Including indigenous peoples in climate change mitigation ...

Climatic Change DOI 10.1007/s10584-014-1280-3

Including indigenous peoples in climate change mitigation: addressing issues of scale, knowledge and power M. Brugnach & M. Craps & A. Dewulf

Received: 12 July 2013 / Accepted: 16 October 2014 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract Involving indigenous peoples in the development of mitigation measures for climate change presents procedural, conceptual and structural challenges. Here, we reflect on some of these challenges and ways of overcoming them, as suggested by collaborative approaches to policy and decision making. We specifically focus on issues of scale, knowledge and power, and how they interrelate to act as a barrier or opportunity for the involvement of indigenous groups. We argue that multi-scalar negotiations, blended knowledge and power-sharing structures are all necessary to include indigenous communities as valuable partners in climate change mitigation, and we suggest strategies and recommendations for actively accomplishing this inclusion. Examples from recent literature about the inclusion of indigenous communities in different sectors, are used to illustrate and provide evidence of the current problematic and the need for collaborative solutions. Overall, the ideas expressed here, serve as a conceptual framework to better understand and support the inclusion of indigenous communities in policy and decision making processes. 1 Introduction It is widely recognized that mitigation actions are needed for limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change. These actions aim at controlling the accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere. They are regulated by measures that are designed and agreed at international and national levels. The emphasis is placed on reducing the total sum of emissions across the globe regardless of where the measures are applied (Dewulf et al. 2013; Hulme

This article is part of a Special Issue on “Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation with Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples” edited by Kirsty Galloway McLean, Ameyali Ramos Castillo, Edwin Castellanos, and Aqqaluk Lynge. M. Brugnach (*) Faculty of Engineering Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] M. Craps Center for Economics and Corporate Sustainability, KU Leuven @ Campus Brussels, Brussels, Belgium A. Dewulf Public Administration and Policy Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Climatic Change

2010). This global focus has made the relation between climate change mitigation and indigenous peoples an uneasy one. One of the problems with this global perspective is that even though mitigation measures are agreed at the international and national levels (e.g., emissions caps and trading), their implementation needs to occur across different levels. By favoring a global view on the problem of climate change, mitigation measures tend to underplay considerations regarding the local specificity and situational aspects associated with their implementation (Hulme 2010). This has resulted in mitigation strategies that are experienced as a limiting factor for economic activity at the local level, due to the constraints they exert on fossil fuel extraction, energy use, forest exploitation or agriculture. Furthermore, poorly designed mitigation measures can even exacerbate the impacts of climate change by reducing the resilience and livelihoods of vulnerable groups (Green and Raygorodetsky 2010). Successful solutions cannot be obtained without the will and active engagement of those that are to implement them (Ingram 2013). Indigenous communities have valuable contextspecific knowledge and resources (Dewulf et al. 2005; Smith and Sharp 2012), which can improve interventions designed at the global level. The legitimate participation of indigenous communities in decisions regarding mitigation actions will also enhance the possibilities that actions will be implemented, since communities will be in a better position to ensure that these actions are also in their interests and will be more willing to support and contribute to it. Involving indigenous communities in decision making is also an ethical matter, one of selfdetermination and cultural integrity of local communities that are vulnerable for climate change (Smith and Sharp 2012). There is a need of collaborative governance frameworks (Bouwen and Taillieu 2004; Gray 2007; Huxham et al. 2000) that could facilitate and support the equitable implementation of mitigation measures (Forsyth 2010). Because of the ethical, pragmatic and strategic reasons mentioned above, the involvement of indigenous populations and local communities is necessary. Up to the present, indigenous concerns and contributions with respect to climate change mitigation have played a very minor role in policy developments and decision making processes supporting mitigation efforts. However, there is an emerging revalorization of indigenous knowledge which is offering new opportunities for collaboration among Western scientists, governments and indigenous peoples (Turner et al. 2008; Berkes 2007; Hammer et al. 2013). Examples indicate that institutional arrangements incorporating indigenous and local knowledge and decentralized decision making are associated with high carbon storage and livelihood benefits (Chhatre and Agrawal 2009). In sum, although there are many calls for collaboration with indigenous peoples in different areas Lynch et al. 2013; Nyong et al. 2007), and although the need for including them is already well established in the case of climate adaptation actions (Naess 2013; Newton et al. 2005), the inclusion of indigenous groups in climate mitigation policies and decision-making processes still presents unique procedural, conceptual and structural challenges (Cochran et al. 2013; Roosvall and Tegelberg 2013). Our goal here is to better understand how collaborative approaches can help in overcoming the specific challenges for involving indigenous peoples in climate change mitigation. We address these challenges from the point of view of scale, knowledge and power (Section 2), and how these three issues interrelate to act as a barrier or opportunity for the involvement of indigenous groups (Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4). We pay particular attention to collaboration in collective decision-making (Section 4), and argue that multi-scalar negotiations, blended knowledge and power-sharing structures are all necessary to include indigenous communities as valuable partners in climate change mitigation (Section 5).

Climatic Change

2 Procedural, conceptual and structural challenges Issues of scale Climate change is a typical problem that spans the scale from the global to the local. While some of the driving forces for climate change operate at a global level, such as the GHG composition of the atmosphere, local economic activities and practices concerning resource use are also crucial components of the problem (Wilbanks and Kates 1999). Overall a procedural challenge is to address the mismatch (Termeer and Dewulf 2014) between the problem scale of climate change (i.e. the levels at which climate change plays out) and the governance scale (i.e. the levels at which society is organized to address the issue). The actions and institutions present at different levels of the governance often turn out to be insufficient to address this multi-scalar issue. Issues of knowledge There are many different ways of knowing about the problem of climate change and many networks of actors that are concerned with it. The importance and benefits of considering different kinds of knowledge (western science and indigenous world views, e.g., Lynch et al. 2013; Barrett 2013), to develop collective responses to climate change (Nyong et al. 2007), has already been acknowledged. The IPCC assessment report AR4 (2007) has also recognized that indigenous knowledge must be included as an invaluable basis for developing adaptation and natural resource management strategies in response to environmental and other forms of change. However, the conceptual challenge of doing so still remains and lies in how to include knowledge systems that are so different in nature, whose rules of production, acquisition and shareability, as well as the ontological assumptions they embed, amply differ (Brugnach and Ingram 2012). Issues of power Power refers to the capacity of social actors to influence decisions. In climate change mitigation the high inequality in the distribution of power sources between national governments and international scientific communities on the one hand, and local indigenous communities on the other hand, have resulted in the exclusion of the latter (Roosvall and Tegelberg 2013). As a consequence, indigenous communities have become passive recipients of international recipes for mitigation with little possibilities to defend their own legitimate interests and to contribute to climate change solutions. This situation is not new, but the result of a centuries-long history of colonization, violence and discrimination against indigenous communities (Reo and Parker 2013). This extreme power imbalance continues to be reproduced at an international, national and local level. The main structural challenge resides in how to support the empowerment of indigenous communities to meaningfully influence policy development and decision-making processes for climate change mitigation.

3 The links among procedural, conceptual and structural dimensions Issues of scale, knowledge and power can be analytically distinguished but are inseparable and interdependent in practice. Below we analyze how these three issues relate to one another in the context of indigenous peoples and climate change mitigation. 3.1 How do scale and knowledge relate? Scale and knowledge matters a great deal to the phenomena of climate change and the attempts at climate change mitigation. On the one hand, a global kind of knowledge is required to understand the nature of the problem and the aggregate effect of mitigation measures (Hulme

Climatic Change

2010). On the other hand, very specific local knowledge is needed to understand the myriad local practices that lead to GHG emissions, and the practices on which mitigation measures can be built. As we will argue, not only are there different types of knowledge involved, and different scale levels, but knowledge and scale tend to align. Together they constitute a considerable divide in the climate mitigation domain between global expert knowledge and local experiential knowledge. At the global level mitigation policy arrangements have been installed through the UNFCCC and the Kyoto-protocol, including emission caps and emissions trading. Very local interventions are framed as part of the solution (e.g. using energy-saving light bulbs or avoiding deforestation), but the locality of these interventions is basically irrelevant, because it doesn’t really matter where in the world emissions are produced or reduced. There is one global parameter for the problem, namely GHG emissions, which provides clarity and seems to put all global citizens at the same level (Dewulf et al. 2013). Existing forests worldwide represent important carbon sinks and a global mechanism like REDD + (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) has been established to be able to compensate developing countries for protecting these forests (Gupta et al. 2012). Sustainable management of forests is often considered to be a relatively cheap mechanism for emissions reductions, with the potential of contributing a third of the required total global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 (Castillo et al. 2012; Somorin et al. 2012). When the global problem of climate change is scaled down to the local regions where forests could be protected, the focus is no longer on the highly emitting metropolitan and industrialized areas, but on the communities that live in and around these forests. From an epistemic point of view, scale serves as a reference point to conceptualize and analyze the phenomena of climate change. Thus the scale level at which the problem is looked at, with its specific resolution in space and time, determines how it is understood and defined. When the problem of climate change is looked at on a global scale, it is defined as a problem of changing climatic patterns, and the major focus at this scale is on the physics of the problem. But when scaling down, the problem switches from being about climate to being about people and livelihoods. At lower scale levels the importance of global climate patterns are outweighed by issues of livelihoods, economic viability, adaptive capacity and vulnerability to climate impacts. According to Cash et al. (2006), “the general result is the production of scientific and technical information that lacks salience, credibility, or legitimacy in the eyes of critical players at different levels”. Knowledge about climate change at the global level is to a large extent processed and communicated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the most authoritative source of technical expertise on this topic. This is an expert-dominated science-policy arena, where scientific knowledge is privileged over other forms of knowledge (Salick and Ross 2009). This knowledge has been criticized for being disconnected from local situations and, in consequence, offering inadequate guidance to policy. What is known about climate change is then limited to scientific facts and expert opinions, and as such too general and unable to capture the diversity of views and preferences that exist in local contexts (Hulme 2010). Some of the knowledge that is mobilized is even contradictory to what and how indigenous people know about climate change. For the Trios indigenous group, for example, who only recently adopted the concept of money, the idea of global markets, which has become dominant in mitigation arrangements like the Kyoto protocol, is difficult to reconcile with their ideas about economic exchanges (Castillo et al. 2012). Indigenous peoples legally own more than 11 % of the world’s forests, with traditional ownership and land tenure covering an even greater area (Castillo et al. 2012). From the global

Climatic Change

perspective, forests are ideal leverage points for achieving climate mitigation goals. Looking from the local perspective, a totally different picture emerges. Indigenous peoples living in forests have not at all been the largest contributors to environmental degradation and greenhouse gas emissions over the last decades or centuries. In any local forest, climate mitigation will not present itself as a problem—the indigenous peoples inhabiting the forests are confronting a completely different set of problems. When local forests are claimed as part of the solution to a global problem, and to one that has been caused through activities in very different regions or even continents, it seems very unlikely that local communities will naturally put the issue high on their list of priorities. At the local level, climate change is only one of many issues, and “when forests are rendered legible through their carbon content only, other forest-related values and governance objectives, such as securing biodiversity or local livelihoods, may be obscured” (Gupta et al. 2012: 727). 3.2 How do scale and power relate? Power with respect to climate mitigation is not equally distributed across the different levels of the governance scale. Since the establishment of institutions like the UNFCCC and the IPCC, considerable capacity, knowledge and influence has developed at the global level. A range of different mechanisms are installed, including the Kyoto protocol, emissions trade, the Clean Development Mechanism, and, particularly important for climate mitigation and indigenous peoples, the REDD + mechanism (Okereke and Dooley 2010). At the same time, countries have been reluctant to shift too much of their sovereign power to the global level, as was evident in some countries refusal to ratify the Kyoto protocol, and the general avoidance of specifying binding targets for emission reductions. Policies in domains like energy, transport and agriculture have strong impacts on climate mitigation outcomes but in general they are still strongly rooted at the national level. For indigenous peoples, whose territorial claims and political representation are often limited to the local level, influencing decision-making on climate mitigation at national and international levels is very challenging. Indigenous peoples do have a role in the UNFCCC process since the year 2000, through the possibility of applying for observer status under the convention, and nominating participants to the sessions of the different bodies under the convention. The International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Climate Change, IIPFCC, functions as the joint indigenous forum in the UNFCCC process. However, the possibilities for having real impact on the discussions and outcomes appear to be limited—e.g. inclusion of indigenous knowledge in the UNFCCC and the Kyoto protocol is nearly inexistent (Smith and Sharp 2012). Powerful countries and country coalitions have a much greater impact in e.g. the Conferences of the Parties. Therefore, the representation of indigenous peoples interests in climate mitigation decision-making depends strongly on the political influence of indigenous peoples on their national governments. Due to historical processes of marginalization, this influence is often very limited. There are promising recent developments where indigenous peoples’ rights are anchored in the national constitution, and where country delegations to the UNFCCC emphasize the rights, needs and interests of indigenous peoples, as in the case of Bolivia, for example. 3.3 How do power and knowledge relate? Power and knowledge have a reciprocal and intricate relationship to one another. Adequate knowledge and timely access to relevant information is necessary for actors to participate in decision-making. Conversely, the existing power relations determine which actors and

Climatic Change

knowledge forms are considered legitimate. Both assertions have consequences for the involvement of indigenous peoples in climate change mitigation. Indigenous peoples have difficulties to obtain relevant information concerning climate change mitigation as a consequence of the deeply rooted racial or cultural discrimination against them in most of the countries, limiting their access to (higher) education, political representation and acceptance in public space in general (Colchester 2004). In many countries indigenous communities are still discriminated by law, excluding them from decision spaces because of their weak legal position, e.g. a lack of recognition of their traditional community structures and of their communal land tenure (Williams and Hardison 2013). Discrimination can also be hidden and it is often not recognized because it is considered socially undesirable. But precisely because the gap between the espoused values that praise ancestral indigenous cultures and the practice of despising indigenous people in their present-day presence is not accepted, discrimination is hard to combat. The exclusion of indigenous communities from information and decision spaces is aggravated by the fact that their territories are often remote and isolated from the centralized public spaces where discussions concerning climate change mitigation take place. Their physical and cultural isolation impedes their possibilities to establish contacts with actors at a national and international level that have a decisive voice in climate negotiations (Hammer et al. 2013). Indigenous communities are above all confronted with external private actors that have high economic stakes—legal as well as illegal—in their territories like mining, drug production, large scale cattle breeding, palm oil plantations, etc. (Palomino and Hernandez 2012). Agro-biofuel production, considered to be a contribution to climate change mitigation, has led to compulsory mass expulsions of poor families from their lands (Cotula et al. 2008). Because of the impoverished circumstances in which poor indigenous families live, their priorities are food and shelter for day-to-day survival, so they may be tempted by the financial offers of big companies to sell their lands for mitigation projects. But often there is a lack of transparency and accountability concerning climate change mitigation projects, and, as a consequence, elite groups are able to capture the benefits to the prejudice of indigenous peoples. Not only can we state that having access to knowledge determines power, but conversely power influences knowledge by influencing who are the knowledge holders included in decision-making and under which conditions they participate (Cochran et al. 2013; Hulme 2010). When different power sources (physical, legal, political, financial, strategic, symbolic) are concentrated in the same actors, these dominant actors tend to impose their ideas to favor their particular interests (Huxham and Vangen 2005). Climate change has been framed as a highly technical problem favoring its scientific understanding. This has led to a concomitant exclusion of indigenous communities, since they lack the language, expertise and resources to become part of this expert dominated domain. Focusing on expert and scientific knowledge also discounts the existence of other types of knowledge and ways of knowing about the phenomena of climate change. When knowledge is limited to objective and universal facts, there are many components of value and ways of knowing (e.g., spiritual knowing), that matter to indigenous communities, which are ignored (Rodríguez 2006; Barrett 2013). For traditional knowledge holders facts are not separated from values (Turner et al. 2008). Oral histories, testimonies and traditional ceremonies also constitute valid sources of information (Gregory and Trousdale 2009). Furthermore, the idea of characterizing climate change objectively also ignores that knowledge is part of the collective and individual identity and masks differences that exist in meaning making. Even when there is agreement about the facts, there can be very different sensible and meaningful interpretations of climate change and how to respond to it.

Climatic Change

Knowledge is not neutral, and is generated and mobilized in different contexts. Knowledge embeds information about how people relate with each other and with the environment. Lawrence (2009) investigated the social significance of public participation in relation to climate change and suggested that the lack of public support in the climate change debates is not due to lack of information but rather to lack of connection with nature. From this view point, she concludes that the input and participation of indigenous people not only provide more data (e.g., in situ information, regional verification of global models, etc.), but a more holistic perspective on our relationship with the environment. For example, the Yorta Yorta people, living near the Murray river in Australia, consider the rich network of lagoons, creeks and wetlands as the life source and the spirit of the Yorta Yorta Nation (Lynch et al. 2013). This entails the multigenerational obligation of taking care for a sustainable “healthy” country. This holistic perspective connects well to conceptions of strong sustainability, and is recognized as such by part of the rest of the population living in the area. 3.4 Social relationships: where issues of scale, knowledge and power meet Issues of scale, knowledge and power are interrelated and commensurate with the procedural, conceptual and structural dimensions of the problem of climate change mitigation. Considering these three issues concerning the involvement of indigenous communities in decision-making and policy arrangements in climate change mitigation is not new, and has already been subject of extensive study. The novelty of our contribution resides in examining how these three issues relate to collectively respond to climate change mitigation. It is the scale at which decision procedures are established, together with the power structure among the actors and the kind of knowledge used, that determines what is being decided upon, how and by whom. While calling for different types of analyses and solutions, underlying these three issues there are social processes that concern the way in which decisions are made, and how people relate to each other to make sense of the problem of climate change and to act in consequence. It is through social relationships that decisions and policy issues acquire meaning (Weick 1995). When we focus our attention on social relations, questions such as: Who is allowed to participate and are these actors representative of the population? What is the method of communication or decision-making? And how much influence or authority is granted to their participation? become central to understanding the making and implementation of climate policy (Fung 2006). This calls for collective decision processes that look at participation and collaboration at their roots. Supported by this rationale, we now turn our attention to participatory and collaborative processes of decision-making, and analyze how they can cope with the challenges that scale, power and knowledge pose for collectively deciding.

4 Collaborative arrangements/mechanisms for multi-scalar negotiations, blended knowledge and power sharing Collaboration is conceived here as a governance mechanism that includes and goes beyond public participation. Whereas in participatory initiatives there is still a leading actor with the necessary authority to define a problem and—dependent on the degree of participation (Arnstein 1969; Pretty 1995)—to decide a solution, in collaborative initiatives problem and direction setting are the joint responsibility of a group of actors, most frequently belonging to different sectors of society. Inspired by organization theories emphasizing the need of higher order learning (Argyris and Schön 1978), multi-actor collaboration proposes that mutual

Climatic Change

understanding and acceptance of different points of view, enables the negotiation of mutually acceptable agreements. Governance mechanisms for addressing such problems are based on enhancing the connectivity between the actors involved as well as the capacity for critical selfreflection and questioning of implicit assumptions and value schemes (Collins and Ison 2009; Stacey 2000). Collaboration is conceived as a process in search for synergetic solutions through the joint appreciation of different but complementary viewpoints (Gray 1989; Huxham and Vangen 2005). It is an emergent and often conflictive process through which the actors can increase their technical and collaborative capacities and can negotiate mutually beneficial agreement. The process is quite demanding on the actors’ skills and commitment, because it requires intensive learning about the complex problem domain, and intensive negotiation in a complex multi-actor setting. The classical formula of bringing representatives of all actors together in a series of meetings, led by a convener, may become problematic when multiple scales levels, incompatible knowledge systems and entrenched power differences are at play. In this section, we discuss possible arrangements and mechanisms that increase the chances of collaboration processes to effectively address these issues (Fig. 1). 4.1 Towards multi-scalar negotiations Collaborating across scales is a challenging but crucial ingredient of including indigenous peoples in climate mitigation. This requires arrangements at the governance scale that not only span the local to the global level, but are also interconnected. The interconnected multi-level nature of climate change can be more effectively addressed by creating a better fit between the scale of the problem of climate change and the governance scale at which it is supposed to be addressed (Termeer and Dewulf 2014). This is another argument for not only looking at local indigenous communities when carbon sinks are needed, but also for trying to include their voices more strongly in the global discussion on climate change and the ways to address it. Contrasting the integrated local perspective with the fragmented global perspective regarding climate change mitigation also points towards possible ways out. Broadening the scope of the issues from a narrow focus on climate mitigation to include also climate adaptation, biodiversity or sustainable local livelihoods can strongly increase local interest in e.g. REDD + projects (Gupta et al. 2012). Apart from this pragmatic approach of scope optimization in collaborative processes (Koppenjan and Klijn 2004), one can also imagine another way to more directly link the local level back to the global level. Where the livelihoods of indigenous peoples are strongly dependent on e.g. the forests they inhabit, the threats to the

Knowledge Co-producon of blended knowledge

Scale

Structure

Bridging procedures

Balancing and sharing power

Fig. 1 Scale, knowledge and structure as they relate in collaborative processes

Climatic Change

forests, like large scale deforestation, mineral exploitation or degradation, are simultaneously threats to the livelihoods of indigenous peoples. In that sense, protecting the forests as carbon sinks can be very much in line with local people’s interests, provided that their livelihoods are compatible with sustainable forest management practices required for climate mitigation (Campbell et al. 2008). In some cases leaders of indigenous peoples have allied with environmental organizations to present themselves as the stewards of the forests and protectors of this natural heritage, for example in international campaigns to protect the Amazon rainforest. The Chico Mendes case has shown that an alliance for protecting forests, forged between local indigenous people and international environmentalists, can create significant international attention, but at the same time, can also be a very risky gamble for local people (Revkin 1990). 4.2 Towards blended knowledge To overcome the main challenges of integrating different knowledge forms, new knowledge creation processes are needed (Hegger et al. 2012). In collective decision-making, it is through social relating that problems are shaped and decision choices implemented. When these relational aspects of knowledge are taken into account, knowledge production becomes a process that not only concerns the generation of content or substance, but also how individual actors, groups or organization collaborate and organize their actions, to produce this knowledge (Bouwen and Taillieu 2004). In this process of knowledge co-production relating precedes knowing (Bouwen and Taillieu 2004). Actors come together because they need each other to find a solution (Schruijer and Vansina 2008). They recognize that they are an interdependent part of the history of the problem domain and are also co-responsible for its future (Gray 2004). So, part of the co-production process consists in redefining the problem in a way that is compatible and inclusive of those that participate, based on which actionable knowledge (sensu Argyris and Schön 1978) can be derived. It is then through exchange and sharing among actors that knowledge boundaries are expanded and existing knowledge can be converted into new blended knowledge forms. In this way, when the right and adequate relationships are in place, concepts that are considered to be valuable by the participants can obtain prevalence and blend into the new knowledge forms, based on which joint goals and expected outcomes can be defined (refer to Dewulf et al. 2005 for an example of knowledge co-production for sustainable irrigation between indigenous farmers and university engineers in the Andes). Hammer et al. (2013) confirm that indigenous political and spiritual leaders are mindful of the beneficial implications of their traditional knowledge on the macro-level. As they feel connected with their broader environment, they are motivated to contribute to the improvement of human condition in general and to collaborate with Western scientists, e.g. granting them special permissions to enter their lands and study collaboratively specimens of biodiversity. However for indigenous and non-indigenous knowledge holders to engage in a collaborative partnership of knowledge co-production there has to be an agreement on their “knowledge sharing process”. This is particularly relevant when knowledge is sacred, as it is not necessarily shareable or is accessible only through special rituals and practices. Only to the degree that all sides agree in how to share knowledge, have a deep respect on the process, align their interests and take care of possible abuses by undesirable forms of knowledge appropriation can the proposed co-production processes yield beneficial results. Part of this knowledge co-production process must be devoted to work out differences as related knowledge is ambiguous, and issues of scale and power exist (Brugnach et al. 2011).

Climatic Change

4.3 Towards power sharing Critical organization studies, inspired by the works of Michel Foucault on power, have questioned collaborative approaches as over-estimating the possibility of win-win solutions and under-estimating conflicting interests, incommensurable frames and unequal access to resources between different social actors (Alvesson and Deetz 2006; Cooke 1998). As a consequence, a unilateral collaborative approach risks to reinforce dominant frames and interests when it is not complemented with approaches that acknowledge the importance of strengthening the negotiation capacities and of empowering excluded actors. Taking into account the power imbalance between indigenous communities and the other actors involved in climate change debates, collaborative initiatives will thus have to be complemented with special efforts to support indigenous communities by empowering them. Empowerment refers to efforts which are directed towards the weaker parties to increase their power sources e.g. through funding, legal support, access to information (e.g. on opportunities and threats of mitigation interventions), mechanisms of accountability and capacity building. Indigenous communities can potentially appeal to physical power to resist the intrusion of external actors when they want to impose projects, e.g. by boycotting activities and closing the access to their territory. Although such actions don’t have much chance of success because of the unequal power balance, they may be useful for allowing indigenous communities to win the attention of other actors (NGO’s, international community), on which they depend to raise awareness about their precarious situation and to support them by legal and political means. The new social media that create novel possibilities for indigenous communities to establish direct contacts with outside allies, may enhance their strategic power. In some countries like Colombia, Ecuador, and Bolivia, domestic law reforms, including concepts of “plurinationality” and “pluriculturality”, have given recognition to the rights of indigenous peoples in their own territories (Wolff 2012). In those cases there may be conflicts between the international governmental engagement for climate mitigation and the sovereignty principle for indigenous communities. When there is a binding legal framework concerning indigenous territories, communities can appeal to the courts to respect their rights and to demand their free prior consent before climate change activities are undertaken in their territories (Whyte 2013). When there is no adequate legal framework for indigenous peoples, efforts must be directed towards changing laws that recognize indigenous peoples’ rights and that facilitate their participation in carbon sequestration measures (Hammer et al. 2013). Empowerment, directed at a more equal distribution of power sources between the actors that are deciding and operating on a national and international level on the one hand and local indigenous communities on the other hand is needed to stimulate the awareness of mutual interdependence. But to the degree that indigenous communities are empowered, more resistance and conflicts can be expected, when their interests and values are not taken seriously into account. Collaborative initiatives will thus have to be complemented with special efforts to support indigenous communities and with conflict mediation to manage possible disagreements.

5 Discussion and conclusions Collaboration is not without risks. Because of the so-called “participation paradox” (Craps et al. 2004; Quaghebeur et al. 2004), indigenous communities can be

Climatic Change

excluded by the knowledge, structures and procedures that are used to include them. Indeed, the dominant actors in climate negotiations, national authorities and international scientific communities, can appeal to their own knowledge frames and structures to incorporate local actors. Inclusion can be reached only partially or temporarily. This seems inevitable as social inequality and discrimination is part of broader society. Continuous critical reflection is needed on the ways new exclusions are reproduced. From the perspective of the indigenous peoples, the participation paradox means that they risk losing their specificity in their efforts to be taken into account by the dominant actors. From the one hand, it is by interacting with persons and groups that are external to their own communities that they can express their needs and interests. For example, by taking part in established negotiation and decision spaces regarding climate change mitigation they can present their points of view. To the degree that they can connect with their audience, which means adapting their discourse to the Western discourses and sensitivities, they will be taken more easily into account. However, by doing so, they may give up characteristics that are essential for the conservation of their own identity and survival. This risk might be especially high for indigenous representatives, that—in order to be better able to defend their people’s interest, spend a major part of their life disconnected from their own communities, which may in turn lead to distrust and distance between highly schooled professional representatives and their constituencies. For this reason, the participation paradox is an argument for creating knowledge, structures and procedures that not only bridge between indigenous and other communities, but also confirm and strengthen the interests, identities and local knowledge of the indigenous people (Craps et al. 2004). Multi-scalar mechanisms that can address the interdependencies and interconnectedness in the global, complex climate system, while simultaneously stimulating dialogue on a local level can be useful. Incorporating indigenous representatives in international research teams on climate change mitigation, or leaders of indigenous communities and umbrella organizations in the management of mitigation projects can help to address power issues. Bridging organizations and persons that are well acquainted with the indigenous world views and that are accepted as international climate change experts, may have a necessary function to cross the boundaries between both worlds. All in all whatever multi-scalar, power balancing or frame bridging mechanism, has to lead to shared activities that are meaningful for both types of involved communities. Decision-making processes for climate change mitigation have to change. Considering scale, knowledge and power dimensions simultaneously allows different ways of doing so. While any of these three dimensions can present a strategic opportunity for initiating a change, changes in one dimension need to be supported by changes in the other dimensions. Changes in knowledge production processes are futile if they are not accompanied by a process of participation and empowerment that guarantees that those that need to be included are included and granted the rights to fully participate. As formulated here, overcoming the challenges that scale mismatch, diversity of knowledge forms and power imbalances pose, calls for the support of multi-scalar negotiations, the creation of new blended knowledge and power sharing structures. To this end, we have suggested that collaborative decision-making processes are better suited.

Acknowledgments The authors are indebted for the constructive comments and suggestions received by four anonymous referees throughout the review process of this manuscript.

Climatic Change

References Alvesson M, Deetz S (2006) 1.7 critical theory and postmodernism approaches to organizational studies. The Sage handbook of organization studies, 255 Argyris C, Schön DA (1978) Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading Arnstein S (1969) A ladder of participation. J Am Plan Assoc 35(4):216–224 Barrett MJ (2013) Enabling hybrid space: epistemological diversity in socio-ecological problem solving. Policy Sci 46:179–197 Berkes F (2007) Community-based conservation in a globalized world. PNAS 104(39):15188–15193 Bouwen R, Taillieu T (2004) Multi-party collaboration as social learning for interdependence: developing relational knowing for sustainable natural resource management. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 14:137–153 Brugnach M, Ingram H (2012) Ambiguity: the challenge of knowing and deciding together. Environ Sci Pol 15(1):60–71. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.10.005 Brugnach M, Dewulf A, Henriksen H-J, van der Keur P (2011) More is not always better: coping with ambiguity in natural resources management. J Environ Manag 92(1):78–84 Campbell A, Clark S, Coad L, Miles L, Bolt K, Roe D (2008) Protecting the future: carbon, forests, protected areas and local livelihoods. Biodiversity 9(3–4):117–121. doi:10.1080/14888386.2008.9712916 Cash DW, Adger WN, Berkes F, Garden P, Lebel L, Olsson P (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol Soc 11(2), article 8 Castillo AR, McLean KG, Raygorodetsky G, Eickemeier P, Minx J, Monagle C, Johnston S (2012) Climate change mitigation with local communities and indigenous peoples: practices, lessons learned and prospects. Proceedings of the international expert workshop Climate Change Mitigation with Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples. United Nations University – Traditional Knowledge Initiative, Darwin Chhatre A, Agrawal A (2009) Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proc Natl Acad Sci. doi:10.1073/pnas.0905308106 Cochran P, Huntington OH, Pungowiyi C, Tom S, Chapin FS, Huntington HP, Trainor SF (2013) Indigenous frameworks for observing and responding to climate change in Alaska. Clim Chang 120(3):557–567 Colchester M (2004) Conservation policy and indigenous peoples. Environ Sci Pol 7(3):145–153. doi:10.1016/j. envsci.2004.02.004 Collins K, Ison R (2009) Jumping off Arnstein’s ladder: social learning as a new policy paradigm for climate change adaptation. Environ Policy Governance 19(6):358–373 Cooke B (1998) Participation, “process” and management: lessons for development in the history of Organization Development. J Int Dev 10(1):35–54 Cotula L, Dyer N, Vermeulen S (2008) Fuelling exclusion? The biofuels boom and poor people’s access to land. IIED & FAO, London Craps M, Dewulf A, Mancero M, Santos E, Bouwen R (2004) Constructing common ground and re-creating differences between professional and indigenous communities in the Andes. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 14(5):378–393. doi:10.1002/casp.796 Dewulf A, Craps M, Bouwen R, Abril F, Zhingri M (2005) How indigenous farmers and university engineers create actionable knowledge for sustainable irrigation. Action Res 3(2):175–192. doi:10.1177/ 1476750305052141 Dewulf A, Brugnach M, Termeer C and Ingram H (2013) Bridging Knowledge Frames and Networks in Climate and Water Governance. In Edelenbos J, Bressers N, Scholten P (eds) Water Governance as Connective Capacity. Ashgate, p 229–247 Forsyth T (2010) Panacea or paradox? Cross-sector partnerships, climate change, and development. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 1(5):683–696 Fung A (2006) Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Adm Rev (December), 66–75 Gray B (1989) Collaborating. Finding Common Ground for Multi-Party Problems. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Gray B (2004) Strong opposition: frame-based resistance to collaboration. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 14: 166–176 Gray B (2007) The process of partnership construction: anticipating obstacles and enhancing the likelihood of successful partnerships for sustainable development. In: Glasbergen P, Biermann F, Mol APJ (eds) Partnerships, governance and sustainable development. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham Green D, Raygorodetsky G (2010) Indigenous knowledge of a changing climate. Clim Chang 100(2):239–242. doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9804-y Gregory R, Trousdale W (2009) Compensating aboriginal cultural losses: an alternative approach to assessing environmental damages. J Environ Manag 90:2469–2479

Climatic Change Gupta A, Lövbrand E, Turnhout E, Vijge MJ (2012) In pursuit of carbon accountability: the politics of REDD + measuring, repor2ting and verification systems. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4(6):726–731. doi:10.1016/j. cosust.2012.10.004 Hammer C, Jintiach JC, Tsakimp R (2013) Practical developments in law science and policy: efforts to protect the traditional knowledge and practices of the Shuar, an indigenous people in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Policy Sci 46:125–141. doi:10.1007/s11077012-9166-6 Hegger D, Lamers M, van Zeijl-Royema A, Dieperink C (2012) Conceptualizing joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: success conditions and levels for action. Environ Sci Policy 18:52–65 Hulme M (2010) Problems with making and governing global kind of knowledge. Glob Environ Chang 20:558–564 Huxham C, Vangen S (2005) Managing to collaborate. Routledge, London Huxham C, Vangen S, Eden C (2000) The challenge of collaborative governance. Public Manag Rev 2:337–358. doi:10.1080/14719030000000021 Ingram H (2013) No universal remedies: design for contexts. Water Int 38(1):6–11 IPCC AR4 (2007) 4th Assessment Report: Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Koppenjan JFM, Klijn E (2004) A network approach to problem solving and decision making. Routledge, New York Lawrence A (2009) The first Cuckoo in winter: phenology, recording, credibility and meaning in Britain. Glob Environ Chang 19:173–179 Lynch AH, Griggs D, Joachim L, Walker J (2013) The role of the Yorta Yorta people in clarifying the common interest in sustainable management of the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. Policy Sci 46(2):109–123 Naess LO (2013) The role of local knowledge in adaptation to climate change. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 4(2):99–106 Newton J, Paci CDJ, Ogden A (2005) Climate change and natural hazards in Northern Canada: integrating indigenous perspectives with government policy. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 10(3):541–571 Nyong A, Adesina F, Osman Elasha B (2007) The value of indigenous knowledge in climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies in the African Sahel. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 12(5):787–797. doi:10.1007/ s11027-007-9099-0 Okereke C, Dooley K (2010) Principles of justice in proposals and policy approaches to avoided deforestation: towards a post-Kyoto climate agreement. Glob Environ Chang 20(1):82–95. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009. 08.004 Palomino L, Hernandez G (2012) Más allá de la economía verde : desarrollo y sostenibilidad en América Latina. ALOP, Mexico Pretty J (1995) Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Dev 23(8):1247–1263 Quaghebeur K, Masschelein JAN, Nguyen HH (2004) Paradox of participation: giving or taking part? J Community Appl Soc Psychol 14(February):154–165 Reo NJ, Parker AK (2013) Re-thinking colonialism to prepare for the impacts of rapid environmental change. Clim Chang 120(3):671–682. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0783-7 Revkin A (1990) The burning season: the murder of Chico Mendes and the fight for the Amazon rainforest. Island Press, Washington Rodríguez S (2006) Acequia: water sharing, sanctity and place. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe Roosvall A, Tegelberg M (2013) Framing climate change and indigenous peoples: intermediaries of urgency, spirituality and de-nationalization. Int Commun Gaz 75(4):392–409 Salick J, Ross N (2009) Traditional peoples and climate change. Glob Environ Chang 19:137–139 Schruijer, Vansina (2008) Working across organizational boundaries: understanding and working with the psychological dynamics. In: Vansina LS, Vansina-Cobbaert M-J (eds) Psychodynamics for consultant and managers. Wiley, London Smith HA, Sharp K (2012) Indigenous climate knowledges. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 3(5):467–476. doi:10.1002/wcc.185 Somorin OA, Brown HCP, Visseren-Hamakers IJ, Sonwa DJ, Arts B, Nkem J (2012) The Congo Basin forests in a changing climate: policy discourses on adaptation and mitigation (REDD+). Glob Environ Chang 22(1): 288–298. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.08.001 Stacey R (2000) The emergence of knowledge in organizations. Emergence 2(4):23–39 Termeer C, Dewulf A (2014) Governance of wicked climate adaptation problems. In: Knieling J, Leal Filho W (eds) Climate change governance. Springer, Berlin, pp 27–39. doi:10.1007/978-3-64229831-8 Turner N, Gregory R, Brooks C, Failing L, Satterfield T (2008) From invisibility to transparency: identifying the implications. Ecol Soc 13:2, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art7/

Climatic Change Weick K (1995) Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks Whyte KP (2013) Justice forward: tribes, climate adaptation and responsibility. Clim Chang 1–14. doi:10.1007/ s10584-013-0743-2 Wilbanks TJ, Kates RW (1999) Global change in local places: how scale matters. Clim Chang 43:601–628 Williams T, Hardison P (2013) Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation. Clim Chang 531–544. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0850-0 Wolff J (2012) The new constitutions and transformation of democracy in Bolivia and Ecuador. In: Detlef N, Schilling-Vacaflor (eds) New constitutionalism in Latin-America: promises and practices. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 183–202