Relinquishing Control: Conservation Oriented Toward Increased Indigenous Agency and Non-Human Autonomy in Invasive Species Management

Abstract

1. Current invasive species management is problematic in its unclear/xenophobic terminology, insufficient in practice given the scale/cost/complexity of the issue, and colonial in its normative assumptions. In exploring the normative assumptions underpinning current settler invasive species conservation, I mean to demonstrate how these practices maintain visions of the settler homeland and settler futures, with little consideration for indigenous cosmologies and futures. 2. Most settler agencies structure response to invasion as prevention ideally, eradication if possible, and long term management if necessary. This presents an underlying bias toward eradication of the “other” (be they human or non) that pervades settler colonial states, which is contrasted with indigenous relational cosmologies capable of more just diplomacy with plant “nations,” to borrow an Anishinaabe concept. 3. Building from this, I demonstrate the connection between cosmology, management, and land. For this purpose, I focus on biocultural frameworks, and utilize this framework to argue for how increased “biocultural diversity” is not only an issue of justice in what cultures are reified in the landscape, but also important for the improved conservation that can result from increased biocultural diversity. 4. Most importantly, the largest issue with invasive species management is the failure to adequately respect and collaborate with indigenous peoples. Such collaborations provide potential for increased indigenous agency and self-determination in management practices; justice in contributing to indigenous governance resurgence; and justice for people/non-humans in that it can diversify the cultural landscape. 5. Settlers have much to learn from indigenous management practices/understandings of invasive species. Particularly helpful are concepts of indigenous relationships with non-humans, which show greater respect for non-human autonomy and can thereby lead to invasive species practices not oriented toward eradication as ideal. 6. Lastly, I address three potential pitfalls to avoid in promoting indigenous agency in collaboration, less about the practice itself, and more expressing concerns for co-option. These areas of concern are: settler powers instrumentalizing indigenous knowledge (IK) and practices; a lack of respect for IK; and a retrenchment of the status quo.