to take care of the land using current conservation practices while also using cultural and traditional knowledge.

The Māori

The Māori, located in New Zealand, apply the concept of kaitiakitanga, it means guardianship, stewardship, or protection of natural environments. It signifies the responsibility to preserve natural or marine ecosystem resources for future generation. A key practice following the kaitiakitanga, is the rahui, a temporary restriction that is placed on specific land or water areas to allow ecosystems to recover. The rahui is notably successful with overfishing management, where closing certain fishing areas for a period of time helps prevent overexploitation and allows fish populations to replenish. [6] Rooted in cultural and spiritual values, rahui reflects the Māori belief in the interconnectedness of people and nature, demonstrating how Indigenous knowledge contributes to effective conservation practices.

Contemporary Progress

Western Methods of Conservation

Specific to western modern scientific knowledge are methods of conservation such as:

• Watershed Restoration: Restoring watersheds to improve water quality and ecosystem health
• Mine Drainage Remediation: Treating polluted water from mining operations to prevent environmental damage
• Riparian Tree Planting: Planting trees along riverbanks to prevent erosion and improve aquatic ecosystems
• Soil Bioengineering for Streambank Stabilization: Using plant materials to reinforce stream banks and reduce erosion
• In-Stream Habitat Improvements: Enhancing aquatic ecosystems by creating structures that support fish and other species
• Grey Wolf Recovery Efforts: Reintroducing and managing wolf populations to maintain ecological balance.
• Sustainable Resource Management: Ensuring natural resources are used in a way that maintains their availability for future generations
• Sustainable Forestry: Practicing responsible timber harvesting to balance economic needs with forest health.
• Soil Building: Implementing techniques to enhance soil fertility and prevent erosion.
• Biodiversity Offsets: Compensating for environmental damage by restoring or protecting similar habitats elsewhere.

Many of these methods might be feasible since for example, watershed restoration and mine drainage remediation require significant funding and long-term commitment but have proven successful in improving water quality. While riparian tree planting and soil bioengineering are cost-effective and widely used, they require much time for ecosystems to recover.In-stream habitat improvements provide immediate benefits to aquatic life but need ongoing maintenance. Additionally, grey wolf recovery efforts have been controversial due to conflicts with livestock interests, making them politically sensitive, sustainable forestry and resource management are widely adopted but require strict regulation to prevent overexploitation, and biodiversity offsets balance conservation with economic interests, though their effectiveness depends on enforcement and oversight.

Preservation Versus Conservation

It is also important to separate preservation from conservation as they are both different. Preservation seeks to leave nature untouched, preventing human intervention entirely (e.g., national parks where human activity is minimized) and conservation promotes sustainable use of resources, ensuring they remain available for future generations while allowing responsible human interaction (e.g., sustainable forestry and regulated hunting).

Weaving In Indigenous Knowledge Systems

Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Western science offer different but equally valuable ways of understanding the world. Indigenous Knowledge approaches are rooted in relationships with the land developed over generations, while Western science relies on measurement and observation. When brought together through frameworks like Two-Eyed Seeing (Etuaptmumk in Mi’kmaw), these systems create stronger environmental governance. Two-Eyed Seeing means learning to see with the strengths of Indigenous knowledge in one eye, and Western knowledge in the other, using both together. This combination respects each system’s unique strengths while creating a more complete understanding of complex environmental challenges. Research shows this approach leads to better conservation outcomes, more sustainable resource management, and more effective protection of biodiversity than either knowledge system working alone.

Indigenous Knowledge Systems

Indigenous Knowledge Systems offer valuable perspectives on the environment through observations tied to specific places and understanding relationships between all elements. These systems are not simply information, but complete ways of life within Indigenous societies that must be experienced firsthand to be fully understood. Indigenous knowledge recognizes the connections that link humans with other living beings, the spirit world, ancestors, and future generations. The Kitasoo/Xai’xais Nation applies this knowledge in territory management based on generational wisdom about species movements, habitat use, and ecosystem changes within their cultural frameworks.

This approach brings significant benefits to environmental work beyond what Western science alone provides. Indigenous knowledge often spans hundreds or thousands of years of observation in one area, giving a long-term perspective that reveals patterns and changes over generations. It sees environments as complete systems where all parts connect—plants, animals, water, land, and people—rather than studying each part separately. Indigenous observers can often detect subtle environmental changes earlier than scientific instruments because their deep connection to the land makes small shifts noticeable. This sensitivity helps identify environmental problems sooner, expanding the time available to develop effective solutions. Indigenous Knowledge Systems also recognize both the visible and invisible aspects of ecosystems, including spiritual and cultural dimensions that shape human relationships with nature.

Two-Eyed Seeing

The “Two-Eyed Seeing” framework provides a powerful approach for integrating different ways of understanding while preserving what makes each knowledge system valuable. This concept comes from Mi’kmaw Elder Albert Marshall, who introduced Etuaptmumk (Two-Eyed Seeing) as “learning to see from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing, and from the other eye with the strengths of mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing, and using both these eyes together, for the benefit of all”.

Two-Eyed Seeing creates space for collaboration in environmental research, particularly in fisheries management. Rather than forcing one knowledge system to fit into another or selecting parts from each, this approach allows both systems to work side by side. Each system maintains its integrity while contributing to a more complete understanding.

When applied to environmental challenges, Two-Eyed Seeing creates multiple benefits. It enables researchers to understand complex ecological relationships that might be missed when using only one approach. Indigenous observations spanning generations can complement scientific data collection methods. The framework acknowledges that Indigenous governance systems have valuable contributions to make alongside scientific methodologies.

Two-Eyed Seeing represents more than just knowledge sharing—it requires a shift in thinking about how we approach environmental problems. This framework creates pathways for inclusive decision-making that respects different ways of knowing while working toward shared goals of sustainable resource management and environmental protection.

Building Bridges Through Indigenous-Led Research

Indigenous-led research creates effective connections between knowledge systems while maintaining respect for Indigenous leadership and authority. When Indigenous communities direct research efforts, traditional knowledge maintains its proper context and the work addresses community priorities rather than outside interests. This approach represents a significant shift from conventional research where Indigenous Peoples were often treated as subjects rather than leaders.

The Slave River Delta partnership demonstrates this collaborative approach through its innovative methodology. The partnership uses Bayesian belief networks—a mathematical modeling approach—to meaningfully combine Indigenous knowledge with Western scientific measurements when assessing ecosystem health. This allows equal consideration of both knowledge systems when determining environmental conditions.

Camera trap research in western boreal forests shows relationships between industrial features and mammals that individual knowledge systems cannot detect. This work revealed important connections between oil well sites and wildlife populations that neither Indigenous knowledge nor Western science alone had fully captured, demonstrating the value of combined approaches.

These collaborative approaches succeed precisely because Indigenous Peoples lead the research rather than participating merely as information sources. This leadership ensures proper respect for Indigenous protocols around knowledge sharing, centers Indigenous priorities in the research questions and methods, and supports Indigenous self-determination. The resulting research maintains cultural integrity while simultaneously advancing conservation objectives that benefit all parties involved.

Contradictions Between Conservation Approaches

Generally, Western scientific knowledge and conservation view creating legally protected areas as the best way to help protect and preserve natural habitats and the wilderness. On the other hand, Indigenous conservation values place an emphasis on co-existence, which "connect[s] past, present, and future generations through storied relationships to land and water." The discord between these two perspectives has led to contradictions in how to approach the modern facilitation of conservation— Western conceptions of nature as something to be safeguarded from humanity conflicts with Indigenous people's long history of living reciprocally with the land, both nourishing and receiving from the Earth.

Nevertheless, with over 300,000 protected areas worldwide, making up 16.44% of the Earth's land, the creation of protected areas and national parks remains one of the most popular conservation techniques today. The creation of protected areas has invariably led to the commodification of nature, leading to ideas such as 'green growth' and 'fortress' conservation, leading to the eviction of Indigenous people from their ancestral homes, negatively impacting their livelihoods and discounting their rights.

Dispossession Through Conservation

For years, conservation through the creation of protected areas and national parks has been lauded as a noble cause that protects the Earth, conserves vital resources, and shields wildlife from human detriment. However, these protected regions and regions come at a price, particularly to Indigenous people, who are either forced off their land and displaced into reservations or must involuntarily leave due to lack of access to the resources they survive on. The discordance between Western and Indigenous conceptions of conservation is an issue that has remained pervasive, both throughout history and contemporary times; however, due to institutional power dynamics, this has usually meant not only the physical expulsion of Native populations, but also their “symbolic obliteration," with locals losing access to "history, memory and representation" on their homelands.

A Historical Example: Yosemite's Forgotten Guardians

Background

The Yosemite's landscape was cultivated carefully by the native people who resided there. However, the aftermath of the Gold Rush resulted in the spread of epidemic diseases among native communities and the destruction of their carefully tended ecosystems. Leading to heightened tensions between Yosemite natives and White settlers, exacerbated by the growing number of mining camps and settlements, the "discovery" of the Yosemite Valley occurred in 1851 during a military campaign attempting to subdue and relocate the natives of Sierra Nevada, an effort that ultimately failed.

Digger Indians (1878) by Constance Frederica Gordon-Cumming. A derogatory term, the title of the work reflects commonly held stereotypes about Indigenous people as simplistic, unintelligent "savages."

Nonetheless, the massive environmental devastation caused by the invasion of miners not only decimated native populations, but also wreaked havoc on processes such as seasonal hunting and gathering cycles. Finding themselves increasingly homeless within their own lands, the Indigenous people of Yosemite were forced to co-exist with the increasing number of settlers flocking to their land.

Co-Existence

Tourism to Yosemite began to grow as the region's fame grew— in 1864, President Lincoln signed the Yosemite Park Act, and by 1874, the land was receiving almost 3000 visitors. Hence, for Yosemite's native population, survival meant integration into the tourist economy. This strategy strategy proved successful— as had been practice for nearly 150 years, early European and American tourists continued to associate Indigenous people with wilderness and many were happy to find that they still resided within Yosemite.

John Muir: Lauded as a pioneer of the conservation movement, Muir is best known for co-founding the Sierra Club in 1892 to help protect the Yosemite Valley and lobbying for the creation of national parks to ensure the protection of the American "wilderness."

This positive attitude was invariably affected by the romantic, idealistic idea of nature at the time, characterized by the "untouched" conception of wilderness. In fact, many paintings of Yosemite involve native people in them; as artist Constance Fletcher Gordon-Cumming's put it, their presence brought a touch of "naturalness" to her art. Therefore, the Yosemite native people's existence was tolerated because they fit the "untouched" vision of the wild that most of Western society held at the time.

Changing Attitudes

Nonetheless, these attitudes began to change in the late 19th century: by the 1890s, park officials in both Yosemite and Montana grew concerned about the Native presence within a "nature preserve," especially since these groups would hunt within park grounds. Such concerns highlighted the shifting perspective of Western society as viewing native people as harmful to wilderness. In fact, John Muir, one of conservation's most celebrated figures, found Yosemite's Natives "dirty" and "lazy." Since nature had been constructed as pristine or sublime, negative, racist stereotypes of Natives allowed park rangers and Western conservationists to justify their expulsion.

However, what conservationists, tourists, and government officials all fail to consider is that "uninhabited wilderness had to be created." Idealizing an "untouched" or "virgin" land while simultaneously driving out the very people that led to the land's development upholds the idea that humans and nature are separate entities, serving to reinforce the disenfranchisement of the people who have maintained the landscape for a millenia.

Loss of Land Rights

The legacy of parks such as Yosemite has led to a contemporary form of fortress conservation grounded in the assumption that governments are the best custodians of the planet. Global commitments to preserving nature and biodiversity were entrenched through agreements such as the the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which reaffirms the vitality of Earth's resources to human social and economic development. Then, in 2010, states party to the CBD also signed onto the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, which outlined a series of goals to address biodiversity loss, reduce direct pressures on biodiversity, as well as improving its status so as to enhance its benefits.

Although these legal frameworks appear as positive wins for nature conservation, these "wins" often come at the cost of Indigenous and local land rights. For example, Target 11 of the Aichi Biodiversity Target's aims to conserve "at least 17 [percent] of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 [percent] of coastal and marine areas." The land to be preserved under these targets rarely comes out of developed or commercialized regions. Instead, around 50 to 80 percent of land for protected areas overlaps with the lands of Indigenous or local people, leading to a perpetual state of confrontation and violence.

As a direct result of contemporary conservation efforts, over 250,000 individuals across 15 different countries have faced expulsion from their homes due to the creation of protected areas, with up to one billion people affected by conflicts in forest reserves. Other atrocities, such as extrajudicial killings, the burning of houses, or the destruction of productive assets are just some of many techniques utilized today to expand the area for protected regions. Some examples of violence and displacement for "conservation" purposes are outlined below.

India

Adivasi people are forced to leave their homes, often in the name of development or the creation of protected areas.

The Adivasi is a collective term used to describe the indigenous people of India. The earliest inhabitants of India, they have a history of oppression within India, particularly concerning land rights. Although laws were made during British rule that prohibited the sale of indigenous lands to non-Adivasis, these laws were and still remain largely disregarded. Over 95% of Adivasi tribes still live in rural areas, and over half of them depend on the forest for their livelihoods. Still, resistance from conservationists over the complete implementation of the Recognition of Forest Rights Act, which would give Adivasi tribes the possibility of claiming land rights, has led to various instances preventing its application.

For example, the establishment of the Biligiri Rangaswamy Wildlife Sanctuary in 1974 led to the forcible displacement of the Soliga adivasi, who were further prevented from claiming land rights following the creation of a tiger reserve within the sanctuary. While the Soliga's involvement in the management of the forest delivered numerous benefits to various ecosystem services, such as air quality and water regulation, three-fourths of the population were forced to leave due to external pressures.

Nevertheless, after years of protesting and liaising with NGOs, the Soliga people were able to gain access to some of their land back. Those who managed to stay after the forced evictions could regain their rights to 1-2 acres of land; still, the land was unequally distributed among a few individual families, with many remaining dispossessed.

Panama

A map showing the deforestation and forest loss in Panama between 2000 and 2020 in regions inside and outside Indigenous lands.

Panama is home to several indigenous semi-autonomous regions and protected areas. However, the government has yet to recognize the rights of indigenous people to their customary lands due to their overlap with protected regions. Although Panama's national constitution guarantees Indigenous collective land possession, over half of all lands in parks and reserves overlap with both titled and untitled indigenous territories.

Many indigenous groups within Panama have requested the recognition of their customary lands by the government. However, many of these requests have been delayed, or even denied, because of their overlaps with national parks, with the Panama Ministry of Environment stifling title requests since late 2015. Hence, refusing to acknowledge indigenous people's rights to their land has led to exacerbated tensions, along with a loss of biodiversity and nature preservation, as the untitled lands become the first victims of commercialization and deforestation.

Update in 2020

In 2020, the Panamanian Supreme Court ruled the official creation of a protected Indigenous territory for the Naso Tjër Di people in northern Panama. This was a massive win, as just two years prior, Panama's former president had ruled the creation of the region "unconstitutional" as it would overlap with two established protected areas. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court overruled this, and their decision to grant these rights rested on evidence which demonstrated that Indigenous groups within Panama had played a vital role in protecting its environment. This is especially applicable in the case of the Naso people, who have played a significant role in protecting and conserving the Teribe River, helping to ward off deforestation that was taking place in much higher levels in surrounding areas.

Conclusion

The history and evolution of Western conservation, alongside Indigenous conservation practices, reveal a landscape of environmental stewardship. Western conservation has contributed significantly to protecting ecosystems through scientific methods and legislation, it has perpetuated dispossession and exclusion of Indigenous communities. Indigenous approaches are rooted in relational knowledge and co-existence with nature, they offer sustainable and culturally grounded conservation practices. The integration of Western and Indigenous knowledge systems, through frameworks like Two-Eyed Seeing, offer a more equitable and effective path for environmental governance. True conservation success must center not only ecological health but also justice and respect for Indigenous rights.

References

This conservation resource was created by Course:CONS200.