DOI Cites Indigenous Knowledge in Decision to Cancel Oil and Gas Leases
It upset some white dudes
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a libertarian nonprofit organization known to be a part of coalitions that oppose diversity and climate science, is not pleased with the Interior Department (DOI) who are including Indigenous Knowledge in decisions to protect the Artic National Wildlife Refuge and in reviews of oil and gas leases. The other organization upset is Protect the Public’s Trust (PPT) - an entity that we’re not quite sure what to call - which is led by Michael Chamberlain, a former Trump administration official and former writer for Franklin News Organization whose affiliates regularly publish climate change denialism. So, shocking these orgs are upset that Indigenous Knowledge is being used in climate change policy, right?
CEI and PPT have attempted to claim that the use of Indigenous Knowledge in agency decisions is a controversial scientific integrity issue, but there is no scientific integrity issue or controversy. There are certainly tones of racism in what they’ve written. But agencies committing scientific integrity violations by including indigenous knowledge? Gurl, please.
Not a Scientific Integrity Issue
Including Indigenous Knowledge in decisions is not a scientific integrity issue. Violations of scientific integrity arise when federal science is politicized. Examples of this include when federal scientists are censored from speaking to the media about their work or unjustly fired or retaliated against because they work on a politically contentious issue (e.g., climate change). Or scientific integrity violations show up when political appointees delay the publication of reports on certain scientific issues, delete scientific language from government reports, or exclude science from a policy process that typically includes it.
Violations of scientific integrity can certainly involve other types of knowledge, such as Indigenous Knowledge, or disproportionately affect underserved communities. This is why agencies have begun to incorporate diversity, equity, inclusions, and other types of knowledge gathering processes into their updated scientific integrity policies.
There is no indication, at least from what I see, that science or Indigenous Knowledge was politicized in DOI’s decision to cancel seven oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Rather it seems that there is a disagreement about whether or not government decisions should be informed by Indigenous Knowledge. This is an odd disagreement, however, since Indigenous Knowledge has informed government decisions for decades.
The Environmental Protection Agency, The US Department of Agriculture, The US Forest Service, The Department of Interior, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the National Park Service, The US Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation all have agency guidance on including Indigenous Knowledge in decisions. Additionally, all agencies whose work has affected Tribal Nations have likely participated in a tribal consultation, which likely involved discussing Indigenous Knowledge. Why is there an issue with agencies including Indigenous Knowledge in their work all of a sudden?
Indigenous Knowledge & Western Science
In a story for Forbes written by James Broughel of CEI and a letter to the White House written by Michael Chamberlain of PPT, it’s clear that these orgs view Indigenous Knowledge as “less than” western science. They take issue with a 2022 guidance document released by the White House that details how agencies should include Indigenous Knowledge into research and decisions. “It was equally disheartening, however, when the White House, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), subsequently backed away from its own policy commitment by providing guidance that encouraged agencies to ‘promote and enable a government-wide effort to improve the recognition and inclusion of Indigenous Knowledge’ in research, policy, and other decision making,” Chamberlain wrote in his letter.
Broughel and Chamberlain paint a picture where Indigenous Knowledge and western science are at odds with each other, with one process of understanding the natural world being more robust than the other. But scholars who study the relationship between Indigenous Knowledge and western science don’t share Broughel’s and Chamberlain’s same view.
Dr. Daniel Wildcat, a Yuchi member of the Muscogee Nation, and Professor at Haskell Indian Nation’s University explained in a podcast how both Indigenous Knowledge and western science complement each other in humanity’s quest to make sense of the natural world:
People who live on the ground in those places that satellite images are looking at and then climate modelers are using to try to make some kind of calculation about what we might expect in the future, I think it's a tremendous mistake not to, as I say, ground-truth the knowledge that those remote sensors gather with the knowledge, the experiential knowledge, the empirical knowledge that people who have lived there for hundreds, thousands of years have collected.
And I think that's what's changing now because I think a lot of scientists are beginning to get it and go, like, Oh, wow, that's right. These people have lived here for a long time. They probably know something about that place, and it's something that our satellite images can't necessarily convey. So, we shouldn't pit one against the other. It's like we say, well, hey, both of these are useful, but, you know, in this case, more knowledge is better.
In an article published in Science titled “Time to support indigenous science,” Dr. Robin Wall Kimmerer, author of Braiding Sweetgrass, SUNY Distinguished Professor of Environmental Biology, and enrolled member of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, applauds the White House’s 2022 guidance on how agencies should incorporate Indigenous Knowledge. On the guidance, Kimmerer’s paper states: “This is extraordinary given the United States’ track record of attempted erasure of Indigenous thought through policies of removal and forced assimilation.”
The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) also has recognized the value of incorporating multiple systems of knowledge gathering, including Indigenous Knowledge, to solve the climate crisis through its Rising Voices program. The National Climate Assessment also recognizes the importance of Indigenous Knowledge in climate adaptation and mitigation. And many federal agencies have been including Indigenous Knowledge in decisions for years (see list above).
Indigenous knowledge is knowledge about the natural world garnered through an empirical process of observation and experience. It is a knowledge gathering process that is different from western science because it is centered around people and their relationship to place. But both systems of knowledge gathering are empirical. It’s also worth noting that the 2022 White House guidance did not say that Indigenous Knowledge would replace science. Who wouldn’t want more empirical knowledge to inform our government’s decisions? Even CEI acknowledges in their Forbes article that science and Indigenous Knowledge can complement each other.
Why Attack Indigenous Knowledge?
Both CEI and PPT mention in their writing that DOI recognized Indigenous Knowledge in their decision to end seven oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And it’s difficult to not imagine that this blow to the fossil fuel industry is what CEI and PPT are truly upset about given their histories of climate change denialism and support for the fossil fuel industry. But why are they questioning the credibility of Indigenous Knowledge?
The fossil fuel industry has disproportionately harmed communities of color and low-income communities, including Indigenous communities. That harm could come in the form of Indigenous communities being exposed to toxic pollutants generated by fossil fuel facilities, or harm to sacred environments being polluted or altered due to climate change. The knowledge of such harms held by Indigenous people could potentially inform government decisions to cancel more oil and gas leases. So, it would make sense for climate change denialism organizations to attack the credibility of such knowledge.
But Indigenous knowledge on climate change or the impacts of the fossil fuel industry is not uniform. In an interview with indigenous environmental justice expert, Dr. Kyle Powys Whyte, he says: “Tribes are extremely diverse communities that include members with all different religious persuasions, different socioeconomic situations, different political views, and on and on. Because of that, when extractive industries — the coal industry, or oil and gas industry — are trying to site themselves within or nearby a tribe, that oftentimes divides the community.” But Dr. Whyte believes that Tribal Nations wouldn’t have found themselves grappling with this issue had it not been for decisions by the US government to diminish tribal land in the first place. On this, Dr. Whyte says:
While it’s true that many people debate whether tribes should continue to participate as much as some of them do in the fossil fuel industry, what I think is hard to disagree with is the fact that for many tribes, we wouldn’t have gone along with any of these schemes or leases for extractive industries if it wasn’t for the fact that the U.S. had put us in a situation with a diminished land base. It made it impossible for us to exercise our own governance systems, or even to develop and change in ways that were more sustainable than simply being dependent on industries that we know are contributing to climate change, that contribute to pollution, and that are bad for people’s health.
Variation in knowledge exist and this is a good thing. For example, research shows that diverse representation in businesses or working groups leads to better outcomes. In their Forbes article, CEI suggest that variation in Indigenous Knowledge could be an issue in ensuring decisions are informed by credible knowledge. The variation in Indigenous Knowledge is one of the very reasons that the 2022 White House guidance exist. The guidance reads, “Since Indigenous Knowledge is often unique and specific to a Tribe or Indigenous People, and may exist in a variety of forms, Agencies often lack the expertise to appropriately consider and apply Indigenous Knowledge.”
Furthermore, the 2022 guidance doesn’t state that Indigenous Knowledge has to inform every single policy decision that an agency is making. The guidance is clear that such knowledge be included as appropriate: “It reaffirms that Agencies should recognize and, as appropriate, apply Indigenous Knowledge in decision making, research, and policies across the Federal Government.” A critical phrase for ensuring that both the federal government and Tribal Nations work together, especially given the history of extraction on behalf of western science.
The Future of Indigenous Knowledge
It’s a pivotal election year, the result of which has the potential to drastically alter how the federal government can or will use science as we pointed out earlier this week for the Environmental Protection Agency. A roadmap laid out for Trump should he win the 2024 election does not seem to detail plans for the use, or lack of use, of Indigenous Knowledge. But if Trump’s past actions on this issue are indicative of what he would do in a second term, I’m not sure that Indigenous Knowledge or science will inform the Trump administration’s decisions.
While the US government has not historically always done the best job in working with Tribal Nations, it is clear that processes exist, such as tribal consultations, that allow the federal government and Tribal Nations to work together on certain issues. Hopefully future administrations will continue to see the value in including all kinds knowledge in decision making, including Indigenous Knowledge. A decision informed with more empirical information is going to result in a decision that is more protective of public health and our environment. I stand with Dr. Wildcat’s thinking on this issue - “More knowledge is better.”