Navigating Legal and Regulatory Frameworks to Achieve the Resilience and Sustainability of Indigenous Socioecological Systems
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Advocating for policy instruments that acknowledge and bolster ITFS has the potential to improve food security among vulnerable communities such as IP and promote varied, healthy, and culture-based diets [9].
- ISES-ITFS are instrumental in upholding community identity and preserving cultural heritage [18]. Thus, policy measures that safeguard and advance these systems have the potential to promote economic and social welfare among Indigenous communities, thereby making a positive contribution to the overarching objectives of social justice and equity [18].
- Lastly, Indigenous food practices are known to be in harmony with nature and align with global initiatives such as the 2015 Paris Climate Accord and the United Nations (UN) Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development [18].
- Investigate the impact of existing regulatory and legal frameworks on the adaptive capacity, resilience-building, and sustainability of Indigenous Socioecological Systems (ISES), with a specific focus on Indigenous traditional food Systems (ITFS).
- Establish a theoretical model for the sustainability and resilience of the ITFS to facilitate the integration of IP’s concerns and voices into contemporary policies, and legal, and regulatory frameworks.
- Foster dialogue among Indigenous communities, policymakers, and stakeholders, to safeguard and reinforce the rights and sustainability of ISES, particularly in the face of accelerating climate change and widespread environmental exploitation.
2. Methodology
- Indigenous rights and power dynamics: Political ecology plays an important role in facilitating the assessment of power dynamics that exist within legal and regulatory frameworks [35,36,37,38,39]. Concerning Indigenous communities’ efforts to assert their rights over their territories, resources, and traditional knowledge, power dynamics may either empower or disempower these communities. Thus, political ecology has the potential to facilitate a scholarly analysis of how legal structures can either support or contest the historical inequities and wrongdoings that Indigenous peoples have endured [38,39].
- Sociopolitical contexts and environmental implications: This PETF model has the potential to equip users with the means to evaluate the sociopolitical contexts that influence the formulation of legal and regulatory decisions [38,39]. The prospective effects of these decisions on the ecological integrity of ISES are considered as they pertain to land use, environmental policies, and the management of natural resources. A proper understanding of this matter is fundamental in assessing the efficacy and equity of legal structures in their pursuit of climate resilience and sustainability.
- Unequal Resource Distribution and Historical Marginalization: Lastly, political ecology permits smooth resource distribution, especially in the context of ISES-ITFS. Furthermore, political ecology helps to fully examine how regulatory and legal frameworks have contributed to the historical marginalization of Indigenous communities and the perpetuation of resource inequities including land rights [36,37,38,39]. This is a crucial standpoint for advocating policies that rectify these historical injustices.
2.1. Power and Power Dynamics as Used in Our Study
2.2. Recognizing the Role of Innovative Legal and Regulatory Frameworks in Shaping the Sustainability and Resilience of ISES and ITFS
- Land tenure and resource rights: The ability of Indigenous communities to effectively govern and protect the sustainability and resilience of their ISES and ITFS is heavily reliant on the secure tenure of land and resource rights [38,39]. Indigenous land rights must be legally recognized to establish a sustainable framework for resource management. In the past, land tenure and resource rights of the IP have frequently been compromised or disregarded, resulting in the exploitation of resources and the degradation of the ISES and ITFS. Improper and unstructured legal instruments that do not acknowledge and safeguard the land rights of IP have the potential to undermine the IP capacity to manage their resources and territories in a sustainable manner [40,41,42,43]. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) emphasizes the rights to lands, territories, and resources of the IP [41]. In addition, its emphasis on Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) concerning decision-making processes has an impact on Indigenous communities. Land tenure and resource rights as enshrined in the UNDRIP provide a solid basis for the sustainable management of ITFS and ISES as a whole [41].
- Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) protection: TEK is a “cumulative body of knowledge, practice, and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship living beings (including humans) with one another and with their environment” [19]. Because TEK is a way of knowing that builds on local experience and adapts to changes [17,18,19], it Is highly relevant to resilience and adaptation against current climate change impacts and continuous environmental changes especially when it comes to the sustainability of the ISES and ITFS [18,19]. Given this importance, legal frameworks that focus on the protection of TEK, including intellectual property rights for Indigenous knowledge holders, are crucial for promoting the continued use of traditional practices that contribute to ISES and ITFS sustainability. This reality is recognized by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which acknowledges the importance of Indigenous and local communities’ traditional knowledge, innovations, and practices for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity [43]. In addition, the rights to genetic resources and the just and equitable distribution of benefits resulting from their use are explicitly addressed in the Nagoya Protocol, which serves as an additional treaty to the CBD and safeguards ITFS.
- Traditional hunting, gathering, and fishing activities: In many Indigenous communities hunting and fishing practices are notably impacted by legal and regulatory structures that seem to protect the environment but, in doing so, harm the very existence of IP and their SES and TFS. Recently, the conservation of wildlife resources and biodiversity has garnered considerable international attention. Government policies designed to preserve these natural resources are posing challenges to the socio-economic activities of IP, notably their gathering, fishing, and hunting practices. For example, in the Sakha Republic, the regulation of hunting follows an interdepartmental structure where the Ministry of Ecology, Nature Management, and Forestry of the Republic has the regulatory and administrative power, while the Department of Hunting and Specially Protected Territories is entrusted with the organization of activities [44]. Despite some positive recent advancements, this complex regulatory structure poses important coordination challenges that ultimately impact the equitable and fair access of the Sakha IPs to hunting in the Republic [44]. Issues include the insufficient implementation of priority hunting rights for small Indigenous peoples and inadequate and dysfunctional legislation for compensation of damages inflicted on hunting resources by extractive industries impacting the habitats of wild animals. This example illustrates how inadequate policies can severely curtail the traditional way of life of IPs in a region. Therefore, when properly designed, legal and regulatory frameworks can foster the sustainability of ISES-ITFS by recognizing and respecting Indigenous rights, integrating TEK into conservation strategies, and promoting adaptive management practices [45]. To this end, a regulatory focus on sustainable practices that incorporate cultural, socioeconomic, and environmental considerations through the establishment of appropriate measures such as territorial use rights, quotas, or seasonal restrictions aligned with traditional practices, can promote ecosystem resilience and the long-term viability of Indigenous hunting and fishing practices [45].
- Conservation and environmental management. Legal and regulatory frameworks have the potential to impact conservation initiatives and environmental management within the ISES-ITFS if not properly crafted. Similarly, conservation efforts conducted by IPs may be facilitated or impeded by these frameworks. Therefore, consensus-building processes regarding conservation and resource management are more likely to produce enduring results when Indigenous communities are engaged in collaborative efforts [46,47]. An increase in environmental stewardship may result from the legal recognition of co-management arrangements in which Indigenous communities participate as equal participants [46,47]. Moreover, collaborations and partnerships among governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and Indigenous communities can be improved by legal and regulatory frameworks [46]. Indigenous-led sustainability initiatives may be supported by such alliances, which may also provide vital funding, technical advice, and resources. For example, in New Zealand, the Māori Resource Management Act of 1991 grants Māoris a substantial influence in the governance of natural resources situated on their ancestral lands [48]. Effective protection of Māori cultural heritage and environmental values accomplished over the years demonstrates the success of the act. For example, the Wairau River Agreement, signed in 1999 between the New Zealand government and seven Māori iwi or tribes, has enhanced the river’s quality and protected its biodiversity under joint collaborative management [48].Many other examples of enhanced resilience and sustainability of both the ISES and the ITFS achieved through the implementation of innovative legal and regulatory frameworks are available worldwide. In Australia, the Indigenous Land Rights Act of 1993 bestows the capacity to assert native title claims over ancestral territories upon Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities [49]. Murray Island in the Torres Strait was granted native title rights to the Meriam people with the landmark Mabo decision rendered by the High Court of Australia in 1992. Similarly, the 1997 Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (Philippines) is another important act acknowledging the territorial sovereignty and self-governance rights of Indigenous peoples such as, for example, the recognition of the Dumagat people’s ancestral domain in the Sierra Madre mountains [50].These successful examples demonstrate how Indigenous participation in the sustainable management of their traditional territories and resources can be ensured by effective legal and regulatory frameworks that safeguard the cultural heritage and traditions of Indigenous communities and contribute to the environmental preservation of these regions. By adopting such initiatives, governments and Indigenous peoples can foster a more equitable and fair relationship of mutual benefit, while also safeguarding the environment and Indigenous rights and cultures. Nonetheless, despite the unquestionable progress made on many fronts, IPs today are still subject to widespread inequalities, power struggles, and rights violations across the world. Similarly, in the context of ISES-ITFS, there is still much to be done to achieve the required status quo of environmental justice and legal recognition for IPs that will secure their rightful claims to manage and decide on the use of their ancestral lands and natural resources within.
3. Case Study 1: The Karen Indigenous People
3.1. Historical Background
3.2. The Introduction of Legal and Regulatory Framework—Colonial Era
3.3. Legal and Regulatory Framework—Post-Colonial Era
3.4. Implications of Existing Legal and Regulatory Frameworks on the ISES and TFS of the Karen Indigenous Communities
4. Case Study 2: Indigenous People of Yakutia Region (Sakha Republic, Russia)
4.1. Historical Background
4.2. Legal and Regulatory Frameworks in the Indigenous Settlements of Yakutia (Russia)
4.3. Implications of Legal and Regulatory Frameworks on the ISES and TFS of Indigenous Communities in Yakutia (Russia)
5. Examining the Political-Ecological Theoretical Framework (PETF) as Applied in Our Study
- Power dynamics and Indigenous rights: Both the Karen and Yakutia Indigenous communities have experienced historical inequalities in power structures. Indigenous communities in their endeavors to assert their rights to their territories, resources, and traditional knowledge may be empowered or disenfranchised by these power dynamics. The consequences of colonialism and policies for the Yakutia Indigenous Groups during the Soviet era have contributed to the formation of a milieu wherein Indigenous communities frequently encounter obstacles when attempting to assert their rights. Historically, the consolidation of authority has restricted the capacity of these individuals to exert influence over determinations that pertain to their territories and valuable resources. Power imbalances have also developed between the Indigenous people of this region and the government because of the growing pressure for resource extraction, which is frequently motivated by external economic interests without free, prior, and informed consent. As economic agendas prioritize extraction over the preservation of Indigenous territories and traditional practices, the rights of the Yakutia IPs have been often compromised. This has resulted in environmental degradation and posed increasing challenges to the sustainability of their SES-TFS. Although legal frameworks in Russia acknowledge and protect Indigenous rights, their implementation has been hampered by the complex interdepartmental principle of regulatory structure. The recognition of Indigenous land rights and the right to practice traditional livelihoods is crucial, but gaps in enforcement and disparities in legal interpretation often impede the full realization of these rights.On the other hand, the Karen IPs have historically struggled with challenges related to land rights, facing increasing difficulties in securing and maintaining their ancestral lands, which have led to profound power imbalances. As discussed before, state policies have prioritized other interests resulting in the frequent systematic marginalization and violation of Karen rights. Furthermore, the presence and participation of military forces in regions inhabited by Karen communities for the implementation of state policies, including forced relocation and eviction, have created power dynamics that adversely affect Indigenous rights. Armed conflicts and militarization pose threats to the security and well-being of the Karen people, limiting their participation in decision-making processes related to land use, resource management, and the preservation of their cultural heritage. Lastly, state conservation policies aiming to protect natural resources have come into direct conflict with the Karen communities living in the region and their traditional ways of living. Forest conservation measures and the creation of wildlife sanctuaries and protected areas, as discussed before, have severely restricted their access to traditional lands and resources and their ability to sustain their extraordinarily diverse traditional food systems. It can therefore be pointed out that negotiating a balance between conservation goals and Indigenous rights remains a challenge to be addressed.In conclusion, power dynamics can either empower or disempower Indigenous communities in asserting their rights over their lands, resources, and traditional knowledge. In our two case studies, there is clear evidence that power dynamics have disempowered Indigenous communities in asserting their rights over their lands, resources, and the sustainability of their SES-TFS.
- Sociopolitical contexts and environmental implications: The sociopolitical landscape of the Karen communities is characterized by a history of continuous land rights disputes, military interventions, confrontations, and obstacles presented by conservation policies. This historical marginalization of the Karen people has been exacerbated by their limited political representation, which hinders their capacity to champion Indigenous rights and safeguard their cultural heritage. In contrast, the sociopolitical dynamics of Yakutia Indigenous communities have been profoundly influenced by the centralization of power structures, resource extraction pressures, and the repercussions of Soviet-era policies. The limited control over land use and historical inequalities underscores the need for inclusive policies that respect Indigenous rights and cultural heritage in both settings. Limited political representation affects the ability of IPs to advocate for their rights at the governmental level in both case studies where decisions to protect and govern ISES follow a clear top-down structure that is enforced on the Indigenous communities. The lack of participatory and inclusive decision-making processes has exacerbated these power imbalances, hindering the effective protection of the ISES-ITFS. Efforts to preserve the socio-cultural identity and traditional knowledge among the Karen and the Yakutia Indigenous people face challenges due to multiple external pressures and power imbalances that need to be understood and corrected to develop fairer and more effective legal frameworks that protect their rights and ISES-ITFS.
- Unequal resource distribution and historical marginalization: We have seen how the Karen and Yakutia Indigenous peoples have been subjected to historical marginalization and the inequitable distribution of resources in their lands. Land dispossession, displacement caused by conflict, and inadequate political representation have all played a role in the Karen people’s persistent difficulties in maintaining and preserving their ITFS. On the other hand, historic legacies in Yakutia, including centralized power structures, resource extraction that prioritized economic interests, and the repercussions of Soviet-era policies, have restricted IP control over the access and use of Yakutia’s abundant natural resources. To rectify these past inequities, it is imperative to implement comprehensive legal reforms that properly acknowledge and protect the rights of IPs over natural resources in their lands and foster inclusive decision-making processes that empower these communities.
6. Discussion
7. Policy, Advocacy, and Recommendations
Implications of This Comparative Research Study
- Policy implications: This comparative analysis underscores the urgent need for policy reforms at both national and international levels. Our study highlights the urgency of acknowledging Indigenous land rights, advocating for sustainable resource management, and tackling the issue of climate resilience through the active participation of all stakeholders including IP. Governments should consider implementing or amending policies that respect the rights, culture, and traditional knowledge of Indigenous communities. We recommend that governmental bodies worldwide should promote the formulation of policies that seek to incorporate Indigenous practices into more comprehensive strategies for conservation and sustainability purposes as these have proven to play an important role in the sustainability and resilience of ISES and ITFS.
- Application in Indigenous communities: In addition, our research identifies practical recommendations for navigating the legal and regulatory framework by fostering sustainability and resilience among Indigenous communities. The significance of Indigenous and community-led initiatives working in tandem with other stakeholders to attain climate resilience and conservation objectives is underscored in our two case studies. By identifying and confronting the challenges and opportunities that arise from navigating legal and regulatory frameworks within the ISES, we believe that new knowledge on how best to manage ISES and ITFS will be provided.
- Practice and cultural preservation: An essential component of this research pertains to the conservation of Indigenous cultures. Indigenous communities worldwide have, for generations, amassed knowledge and distinctive practices that are indispensable for the management of ecosystems [19]. Therefore, collaborative initiatives based on the principles of co-management and inclusive participation pairing Indigenous ecological knowledge and traditional practices with scientific knowledge and conventional management are a promising way to advance toward the long-term sustainability and resilience of ISES-ITFS amid the environmental and climate change crises.
- Theoretical contributions: Our research makes a theoretical contribution to the discourse surrounding the intricacies between ISES and the legal and regulatory frameworks that can have a profound impact on Indigenous communities and their quest for the sustainability and resilience of ITFS. Our analysis further contributes to the discourse on environmental justice, the correlation between culture and conservation, and the significance of Indigenous knowledge in the context of sustainability.
- International collaboration: In addition, this research highlights the importance of international cooperation, the exchange of information, and assistance for Indigenous communities. It emphasizes the significance of collaborative initiatives that foster international human rights frameworks and Indigenous networks. Our study encourages international collaborations that may aid Indigenous communities in navigating legal and regulatory frameworks that are poorly crafted by bringing these concerns to light.
8. Conclusions
- Indigenous legal frameworks: Research should focus on the development and effectiveness of Indigenous legal frameworks within the context of national legal systems by exploring how they can better align with Indigenous values and customs to protect ISES.
- Community participation and empowerment: Investigate strategies for enhancing Indigenous engagement in the development and implementation of legal and regulatory frameworks, recognizing the importance of meaningful consultation and self-determination.
- Transboundary collaboration: Investigate mechanisms that facilitate efficient collaboration on legal issues involving Indigenous territories that transcend national boundaries to promote transboundary cooperation that protects shared resources.
- Cultural preservation and knowledge integration: Examine how legal and regulatory frameworks can better incorporate and protect Indigenous traditional ecological knowledge and cultural practices by ensuring they are integral components of legal policies and regulatory practices that affect ISES.
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Berkes, F.; Folke, C. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Kuhnlein, H.V.; Chotiboriboon, S. Why and How to Strengthen Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems with Examples from two unique Indigenous communities. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 6, 808670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Posey, D.A. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Davidson-Hunt, I.J.; Berkes, F. Traditional ecological knowledge and adaptive management: Indigenous people and resource management. Ecol. Appl. 2003, 13, 1250–1261. [Google Scholar]
- Nadasdy, P. Hunters and Bureaucrats: Power, Knowledge, and Aboriginal-State Relations in the Southwest Yukon; UBC Press: Vancouver, Canada, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Kuhnlein, H.; Receveur, O. Dietary change and traditional food systems of Indigenous Peoples. Ann. Rev. Nutr. 1996, 16, 417–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bharucha, Z.; Pretty, J. The roles and values of wild foods in agricultural systems. Phil. Trans. R Soc. B 2010, 365, 2913–2926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ahmed, S.; Warne, T.; Stewart, A.; Byker Shanks, C.; Dupuis, V. Role of Wild Food Environments for Cultural Identity, Food Security, and Dietary Quality in a Rural American State. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 6, 774701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO and Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT. Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems: Insights on Sustainability and Resilience from the Front Line of Climate Change; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Turner, N.J.; Reid, A.J. When the wild roses bloom: Indigenous knowledge and environmental change in northwestern North America. GeoHealth 2022, 6, e2022GH000612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Salmón, E. Kincentric Ecology: Indigenous Perceptions of the Human–Nature Relationship. Ecol. Soc. Am. 2000, 10, 1327–1332. [Google Scholar]
- Nelson, M.K. Indigenous Science and Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Persistence in Place. In The World of Indigenous North America; Routledge: London, UK, 2014; pp. 188–214. [Google Scholar]
- Hopkins, D.; Joly, T.L.; Sykes, H.; Waniandy, A.; Grant, J.; Gallagher, L.; Hansen, L.; Wall, K.; Fortna, P.; Bailey, M. “Learning together”: Braiding Indigenous and western knowledge systems to understand freshwater mussel health in the lower Athabasca region of Alberta, Canada. J. Ethnobiol. 2019, 39, 315–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cajete, G. Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence, 3rd ed.; Clear Light Books: Santa Fe, NM, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Kimmerer, R.W. Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants; Milkweed Editions: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Berkes, F. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management, 3rd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Makondo, C.; David, T. Climate Change Adaptation: Linking Indigenous Knowledge with Western Science for Effective Adaptation. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 83, 1462–9011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nakashima, D.J.; Galloway, M.K.; Thulstrup, H.D.; Ramos, C.A.; Rubis, J.T. Weathering Uncertainty: Traditional Knowledge for Climate Change Assessment and Adaptation; UNESCO/Darwin, UNU: Paris, France, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Nowlan, L. Arctic Legal Regime for Environmental Protection; No. 44; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland; Cambridge, UK, 2001; pp. 7–70. [Google Scholar]
- Islam, M.; Uddin, M. Analysis of The Legal Frameworks of Indigenous People’s Rights over Their Natural Resources and the Impacts of Extractive Industries. Int. J. Glob. Community 2021, 4, 47–60. [Google Scholar]
- Sakapaji, S.C. Integrating Local and Indigenous Ecological Knowledge (IEK) Systems into Climate Adaptation Policy for Resilience Building, and Sustainability in Agriculture. IJSDR 2022, 8, 9–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parry, M.L. (Ed.) Climate Change 2007-Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Working Group II Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007; Volume 4. [Google Scholar]
- Awuor, P. Integrating Indigenous Knowledge for Food Security: Perspectives from the Millennium Village Project at Bar-Sauri in Nyanza Province in Kenya. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Enhancing Food Security in the Eastern and Horn of Africa Regions, Kampala, Uganda, 15–23 June 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Sakapaji, S.C. Advancing Local Ecological Knowledge-Based Practices for Climate Change Adaptation, Resilience-Building, and Sustainability in Agriculture: A Case Study of Central and Southern Zambia. Int. J. Clim. Change Impacts Responses 2021, 13, 61–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berkes, F.; Armitage, D. Co-management institutions, knowledge, and learning: Adapting to change in the Arctic. Etudes/Inuit/Studies 2010, 34, 109–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pearce, T.; Nuttall, M.; Huntington, H.P. Co-management and climate change in the Arctic: Challenges and opportunities. Polar Res. 2015, 34, 51. [Google Scholar]
- Biggs, D.; Berkes, F.; Eicken, B. Building resilience in the Arctic Ocean through adaptive co-management. Nat. Clim. Change 2015, 5, 1021–1026. [Google Scholar]
- Thompson, G.E.B. Environmentalism and Human Rights Legal Framework: The Continued Frontier of Indigenous Resistance. Indig. Peoples’ J. Law Cult. Resist. 2017, 4, 9–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muigua, P.D. Revisiting the Place of Indigenous Knowledge in the Sustainable Development Agenda in Kenya. Journal of cmsd 2021, 7, 2. [Google Scholar]
- Quan-Haase, A.; Cumming, P.R. Comparative research on indigenous peoples: Challenges and opportunities. Indig. Policy J. 2017, 18, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Quan-Haase, A. The challenges of comparative research on indigenous peoples’ rights. Hum. Rights Q. 2015, 37, 1–35. [Google Scholar]
- Cumming, P.R.; Quan-Haase, A. Comparative research on indigenous peoples’ governance: Challenges and opportunities. Glob. Gov. 2014, 20, 481–500. [Google Scholar]
- Dallmann, W.K. Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia, and Far East of the Russian Federation; Norwegian Polar Institute: Tromsø, Norway, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Khan, M.T. Theoretical frameworks in political ecology and participatory nature/forest conservation: The necessity for a heterodox approach and the critical moment. J. Political Ecol. 2013, 20, 460–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peet, R.; Watts, M. Liberation Ecology: Development, Sustainability, and Environment in an Age of Market Triumphalism. In Liberation Ecologies; Routledge: London, UK, 2002; pp. 13–57. [Google Scholar]
- Bixler, R.P.; Dell’Angelo, J.; Mfune, O.; Roba, H. The political ecology of participatory conservation: Institutions and discourse. J. Political Ecol. 2015, 22, 164–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Virapongse, A.; Brooks, S.; Metcalf, E.C.; Zedalis, M.; Gosz, J.; Kliskey, A.; Alessa, L. A social-ecological systems approach for environmental management. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 178, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Baldwin, R.; Cave, M.; Lodge, M. Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy, and Practice; Oxford University Press: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Boag, C.M. A Comparative Study of the Legal Frameworks Facilitating Indigenous Land Management in Postcolonial Societies: Indigenous Australia and Indonesian Adat Law. Brawijaya Law J. 2016, 3, 25–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Labour Organization (ILO). Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (ILO Convention 169). In Proceedings of the International Labour Conference, Geneva, Switzerland, 27 June 1989. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP); General Assembly of the United Nations: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007; A/RES/61/295. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (VGGT); Committee on World Food Security: Rome, Italy, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Artelle, K.A.; Zurba, M.; Bhattacharyya, J.; Chan, D.E.; Brown, K.; Housty, J.; Moola, F. Supporting resurgent Indigenous-led governance: A nascent mechanism for just and effective conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 240, 108284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malysheva, M.S.; Grenaderova, M.V. Main Trends in the Development of Hunting Field in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 666, 062046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sinthumule, N.I. Traditional ecological knowledge and its role in biodiversity conservation: A systematic review. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1164900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berkes, F. Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1692–1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Beem, B. Co-management from the top? The roles of policy entrepreneurs and distributive conflict in developing co-management arrangements. Mar. Policy 2007, 31, 540–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- New Zealand Government. Māori Resource Management Act; Government Printer: Wellington, New Zealand, 1991.
- Australian Government. Native Title Act; Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra, Australia, 1993.
- Philippines Congress. Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997; Rep. Act No. 8371; Philippines Congress: Manila, Philippines, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Stuart-Fox, M. The Karen People of Thailand: A History and Culture; Routledge: London, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations. State of the World Indigenous Peoples: Rights to Lands, Territories and Resources; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2021; 176p, ISBN 978-92-1-130418-3. [Google Scholar]
- O’Connor, K. The Highlanders of Thailand: A Study of a Plural Society; Cornell Southeast Asia Program: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Tun, T. The Karen in Thailand: The Challenges of Maintaining Identity and Culture in a Changing World. Southeast Asian Stud. 2017, 35, 1–22. [Google Scholar]
- Tun, T. The Karen People in Thailand: A Study of Their Social, Cultural and Economic Life; Nordic Institute of Asian Studies: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Deepadung, S.; Khammuang, S. Encyclopedia of Ethnic Groups in Thailand: Pwo Karen; Research Institute for Languages and Cultures for Rural Development, Mahidol University: Bangkok, Thailand, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Chotiboriboon, S.; Tamachotipong, S.; Sirisai, S.; Dhanamitta, S.; Smitasiri, S.; Sappasuwan, C. Thailand: Food System and Nutritional Status of Indigenous Children in a Karen Community. In Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems: The Many Dimensions of Culture, Diversity, and Environment for Nutrition and Health; Kuhnlein, H.V., Erasmus, B., Spigelski, D., Eds.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2009; pp. 159–185. [Google Scholar]
- Tapp, N. The Karen in Thailand: Identity and Culture in a Plural Society. Asian Ethn. 2000, 1, 27–44. [Google Scholar]
- Pongsapich, A. The Karen in Thailand: History, Culture, and Politics; Silkworm Books: Bangkok, Thailand, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, E. Indigenous Peoples in Thailand: A Comparative Study; Routledge: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Buergin, R. Contested Rights of Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples in Conflicts over Biocultural Diversity: The case of Karen communities in Thung Yai, a World Heritage Site in Thailand. Mod. Asian Stud. 2015, 49, 2022–2062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pongsapich, A. The Karen and the Thai State: A History of Conflict and Accommodation. J. Southeast Asian Stud. 1997, 28, 1–28. [Google Scholar]
- Pongsapich, A. The Karen and the Thai State: The Politics of Identity, Culture, and Development. J. Southeast Asian Stud. 2005, 36, 233–256. [Google Scholar]
- Karen Human Rights Group (KHRG). Land, Life, and Liberty: The Karen People’s Struggle for Rights in Thailand’s Karen State; Karen Human Rights Group: Mae Sot, Thailand, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA). Indigenous Peoples’ Land and Resource Rights in Thailand: Legal and Policy Frameworks; IWGIA: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Dove, M.R. The Politics of Conservation in Thailand: The Karen and the Thung Yai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary. In Conservation and the Politics of Place in Asia; Routledge: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Indigenous Peoples’ International Centre for Policy Research and Education (IPICPRE). Thailand: Indigenous Peoples’ Right to Self-Determination Threatened by New Laws; Indigenous Peoples’ International Centre for Policy Research and Education: Chiang Mai, Thailand, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Yakovleva, N.; Coates, K.; Hoffmann, T.; Gavrilyeva, T.; Stepanova, N. Indigenous Peoples and Mining in the Circumpolar North: Canada, Finland, and Russia; Routledge Handbook of the Extractive Industries and Sustainable Development: London, UK, 2022; pp. 542–560. [Google Scholar]
- Marfusalova, A.D. Indigenous Population South Yakutia. Aldan District: History, Culture, Folklore; Administration of Aldan District and Others Bichik: Yakutsk, Russia, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Overland, I. Poverty and International Aid among Russia’s Indigenous Peoples. In Indigenous Peoples and Poverty: An International Perspective; Eversole, R., McNeish, R., Cimadamore, J.-A., Eversole, A.D., Eds.; Zed Books: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 108–125. [Google Scholar]
- Donahoe, B.; Habeck, J.O.; Halemba, A.; Sántha, I. Size and place in the construction of indigeneity in the Russian Federation. Curr. Anthropol. 2008, 49, 993–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pereltsvaig, A. The Cuisines of Siberia. Available online: https://www.languagesoftheworld.info/russia-ukraine-and-the-caucasus/cuisines-siberia.html (accessed on 11 December 2023).
- Sulyandziga, R.; Kudryashova, D.; Sulyandziga, P. Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and Far East of the Russian Federation: Review of Current Situation; Canadian International Development Agency: Gatineau, QC, Canada, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Leonov, S.N.; Shevareva, Y.S. Problems and perspectives of development of traditional types of economic activity of indigenous minority peoples of the North and Far East. Regionalistika 2017, 4, 26–45. [Google Scholar]
- Vinokurova, L.; Solovyeva, V.; Filippova, V. When Ice Turns to Water: Forest Fires and Indigenous Settlements in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). Sustainability 2022, 14, 4759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fondahl, G.; Sirina, A. Rights and risks: Evenki concerns regarding the proposed Eastern Siberia—Pacific Ocean Pipeline. Sibirica 2006, 5, 115–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrov, E. The challenges of implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the Sakha Republic (Yakutia). Arct. Anthropol. 2018, 55, 23–35. [Google Scholar]
- Tolkacheva, N. The legal and regulatory framework for indigenous peoples in the Sakha Republic (Yakutia). Arct. Rev. 2022, 33, 123–145. [Google Scholar]
- Vagin, E. The impact of large-scale development projects on the indigenous peoples of the Sakha Republic (Yakutia). J. Indig. Stud. 2021, 32, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Ivanova, A. The protection of cultural rights of indigenous peoples in the Sakha Republic (Yakutia). Int. J. Minor. Group Rights 2020, 27, 1–25. [Google Scholar]
- Suliandziga, L.; Sulyandziga, R. Russian Federation: Indigenous peoples and land rights. Fourth World J. 2020, 20, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
- Yakovleva, N. Oil sector developments in Russia and indigenous people. OGEL Oil Gas Energy Law Intell. 2011, 9, 1–28. [Google Scholar]
- Samsonova, I.V.; Malysheva, M.S. Arctic Indigenous Peoples: Preservation of Traditional Subsistence Activities. Adv. Econ. Bus. Manag. Res. 2020, 128, 2022–2028. [Google Scholar]
- Lukes, S. Power: A Radical View; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
Areas of Action | Ways of Action |
---|---|
Indigenous knowledge and perspectives | We recognize that IPs possess a wealth of place-based ecological knowledge accumulated over generations that is instrumental to the resilience and long-term sustainability of ISES and ITFS. Therefore, it is imperative to promote initiatives seeking to integrate this knowledge (TEK) into the formulation of legal and regulatory frameworks affecting the sustainability of ISES-ITFS. |
Legal and regulatory frameworks | We understand that legal and regulatory frameworks can provide a strong foundation for conservation by setting clear rules and regulations that protect biodiversity and natural resources. However, Indigenous peoples should be involved in the development of these frameworks to ensure that they are compatible with their traditions and subsistence activities. |
Institutional arrangements | We reiterate that the development and establishment of effective institutional structures is vital for the effective functioning of legal and regulatory frameworks, especially those pertaining to conservation and the management of ISES and ITFS. To this end, it is crucial that Indigenous communities actively participate in the conceptualization and execution of these legal and regulatory instruments to guarantee that they address their needs and concerns. |
Capacity building, Indigenous knowledge, and research | Because Indigenous peoples often lack the resources and capacity to participate in the development and implementation of legal and regulatory instruments for conservation., we assert that IP must be given the necessary means and support to continue exerting their rights over their ancestral territories and natural capital as a way for building resilience and adaptive capacity. This should also include the requirement for all institutions and researchers to honor Indigenous sovereignty and rights over their traditional knowledge and data governance. Similarly, we believe that facilitating IP’s access to funding programs and the benefits resulting from the research conducted in their lands should be also become mandatory for governments as well as academic and research institutions. |
Monitoring and evaluation | Finally, we reiterate the urgency of regularly monitoring and evaluating legal and regulatory structures that are developed to promote the sustainability, resilience, and sustainability of ISES-ITFS. Such continuous evaluation should allow identifying and correcting deficiencies while reinforcing the effective components of legal and regulatory frameworks. We believe this is necessary to ensure that these instruments remain effective and continue to address the needs of Indigenous people by reinforcing elements and correcting deficiencies. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sakapaji, S.C.; García Molinos, J.; Parilova, V.; Gavrilyeva, T.; Yakovleva, N. Navigating Legal and Regulatory Frameworks to Achieve the Resilience and Sustainability of Indigenous Socioecological Systems. Resources 2024, 13, 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources13040056
Sakapaji SC, García Molinos J, Parilova V, Gavrilyeva T, Yakovleva N. Navigating Legal and Regulatory Frameworks to Achieve the Resilience and Sustainability of Indigenous Socioecological Systems. Resources. 2024; 13(4):56. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources13040056
Chicago/Turabian StyleSakapaji, Stephen Chitengi, Jorge García Molinos, Varvara Parilova, Tuyara Gavrilyeva, and Natalia Yakovleva. 2024. "Navigating Legal and Regulatory Frameworks to Achieve the Resilience and Sustainability of Indigenous Socioecological Systems" Resources 13, no. 4: 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources13040056