- The idea of integrating Indigenous and Western knowledge systems is often well-intentioned, but ultimately misguided, write the authors of a new commentary who were part of a project for WCS Canada and the Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in First Nation in the Yukon.
- Their new study offers an alternative approach, in which these knowledge systems can exist independently and simultaneously, without seeking to control or validate one another.
- “It is our hope that this work sparks a greater conversation about land-use planning across Canada, in pursuit of a world where wildlife and people can thrive in healthy and valued lands and seas,” the authors write.
- This article is a commentary. The views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily Mongabay.
Conservation is our collective responsibility as humans, requiring broad participation from all members of society, rooted in a diverse range of knowledge systems and experiences. Yet modern approaches to conservation, science and land-use planning are influenced by our history of colonialism and power imbalances that continue to affect Indigenous communities across Canada.
Despite attempts in the last decade to build bridges between biological and cultural diversity agendas and bring together both “Western science” and “Indigenous and local” knowledge systems into the science-policy interface, Western knowledge systems have continued to be favored, accredited and revered at the expense of Indigenous knowledge.
The idea of integrating knowledge systems is often well-intentioned, but ultimately misguided. A recent collaboration between the Wildlife Conservation Society Canada (WCS) and Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in, a First Nation in the Yukon, offers an alternative approach, in which Western and Indigenous knowledge systems can exist independently and simultaneously without seeking to control or validate one another.
Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in is a self-governing First Nation based in the Yukon Territory who signed their Final Land Claim Agreement in 1998. As a modern-treaty First Nation, Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in has the ability to form governing bodies and make laws and regulations for their people and their lands. Like many Indigenous peoples, Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in have their own knowledge systems that have flourished for thousands of years, and have been advocating for their own Indigenous knowledge systems and social change for centuries.
But even under modern treaties designed to embody a collaborative government-to-government relationship, planning frameworks still reflect a Western worldview. In their submission to the Dawson Regional Land Use Planning process, Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in raised a fundamental concern: What happens when Indigenous stories and worldviews don’t fit within a Western paradigm — in this case, within the boundaries of a map?
As their planning submission stated:
“Our priorities lie in protecting the system as an interconnected whole, not in protecting site-specific areas.”
This is but one example of a broader problem to be reckoned with, in which the laws, ethics, cultures and traditions of First Nations are incompatible with current ways of working.
A collaborative but independent approach
Together with Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in, we designed and trialed an inclusive approach to identify land-use designations throughout Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in’s traditional territory by bringing together multiple generations and interviewing families. With the support of co-authors, Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in led community-based mapping, bringing in past and current land connections, important areas for each family, as well as specific places within their traditional territory that are important for protection. In parallel, WCS Canada conducted an ecological prioritization exercise using Zonation software.
One of the most important lessons learned was that even when we tried to weigh Indigenous values more heavily than Western-derived ecological layers in the software, the Zonation analysis failed to protect the relationship between Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in knowledge and its broader context. The concept of trade-offs and priorities, often foundational to Western conservation planning, was incompatible with Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in law and ethics. However, overlaying the two maps at the end of the process was more effective in ensuring the independent integrity of the two knowledge systems was maintained.
Time and power dynamics
Meaningful and inclusive engagement takes time. While being mindful of this, and the importance of challenging the timelines due to the volume of information and perspective gained from such a multiyear exercise, it is important to note how planning timelines can be missed at other key stages, such as negotiation. Perhaps this is another example of “colonial bias,” whereby the negotiation process trumps the gathering of foundational input that is essential in the development of the plan itself.
We also had to be honest about power. Despite the co-authors’ best efforts to strip down the boundaries of power dynamics, it was critical to acknowledge that Western scientists are often viewed as “experts” by default.
In this project, we worked hard to regularly reflect and combat this. Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in led the process as the key decision-maker guiding the project, and non-Indigenous collaborators served as technical support. The desire to take a “walking in two worlds” approach was expressed by Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in, and the avenues through which they engaged with Western science were subsequently supported by the non-Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in co-authors.
Steps toward solutions
At a time when we’re seeing broad-brush assaults on efforts to right the wrongs of the past and strengthen overall outcomes in doing so, it is our hope that this work sparks a greater conversation about land-use planning across Canada, in pursuit of a world where wildlife and people can thrive in healthy and valued lands and seas.
We saw a glimpse of this in 2019, when four Yukon First Nations (Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in, Na-Cho Nyäk Dun, Vuntut Gwitchin, and the Gwich’in Tribal Council) and the government of Yukon signed the Peel Watershed Land Use Plan, a historic agreement protecting a vast area in northern Yukon.
The goal in this project was not “integration” as it’s come to be understood over the last decade, but to let each knowledge system stand in its own truth to inform planning in a meaningful way. Despite its challenges, this process was indicative that we have an opportunity to do things differently, rooted in mutual respect, complementary values, and to the benefit of all.
Chrystal Mantyka-Pringle is the co-director of the Northern Boreal Mountain Program for WCS Canada and adjunct professor for the School of Environment and Sustainability at the University of Saskatchewan. At the time of this project, Natasha Ayoub worked for Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in First Nation government as the natural resource analyst, and she is now a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Waterloo working to identify rearing and overwintering habitat movement patterns of juvenile Chinook salmon. Katie Fraser holds a bachelor of science degree in environmental science with a focus in wildlife biology from McGill University, and a Master’s degree in Sustainability from the University of Saskatchewan; she currently works for the Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in government as a senior negotiator for Nän Käk (land and environment), where she remains heavily involved in regional land-use planning and other land protection processes within their traditional territory.
For a full ethics statement, please refer to the journal article.
Related audio from Mongabay’s podcast: Indigenous communities’ traditional ecological knowledge is key to conservation ~ a conversation with National Geographic photographer Kiliii Yüyan, listen here:
See related coverage:
Indigenous conservationists lead the fight to save Mentawai’s endangered primates
Citations:
Mantyka-Pringle, C., J. Beaumont, C. Clarke, N. Ayoub, P. Kortsalo, S. Saal, K. Fraser, K. Staples, and Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in. 2025. Walking in two worlds: insights from implementing a Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in approach to bridging knowledge systems in conservation and land use planning. Ecology and Society, 30(2):22. https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol30/iss2/art22
McGregor, D. (2021). Indigenous knowledge systems in environmental governance in Canada. KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies, 5(1). doi:10.18357/kula.148.
McGregor, D. (2004). Coming full circle: Indigenous knowledge, environment, and our future. American Indian Quarterly, 28(3), 385-410. doi:10.1353/aiq.2004.0101
Simpson, L. (2001). Aboriginal peoples and knowledge: Decolonizing our processes. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 21(1), 137-148. Retrieved from https://cjns.brandonu.ca/wp-content/uploads/21-1-cjnsv21no1_pg137-148.pdf
Credits
This story first appeared on Mongabay
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and Mongabay, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.
