Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

Environmental Vigilance: An Intercultural Endeavor – Part II

(Click here for part 1 of the article)

Results

Seven primary categories of themes in the relationships between Western NGOs and Indigenous groups were identified in this research: a desire for cooperation, common goals, trust, (non-)acceptance of differences, mistrust, dealing with mistrust, and power asymmetry. These results merit individual attention.

Desire for cooperation

During this research, both the Western NGOs and the Indigenous groups expressed a desire for cooperation. For instance, Indigenous participants in the conference repeatedly emphasized the need for allies and a broader discussion of Indigenous contributions to environmental vigilance. Interviewees from Indigenous groups were generally satisfied with their NGO partners, but some expressed frustration that NGOs weren’t acting as quickly or decisively as they wished. On the other hand, the NGO representatives interviewed for this research showed themselves to be anything but hesitant in their partnerships, repeatedly emphasizing how important Indigenous wisdom is in conservation projects. Statements such as “We want you, we need you” capture the NGOs’ fervent desire to work with Indigenous groups. A common motivation for this desire for cooperation was a fear of loss on both sides — loss of the Amazon rainforest, of biodiversity, of Indigenous identity and knowledge, even of Indigenous cultures and peoples themselves. One Indigenous conference participant succinctly summarized these fears: “Without the forest, we are nobody.”1

Image 1: Flight over the Ecuadorian rainforest (Morona Santiago province)
© Anna Meiser

The common desire to work together demonstrates that Indigenous groups and Western NGOs are, at least to a certain extent, both willing to work to dismantle colonial structures in the sense of decolonialism. This is evident in the NGOs’ high regard of Indigenous wisdom in matters of conservation and Indigenous groups’ willingness to partner with Western organizations despite a bloody colonial history. Furthermore, the desire to cooperate points to the fulfilment of an essential requirement for successful intercultural dialogue. Kiewitt’s basic requisites for dialogue between people from the Global North and Indigenous groups for instance include an openness to communicate as equals.2

Common goals

Another basic requirement for any partnership is having common goals. It’s also one of the four requisites in Allport’s Contact Hypothesis, which postulates that, when those conditions are met, contact between different groups can deconstruct prejudice.3 Within this research, five common goals became apparent: (1) The conservation of the Amazon rainforest. (2) The preservation of Indigenous territories and the people living there. This goal was another significant motivator for Indigenous groups to work with NGOs. (3) The use of alerts generated by the partnership to prompt legal action targeting violators of environmental and territorial regulations. This goal comes from a specific partnership between an Indigenous group and a Western NGO interviewed in this research. The NGO provides the Indigenous group with a smartphone application from which community forest monitors can generate alerts regarding violations. Both sides work together to improve the app and the alerts so that they can be used to hold bad actors legally accountable. (4) The advancement of Indigenous economy. This was particularly emphasized by Indigenous groups wanting to establish sustainable ways of generating income by themselves. Various NGOs mentioned that money is often a driving force behind illegal mining operations. (5) The protection of endangered species. Specifically, two different projects mentioned by participants in this research aimed to protect an endangered river turtle in Peru and Colombia. The Peruvian project sought to repopulate the turtle, and the Colombian project focused on biological monitoring. Nonetheless, the common goal was species protection.

Although some shared goals are less extensive than others, it is nonetheless significant that Indigenous groups and Western NGOs not only pursue large-scale goals but also cooperate on smaller projects.

Trust

To begin addressing these common goals, a certain amount of trust between the two groups is necessary. NGOs demonstrated immense trust in Indigenous wisdom regarding environmental conservation, best expressed in this statement from an NGO based in the United Kingdom discussing the organization’s founding principle, namely:

[…]to entrust the indigenous people, the best way to protect forests because they have done that for thousands of years and they, they don’t need, they just, they just need our support because we trust the way that they have done it and that’s the best way to do that.

The organization seems to follow this principle, given that, according to its representative, Indigenous groups are responsible for managing the resources and capacities in the partnership. Additionally, all the representatives of Indigenous groups interviewed stated that they had solid, trustworthy partners in several Western NGOs that support them. Indigenous groups also expressed a deep trust in their own ability to conserve the Amazon. For example, one Indigenous participant in the conference showed confidence in Indigenous knowledge of monitoring by connecting that wisdom to the Amazonian animistic ontology: “We don’t need to understand anything about surveillance because by nature, we are part of nature, we are part of Mother Earth.”4

Image 2: X (former twitter) – Post of WWF Peru (Screenshot)

Once again, this trust is indicative of a mutual move toward decolonialism and willingness to communicate. The trust in Indigenous knowledge specifically points to epistemic decolonialism from the side of the NGOs. From the Indigenous perspective, trust in Western partners would be unlikely without those partners displaying a willingness to help dismantle colonial constructs. Trust is also a key part of respect, which Kiewitt lists as another requirement of successful dialogue.

(Non-)acceptance of differences

Until now, the results of this study have focused on positive aspects of the relationship between NGOs and Indigenous groups in the Amazon. However, given the differences between them and colonial history, it’s clear not all interactions are positive. The question of dealing with differences made up a significant portion of the expert interview with Camacho Cueva. In discussing to what extent each group accepts these differences, Camacho Cueva believed Indigenous groups to have accepted the Western naturalist ontology, while Western NGOs are willing to accept Indigenous epistemology but not their animistic ontology. However, he also explained there are different kinds of acceptance, from opportunistic acceptance — where Indigenous positions are nominally accepted to achieve Western goals — to partial, strategic acceptance. Camacho Cueva also viewed Indigenous strategic acceptance as being more extensive than that of the NGOs.

Both Western NGOs and Indigenous groups exhibited strategic acceptance to work together on conservation projects. For example, one Indigenous interviewee used the Western terms flora and fauna, which Camacho Cueva said demonstrates how Indigenous people use terminology that is out of place in their native languages to show an acceptance of Western naturalism. This also exemplifies the construction of Indigenous Modernities. Additionally, one Western NGO representative expressed that it’s important to work together despite differences and focus on commonalities, pointing to a desire to find common ground. Nevertheless, there were indications of nonacceptance. That same NGO emphasizing common ground would try to persuade Indigenous groups to modify their economic plans if it viewed them as being unlikely to succeed financially. Additionally, two Indigenous interview partners suggested that NGOs should be required to learn about Indigenous groups and adapt to them, perhaps implying a frustration with unequal acceptance efforts by NGOs. Persuading partners to change shows a certain level of nonacceptance.

Such a partial, strategic acceptance indicates attempted but incomplete convergence between differences exhibited by Western NGOs and Indigenous groups. They appear to be moving toward each other in the sense of creolization5 by accepting the ontology of the other (on the Indigenous side) and epistemology (on the NGO side), but a true compromise in the middle in the sense of Homi Bhabha’s Third Space has yet to be achieved. Indigenous Modernities are therefore a result of creolization by Indigenous people, creating realities that lie close to the Western end of a spectrum from naturalism to animism, but that are not shared with Western actors who have not ventured far from their naturalist roots in their strategic acceptance. Furthermore, a strategic acceptance by Indigenous groups and Western NGOs demonstrates John Robinson’s6 point that conservation projects with multiple stakeholders require a certain pragmatism. Although Western NGOs and Indigenous groups are not operating from a shared middle ground, the pragmatic approach of strategic acceptance moves each closer to the other in order to achieve common goals.

Mistrust

However, full acceptance is hindered by mistrust between the groups. In this research, mistrust was predominately exhibited by Indigenous groups or perceived by NGOs as coming from Indigenous groups. There were significantly more statements coded in the subcategory “Indigenous mistrust NGOs” in comparison to the subcategory “NGOs mistrust Indigenous.” Given the colonial history of the region, this difference is not surprising. One representative of an Indigenous group for example mentioned that money for conservation promised by NGOs often doesn’t reach the communities working to protect the Amazon. An NGO perceived mistrust from Indigenous partners when, after a seemingly successful conversation in which the Indigenous people agreed to further work together, the Indigenous partners appeared to vanish and stopped responding to messages. On the other hand, potential mistrust exhibited by another NGO could also be interpreted as a sensible protection mechanism: The NGO performs a “due diligence assessment” of Indigenous groups before entering a partnership to review and optimize the groups’ processes. However, because the NGO grants its partners the right to manage resources, such due diligence appears reasonable, although it could also be interpreted as mistrust or a strategy for dealing with mistrust. On the Indigenous side, one representative argued the Western world often thinks that Indigenous people would destroy the Amazon as they seek to develop economically; at the same time, however, the West is aware that the Amazon would not exist without the Indigenous people who have cared for it over millennia. In other words, he believes that Westerners often do not trust indigenous people to develop sustainably.

Dealing with mistrust

Both the Western NGOs and Indigenous groups had strategies for dealing with mistrust and working to gain trust. The representative of an Indigenous group said Western NGOs should learn and understand more about their partners and reduce prejudice to work better together. He said that NGOs in the past would come and implement conservation strategies that were contrary to what the Indigenous people wanted, but those projects were never successful. He believed if NGOs took the time to understand Indigenous thinking and motivations for conservation, it would be easier to build trust. Camacho Cueva appeared to agree with such an approach, and one NGO in fact offers training for employees to teach them about Indigenous ontologies before working in the field. Another NGO asked a trusted Indigenous contact for feedback on how to improve communications with Indigenous partners and make them more comfortable. However, there are also strategies for dealing with mistrust that do not lead to successful partnerships. One Indigenous community member for example said Indigenous environmental monitors will simply refuse to partner with groups that do not have their trust.

Image 3: Ecuadorian rainforest, Achuar territory (Morona Santiago province). © Anna Meiser

The presence of mistrust and the strategies for dealing with it point to the incomplete attempts at decolonialism and deconstruction of prejudice as described in Allport’s Contact Hypothesis. Mistrust based on colonial power structures is reasonable, especially on the Indigenous side. However, strategies such as providing training on Indigenous ontologies and requesting feedback on communication practices show a willingness to continue along the path to deconstruct colonial structures. Some strategies require dialogue between the partners. Unfortunately, as “alibi-participation”7 and a refusal to work with certain groups show, one characteristic of the relationships between Western NGOs and Indigenous groups presents a significant obstacle in establishing partnerships: power asymmetry.

Power asymmetries

The imbalance of power inherent in enduring colonial structures casts a shadow over every part of this research, although it was addressed most explicitly in the expert interview. It is clear that it is an ever-present part of the relationships between Western NGOs and Indigenous groups working toward conservation of the Amazon. According to Camacho Cueva, this power asymmetry could be a significant reason why Indigenous actors are willing to strategically accept the Western naturalist ontology:

In other words, they accept it perhaps because of this asymmetry of power, because if they had resources, they might not accept it, or if they had sufficient autonomy, they might not accept it. In other words, I think that also has to do with power structures.8

So the relationship between Western NGOs and Indigenous peoples could be different if it were not for power asymmetries. In reality, only the actors with power are able to enforce their culturally influenced, naturalistic norms and working methods. The strategic acceptance of Indigenous people can therefore be seen as the cause of what Camacho Cueva called “implicit internal conflicts due to […] the symbolic violence of these beliefs.” These conflicts remain hidden as Indigenous people suppress their own ontology in the interest of working with Western collaborators, even as Western actors argue for equality in partnerships. But when conversations with Indigenous partners always take place in colonial languages like Spanish and Portuguese, it is impossible to call the relationship equal. Thus, power asymmetry endures.

This clearly has implications for any decolonial approaches to conservation projects. Without equal distribution of power, colonial structures remain intact. It also explains why acceptance of differences is often only strategic: Western actors might not feel obligated to compromise on their ontology to create a Third Space with Indigenous partners, who on the other hand do feel the need to strategically accept the naturalist ontology and thus move much closer to Western thinking — in the sense of creolization and Indigenous Modernities — in these collaborations. Furthermore, having an unequal relationship means these partnerships do not fulfill the first requirement of Allport’s Contact Hypothesis for deconstructing prejudice and presents a challenge to many approaches to intercultural dialogue. Thus, decolonial efforts to establish a shared middle ground in conservation projects through the reduction of prejudice and dialogue on equal footing remain, at best, works in progress.

Conclusion

From this research it is clear that, although there are positive elements in the relationship between Western NGOs and Indigenous groups in the Amazon working toward conservation, considerable work remains to stabilise and improve these partnerships. Steps have been taken toward decolonialism, and a certain amount of trust and strategies to deal with differences have been established to inspire a desire to work jointly. However, although both sides exhibit strategic acceptance of key elements of the other’s worldview, Indigenous people have compromised more and come much further toward establishing a shared Third Space from which to work than their Western counterparts. The latter must learn how to view conservation and associated vigilance from the Indigenous animistic perspective, not just through a Eurocentric lens. Vigilance in intercultural contexts like the Amazon Rainforest can only work when each actor’s cultural understandings of what it means is considered and incorporated. In the Amazon, vigilance involves much more than just environmental monitoring when Indigenous wisdom and the responsibility they take on as rainforest monitors are appreciated: It can be a realization of Indigenous agency and, with conscious efforts by Western participants, it can further decolonialism. Partnerships that incorporate these elements may not completely conquer power asymmetries, but these imbalances can at least be called into question. Vigilance in the Amazon can become a foundation for cooperation and lead to mutual trust in the abilities of a cultural “other” to achieve common vigilance goals. However, joint efforts between Western NGOs and Indigenous groups to conserve the Amazon continue to highlight the challenges that these relationships have faced for centuries. Perhaps a middle ground can someday be established where these partnerships can flourish. But for that to happen, more work must be done to eliminate power imbalances that keep colonial structures alive and keep Indigenous views and methods of conservation oppressed. By examining and understanding the relationship between Western NGOs and Indigenous groups as they exist now, we can work to improve them and together preserve the Amazon for the world.


  1. Original Spanish: “Sin bosque, no somos nadie.” ↩︎
  2. Kiewitt, Karsten (2024). Indigenes Wissen – Indigene Wissenschaften. Herausforderungen, Chancen und Wege der Auseinandersetzung mit traditionellen Wissenssystemen. In Wassilios Baros, Rita Braches-Chyrek, Solvejg Jobst & Joachim Schroeder (Hrsg.), Kritische Erziehungs- und Bildungswissenschaft. Kritische Pädagogik und Bildungsforschung: Anschlüsse an Paulo Freire (195–216). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH; Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41415-3_11 ↩︎
  3. Allport, Gordon (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Addison-Wesley; Beacon Press. ↩︎
  4. Original Spanish: “Nosotros no necesitamos entender sobre el monitoreo porque desde por la naturaleza, nosotros somos parte de la naturaleza, somos parte de la madre tierra.” ↩︎
  5. Halbmayer, Ernst (2018). Yukpa modernity as joint becoming: Ontology, creolization and the affirmation of difference. In Ernst Halbmayer (Hrsg.), Indigenous Modernities in South America (55–79). Sean Kingston Publishing. ↩︎
  6. Robinson, John G. (2011). Ethical pluralism, pragmatism, and sustainability in conservation practice. Biological Conservation, 144(3), 958–965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.017 ↩︎
  7. Alibi-participation: A supposedly joint project between Western and Indigenous actors where the Western partners retain controlling power over decision-making and implementation of the project. ↩︎
  8. Original Spanish: “O sea, lo aceptan quizás por esta asimetría de poder, porque si tendrían recursos, a lo mejor no aceptarían, o si tenían suficiente autonomía, quizás no lo aceptarían. O sea, eso tiene que ver, creo que también con estructuras de poder.” ↩︎


OpenEdition schlägt Ihnen vor, diesen Beitrag wie folgt zu zitieren:
Hannah Ritchie (14. Juli 2025). Environmental Vigilance: An Intercultural Endeavor – Part II. Vigilanzkulturen. Abgerufen am 14. Januar 2026 von https://doi.org/10.58079/14cc3


Das könnte dich auch interessieren …

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.