Indigenous patrimonialization as an operation of the liberal state

Indigenous conservation through patrimonialization is the product of political and legal decisions made by a non-indigenous agent: the liberal state, using the law to retain a form of bios. We propose that patrimonialization is the device by which liberal states have processed and integrated indigenous claims into a form of bios ultimately designed to safeguard state legal structures. We argue that, to uphold the rule of law in contexts of struggle and resistance that challenge the very understanding of the law, states respond by wielding the law in the form of the rule by law, that is, pushing the law to the limit to give normative content to the criteria by which the state conducts its affairs, without straying from the individual rights framework. We hold that the rule by law is an operation that defines the patrimonialization of indigenous peoples. It increases their visibility while imposing limits on political action to keep them from becoming sui juris subjects capable of breaching the distinction between zoe and bios. In this article, we try to understand the political–ideological intent of these decisions, the intentions beyond the letter of the law of patrimonialized peoples.

Corrigendum 2 (published 29 Oct 2021) to: What does it mean to be for a Place?

Indigenous knowledge is a multilayered knowledge system that can effectively manage global ecosystem and biodiversity conservation. Conservation is an applied discipline with the goal of preserving the world's biodiversity and ecosystems. However, settler–coloniser conservation practices often fail to fully examine how settler–coloniser epistemologies are centred at the expense of Indigenous conservation praxis. Evaluating how conservation practices outside of an Indigenous lens can become more inclusive and just is a critical area for research and reflection. We draw on our own experiences as early-career researchers working towards anticolonial, just and inclusive approaches to conservation science and practice by discussing what it means to be for a Place. We believe that a non-Indigenous conservationist who is for a Place advocates for inclusive stewardship with Indigenous Peoples and other marginalised communities to conserve species and ecosystems and the connections that bind communities to their landscapes. As an example of how settler–coloniser conservation practitioners can be for a Place, we discuss writing a policy statement in 2019 on behalf of the Society for Conservation Biology opposing the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope on the summit of Mauna Kea, Hawai‘i. We describe the thought process behind our policy statement and provide examples of other actions for conservation researchers and practitioners working to be for a Place. We aim to provide our colleagues, particularly those trained in settler–coloniser conservation practices, an opportunity to identify more just practices for the Places we aspire to conserve.

Corrigendum 1 (published 22 Oct 2021) to: What does it mean to be for a Place?

Indigenous knowledge is a multilayered knowledge system that can effectively manage global ecosystem and biodiversity conservation. Conservation is an applied discipline with the goal of preserving the world's biodiversity and ecosystems. However, settler–coloniser conservation practices often fail to fully examine how settler–coloniser epistemologies are centred at the expense of Indigenous conservation praxis. Evaluating how conservation practices outside of an Indigenous lens can become more inclusive and just is a critical area for research and reflection. We draw on our own experiences as early-career researchers working towards anticolonial, just and inclusive approaches to conservation science and practice by discussing what it means to be for a Place. We believe that a non-Indigenous conservationist who is for a Place advocates for inclusive stewardship with Indigenous Peoples and other marginalised communities to conserve species and ecosystems and the connections that bind communities to their landscapes. As an example of how settler–coloniser conservation practitioners can be for a Place, we discuss writing a policy statement in 2019 on behalf of the Society for Conservation Biology opposing the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope on the summit of Mauna Kea, Hawai‘i. We describe the thought process behind our policy statement and provide examples of other actions for conservation researchers and practitioners working to be for a Place. We aim to provide our colleagues, particularly those trained in settler–coloniser conservation practices, an opportunity to identify more just practices for the Places we aspire to conserve.

Indigenous Conservation Practices Are Not a Monolith: Western cultural biases and a lack of engagement with Indigenous experts undermine studies of land stewardship

Commentary On: Oswald, W. W., Foster, D. R., Shuman, B. N., Chilton, E. S., Doucette, D. L., Duranleau, D. L. Conservation implications of limited Native American impacts in pre-contact New England. Nature Sustainability https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0466-0

Effects of Indigenous Cultivation Practices on Soil Conservation in the Hilly Semiarid Areas of Western Sudan

In dry regions, it is customary for farmers to use soil water conservation and/or water harvesting techniques. These practices have now become applicable to agriculturalists combating the adverse effects of drought on food production. In the semiarid areas of Zalingei in western Sudan, we quantified the soil erosion using traditional conservation measures, and conducted experiments in two consecutive rainy seasons (2013 and 2014). A split-split plot design was used to quantify the respective influences of each variable on reducing soil erosion: A) three gentle gradients (Slope1 (0.98%), Slope2 (1.81%), and Slope3 (3.1%)); B) two cropping systems (mono-crop and mixed-crops); and C) five indigenous conservation tillage practices—chisel ploughing (CHP), cross slope tied bonding (CSTB), contour ridge with stone bonds (CRSB), cross slope bonding (CSB), and zero tillage (ZT). Our results showed that there were significant differences between the slopes in season 2 (2014); the soil eroded at Slope3 was more than that of Slope1 and Slope2 by 71% and 27%, respectively. Over two seasons, there were no significant differences between the cropping systems. Conversely, the erosion level observed with CHP was higher than with the other practices. However, the CSTB and CSB erosion levels were only higher in season 2 when compared with those of CRSB and ZT. The study concluded that under the above conditions, the rate of soil erosion was severe and exceeded the erosion tolerance. Based on these results, in western Sudan, CRSB and ZT may be the more effective indigenous conservation practices for the protection of agricultural soils and productivity.