Creating common ground : The role of Indigenous Peoples’ sacred natural sites in conservation practice, management and policy

In this thesis, I hold a plea for the recognition and integration of Indigenous people’s realities in conservation practice, management and policy related to their sacred natural sites. Sacred natural sites can be mountains, rivers, forests, trees and rocks that have special spiritual significance to indigenous peoples. To Indigenous peoples these places are not just part of their environment, culture and spirituality but they also form their worldviews and ethnicities. Based on my research on sacred natural sites, I look at how Indigenous people’s realities can be integrated into conservation approaches and how they lead to the co-creation of new forms of nature conservation. In doing so I focus on how a common ground is being created by Indigenous peoples and development and conservation actors. I argue that this common ground has the capacity to transform conservation practice, management and policy if different worldviews, including those of Indigenous peoples, are equally considered. The structure of this thesis represents my personal learning curve. It starts off with my earlier work developed as a conservationist with a natural sciences background and with many years of working experience in the field of international nature conservation. The Chapters gradually take on a sociological and anthropological angle, applying ethnographic research to conservation issues. As a result, the thesis represents the experience of a social conservation scientist doing applied and socially engaged research. The first part of the thesis is built upon conservation literature and draws on a multitude of case studies and previously published work. It presents an overview of the overall importance that indigenous sacred natural sites have to the current field of nature conservation and the main challenges and opportunities that these sites pose to conservationists. The second part of the thesis builds on case studies and applied ethnographic field research undertaken on conservation projects in North East Arnhem Land in Australia, Santa Cruz del Quiché in Guatemala and the Upper North-West Region in Ghana. In these locations, I have built up working relationships with local indigenous groups and the organisations that support them; respectively these are Yolŋu (since 2007), Maya (since 2012) and Dagara (since 2011). The qualitative research methods used throughout my research are based on ethnography, participatory research, observational research, co-creation of research, semi-structured interviews, focus groups, freelisting but also the field of social policy analysis, discourse analysis and literature research. They are particularly useful in situations where the research process contributes to finding solutions for concrete conservation problems with all parties involved. The conceptual framework brings together empirical studies and critical analyses of Indigenous sacred natural sites in different geographical, ecological, cultural and spiritual contexts. As these contexts vary across different places I studied the development of different common grounds between indigenous and non-indigenous actors in the specific locations. Eventually, I brought these studies together in an effort to distil common elements for the construction of a generic common ground. In the conceptual framework, worldviews and spirituality meet with conceptual areas such as ontological pluralism, biocultural diversity and rights-based approaches across geographical scales and governance levels. I argue that were they meet a common ground is created. I provide further analysis of the process of creating a common ground on the basis of the conceptual areas mentioned above, and draw conclusions that are relevant to furthering scientific debate in these areas as well to the field of conservation. Chapter 2 concludes that sacred natural sites are important to the conservation of nature and biodiversity because they form an informal network managed and governed by local Indigenous people. This network goes largely unrecognized by the international conservation community and local protected area managers and planners. The chapter presents ten challenges that sacred natural sites pose to the field of conservation and restoration of biological and cultural diversity. Chapter 3 takes examples of Indigenous worldviews and conservation practices from around the world to demonstrate that these form part of approaches that integrate biocultural values in nature conservation. I argue that in order to be effective and sustainable, nature conservation requires to be based on both science and culture, and combine scientific data on the natural world with experiential knowledge about nature of the social-cultural groups involved. The chapter concludes that, for management to be truly adaptive, it needs to respond to societal and cultural changes which can be achieved by enabling Indigenous people and local communities to guide conservation efforts. Chapter 4 addresses how the modern conservation movement can use biocultural conservation approaches to overcome disparities between the management and governance of nature and culture. In this discourse about biocultural conservation approaches, the spiritual and the sacred are essential to the conservation of an interconnected network of biocultural hotspots – sacred natural sites. Chapter 5 demonstrates the importance of Indigenous ontologies in cross-cultural coastal conservation management, particularly the development of locally relevant guidelines for fishers in North East Arnhem Land, Australia. I explore the ‘both ways’ approach adopted by the Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation, and that guides collaboration between Yolŋu and non-Yolŋu. Disjunctures and synergies between the two ontologies are identified and I offer reflection on the role of the researcher in the cross-cultural co-production of guidelines for fishers and boaters. Chapter 6 analyses how spiritual leaders build common ground for community conservation of sacred natural sites in the face of neoliberalism in Ghana and Guatemala. The research demonstrates that, beyond rights-based approaches, a common ground is essential to developing feasible and acceptable solutions for the protection and conservation of sacred natural sites. I identify ‘ontological equity’ as an important principle for establishing this common ground. I then argue that neoliberal approaches to conservation and resource development are prejudiced because they ignore the principle of ontological equity and suppress lived realities of sacred natural sites and the existence of the wider spiritscape. Chapter 7 describes the emerging spaces in international policy and conservation practices as they manifest themselves in a series of conferences, the development of guidelines for protected area managers, and how these have worked to sensitize conservationists to sacred natural sites and their custodians. In connecting different conservation approaches from the local to the international level the chapter shows how a common ground is being created. The key findings of this thesis include several universal elements to the creation of a common ground: willingness to learn about other worldviews; application of participatory approaches and applied research; the use of cultural brokers; active processes of stakeholder engagement; agreement on governance arrangements and the adoption of ontological equity. I draw four conclusions derived from the main research results: 1) Biocultural conservation approaches can enable the creation of a common ground, but they may also constrain Indigenous ontologies; 2) Conservationists should learn from other worldviews and ontologies in order to improve the conservation of Indigenous sacred natural sites; 3) Non-human agency and spiritual governance are under-recognised in the conservation of spiritscapes and sacred natural sites; 4) Combining an ethnographic approach with an engaged and participatory research strategy is useful for considering multiple ontologies. The recommendations of this thesis could form part of a future research agenda for the development of a common ground between Indigenous people, conservationists, and development actors in relation to the conservation of Indigenous sacred natural sites. The main recommendation is that conservation and development actors should consider multiple ontologies when creating a common ground for the development of biocultural conservation approaches.</p

Long-term outcome and bridging success of patients evaluated and bridged to lung transplantation on the ICU

Background: Evaluating and bridging patients to lung transplantation (LTx) on the intensive care unit (ICU) remains controversial, especially without a previous waitlist status. Long term outcome data after LTx from ICU remains scarce. We compared long-term survival and development of chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) in elective and LTx from ICU, with or without previous waitlist status. Methods: Patients transplanted between 2004 and 2018 in 2 large academic Dutch institutes were included. Long-term survival and development of CLAD was compared in patients who received an elective LTx (ELTx), those bridged and transplanted from the ICU with a previous listing status (BTT), and in patients urgently evaluated and bridged on ICU (EBTT). Results: A total of 582 patients underwent a LTx, 70 (12%) from ICU, 39 BTT and 31 EBTT. Patients transplanted from ICU were younger than ELTx (46 vs 51 years) and were bridged with mechanical ventilation (n = 42 (60%)), extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (n = 28 (40%)), or both (n = 21/28). Bridging success was 48% in the BTT group and 72% in the EBTT group. Patients bridged to LTx on ICU had similar 1 and 5 year survival (86.8% and 78.4%) compared to elective LTx (86.8% and 71.9%). This was not different between the BTT and EBTT group. 5 year CLAD free survival was not different in patients transplanted from ICU vs ELTx. Conclusion: Patients bridged to LTx on the ICU with and without prior listing status had excellent short and long-term patient and graft outcomes, and was similar to patients electively transplanted.</p

Long-term outcome and bridging success of patients evaluated and bridged to lung transplantation on the ICU

Background: Evaluating and bridging patients to lung transplantation (LTx) on the intensive care unit (ICU) remains controversial, especially without a previous waitlist status. Long term outcome data after LTx from ICU remains scarce. We compared long-term survival and development of chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) in elective and LTx from ICU, with or without previous waitlist status. Methods: Patients transplanted between 2004 and 2018 in 2 large academic Dutch institutes were included. Long-term survival and development of CLAD was compared in patients who received an elective LTx (ELTx), those bridged and transplanted from the ICU with a previous listing status (BTT), and in patients urgently evaluated and bridged on ICU (EBTT). Results: A total of 582 patients underwent a LTx, 70 (12%) from ICU, 39 BTT and 31 EBTT. Patients transplanted from ICU were younger than ELTx (46 vs 51 years) and were bridged with mechanical ventilation (n = 42 (60%)), extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (n = 28 (40%)), or both (n = 21/28). Bridging success was 48% in the BTT group and 72% in the EBTT group. Patients bridged to LTx on ICU had similar 1 and 5 year survival (86.8% and 78.4%) compared to elective LTx (86.8% and 71.9%). This was not different between the BTT and EBTT group. 5 year CLAD free survival was not different in patients transplanted from ICU vs ELTx. Conclusion: Patients bridged to LTx on the ICU with and without prior listing status had excellent short and long-term patient and graft outcomes, and was similar to patients electively transplanted.</p

Arguments for developing biocultural conservation approaches for sacred natural sites

The importance of sacred natural sites Sacred natural sites often represent the highest human aspirations and spiritual values of any given culture. In many cases they also have a proven biodiversity conservation effect (Dudley et al, 2009). Mount Kailas in Tibet, for example, is the Axis Mundi, the centre and birth place of the entire world to Buddhists, Hindus and Jains and was also sacred to earlier indigenous spiritualities such as Bon shamanism (Bernbaum, 1997). Because sacred natural sites are central to many local communities’ daily practices such as agriculture, health care and education, they form a good starting point for conserving the many ecosystem services that they sustain. Many custodians of sacred natural sites also point to their importance as spiritual healing places. The Kogi, Arhu-aco, Wiwa and Kankuam of the Sierra Nevada of Santa Marta in Colombia call their sacred mountain ‘The Hearth of the World’ which serves for healing the human relationship to the earth (Rodríguez-Navarro, 2000). Other custodians in the Altai Republic of the Russian federation point out that sacred sites are connected and serve as a worldwide network of places for the healing the energies of the earth (see Chapter 23). Environmental psychologists and other scientists also recognize sacred natural sites as places with special importance for peace keeping, conflict resolution and environmental decision making (Atran and Norenzayan, 2004; Atran et al, 2005; Knudtson and Suzuki, 1992). As such, sacred natural sites support the spiritual well-being that many people find in their relationship with nature

Arguments for developing biocultural conservation approaches for sacred natural sites

The importance of sacred natural sites Sacred natural sites often represent the highest human aspirations and spiritual values of any given culture. In many cases they also have a proven biodiversity conservation effect (Dudley et al, 2009). Mount Kailas in Tibet, for example, is the Axis Mundi, the centre and birth place of the entire world to Buddhists, Hindus and Jains and was also sacred to earlier indigenous spiritualities such as Bon shamanism (Bernbaum, 1997). Because sacred natural sites are central to many local communities’ daily practices such as agriculture, health care and education, they form a good starting point for conserving the many ecosystem services that they sustain. Many custodians of sacred natural sites also point to their importance as spiritual healing places. The Kogi, Arhu-aco, Wiwa and Kankuam of the Sierra Nevada of Santa Marta in Colombia call their sacred mountain ‘The Hearth of the World’ which serves for healing the human relationship to the earth (Rodríguez-Navarro, 2000). Other custodians in the Altai Republic of the Russian federation point out that sacred sites are connected and serve as a worldwide network of places for the healing the energies of the earth (see Chapter 23). Environmental psychologists and other scientists also recognize sacred natural sites as places with special importance for peace keeping, conflict resolution and environmental decision making (Atran and Norenzayan, 2004; Atran et al, 2005; Knudtson and Suzuki, 1992). As such, sacred natural sites support the spiritual well-being that many people find in their relationship with nature

Indigenous perspectives in a global discourse on the conservation of sacred heritage

Within the global discourse on cultural heritage and its conservation, Indigenous voices are increasingly claiming a space. They do this by (re)presenting and defending Indigenous perspectives on the role of Indigenous heritage in local, national and international heritage conservation.Many will see Indigenous perspectives on the conservation of sacred heritage as political; affirmations of progressively acquired Indigenous peoples’ rights that may previously have been excluded or marginalised while shaping heritage policies and practices. However, in their very essence, Ingenious perspectives on sacred heritage also represent a diversity of worldviews based on unique ontologies and epistemologies that can also be seen to be part of Indigenous sciences. Indigenous voices, thus, do not merely represent political interests, they are also affirmations of Indigeneity, inclusive of Indigenous identities, worldviews and ways of knowing, they shape Indigenous sacred heritage.While international policies increasingly recognise culture as dynamic and offer protection for its various expressions, Indigenous perspectives on sacred sites also challenge vested heritage policies and practices. They question, contest and in some cases condemn established policies and politics, but in striving for inclusion and social equity, Indigenous peoples’ perspectives also create a more pluriverse heritage discourse from which common grounds may be created.The chapters in this book provide examples of Indigenous voices from all over the world. Together they represent Indigenous perspectives and provide food for thought about actual and potential developments and changes in the politics, policies and practices related to sacred heritage

Integrating biocultural values in nature conservation : Perceptions of culturally significant sites and species in adaptive management

Introduction Ecosystems not only consist of physical attributes, they are subjected to and influenced by cultural perceptions and values. As Schama notes, ‘Landscapes are culture before they are nature; constructs of the imagination projected onto wood water and rock’ (1995, p. 61). Schama goes further by stating that there is an elaborate frame through which our adult eyes survey the landscape and that before landscape can ever be a response for the senses, it is the work of the mind. This leads Schama to conclude that the landscape's scenery is built up as much from strata of memory as from layers of rock. Hence, cultural perceptions and shared history of landscapes result in different and even contesting meanings of ecosystems and landscapes (Stewart and Strathern, 2003; Mainteny, 2004). In some cultures the spiritual values of certain sites and species may be important enough for local people to conserve and protect the ecosystems that contain them. This occurs, even though an economic cost-benefit analysis may advise conversion of the ecosystem through resource development, such as mining or agriculture. To those people, the spiritual significance of rivers, mountains, or even individual tree or animal species such as the black-necked crane mentioned further on in this chapter, has led to their veneration and recognition as sacred (Verschuuren et al., 2010). Those sacred sites and species are increasingly known for their significant contribution to biodiversity values (Stewart and Strathern, 2003; Dudley et al., 2005; Putney, 2005; Bhagwat and Rutte, 2006; Verschuuren et al., 2010). Sacred places are often traditionally managed based on ancestral intergenerational principles that in many cases ensure cultural continuity and environmental management (Berkes, 1999; Jeanrenaud et al., 2001; Verschuuren, 2006). The cultural and spiritual importance of sacred sites and species is often ignored in Western-style landscape and ecosystem management. This chapter investigates the role of sacred sites and species in new emerging biocultural approaches in nature conservation and ecosystem management.</p