Publications

***Please see CV for a full list of publications.***

80Diver, S. 2017. Negotiating Indigenous Knowledge at the Science-Policy Interface: Insights from the Xáxli’p Community Forest. Environmental Science and Policy 73, pp. 1-11.

Despite increasing interest in learning from Indigenous communities, efforts to involve Indigenous knowledge in environmental policy-making are often fraught with contestations over knowledge, values, and interests. Using the co-production of knowledge and social order (Jasanoff, 2004), this case study seeks to understand how some Indigenous communities are engaging in science-policy negotiations by linking traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), western science, and other knowledge systems. The analysis follows twenty years of Indigenous forest management negotiations between the Xáxli’p community and the Ministry of Forests in British Columbia (B.C.), Canada, which resulted in the Xáxli’p Community Forest (XCF). The XCF is an eco-cultural restoration initiative that established an exclusive forest tenure for Xáxli’p over the majority of their aboriginal territory—a political shift that was co-produced with new articulations of Xáxli’p knowledge. This research seeks to understand knowledge co-production with Indigenous communities, and suggests that existing knowledge integration concepts are insufficient to address ongoing challenges with power asymmetries and Indigenous knowledge. Rather, this work proposes interpreting XCF knowledge production strategies through the framework of “Indigenous articulations,” where Indigenous peoples self-determine representations of their identities and interests in a contemporary socio-political context. This work has broader implications for considering how Indigenous knowledge is shaping science-policy negotiations, and vice versa.

Diver, S. 2016. Co-management as a catalyst: Pathways to post-colonial forestry in the Klamath Basin, California. Human Ecology  44(5):  533–546.

Co-management frameworks are intended to facilitate sustainable resource management and more equitable power sharing between state agencies and Indigenous communities. However, there is significant debate about who benefits from co-management in practice. This article addresses two competing perspectives in the literature, which alternately portrays co-management as an instrument for co-optation or for transformation. Through a case study of co-management negotiations involving the Karuk Tribe and the U.S. Forest Service in the Klamath Basin of Northern California, this study examines how Indigenous communities use co-management to build greater equity in environmental decision-making, despite its limitations. The concept of pivot points is developed to describe how Indigenous communities like the Karuk Tribe are simultaneously following existing state policies and subverting them to shift federal forest management. The pivot point analytic demonstrates one mechanism by which communities are addressing Indigenous self-determination goals and colonial legacies through environmental policy and management.

Diver, S.  2014. Negotiating knowledges, shifting access: Natural resource governance with Indigenous communities and state agencies in the Pacific Northwest. Doctoral Dissertation.  University of California, Berkeley.

Despite an increasing interest among land managers in collaborative management and learning from place-based Indigenous knowledge systems, natural resource management negotiations between Indigenous communities and government agencies are still characterized by distrust, conflict, and a history of excluding Indigenous peoples from decision-making. In addition, many scholars are skeptical of Indigenous communities attempting to achieve self-determination through bureaucratic and scientific systems, which can be seen as potential mechanisms for co-opting Indigenous community values (e.g. Nadasdy 2003). This dissertation considers how Indigenous communities and state agencies are meeting contemporary natural resource governance challenges within the Pacific Northwest. Taking a community-engaged scholarship approach, the work addresses two exemplar case studies of Indigenous resource management negotiations involving forest management with the Karuk Tribe in California (U.S.) and the Xáxli’p Indigenous community in British Columbia (Canada). These cases explore the ways and degree to which Indigenous peoples are advancing their self-determination interests, as well as environmental and cultural restoration goals, through resource management negotiations with state agencies—despite the ongoing barriers of uneven power relations and territorial disputes.

Diver10_Figure10.2_OregonStateArchives_DOT_G211Columbia River Tribal Fisheries: Life History Stages of a Co-management Institution

Sibyl Diver (2012)

http://sarweb.org/index.php?sar_press_keystone_nations

The Columbia River case provides an example of tribal fisheries co-management in the Pacific Northwest – generally recognized as one of the longest running examples of successful co-management. The 1969 Belloni Decision and the 1974 Boldt Decision are the two key court rulings that first confirmed treaty fishing rights for Columbia River and Puget Sound tribes.  These court decisions initiated a new fisheries co-management relationship between Columbia River treaty tribes and state fisheries agencies.  Yet despite these rulings, many years of restructuring were required before Columbia River co-management became recognized as an effective governance mechanism.  This history raises the question, has co-management become a decision-making structure that facilitates more equal power sharing between tribes and state agencies within Columbia River fisheries management?  If so, how did the transformation from an ineffective to a more effective institution occur?  And what are the implications for tribal fisheries today?  In order to understand the conditions that have led to present day co-management, this chapter evaluates the effectiveness of Columbia River co-management institutions at specific time periods by deploying Elinor Ostrom’s (1990) principles of enduring common property institutions. Through my case analysis, I argue that Columbia River treaty tribes played an integral part in creating co-management institutions through a collective choice process.  I also show that co-management is not static, but is rather an evolving and non-linear process, highly contingent upon both socio-political and ecological conditions.  Finally, I argue that after forty years, Columbia River co-management has become more effective precisely because of tribal participation.  In my analysis of the particular institutional and non-institutional properties of today’s Columbia River co-management institutions, I discuss issues of legitimacy, and the process of integrating Western science and Traditional Ecological Knowledge within inter-tribal management institutions.  Read the chapter here:  KeystoneNations_DiverChapter10,    References_Chpt10

Community_Voices_Cover_feb20_web_ByLichiaLiu

Community Voices: The Making and Meaning of the Xaxli’p Community Forest

Sibyl Diver (2016)

Download available from the Xaxli’p Community Forest website:

http://www.xcfc.ca/pages/plans-maps.php

This report looks to Xáxli’p community voices (approximate pronunciation is HAA-clip) to tell the story of the Xáxli’p Community Forest – a groundbreaking initiative for protecting the relationships between the landscape and culture on Xaxli’p Survival Territory for generations into the future.  The Xáxli’p Community Forest is now operating today; however, the initiative was developed over more than twenty years of negotiations.   This case traces the history, negotiations, and community planning sessions leading up to the Xaxli’p Community Forest, as well as early stages of implementation.  The Xáxli’p Community Forest Tenure Agreement is highly significant as a tool for Indigenous self-determination because it allowed the Xáxli’p community to gain exclusive jurisdiction over forest management for a large portion of their off-reserve aboriginal territory.  The Xaxli’p Community Forest eco-cultural restoration approach is important because it grapples with resource sustainability, rural economics, cultural survival, and the politics of indigenous land claims – all at the same time. It is also an approach that refuses the nature/culture divide that often shapes our assumptions about managing natural resources.  By tracing negotiations affecting disputed, off-reserve Indigenous lands, this case shows how natural resource decision-making can offer practical insights to the broader jurisdictional disputes over Indigenous lands.

cropped_timeline_website_lowMapping History: The Karuk Lands Management Historical Timeline

Authors: Sibyl Diver, Lisa Liu, Naomi Canchela, Sara Rose Tannenbaum, Rafael Silberblatt and Ron Reed. (2010)

http://karuktimeline.wordpress.com , or download the low resolution version here: timeline_final_jun29-2010_34x180_lowres.

Also see Mid-Klamath Watershed Council newletter article, Ongoing Story of Place, Spring 2010.

The Karuk Lands Management Historical Timeline shows key events affecting Karuk lands in the mid-Klamath region from 1850 to present.  By including the perspectives of Karuk natural resource managers and referencing over 100 sources, the Timeline provides a new educational resource for learning about the history, the people, and the places that make up Karuk Aboriginal Territory.  A group of UC Berkeley students created the Timeline in 2009-10, together with the Karuk Department of Natural Resources and the Karuk-UC Berkeley Collaborative. The Timeline shows how lands management history is strongly linked to social and environmental changes affecting Karuk people.  These include changes in fire; fish and wildlife; forest and plants; land claims; ethnic violence and discrimination; traditional foods and tribal health; tribal self-determination; and water quality, dams and floods. To represent the strong sense of place within Klamath River communities, we incorporated artwork by local students in the Timeline.  Through the Timeline, we hope to unpack this history and promote dialogue. We believe we move forward by acknowledging, discussing, and understanding history.  To download the Timeline please visit our website:  http://karuktimeline.wordpress.com

IMG_2513_BeeInThistleDo We Practice What We Preach? Goal Setting for Ecological Restoration

Lauren M. Hallett, Sibyl Diver, Melissa V. Eitzel, Jessica J. Olson, Benjamin S. Ramage, Hillary Sardinas,1 Zoe Statman-Weil, and Katharine N. Suding (2013)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/rec.12007/abstract

Over the last decade, several research and opinion pieces have challenged the tenets of restoration ecology but a lack of centralized data has impeded assessment of how scientific developments relate to on-the-ground restoration. In response, the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) launched the Global Restoration Network (GRN) to catalog worldwide restoration efforts. We reviewed over 200 GRN projects to identify the goals governing restoration and the frequency with which they are measured. We used the SER Primer on Ecological Restoration to frame our analysis, categorizing goals by SER’s attributes of restored ecosystems. We developed additional attributes to characterize goals not encompassed by the SER-defined attributes. Nearly all projects included goals related to ecosystem form, namely similarity to reference conditions and the presence of indigenous species, and these goals were frequently measured. Most projects included goals related to ecosystem function, and many highlighted interactions between abiotic and biotic factors by either modifying abiotic conditions to support focal species or manipulating species to achieve desired ecosystem functions. Few projects had goals related to ecosystem stability, whereas the majority of projects had goals related to social values. Although less frequently measured, social goals were described as important for long-term project success. In conclusion, science and practice frequently aligned on goals related to ecosystem composition and function, but scientific guidelines on resilience and self-sustainability appear insufficient to guide practice. In contrast, the common inclusion of goals for human well-being indicates that, if intended to advise practice, restoration guidelines should give direction on social goals.  Read the article here: DoWePracticeWhatWePreach_2013

IMG_1540_salamanderInsights from a Cross-Disciplinary Seminar: 10 Pivotal Papers for Ecological Restoration

Melissa V. Eitzel, Sibyl Diver, Hillary Sardiñas, Lauren M. Hallett, Jessica J. Olson, Adam Romero, Gustavo de L. T. Oliveira, Alex T. Schuknecht,Rob Tidmore, Katharine N. Suding (2011)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2011.00840.x/abstract

Restoration ecology is a deepening and diversifying field with current research incorporating multiple disciplines and infusing long-standing ideas with fresh perspectives. We present a list of 10 recent pivotal papers exemplifying new directions in ecological restoration that were selected by students in a cross-disciplinary graduate seminar at the University of California, Berkeley. We highlight research that applies ecological theory to improve restoration practice in the context of global change (e.g. climate modeling, evaluation of novel ecosystems) and discuss remaining knowledge gaps. We also discuss papers that recognize the social context of restoration and the coupled nature of social and ecological systems, ranging from the incorporation of cultural values and Traditional Ecological Knowledge into restoration, to the consideration of the broader impacts of markets on restoration practices. In addition, we include perspectives that focus on improving communication between social and natural scientists as well as between scientists and practitioners, developing effective ecological monitoring, and applying more integrated, whole-landscape approaches to restoration. We conclude with insights on recurrent themes in the papers regarding planning restoration in human-modified landscapes, application of ecological theory, improvements to restoration practice, and the social contexts of restoration. We share lessons from our cross-disciplinary endeavor, and invite further discussion on the future directions of restoration ecology through contributions to our seminar blog site http://restecology.blogspot.com.  Read the article here:  InsightsFromaCrossDisciplinarySeminar_2012

 

80

Participatory mapping for eco-cultural restoration on Xaxli’p Survival Territory, British Columbia, Canada

Sibyl Diver, Herb Hammond, Art Adolph (2011)

Download from here: sdiver_XaxlipMapping_081110_submission

Xaxli’p (Fountain Band) is one of eleven indigenous communities that make up the St’at’imc Nation (The Lillooet Tribe) in southwestern British Columbia.  This case describes how participatory mapping has been an effective tool for asserting Xaxli’p ownership and management control of Xaxli’p Survival Territory as well as helping to protect and reinstate Xaxli’p culture.   From 1997 to present, the Xaxli’p community has engaged in land use planning and mapping that follows Xaxli’p values of culturally and ecologically sustainable land management.  The two main planning documents are the Ntsuwa’lhkalha Tl’ákmen, “Our Way of Life” or Xaxli’p Traditional Use Study (TUS) and the Xaxli’p Ecosystem-based Plan (EBP).  For over ten years, the TUS and EBP have contributed to Xaxli’p advocacy strategies for treaty negotiations and forest management.  More recently, Xaxli’p has negotiated a Community Forest Agreement tenure with the provincial government and begun eco-cultural restoration.  This case provides insight into combining traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge for eco-cultural restoration, and community-based resource management that is grounded in egalitarian principles.