Comment to: Reyes-García, V., Á. Fernández-Llamazares, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, P. Benyei,
R.W. Bussmann, S.K. Diamond, D. García-del-Amo, S. Guadilla-Sáez, et al. 2022a. Recognizing
Indigenous peoples' and local communities' rights and agency in the post-2020 Biodiversity
Agenda. Ambio 51: 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01561-7
Lopez-Maldonado, Y. 2022. Practice what you preach: Ensuring scientific spheres integrate
Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ right and agency too. Ambio. 51: 811–812.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01663-2
Reyes-Garcia, V., Á. Fernandez-Llamazares, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, P. Benyei, R.W. Bussmann,
D. Garcia-Del-Amo, N. Hanazaki, A.C. Luz, et al. 2022b. Response to “Practice what
you preach: Ensuring scientific spheres integrate Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’
rights and agency too” by Lopez-Maldonado. Ambio 51: 813–814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01676-x
In the recent exchange between Reyes-García et al. and Lopez-Maldonado, important
points are raised, but both sides fail to recognise their embeddedness in an ongoing
conflict about the epistemological boundaries of science and the social category of
expert within the “extended peer community” (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1994). In the following
paragraphs, we briefly discuss what we feel has been missed, arguing for an approach
to western science-ILK engagements called “productive complicity” (Singleton et al.
2021).
In their initial paper, Reyes-García et al. (2022a) argue for integrating indigenous
and local knowledge (ILK) into biodiversity science, echoing other environmental scientific
rhetoric (cf. Singleton et al. 2021). They argue for the importance of ILK for biodiversity
and sustainability transitions and the importance for science-ILK integration for
indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC) rights and territorial claims. They
assert that “rights and agency” must be foregrounded in collaborations between scientists
and IPLC to co-produce “emergent knowledge that supports conservation” (86).
Lopez-Maldonado (2022) argues that ILK is “eroded” through engagements with western
science, and criticises Reyes-Garcia et al. for inadequately recognising the colonial
past and present of hegemonic western science. This renders knowledge co-production
and systemic integration unreasonable. IPLC do not necessarily benefit from collaborating
with scientists complicit in “colonizing methodologies and approaches” that miss “the
essence of ILK” and constitute “an existential threat to humanity” (811). In their
rejoinder, Reyes-García et al. acknowledge science’s relationship with imperialism,
but assert Lopez-Maldonado depicts a strawman; that the history of efforts to integrate
ILK into science and policy reveals efforts to learn from and ameliorate science’s
colonialist tendencies (2022b). They emphasise the pragmatic value of their work as
a call for improving respect for IPLC knowledge, rights and agency in exclusionary
contexts (813).
Looking at this discussion, we see dissonance over the make-up of ILK and its relationship
to science. To Reyes-García et al., ILK comprises a body of knowledge which contains
information valuable to both science and society, which should, thus, be integrated
and protected. ILK is “holistic”, having “multiple values”, and thus, a good source
of environmental ethics (2022a, p. 86). However, many of their examples of IPLC-scientist
collaborations actually describe IPLC gathering data useful to western science, rather
than autonomous IPLC knowledge systems or processes. In their rejoinder (2022b), they
acknowledge the contribution of indigenous scientists, while suggesting that even
though IPLC explicitly have “essential knowledge” about environmental ethics, their
main interest is ILK that “supports conservation” as practised by western biodiversity
scientists.
In contrast, Lopez-Maldonado (2022) demarcates a clear boundary between ILK and western
science. Western science is strongly complicit in the annihilation of vital human
knowledge and distinctly separate from indigenous people (812). She also complains
that Reyes-Garcia et al. are “reluctant to consider ILK as a proper science” and “still
treat IPLC as illiterate or not being able to communicate fundamental knowledge of
the Earth’s system function, despite IPLC hold their own methods and approaches for
that” (812). In other words, ILK should be labelled science (2022).
In our view, this is a scientific boundary conflict regarding the construction and
functioning of the extended peer community (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1994). Both sides
agree that a category of expert knowledge called “science” has value, differing over
rights to define its content and, thus, make expert decisions about biodiversity management.
Arguments advocating for selective knowledge integration on the one hand (Reyes-García
et al. 2022a, b), or knowledge separation on the other (Lopez-Maldonado 2022), are
inadequate to capture the variety of interactions required for conservation to realise
its full potential.
As we argue elsewhere, an alternative framing for scientist-IPLC engagements and indeed
extended peer communities more generally is “productive complicity” (Singleton et
al., 2021). Productive complicity refers to contingent, politically sensitive collaborations
that affirm temporary but useful essentialisms, such as “indigenous and local knowledge”,
in order to achieve shared objectives. Such partnerships consciously confront the
contextual, temporal and political dimensions of any and all research collaboration.
They build on researchers’ reflexivity or awareness of inherent essentialisms in situationally
bounding knowledge as “science” or non-science, and her/his/their own complicity in
power relations. Productive complicity entails participants self-consciously and critically
assessing the repercussions of particular acts of collaboration from a multitude of
normative perspectives. It entails awareness of broader social-ecological contexts,
not least in relation to dispossessed and marginalised groups. As a mode of partnering,
this focuses attention on the dynamic, political and temporally situated nature of
collaboration. It facilitates scientists and IPLC strategically channelling their
partnerships toward the emancipation of marginalised communities and the pursuit of
equitable environmental outcomes for humans and nonhumans.
New knowledge-making actors increasingly seek participation in the operations of environmental
and conservation science. Who belongs to the extended peer community of these fields
and where the boundaries are drawn for what is considered “science” are affected by
this development. We encourage knowledge producers of all stripes to embrace this
situation and develop creative methods for respectful and reflexive engagement. Recognising
science-IPLC cooperation as acts of productive complicity is a useful first step.