Indigenous knowledge and governance systems are increasingly recognized as essential for addressing social and ecological challenges. But too often, efforts to “include” Indigenous knowledge in Western approaches are extractive—taking knowledge without full consent, leadership, or reciprocal benefit to Indigenous communities. So how can meaningful collaborations occur without perpetuating these harmful dynamics?
The article, “M̓ṇúxvit model for centering Indigenous knowledge and governance” describes a Heiltsuk-based model for the application of Indigenous governance and knowledge systems as the foundation, not the complement, for research projects and decision-making: see White (Q̓íx̌itasu), E., Artelle, K. A., Brown (H̓úṃpas ƛ̓úx̌v), E., Brown (ƛ̓áqvamut), K., Chan, D. E., & Housty (Dúqva̓ísl.a), W. (2024). M̓ṇúxvit model for centering Indigenous knowledge and governance. Conservation Biology, 38, e14398. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14398
M̓ṇúxvit, meaning “to become one” in Híɫzaqvḷa, the language of Haíɫzaqv Nation, is the basis for the model described which relies on “outside knowledge being incorporated into Indigenous systems (not vice versa).” While Indigenous-centered methods are gaining deserved recognition and acceptance, the Canadian legal framework has yet to catch up in embracing this approach.
Reconciliation calls for a process that recognizes the admissibility of Indigenous knowledge, grounded in Indigenous-centered models. While Canada continues its efforts toward reconciliation, this work continues to be influenced by a legal framework historically established within a colonial context.
The M̓ṇúxvit approach centers on Heiltsuk knowledge and governance systems, promoting collaborations where Indigenous knowledge leads the way, with Western knowledge serving to complement and enhance, not dominate the methodology. White (Q̓íx̌itasu) et al. (2023) describes the need to uplift Indigenous-based knowledge, without the imposition of colonial systems and without stealing or manipulating Indigenous knowledge to the benefit of settler colonialism. This framework is built on mutual respect, reciprocal benefits, and the recognition of Indigenous peoples’ rights to their knowledge systems. It emphasizes a collaborative approach where the leadership and knowledge of Indigenous communities is paramount.
The model centers Indigenous knowledge and governance systems in collaborations and uses Western knowledge, people, and technologies to complement local and Indigenous knowledge in ways that support, uplift, and contribute to, not marginalize and extract from, local and Indigenous systems.
– White (Q̓íx̌itasu) et al. (2023)
The article emphasizes examples, including work done on N̓úlaw̓ítx̌v (Triquet Island), where the M̓ṇúxvit model was applied to identify the history of the region. In this effort, Haíɫzaqv knowledge was complemented by modern archaeological tools and led to findings including evidence of human habitation on the island dating back at least 14,000 years. This project demonstrates how Indigenous knowledge can guide research and reveal insights that may be overlooked by non-Indigenous scientific methods.
In highlighting the M̓ṇúxvit model, the authors encourage partnerships in which Indigenous communities retain control over how their knowledge is used, ensuring that they lead the direction of research and benefit equitably from any findings or applications. The authors point out the inherent harms in the extraction of knowledge without meaningful engagement, noting how outside actors have historically taken Indigenous knowledge out of context and used it in ways that benefit colonial systems.
Under Canadian law, Indigenous governance and knowledge systems are, in many instances, still positioned as secondary to colonial legal frameworks. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), asserts the rights of Indigenous Peoples to “maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and cultural expressions” (Art. 32(1)). UNDRIP also affirms that, “States shall take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these rights” (Art. 32(2)). Despite these international commitments, domestically adopted, Canada’s legal framework remains largely incompatible with the protection of these rights.
There is a fundamental disconnect between the model presented in White (Q̓íx̌itasu) et al. (2023) and current legislative frameworks. Take, for example, the Impact Assessment Act (2019), which mandates a greater focus on consultation to ensure Indigenous rights, culture, and traditional knowledge are considered, but fails to center Indigenous perspectives (see e.g., s. 22(1)(g)). The Act requires consultation but does not integrate Indigenous perspectives at the core of the assessment process. This is particularly concerning in consideration of project approvals that will impact Aboriginal rights and traditional territories. The absence of an Indigenous-led approach to environmental and cultural assessments continues to undermine the agency of Indigenous communities.
When outside actors seek to collaborate with Indigenous communities under the assumption that outside governance systems (laws, policies, institutions) are foundational, ultimate authorities and that Indigenous groups merely participate or are consulted, this further solidifies settler colonial power relationships.
– White (Q̓íx̌itasu) et al. (2023)
Canada’s Indigenous Knowledge Policy Framework for Project Reviews and Regulatory Decisions (2022) offers a step forward in recognizing Indigenous knowledge in decision-making processes. However, it still falls short of protecting Indigenous Peoples’ rights to control their knowledge as protected under Art. 32 of UNDRIP. This is particularly concerning given that the policy framework does not require Indigenous knowledge to be at the center of decision-making, creating opportunities for the misappropriation of Indigenous knowledge.
In contrast, the M̓ṇúxvit model demonstrates how the meaningful integration of Indigenous knowledge into scientific and legal frameworks is possible. This demonstrates the need for change in how Canadian law interacts with Indigenous governance and knowledge. For reconciliation to move beyond aspirational goals, paradigm shifts that realize and incorporate Indigenous-driven approaches must be adopted.
White (Q̓íx̌itasu), E., Artelle, K. A., Brown (H̓úṃpas ƛ̓úx̌v), E., Brown (ƛ̓áqvamut), K., Chan, D. E., & Housty (Dúqva̓ísl.a), W. (2024). M̓ṇúxvit model for centering Indigenous knowledge and governance. Conservation Biology, 38, e14398. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14398
Amanda Nurse