From Invisibility to Transparency: Identifying the Implications

This paper explores the need for a broader and more inclusive approach to decisions about land and resources, one that recognizes the legitimacy of cultural values and traditional knowledge in environmental decision making and policy. Invisible losses are those not widely recognized or accounted for in decisions about resource planning and decision making in resource- and land-use negotiations precisely because they involve considerations that tend to be ignored by managers and scientists or because they are often indirect or cumulative, resulting from a complex, often cumulative series of events, decisions, choices, or policies. First Nations communities in western North America have experienced many such losses that, together, have resulted in a decline in the overall resilience of individuals and communities. We have identified eight types invisible losses that are often overlapping and cumulative: cultural/lifestyle losses, loss of identity, health losses, loss of self-determination and influence, emotional and psychological losses, loss of order in the world, knowledge losses, and indirect economic losses and lost opportunities. To render such invisible losses more transparent, which represents the first step in developing a more positive and equitable basis for decision making and negotiations around land and resources, we recommend six processes: focusing on what matters to the people affected, describing what matters in meaningful ways, making a place for these concerns in decision making, evaluating future losses and gains from a historical baseline, recognizing culturally derived values as relevant, and creating better alternatives for decision making so that invisible losses will be diminished or eliminated in the future.

[1]  R. Mason SINGLE BOOK REVIEWS , 2007 .

[2]  L. King Competing Knowledge Systems in the Management of Fish and Forests in the Pacific Northwest , 2004 .

[3]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Using Stakeholder Values to Make Smarter Environmental Decisions , 2000 .

[4]  R. Boyd Indians, Fire, and the Land in the Pacific Northwest , 1999 .

[5]  N. Turner,et al.  ‘‘Where our women used to get the food’’: cumulative effects and loss of ethnobotanical knowledge and practice; case study from coastal British Columbia1 , 2008 .

[6]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[7]  Keith H. Basso,et al.  Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language Among the Western Apache , 1996 .

[8]  D. Pauly,et al.  Fishing Down Aquatic Food Webs , 2000 .

[9]  L. Frazer,et al.  Epizootics of wild fish induced by farm fish , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  H. Raiffa,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives , 1993 .

[11]  Michael F. Brown,et al.  Lost Worlds: Environmental Disaster, “Culture Loss,” and the Law , 2001 .

[12]  L. Kirmayer,et al.  The Mental Health of Aboriginal Peoples: Transformations of Identity and Community , 2000, Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie.

[13]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[14]  F. Berkes Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management , 1999 .

[15]  R. L. Trosper Incentive Systems That Support Sustainability: A First Nations Example , 1998 .

[16]  J. Thompson,et al.  OOLIGANGREASE: A NUTRITIOUS FAT USED BY NATIVE PEOPLE OF COASTAL BRITISH COLUMBIA , 1982 .

[17]  N. Turner,et al.  TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA , 2000 .

[18]  Igor Krupnik,et al.  The Earth Is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental Change. Frontiers in Polar Social Science. , 2002 .

[19]  R. Gregory,et al.  Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values , 1994 .

[20]  L. Maffi,et al.  Ethnobotany and conservation of biocultural diversity , 2004 .

[21]  Timothy L. McDaniels,et al.  Resource compensation and negotiation support in an aboriginal context: Using community-based multi-attribute analysis to evaluate non-market losses , 2005 .

[22]  Paul Nadasdy,et al.  THE POLITICS OF TEK: POWER AND THE "INTEGRATION" OF KNOWLEDGE , 1999 .

[23]  Fikret Berkes,et al.  Breaking ice : renewable resource and ocean management in the Canadian North , 2005 .

[24]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Selecting Attributes to Measure the Achievement of Objectives , 2005, Oper. Res..

[25]  C. Matthew Snipp,et al.  A Poison Stronger than Love: The Destruction of an Ojibwa Community. , 1986 .

[26]  H. Kuhnlein Change in the use of traditional foods by the Nuxalk native people of British Columbia , 1992 .

[27]  F. Berkes,et al.  Coming to Understanding: Developing Conservation through Incremental Learning in the Pacific Northwest , 2006 .

[28]  R. Gregory,et al.  Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: A decision-focused approach , 2007 .

[29]  M. Manseau A PLACE FOR TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE IN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT , 2005 .

[30]  A. Garibaldi,et al.  Cultural Keystone Species: Implications for Ecological Conservation and Restoration , 2004 .

[31]  N. Turner,et al.  Keeping It Living: Traditions of Plant Use and Cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America , 2005 .

[32]  R. Dussault,et al.  Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples , 1996 .

[33]  S. Pyne,et al.  Fire: A Brief History , 2001 .

[34]  R. Gregory,et al.  Meaningful Resource Consultations with First Peoples: Notes from British Columbia , 2008 .

[35]  H. Fineberg,et al.  Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society , 1996 .