62 Luis D. Virla et al.
while for the government social rejection and political instability were identified
as the main risks. Moreover, when asked to reflect about the issues from the
local community perspective, participants did not have problems identifying the
issue of continuing damage to ecosystems, leading to health impacts and
disruption of the traditional Indigenous ways of living. These risks reflect some
of those claimed by Indigenous communities since the arrival of Europeans to
the Americas. So, we might wonder, is this just a matter of a lack of efficient
strategies, or does this reality reveal a deeper conflict? Is the absence of a
willingness to step out of its own defensive zone and address this issue from the
initial intention to find a common ground the core element of a dysfunctional
conversation?
Such questions do not consider the approach of the Indigenous communities
since historically they have been forced to comply with unfair conditions and to
adapt to European cultural principles that conflict with their own worldviews.
We argue that this question seeks the reflection of those educated under
Western values that lack understanding of the holistic existence of the human
as part of the ecosystem. As a consequence, finding the proper language to use
in the different contexts could be a key practice to minimise risks and
uncertainties in climate change action and mitigation. This could help ensure
that plans are able to adapt to local realities and have a greater chance of
successfully protecting vulnerable ecosystems. Maybe this is the real ‘best of all
worlds’: finding a way to co- develop, by means of Indigenous and Western
worldviews, an inclusive plan capable of decreasing the impacts of climate
change.
For an oil sands worker, a climate action plan could be presented as a need to
adapt the sector to changing markets and decrease liabilities in a changing
investment landscape. On the other hand, for a member of an Indigenous
community, climate change action and mitigation could be presented as the
opportunity to save moose and fish, as well as to guarantee the permanence of
healthy land available for traditional practices. Therefore, in order to develop a
successful action plan, multiple roadmaps should be adapted to local realities.
There is as yet no perfect route to achieving such changes, and maybe there never
will be. However, a future that considers the local context and co- development of
action plans could be a starting point, allowing for implementation of effective
plans to transition towards a more sustainable and equitable future.
When looking at the futures identified, all stakeholders claimed that
participation of Indigenous stakeholders was encouraged, and that feedback
was taken into consideration on the development of the futures ‘cap the hat’
and ‘mix and round it all up’. However, Indigenous values are not evidently
reflected in the language, action plans, or main interpretation of such action
plans. These futures were developed, and are expected to be measured and
implemented, from a colonising perspective. In contrast, the future ‘hold your
horses’ was developed starting from Indigenous values of land and ecosystems,
and then seeking Western scientific principles to translate its benefits to
current Western understanding. This future portrays a social–ecological
while for the government social rejection and political instability were identified
as the main risks. Moreover, when asked to reflect about the issues from the
local community perspective, participants did not have problems identifying the
issue of continuing damage to ecosystems, leading to health impacts and
disruption of the traditional Indigenous ways of living. These risks reflect some
of those claimed by Indigenous communities since the arrival of Europeans to
the Americas. So, we might wonder, is this just a matter of a lack of efficient
strategies, or does this reality reveal a deeper conflict? Is the absence of a
willingness to step out of its own defensive zone and address this issue from the
initial intention to find a common ground the core element of a dysfunctional
conversation?
Such questions do not consider the approach of the Indigenous communities
since historically they have been forced to comply with unfair conditions and to
adapt to European cultural principles that conflict with their own worldviews.
We argue that this question seeks the reflection of those educated under
Western values that lack understanding of the holistic existence of the human
as part of the ecosystem. As a consequence, finding the proper language to use
in the different contexts could be a key practice to minimise risks and
uncertainties in climate change action and mitigation. This could help ensure
that plans are able to adapt to local realities and have a greater chance of
successfully protecting vulnerable ecosystems. Maybe this is the real ‘best of all
worlds’: finding a way to co- develop, by means of Indigenous and Western
worldviews, an inclusive plan capable of decreasing the impacts of climate
change.
For an oil sands worker, a climate action plan could be presented as a need to
adapt the sector to changing markets and decrease liabilities in a changing
investment landscape. On the other hand, for a member of an Indigenous
community, climate change action and mitigation could be presented as the
opportunity to save moose and fish, as well as to guarantee the permanence of
healthy land available for traditional practices. Therefore, in order to develop a
successful action plan, multiple roadmaps should be adapted to local realities.
There is as yet no perfect route to achieving such changes, and maybe there never
will be. However, a future that considers the local context and co- development of
action plans could be a starting point, allowing for implementation of effective
plans to transition towards a more sustainable and equitable future.
When looking at the futures identified, all stakeholders claimed that
participation of Indigenous stakeholders was encouraged, and that feedback
was taken into consideration on the development of the futures ‘cap the hat’
and ‘mix and round it all up’. However, Indigenous values are not evidently
reflected in the language, action plans, or main interpretation of such action
plans. These futures were developed, and are expected to be measured and
implemented, from a colonising perspective. In contrast, the future ‘hold your
horses’ was developed starting from Indigenous values of land and ecosystems,
and then seeking Western scientific principles to translate its benefits to
current Western understanding. This future portrays a social–ecological