Including diverse knowledges and worldviews in environmental assessment and planning: the Brazilian Amazon Kaxinawá Nova Olinda Indigenous Land case.

• Autor(a) principal: MATUK, F. A.
• Data de Publicação: 2020
• Outros Autores: BEHAGEL, J. H., SIMAS, F. N. B., AMARAL, E. F. do, HAVERROTH, M., TURNHOUT, E.
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da EMBRAPA (Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from EMBRAPA - Alice)
• Texto Completo: http://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/handle/doc/1120347
• topic: Serviços ecossistêmicos; Servicios ecosistémicos; Contribuições das pessoas para a natureza; People's contributions to nature (PCN); Conhecimento tradicional; Conocimiento tradicional; Abordagem participativa; Gestión participativa; Povos indígenas; Pueblos indígenas; Terra Indígena Kaxinawá de Nova Olinda (TIKNO); Acre; Amazônia Ocidental; Western Amazon; Amazonia Occidental; Ecosystem services; Indigenous knowledge; Indigenous peoples; Participatory management

The concepts of 'ecosystem services' (ES) and 'nature's contributions to people' (NCP) inform environmental frameworks that set out to include Indigenous and Local Knowledge systems (ILK) and worldviews in policy and planning processes. These frameworks aim to enhance biodiversity conservation and human well-being in a legitimate and effective way. In this article, we explore how the concept of People's Contributions to Nature (PCN) is complementary to NCP. We use it to investigate challenges that planners and locals face in realizing the legitimate inclusion of diverse knowledges and worldviwes that account for people and ecosystems in a relational way. We introduce a case study where planners drew on ES and NCP and used participatory methods to implement a REDD+ policy in the Kaxinawá Nova Olinda Indigenous Land (Acre-Brazil). We find that both Kaxinawás and planners emphasize both NCP and PCN in their discourses. Nevertheless, differences between knowledge systems and disciplines, uneven power relations between Kaxinawás and planners, and an underconsideration of PCN by global frameworks challenge the legitimate inclusion of the Kaxinawá knowlege and worldviews to craft assessment and planning. We conclude that by explicitly addressing these challenges, science-policy interfaces can further advance knowledge legitimacy and policy effectiveness.