Translation and Multilingualism in Development Work

SIEGMUND Kerstin, BSc

Translation and Multilingualism in Development Work. Evaluating the Presence of Indigenous Languages in the Planning Process of Development Projects

Masterarbeit

zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades

Master of Arts

in der Studienrichtung Global Studies

Eingereicht an der

Umwelt-, Regional- und Bildungswissenschaftlichen Fakultät

Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz

Gutachterin: PENZ, Hermine, Ao.Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr.phil. Institut für Anglistik

2021

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Prof. Penz for her inspiring teaching, her time, patience, guidance and support, and for introducing me to the field of ecolinguistics.

I wish to express my gratitude and acknowledgement to all the authors of the works consulted for this thesis.

I would also like to thank my partner, my family and my friends for their unwavering support during the writing of this thesis.

My special thanks goes to my grandmother, who was not able to see the finished version of this thesis but has supported me so much through my studies.

Table of contents

List of Figures 5 Abbreviations 6 1 Introduction 9 1.1 Problem statement 9 1.2 Currency and relevance of the research 10 1.3 Structure of the thesis 11 1.4 Literature review 12 1.4.1 Translation and multilingualism in development work 12 1.4.2 Relevance of Indigenous languages in development projects 15 1.5 Aim of the study 17 1.6 Research question 17 2 Conceptualisation, methods, methodology 18 2.1 Conceptualisation 18 2.1.1 Indigenous peoples 18 2.1.2 Language 19 2.1.3 Multilingualism 21 2.1.4 Development 21 2.1.5 Participation 24 2.1.6 Translation 24 2.2 Methodology and methods 24 2.2.1 Using discourse analysis to evaluate the presence of Indigenous languages and perspectives in development projects 25 2.2.2 Brief background on the case studies 31 2.2.3 Defining a framework for the discourse analysis 33 2.2.3.1 Language awareness and availability of project communication and information in Indigenous languages 35 2.2.3.2 Use of Indigenous language terminology 37 2.2.3.3 References to Indigenous languages and perspectives 39 2.2.3.4 Reflection of Indigenous worldviews and concepts in the language used 40 2.2.4 Online searches for translations of the SDGs into Indigenous languages 43 2.3 Ethical considerations and limitations 44

3 Translation and multilingualism in development work 45 3.1 Background on translation and multilingualism in development work 45 3.1.1 EU on translation and multilingualism in development work 47 3.1.2 UN on translation and multilingualism in development work 50 3.2 The relevance of Indigenous languages in development work 52 3.2.1 Indigenous rights 52 3.2.2 Indigenous preferences 56 3.2.3 Indigenous knowledges and perspectives: an ecolinguistic lens on development 59 3.3 Indigenous languages and the SDGs 65 3.3.1 Background on the SDGs 65 3.3.2 Translations of the SDGs into Indigenous languages 67 3.3.3 Presence of Indigenous languages and perspectives in the SDGs 71 4 Case studies showing the presence of Indigenous languages in development projects 83 4.1 Case study Australia: Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda 83 4.2 Case study Europe: the website of the Laponia World Heritage Site 97 5 Discussion 111 6 Conclusions 121 7 List of References 124 Appendix: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 167

List of Figures

Figure 1. Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda (Yugul Mangi Fire and Season Calendar) (McKemey et al. 2019: 1)...... 89 Figure 2. Biocultural indicators August. (McKemey et al. 2019: 1)...... 92 Figure 3. Biocultural indicators dry season – right time for burning. (McKemey et al. 2019: 1)...... 94

Abbreviations

2030 Agenda 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development AAAA Addis Ababa Action Agenda ABA Arctic Biodiversity Assessment AHRC Australian Human Rights Commission AIATSIS Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies AIPP Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact ALA Atlas of Living Australia ANU Australian National University ARC Australian Research Council ATD Fourth World All Together in Dignity Fourth World ATSISJC Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner CBO Community-Based Organisation CDA Critical Discourse Analysis CoE Council of Europe CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation EC European Commission ECML European Centre for Modern Languages ECOSOC United Nations Economic and Social Council ECRML European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages EEAS European External Action Service EPRS European Parliamentary Research Service EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FCNM Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities FIT Fédération Internationale des Traducteurs / International Federation of Translators

FPIC Free, prior and informed consent GEO Global Environment Outlook IDIL International Decade of Indigenous Languages IEF Indigenous Education Foundation ILO International Labour Organization INGO International non-governmental organisation INPI Instituto Nacional de los Pueblos Indígenas [National Institute of Indigenous Peoples] INTRAC International NGO Training and Research Centre IPA Indigenous Protected Area IPBES Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPMG Indigenous Peoples’ Major Group for Sustainable Development IWGIA International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs IYIL2019 2019 International Year of Indigenous Languages LIANZA Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa MDGs Millennium Development Goals NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NLP National Language Policy NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NT Northern Territory OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OHCHR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

OWG Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals PAME Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment PDA Positive Discourse Analysis SDGAC United Nations SDG Action Campaign SDG(s) Sustainable Development Goal(s) SDWG Sustainable Development Working Group SEAL IPA South East Arnhem Land Indigenous Protected Area SNAICC Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care UK United Kingdom UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNDRIP United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples UNE University of New England UNEP UN Environment Programme UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNGA United Nations General Assembly UNIC United Nations Information Centres UNPFII United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues UNRCO United Nations Resident Coordinator’s Office UNRIC United Nations Regional Information Centre for Western Europe UNV United Nations Volunteers WA Western Australia WCED World Commission on Environment and Development WHS World Heritage Site

1 Introduction

1.1 Problem statement

In recent years, there has been an increased awareness of linguistic diversity and the role that language plays in development work (cf. Marinotti 2017: 2; Schultz et al. 2016: 36; The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities 2010: 1; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] 2017: Online; UNESCO 2018: 4). There has also been more awareness of Indigenous languages and the need for effective participation of Indigenous peoples in development projects (cf. Campbell 2019: Online; Indigenous Peoples Major Group for Sustainable Development [IPMG] 2019: 2; Lawrence & Larsen 2019: 5; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] 2019: 21; Schultz et al. 2016: 117). However, in practice, Indigenous languages and perspectives have been largely excluded from the planning of development projects, including in the formulation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (DeLuca 2017: 28-29; Footitt et al. 2018: 27; Taylor-Leech & Benson 2017: 342-346). Cristina Diez, the United Nations (UN) representative of All Together in Dignity Fourth World (ATD Fourth World), for example, “highlighted that 99% of negotiations on the SDGs were done in English, and 100% of negotiation outcomes were written in English” (Tesseur 2017: Online). The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2030 Agenda) was adopted by the UN in 2015 and includes 17 so-called Sustainable Development Goals or SDGs, which are meant to be universal and should be achieved through global partnerships (United Nations General Assembly [UNGA] 2015b: 1). These goals are aimed at creating a better world for all, through such measures as eradicating poverty, protecting biodiversity, ensuring gender equality, tackling climate change and addressing other important global matters (UNGA 2015b: 14). A central theme of the 2030 Agenda is the motto ‘that no one will be left behind’ (UNGA 2015b: 1). Those who often have been and still often are left behind are so-called vulnerable groups of people, such as women, children, minority groups and Indigenous peoples (United Nations Development Programme [UNDP] 2018: 7). As such, Indigenous peoples would also be among those benefiting the most from the realisation of the SDGs (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights [OHCHR] & United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues [UNPFII] 2017: 2; IPMG 2019: 2). At the same time, Indigenous peoples have rich knowledges and sustainable practices that are invaluable for realising the SDGs (Campbell 2019: Online; Carling et al. 2017: Online; IPMG 2019: 23; Sámiráđđi 2018: Online; UN 2014: 5). These knowledges and unique perspectives

9 are encapsulated in their languages, many of which are at risk of becoming dormant or extinct (Defourny & Šopova 2019: 3; Nakashima 2010: 22; UN 2019a: Online). While Indigenous languages and perspectives are largely absent from mainstream development discourses, there have nevertheless been numerous efforts in other places for including Indigenous languages, worldviews and perspectives in development projects. There have been efforts of translating the SDGs into Indigenous languages by various civil society actors, groups and individuals (cf. Earth Charter International 2018: Online). There have been efforts to interpret the SDGs through Indigenous perspectives (cf. Sims & Davis n.d.: Online). And there have been projects that include Indigenous languages and perspectives in the planning process (cf. Heath & Arragutainaq 2019: 22; Jackson et al. 2015: 163-164). This thesis aims to contribute to the current debate on language and development work. It aims to do this by evaluating the presence of Indigenous languages and perspectives in development projects and in the SDGs, which are currently often the base of development projects worldwide. Furthermore, this thesis aims to highlight good practice examples, which may be used to inspire development actors in the planning of future projects.

1.2 Currency and relevance of the research Indigenous languages and worldviews, particularly in conjunction with sustainable development, are a very current topic. In a landmark legal case in 2019, the Indigenous Waorani people of Ecuador won against the government who put their territory up for sale for a development project concerning oil extraction on their land (Brown 2019: Online; OHCHR 2019: Online). The judge’s reasoning was partly based on the inadequate consultation process with the Waorani and lack of clear translations into the Waorani language (Brown 2019: Online). In recognition of the Indigenous Māori’s worldview that everything is connected and a living whole, the Whanganui River in New Zealand was granted rights as a legal person in 2017 (Warne 2019: Online). At the end of the 2019 International Year of Indigenous Languages (IYIL2019), the UN declared an International Decade of Indigenous Languages (IDIL) to begin in 2022 (UN 2019b: Online). Furthermore, the first International Meeting of Native and Minority Language Translators and Interpreters was held in November 2019 in Colombia (Fraser & Landivar 2020: 6-7) and the International Federation of Translators (FIT) North America held a symposium on Translation and Interpreting for Indigenous languages, also in November 2019 (Rivers 2020: 11). Tesseur from the University of Reading suggests that

[t]wo concrete methods of moving away from an English-only or state-language-only mode of operation are: (a) partnering with local organizations, which may aid in increasing cultural and linguistic access to local communities, and (b) highlighting best practices so that donors of international NGOs [non-governmental organisations] pressure projects into employing local languages. (Marinotti 2017: 7)

According to Ambassador Ten-Pow, permanent representative of the Republic of Guyana to the UN, “language services are often ‘invisible’ to diplomats, though there are measures being taken by the UN to encourage greater engagement (e.g. through the efforts of the Coordinator for Multilingualism, International Translation Day, International Mother Language Day)” (McEntee-Atalianis et al. 2018: Online). Tesseur argues that

[a] key contribution that I believe could emerge from our ‘Listening Zones’ project is a number of case studies that would demonstrate how language negotiation has contributed to various stages of development projects and outcomes. Rather than turning language into another tick-box exercise, such an approach would help raise awareness of the important and complex role of language in development, and would help existing good practice to be celebrated. (Tesseur 2017: Online)

As such, this thesis aims to make a contribution as proposed by Tesseur, by presenting the case studies in chapter 4, in which Indigenous languages are present and made visible in various ways in development projects. The structure of the thesis is outlined below in 1.3.

1.3 Structure of the thesis

The first chapter introduces the topic of language and development work and discusses the problem statement, the currency and relevance of the research, and the structure of the thesis. This is followed by a literature review on the presence of Indigenous languages in development projects, the aim of the study and the presentation of the research question. In the second chapter, the conceptualisation, methods and methodology of the thesis are laid out. Ethical considerations and limitations are also mentioned in chapter 2. Chapter 3 includes the presentation of the socio-political and cultural background for the discourse analysis. The first section of the third chapter focuses on the topic of translation and multilingualism in development work and provides an overview and a brief discussion of the position of the European Union (EU) and the UN on translation and multilingualism in development work, as they are currently some of the main development actors. This is followed by a discussion on the relevance of Indigenous languages in development projects. Chapter 3 then discusses the SDGs, which have become the base of development projects the world over in recent years. After providing a brief background on the SDGs, the thesis presents the results of online

11 searches for translations of the SDGs into Indigenous languages, followed by the results of a critical analysis on the presence of Indigenous languages and perspectives in the SDGs using the framework outlined in chapter 2. Chapter 4 discusses more alternative development discourses by presenting an analysis of two case studies, in which Indigenous languages and perspectives are present in a number of ways, again using the framework outlined in chapter 2. Chapter 5 includes a comparison and discussion of the findings in chapters 3 and 4, followed by concluding remarks in chapter 6, a list of references in chapter 7 and the SDGs are included for reference in the appendix.

1.4 Literature review

1.4.1 Translation and multilingualism in development work

Footitt et al. found that in the context of the UK development sector there is generally a low priority attributed to language in international development work (Footitt et al. 2018: 4), even though language is a crucial factor for successful development projects and should be a key consideration already at the planning stages of projects (Footitt et al. 2018: 8). Translations are often done ad hoc by staff in the field, however, many seemingly mainstream development concepts, such as ‘sustainability’, cannot easily be translated into other languages (Footitt et al. 2018: 5). The issue of translatability of terminology and concepts has also been noted by Roturier and Roué (2009: 1964), Usher (1993: 116) and others. Roturier and Roué (2009: 1964, original emphasis), for example, describe that

[a]s can be seen, guohtun is not easy to translate into another language as it encompasses several levels of meaning. When the Sámi talk in Swedish (for instance when talking to forest managers), the reindeer herders are obliged to use the word bete (pasture) as a translation for guohtun, which in a Western context has only a restricted meaning, i.e., plant communities suitable for grazing. This greatly impoverishes the original multi- layered Sámi meaning of guohtun.

Similarly, Usher (1993: 116) notes that

[t]he use of English as a common language masks the fact that the participants use significantly different versions of English. Some of the central terminology of the Board — wildlife, management, census, population — involves concepts which are not directly translatable between English, Chipewyan, and Inuktitut. Some terms do not necessarily mean the same things in English to all members. Such terms are subject to negotiation in this and other forums (especially, for example, in the negotiation of wildlife agreements in land claims). Where the need to negotiate these terms is not openly recognized (as is sometimes the case with the Board), alternate meanings simply become ignored or marginalized.

Such issues of translatability and lack of language considerations often result in communities not understanding the nature of the project and donor agencies not understanding the local realities of the communities, making project outcomes less successful and undermining trust (Footitt et al. 2018: 4-5; Schultz et al. 2016: 65). The director of a national office of an international non-governmental organisation (INGO) who was interviewed for Footitt et al.’s study, suggested the production of a handbook with translations of common terminology and their preferred use in the local languages for the support of field workers who otherwise have to come up with ad hoc translations (Footitt et al. 2018: 6). The United Nations Volunteers (UNV) programme is administered by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (UNV n.d.: Online). In regard to the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, UNV (2017: Online) states that “[t]o succeed, this massive development agenda will require that people everywhere understand and take ownership of the goals—translation and localisation of the agenda is essential”. However, translations of the SDGs into Indigenous languages cannot easily be found on UN websites or in UN online publications. The OHCHR (2013) document on Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous Peoples does not include any reference to translation or language needs. At the 2017 symposium on Language, the Sustainable Development Goals and Vulnerable Populations of the Study Group on Language and the United Nations, it was argued that communities are often not inherently vulnerable, but that certain factors, including linguistic barriers, can render them vulnerable and that greater attention must be given to language within development contexts (Marinotti 2017: 3). Schultz et al. (2016: 65) also note how linguistic barriers hinder the effective participation of Indigenous communities in development projects related to biodiversity conservation in Nordic countries and that “[a]n important factor in order to achieve effective knowledge integration is the use of local languages and local consultation”. At the 2018 symposium on Multilingualism in International Organizations and International Co-operation, NGO representatives, UN language staff, diplomats, practitioners and other stakeholders discussed the hegemony of English in development work, the lack of effective translation procedures, lack of funding and commitment for translation efforts, the difficulty of translating certain development concepts and the linguistic barriers that create a disconnect between those planning development projects and those they are meant to serve (McEntee- Atalianis et al. 2018: Online). Humphrey Tonkin, the symposium chair and director of the Centre for Research and Documentation on World Language Problems, argues that “[w]e all know how to say ‘No one left behind’ in English, but can we say it in Twi, or Gujarati, or Guarani – languages of the people whom we are supposedly serving? And can we understand,

13 or even hear, the left-behind when they speak to us?” (McEntee-Atalianis et al. 2018: s.v. Welcoming Remarks). IYIL2019 was declared by the UN in order to create more awareness of Indigenous languages and to empower their speakers, and its key objectives include the integration of Indigenous languages into a standard setting and the elaboration of new knowledge to foster growth and development (UN 2019a: Online). In the Strategic Outcome Document of IYIL2019, UNESCO (2019: 7) emphasises that

[e]xisting sustainable development mechanisms do not adequately reflect the needs of indigenous language users, who are at risk of being left behind or even excluded. Additional and urgent actions are required in recognition of the importance of indigenous languages within the effort to deliver on the SDGs and other strategic frameworks [...].

Furthermore, the same document states that

[c]onsidering that language, as a cross-cutting issue, embraces and transcends all spheres of life, it is crucial to guarantee a free and varied flow of information, conveyed in indigenous languages in accordance with ethical standards, across a wide range of disciplines and domains, thereby generating new knowledge, enhancing distribution and ensuring the broadest accessibility of dedicated resources for indigenous language users [...]. (UNESCO 2019: 18)

However, while recognising the role of linguistic diversity and multilingualism for achieving the SDGs, the goals and recommendations of the IYIL2019 outcome document (UNESCO 2019: 9-20) do not focus on how the SDGs themselves can be adapted to include Indigenous languages and highlight Indigenous perspectives. Arguably, translation and multilingualism in development work, including within the framework of the SDGs, are such ways that help ensure participation of Indigenous peoples and flow of information in Indigenous languages. This thesis looks at the presence of Indigenous languages in the planning process of development projects, but it also looks at the implementation process, since otherwise language concerns may remain just a tick-off exercise. Similarly, IYIL2019 and the upcoming IDIL might only remain tick-off exercises, if their recommendations are not implemented, including within the frameworks of the UN and the SDGs. One way knowledge becomes a tradition in different countries is through translation, as translation is a method to spread knowledge, which might otherwise remain local (Schippel 2019: 202). Therefore, translation facilitates that discourses about new topics emerge in other languages. With today’s role of English as a lingua franca or common language in mainstream development discourses, translation into other languages, including Indigenous languages, often no longer takes place and when the process of translating knowledge no longer occurs, 14 discourse might no longer arise in these languages about this knowledge. These languages might then also lack the linguistic tools to deal with that knowledge, putting them more in danger of disappearing, because they become less functional in today’s societies. Therefore, the role of translation in development projects cannot be underestimated.

1.4.2 Relevance of Indigenous languages in development projects

Rights to language and participation

Numerous legal texts refer to Indigenous peoples’ rights, including the right to language and the right to participate in decision-making processes, such as the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (Convention No. 169) of the UN’s International Labour Organization (ILO) (Feiring 2013), the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML) (Council of Europe [CoE] 1992a) and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM) (CoE 1995) of the CoE, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (UNGA 2007). In addition to international agreements, there are many national laws and regulations concerning Indigenous peoples’ rights. However, while there are numerous declarations, policies, laws and programmes that stipulate Indigenous peoples’ rights, there remains a lack of actual implementation of those rights (Schäfer et al. 2019: 19). This is not a new phenomenon. Among others, Howitt (2001: 26) and Daniell (2011: 418) have argued that there is a gap between the formal recognition of Indigenous rights and their actual enforcement and practical implementation. Rose (1996: 6) uses the term ‘deep colonising’ to describe the ongoing and institutionally embedded colonial practices that have often been naturalised, through which Indigenous peoples remain marginalised and colonial interests privileged.

Language preferences and cultural considerations

Research has shown that development discourses in local languages are more readily accepted, as communities can better relate to and participate in the project (Footitt et al. 2018: 4). However, colonial practices often included, and sometimes still include, the prohibition of Indigenous languages (Schäfer et al. 2019: 18; Disbray 2015: 2; UN 2009a: 58). Among others, Bastardas-Boada (2017: 27) discusses power relations between ‘minority and majority’ languages, and Muller (2012: 73) discusses Western science and English as ‘languages of domination’ in environmental management discourses. As such, the use of Indigenous languages in development contexts can contribute to a sense of pride,

15 self-esteem, self-determination and recognition for Indigenous peoples as has been acknowledged particularly in education contexts (Disbray 2015: 8-9; Schäfer et al. 2019: 29). Warlpiri Patu Kurlangu Jaru (2011: 6) argues that “[l]anguage and culture come first. When kids feel lost and their spirit is weak then they can’t learn well or be healthy. They need to feel pride in their language and culture and know that they are respected. That’s the only way to start closing the gap”. Therefore, Warlpiri Patu Kurlangu Jaru (2011: 5-6) calls for two-way learning where the Warlpiri language and English are respected as equal, and well-resourced bilingual education programs are provided rather than giving preference to the English language. Muller (2012: 73) argues that such a bilingual environment should be created in environmental management contexts as well, where English can be used as a lingua franca, but not as a language of domination as in monolingual education contexts.

Unique perspectives and worldviews, contribution to sustainable development

The rich knowledges, cultures, histories and experiences of Indigenous peoples are all encapsulated in their languages (Nakashima, 2010: 22). Often these are only transmitted orally (UN 2009a: 58). Indigenous worldviews often differ widely from Eurocentric views, which dominate mainstream development discourses (Howitt 2001: 101; Muller 2012: 60). For example, the dichotomy between humans and nature is considered a Western concept, whereas Indigenous ontologies more often include a holistic view of the world, where everything is related and interconnected (Colbourne & Anderson 2020: 1; Muller 2012: 60; Suchet 2002: 144-145). Several articles in The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics describe how different ways of talking about the environment can lead to different environmental management outcomes (cf. Alexander 2017: 197; Goatly 2017: 239; Kuha 2017: 249; Larson 2017: 368; Penz 2017: 278; Stibbe 2017: 165). Skutnabb-Kangas and Harmon (2017: 17-21) also discuss the relationship between linguistic diversity and biological diversity. Battiste and Henderson (2000: 73) argue that “[l]ike all attempts to make people aware of the categories in which they think, the attempt to make people aware of how the language they speak affects the way they view the world is a difficult and sometimes agonizing activity”. Eurocentric development discourses commonly measure outcomes in quantitative terms, whereas Indigenous discourses often base the implementation of core values on qualitative rather than quantitative measures (DeLuca 2017: 28). SDG 1, for example, defines poverty primarily in monetary terms, however, many Indigenous peoples consider themselves poor when their land, their

16 well-being, their spirituality or their dignity are affected (Carling et al. 2017: Online). Western discourses also emphasise individual rights, whereas Indigenous peoples often consider collective rights crucial (DeLuca 2017: 29; IPMG 2014: Online). In the literature, the contribution of Indigenous peoples in the areas of natural resource management and resilient communities has been particularly emphasised, but the overall importance of their contributions for all other areas of the SDGs has been recognised as well (cf. Campbell 2019: Online; Sámiráđđi 2018: Online).

1.5 Aim of the study

Based on the above-mentioned considerations, the aim of this thesis is to contribute to the corpus of case studies in development work that highlight examples of development projects where language considerations are made visible by development actors, with a focus on Indigenous languages. The objective is that these examples can potentially serve as an inspiration for other development actors to enhance the overall presence of Indigenous languages in the planning process of development projects. By looking at the topic from different angles and considering language in various dimensions, the research becomes interdisciplinary and by choosing case studies from different regions of the world, the research becomes international. The thesis is guided by the research questions outlined in 1.6. In chapter 2, the methodological approach of the thesis is laid out.

1.6 Research question

In order to explore the above, the main research question was formulated as follows: How present are Indigenous languages in development projects?

Further questions asked are: What is the relevance of Indigenous languages for sustainable development? How are Indigenous languages and concepts included in the SDGs? Into what Indigenous languages have the SDGs been translated? Which good practice examples implement Indigenous languages and worldviews in their programmes?

2 Conceptualisation, methods, methodology

2.1 Conceptualisation

This section outlines the key concepts that form the basis for this thesis. The research approach and the application of methods are outlined in 2.2.

2.1.1 Indigenous peoples

In the literature, there is no one clear definition of Indigenous peoples. The UN has also not adopted an official definition for Indigenous peoples, rather it advocates the widely supported approach of self-identification. As such, Indigenous peoples identify as Indigenous and are accepted as such by their communities; have historical continuity with pre-colonial societies and strong links to territories and their natural resources; have distinct social, economic and political systems, distinct cultures, languages and beliefs; form non- dominant groups of society and resolve to care for their country and maintain their distinct systems (UNPFII n.d.b: Online). The ILO Convention No. 169 includes the following often quoted definition of Indigenous peoples:

[p]eoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions. (Feiring 2013: 32)

Convention No. 169 also refers to the criterion of self-identification as crucial (Feiring 2013: 33). Worldwide, many different terms are used to refer to Indigenous peoples, including First Nations, First Peoples and Aboriginal peoples (cf. Charron 2019: Online; Narragunnawali n.d.: Online; Simeone 2020: Online). A widely accepted general term for Indigenous Australians is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies [AIATSIS] n.d.b: Online). This paper uses the term Indigenous peoples, because it is the most commonly used general term in international contexts (Charron 2019: Online; Queen's University 2019: 2). Furthermore, the term Indigenous peoples is commonly used by Indigenous peoples and organisations in order to advocate for Indigenous peoples’ rights. For the case studies, the term the respective Indigenous peoples use themselves will be used. Indigenous peoples live in around 90 countries (UNDP 2019: Online). Estimates on the total population of Indigenous peoples in the world vary between 370 million (Mikkelsen & Bakdal 2015: 10) and 476.6 million (Dhir 18 et al. 2019: 52). Thus, Indigenous peoples make up about 6% of the world’s population (Dhir et al. 2019: 52). Furthermore, Indigenous peoples represent around 5,000 different cultures and speak more than 4,000 of the world’s approximately 7,000 languages (UNDP 2019: Online; International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs [IWGIA] 2019: Online).

2.1.2 Language

The Oxford English Dictionary includes the following definitions for language, which are relevant for the research: “1 the system of sounds and words used by humans to express their thoughts and feelings; 2 the particular language system used by a people or a nation; 3 a particular way or style of speaking or writing; 4 the words and phrases used by a particular group or profession” (Hornby 1995: 662). According to AIATSIS (n.d.d: Online),

[l]anguage is more than just a means to communicate, it is what makes us unique and plays a central role in our sense of identity. Language also carries meaning beyond the words themselves. It is a platform which allows us to pass on cultural knowledge and heritage. Speaking and learning first languages provides a sense of belonging and empowerment.

McConvell and Thieberger (2001: 12) also note that some people who work on endangered languages “have broadened the characterisation of ‘language’ to include the systems of knowledge and ways of thinking which are embodied in language”. As stated by UNPFII, Indigenous languages are a method of communication; extensive and complex systems of knowledge; an expression of self-determination; and central to the identity of indigenous peoples and the preservation of their cultures, worldviews and visions (UNPFII 2016: 1). According to the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA),

[l]anguage provides the conceptual and cognitive mechanisms via which humans perceive their environment. Hence, understanding language as a culturally embedded system of meaning is an important guide to understanding how humans adapt and act within their environment. (Barry et al. 2013: 654)

Given the comprehensive definitions of language mentioned above and the broad concepts of language that have become evident in the literature review, this thesis also refers to a more broadened definition of language that goes beyond words and also considers the ways we speak about something, and the diverse systems of knowledge and diverse ways of thinking that are embodied in language.

Indigenous languages are the languages of Indigenous peoples and are languages that originate in a certain place or region and existed prior to European or other colonisation of Indigenous peoples’ lands (cf. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner [ATSISJC] 2009b: 7; Barry et al. 2013: 654). They are also often referred to as a country’s original languages or First Languages (Government of Australia et al. 2020: 8; Reconciliation Australia 2019: 2). A country’s national language is not necessarily indigenous to the country. Indigenous languages have often been marginalised by colonial settlers and dominant societies (cf. UNPFII 2016: 1). Furthermore, Indigenous languages are commonly referred to as minority languages, based on a lower number of speakers compared to the current majority population or the status of their languages in national legislations (CoE 1992a: 1-2; Pasikowska-Schnass 2016: 3-4; UNGA 2019: 17-18). However, it should be noted that inherently, no language has less or more value than any other, all languages are equally important and equally valuable, regardless of the number of speakers (CoE 2007: 12-13). As Nelde et al. (1996: 1) argue, “[t]he concept of minority by reference to language groups does not refer to empirical measures, but rather, to issues of power”. As such, it is language policies and practices that favour some languages over others, whether they have been introduced knowingly or unwittingly by people in power, and that cause a hierarchy between languages (CoE 2007: 12-13; Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas 2017: 126; Prys Jones 2013: 14). Bastardas-Boada (2017: 27) describes how the transformation of languages

into ‘minority’ or ‘majority’ languages belongs not to their structural properties as codes, but typically to power relations between the individuals and/or groups who use them. If a human group comes into frequent close contact with another group, and the former is much larger in number of speakers and in political and/or economic power than the latter, their respective languages can then turn into ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ languages. This is why there is a common preference to use the adjective ‘minoritized’ rather than ‘minority’ to indicate that this fact is the product of a relational process and is not a negative feature belonging internally to the code in question.

Therefore, this thesis uses the term ‘minoritised’ rather than ‘minority’ language, as proposed by Bastardas-Boada (2017: 27) and others, except when quoting or referring to another source where another term is used. Indigenous languages is the general term used in this thesis for languages of Indigenous peoples. However, for the case studies, the term the respective Indigenous peoples use themselves for their Indigenous languages is used.

2.1.3 Multilingualism

The European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML) refers to multilingualism as “a feature of societies with members speaking different languages” (Boeckmann et al. 2011: 78). According to Gogolin and Lüdi (2015: Online), multilingualism refers “to a variety of phenomena which, though fairly closed linked, occur on quite different levels” and “[w]e talk of ‘institutional multilingualism’ when institutions or organizations offer their services in different languages, as do the UN, the EU and the Swiss Federal Railways (SBB)” (Gogolin & Lüdi 2015: Online). According to the CoE (2001: 4),

[m]ultilingualism may be attained by simply diversifying the languages on offer in a particular school or educational system, or by encouraging pupils to learn more than one foreign language, or reducing the dominant position of English in international communication.

As Boeckmann et al. (2011: 78), Phyak (2019: 194), Prys Jones (2013: 14) and others have pointed out, most societies and states are multilingual rather than monolingual, but notions such as ‘one state – one nation – one language’, which are particularly prevalent in Europe, have commonly overlooked such multilingualism and promoted a monolingual environment.

2.1.4 Development

Multiple definitions of development exist and the concept itself is debated. In 1997, the UN adopted its Agenda for Development in which it defines development as follows: “Development is a multidimensional undertaking to achieve a higher quality of life for all people. Economic development, social development and environmental protection are interdependent and mutually reinforcing components of sustainable development” (UN 1997: 1-2). On its website, the UN states that “[t]he concept of development includes many aspects and has changed over time”, while still referring to its definition of 1997 (UN n.d.a: Online). More recently, the concept of ‘sustainable development’ has become commonplace. The most commonly used definition for sustainable development is that of the UN report Our Common Future, also known as the Brundtland report, named after the chairman of the Commission who issued the report: “[s]ustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED] 1987: 54). In the recent Global Sustainable Development Report 2019, Brundtland (2019: xv) argues that

[t]oday, faced with the imperative of tackling climate change and responding to radical, fast-paced shifts in global technology, consumption and population patterns, there is growing consensus that sustainable development is the only way that we can avert environmental and social disaster.

The 2030 Agenda states that “[the SDGs] are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental” (UNGA 2015b: 1). These three dimensions are also often referred to as the three pillars of sustainability – a concept that has not directly originated from the Brundtland report but evolved over time (United Nations Economic and Social Council [ECOSOC] n.d.: Online; Lehtonen 2004: 200). Often, a fourth, cultural pillar is mentioned or argued for, when discussing sustainable development (cf. Hawkes 2001: 25; Stephens 2016: 187). According to UNESCO, “[c]ulture and development have long had a reciprocal and interdependent relationship, although this has only gained momentum at the international level over the past 30 years” (UNESCO 2016: 18) and “[c]ulture is who we are and what shapes our identity. No development can be sustainable without including culture” (UNESCO n.d.a: Online). In the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, culture is defined as “the set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group” and “encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs” (UNESCO 2001: Online). Arguably, culture is then one of the biggest determinants and outcomes of sustainable development. As Hawkes argues,

[i]n its simplest form, the concept of sustainability embodies a desire that future generations inherit a world at least as bountiful as the one we inhabit. However, how to get there [...] will always be the subject of constant debate. This debate is about values; it is a cultural debate. (Hawkes 2001: 11)

According to the chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, Sambo Dorough,

Indigenous peoples have understood and lived by the concept of sustainable development long before the term was coined by the world commission on environment and development in 1987 and it’s first usage in international law in the Rio declaration on environment and development. Indigenous knowledge has sustained [Indigenous] communities for centuries. (Sámiráđđi 2018: Online)

Development projects that are mainly aimed to support economic growth often lead to environmental degradation and a number of social and human rights issues, including for Indigenous peoples (Gilbert 2017: 9; Wattimena 2018: Online). These projects include, among others, developments related to large infrastructure, mining, resource extraction, fisheries,

22 forestry, renewable energies and tourism (cf. Chirif 2019: 13-14; Colchester et al. 2004: 10; Gilbert 2017: 8-9; IWGIA 2018: Online; IPMG 2019: 5; OECD 2019: 33-34; Renkens 2019: 7). Indigenous peoples are often not or insufficiently consulted prior to development projects on their lands and overexploitation of natural resources, land-grabbing and displacement of Indigenous peoples remain recurring issues in all parts of the world (cf. Gilbert 2017: 8-9; Wattimena 2018: Online; Renkens 2019: 17). According to Magga,

Indigenous peoples have dynamic living cultures and seek their place in the modern world. They are not against development, but for too long they have been victims of development and now demand to be participants in—and to benefit from—a development that is sustainable. (Magga 2004: 91)

This thesis focuses on international and intercultural development projects, including the systems of the UN and the SDGs. The SDGs and related initiatives, as they have been embraced by governments, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society groups worldwide, have been established in development contexts over the last few years. Development work can then refer to all activities that are undertaken to achieve sustainable development, while development co-operation includes all partnerships that are engaged in such activities. Development projects then, are any projects aimed at reaching economic, social, environmental and cultural goals related to sustainable development. Traditionally, development co-operation has been seen as a top-down approach with aid flowing mainly from OECD1 countries to the ‘Global South’, or from so-called ‘developed’ countries – largely measured in economic terms – to so-called ‘developing’ countries, a view which has been revisited in recent years (Bergamaschi & Tickner 2017: 3; Roepstorff 2016: 45; Zhou 2010: 1). The top-down approach also refers to development schemes that focus on centralised decision-making by national governments and international institutions, whereas bottom-up approaches are development schemes in which local communities are directly involved in decision-making processes (Howitt 2001: 16-19). Different development modes and alternative development paths and concepts have been widely discussed by Escobar (1995), Gibson-Graham (2005), Sen (1999) and many others. This thesis considers development cooperation as an opportunity between diverse actors, with co-operation of development actors between and within different countries and cultures in a collaborative and reciprocal arrangement, with partnerships on an equal footing, as suggested by many of the authors and development actors mentioned in this thesis.

1 For a current list of OECD member countries see: https://www.oecd.org/about/members-and-partners/. 23

2.1.5 Participation

Corbett et al. (2019: 217) define participatory development as “[a] development approach that supports and promotes community engagement in decision-making through the creation and use of a range of participatory methodologies that gather, analyze, and communicate community information”. As such, participation is often considered a tool of empowerment, however, Elzinga (2008: 356-357) cautions that participation models often take on a top-down approach and a patronising meaning and a distinction between effective participation and symbolic participation is necessary. Further, as Elzinga (2008: 357) argues, it is important to reflect on underlying power structures and the processes that determine the modes of interaction, and the processes that lead to the inclusion of some participants compared to others.

2.1.6 Translation

Translation is a tool for conveying the meaning of texts from one language to another (Malmkjær 2018: 31). Conveying meaning into other languages often involves not only translating the words but adapting context and making it linguistically and culturally relevant and appropriate for the target audience, a process which is often referred to as localisation, while some consider this process a part of translation (Pym 2004: 29). Given its role in relaying ideas between cultures, translation can be regarded as an important tool in intercultural and international development work and for the implementation of the SDGs.

2.2 Methodology and methods

This thesis uses both qualitative and quantitative methods, whereby the main focus is on qualitative research. The methodology and methods as well as the theoretical framework for this thesis are laid out in this section. The methods employed include critical and positive discourse analysis and online searches. To evaluate the relevance of Indigenous languages for sustainable development and to construct a framework for the discourse analysis, a literature review of the main documents relating to the presence of Indigenous languages in development work was performed. Secondary data was obtained from both published and unpublished (grey) literature including peer-reviewed academic journals; books; reports, websites, conference presentations and other literature of Indigenous organisations, governments, NGOs and community-based organisations (CBOs); reports from other development actors and other relevant publications. In order to evaluate the presence of Indigenous languages and perspectives within the framework of the SDGs, a critical discourse analysis (CDA) of the

SDGs as they were published by the UN was performed. The categories for the discourse analysis are outlined in 2.2.3. Case studies that implement Indigenous languages and worldviews in their programmes are presented in chapter 4, which have been interpreted by means of a positive discourse analysis (PDA), using the same categories as for the CDA of the SDGs.

2.2.1 Using discourse analysis to evaluate the presence of Indigenous languages and perspectives in development projects

The term ‘discourse’ has been widely discussed and defined in different ways in various disciplines, including linguistics, sociology, cultural studies and interdisciplinary research. Gee and Handford (2012: 1) refer to discourse as language in use. Fairclough and Wodak (1997: 258) consider discourse a social practice. Discourses are characterised by sharing particular meanings and particular linguistic features. Discourse analysis is concerned with “what these meanings are and how they are realized in language” (Paltridge 2012: 2). Moreover, discourse analysis is concerned with the relationship between language and context (Blum-Kulka & Hamo 2011: 160; Jones et al. 2015: 8). As Fairclough (2001: 123-124) notes,

[d]iscourses are diverse representations of social life which are inherently positioned – differently positioned social actors ‘see’ and represent social life in different ways, different discourses. For instance, the lives of poor and disadvantaged people are represented through different discourses in the social practices of government, politics, medicine, and social science, and through different discourses within each of these practices corresponding to different positions of social actors.

As such, discourse analysis is “an approach to the analysis of language that looks at patterns of language across texts as well as the social and cultural contexts in which the texts occur” (Paltridge 2012: 1). Through the focus on context then, discourse analysis provides a deeper understanding of texts and how these texts become meaningful to their users (Jones et al. 2015: 4). Therefore, discourse analysis is a useful methodology for this thesis as it looks not only at the presence of Indigenous languages and the language used in development work, but also at the contexts in which this occurs. Furthermore, “discourses influence discursive as well as non-discursive social and political processes and actions”, while at the same time being shaped and affected by situational, institutional and social settings (Wodak 2001: 66). Thus, meanings do not only change in relation to particular contexts but also over time. Kuha (2017: 249) describes this in relation to environmental discourses:

Wherever environmental discourse occurs, it is important. We analyze it because it can give us insight into how people tend to perceive environmental problems and relate to the natural world, and, perhaps even more importantly, because the influence can flow in the other direction as well: environmental discourse has the potential to shape how we think about the natural world, and can therefore affect our environmental behavior.

Discourse analysis can thus show how different uses of language can present different views of the world and how different views of the world and different identities can be and are constructed through the use of discourse (Knezevic et al. 2014: 239; Paltridge 2012: 2). Paltridge notes that there are different views of discourse analysis that include more textually oriented views concentrating mainly on language features of texts, and more socially oriented views that consider “what the text is doing in the social and cultural setting in which it occurs” (Paltridge 2012: 1). This thesis focuses on both aspects, but with a particular focus on the latter as it employs a more critical approach in the analysis. CDA brings a critical dimension to discourse analysis. CDA is an interdisciplinary and problem-oriented approach that not only looks at the language features and the meaning of a text within its particular context, but also includes the socio-political background in the discourse analysis (Fairclough et al. 2011: 357; Van Dijk 2001: 96). As such, CDA can use linguistic tools to uncover socio-political and cultural values and ideologies that underlie a text, and challenge them from a critical perspective (Paltridge 2012: 194). Thus, CDA focuses on social problems and is especially concerned with “the role of discourse in the production and reproduction of power abuse or domination” (Van Dijk 2001: 96). This is arguably very important to consider in development work, particularly when it comes to top-down development approaches, in which Western development paradigms are commonly prioritised and enforced upon local and Indigenous communities or where dichotomies between those ‘more developed’ and those ‘less developed’ are constructed (cf. Escobar 1995: 47-48; Nursey-Bray et al. 2018: 17-18; Yap & Yu 2018: 96-97). Mey (2017: 214) argues that an attitude which does not allow for a diversity of concepts in various languages but is biased towards conceptualisations in a particular language, often English, results in a majority of the population being underprivileged and a situation that is harmful in terms of international collaboration and mutual respect as well as from an ecological viewpoint. For CDA, ideology “is seen as an important means of establishing and maintaining unequal power relations” (Weiss & Wodak 2003: 14). CDA can uncover linguistic features that indicate certain ideologies, which might not be obvious but can influence the opinion of the receiver of a text (Fairclough 1989: 141). There is no one specific approach to CDA, rather CDA has been considered both a theory and a set of methods (Fairclough 2001: 121). Van Dijk (2001: 96)

26 regards CDA as a critical perspective on doing scholarship that “can be conducted in, and combined with any approach and subdiscipline in the humanities and the social sciences”. In any approach taken, CDA involves a combination of linguistic analysis and sociocultural analysis. Fairclough puts forward three stages for critical discourse analysis: the description stage, the interpretation stage and the explanation stage of texts (Fairclough 1989: 109). The description stage involves the textual analysis, looking at linguistic features of a text, such as lexical, grammatical and structural features (Fairclough 1989: 110-111). The interpretation stage is concerned with interpreting the formal features of a text, assigning meaning to them and putting them into context, based on common-sense assumptions of those receiving the text (Fairclough 1989: 140-142). The explanation stage puts the examined discourse in relationship with its socio-political context and relates the meanings of the examined text to relationships of power and social practices (Fairclough 1989: 163). This involves looking at power relations that shape the discourse, underlying ideologies and the effects of the discourse in terms of sustaining power relationships (Fairclough 1989: 162- 163). Particular communication strategies are used in particular discourses. In development discourses, certain solutions for sustainable development might be foregrounded and others backgrounded, and certain development actors might be framed in a certain way, thus constructing or concealing agency, power relationships, and the legitimisation of certain development paradigms, approaches and solutions. The reader might then take these discourses for granted, particularly if they are produced by social actors in a powerful position. Thus, those who decide what is written and in what way have a certain power to influence opinion and therefore, in the context of development discourses, the power to influence the production of development policies and outcomes. Mey (2017: 214-215), for example, argues that the question of “who has the right to define which problems are most urgent and interesting in a global perspective, and need immediate attention” remains of critical importance. Discourse can legitimise certain actions and perpetuate certain inequalities. As such, communication in discourse is also linked to behaviour change. Penz (2017: 288), for example, notes that “[b]ecause frames substantially influence our perception of issues, it is of crucial importance how climate change is framed in politics: the actions taken, those not taken or even abandoned will influence our lives and the future of our planet”. Similarly, Mey (2017: 213) argues that “[i]n general, metaphoric expressions, whether positive or negative with respect to their ecological origin and force (think survival vs. danger) are ways of thinking and speaking that not only reflect, but also influence, our common social praxis”. In another example, Resende (2009: 365-366) describes

27 how discourse is used to frame groups of people in contexts of social vulnerability and how “[c]lassification and categorization influence how people act and think about a given situation”. Through “classifications that legitimize difference”, so Resende (2009: 366) in reference to Thompson (1990), social injustice is often naturalised, injustice is then not questioned and becomes understood “as the natural state of things”. Resende (2009: 365) argues that in such a way “discourses naturalize social injustice by camouflaging it”. Therefore, as Fairclough et al. (2011: 373) argue, critical analysis of discourse can then be considered a form of social action since its aim is to initiate change in discursive as well as in socio-political practices. This thesis uses both CDA and PDA. PDA derives from CDA, but while CDA focuses on negative critique of hegemonic practices in discourse, PDA focuses on the positive description of alternative practices in discourse (Bartlett 2012: 4-9; Stibbe 2017: 169). The ‘critical’ in CDA refers to “adopting a ‘critical’ perspective on language in use” (Irimiea 2017: 115), which is applied in this thesis to the evaluation of the presence of Indigenous languages and perspectives in the SDGs within the framework of the 2030 Agenda. PDA on the other hand “describes what texts ‘do well’ and ‘get right’ in our eyes” (Macgilchrist 2007: 74) and is applied to the case studies presented in chapter 4 of this thesis. Among others, Stibbe (2017: 165), Hughes (2018: 193-194) and Martin (1999: 51-52) have pointed out that PDA approaches have not been as common as CDA approaches and call for more PDA studies that examine positive discourses. As Stibbe (2017: 165), for example, argues that “[a]lthough exposing dominant negative discourses is essential, it is just the first step”. Stibbe (2017: 165) argues that “[t]here is little point exposing the problems with current ways of using language unless there are beneficial alternative forms of language available to move towards” and that “[t]he next step is to search for new discourses to base society on” (Stibbe 2017: 165). This next step can be based on a PDA approach. According to Stibbe (2017: 171), the aim of PDA is to discover beneficial stories in discourses and determine the linguistic features that give rise to them. For this purpose, the linguistic features of a text or a collection of texts, if looking for larger patterns, can be analysed to reveal ideologies embedded in the text (Stibbe 2017: 176). Such features can include metaphors, use of pronouns, vocabulary uses and other linguistic features that are arranged in a way that provide an alternative discourse to mainstream discourses (Stibbe 2017: 168-172). As highlighted for example by Bartlett (2012: 8-9) and Stibbe (2017: 174-175), texts are not created in a social vacuum and cannot be analysed based on language alone, but with both CDA and PDA, texts have to be placed in their social and historical contexts and assessed

28 in regard to their function, intended audience and uptake of the people concerned. Macgilchrist (2007: 76-83) discusses PDA and ways of contesting mainstream discourses by means of various strategies, such as logical inversion techniques; parody; complexification strategies; and partial or radical reframing of issues. Martin (1999: 29) discusses a positive approach of discourse analysis, with a focus on hope and change, that complements the deconstructive approach of CDA. As Macgilchrist (2007: 74) points out, “[b]ased on a similar premise as critical approaches, PDA is also fuelled by the potential for analysis to have an effect – however small – on the social world”. Similarly, Hughes argues that PDA can uncover discourses that resist dominant discourses, but that resistance within PDA is not a simple response to injustice, but rather it is a form of social action “that opens up possibilities for progressive social change” (Hughes 2018: 199). Bartlett (2012: 4), for example, uses PDA to present a case study and practices that correspond to more positive development discourses incorporating and valuing Indigenous knowledge systems, as compared to mainstream top- down approaches, that often overlook them. Stibbe (2018: 504) argues that “[i]f positive stories are found then the language features which combine to tell these stories can be promoted as useful ways of communicating about the place of humans in the world”. Stibbe (2018: 504) adds that this “is not to say that PDA is an uncritical approach – if there are negative aspects of a discourse then they need to be exposed to ensure they are not reproduced”. This thesis uses a PDA approach to highlight two case studies in environmental management contexts in which Indigenous languages are present in a number of ways and a more positive approach to Indigenous languages and perspectives is used than in mainstream development discourses that often marginalise Indigenous languages and knowledge systems (cf. Daguitan et al. 2019: 611). As Stibbe (2017: 175) and others have pointed out, the textual analysis of PDA is not just based on linguistic features, but on a philosophical framework according to which the discourse is judged as positive or not. This thesis draws from post-colonial and ecolinguistic writings and uses a political ecology approach as underlying philosophy, which questions the status of powerful actors and the politics of environmental management, inequalities and environmental injustices, the access to natural resources and control of land, the approaches that are taken for granted in mainstream environmental management discourses and the effects of political decisions on sustainable development in environmental management contexts (Batterbury 2018: 439-440). The case studies in this thesis have been chosen on the basis of a collaborative approach between Indigenous and non-Indigenous stakeholders to sustainable

29 development, with a particular focus on environmental management, in which Indigenous peoples have often been considered experts, but have been marginalised in decision-making. In his study on intercultural development discourse with a focus on Indigenous communities, Bartlett (2012: 87) argues that the dominant Western development paradigm, which has so far not led to the desired sustainable development outcomes, should be replaced with a hybrid approach that includes both external inputs from Western structures as well as local community systems and practices. According to Bartlett (2012: 87), there can be no one single model for development and local communities have to redefine the term for their own needs and their own specific situations, in accordance with the constraints and conditions in which they operate. Bartlett (2012: 87) argues that local systems “will have to be made to relate, in some way, to the global system within which local communities increasingly have no choice but to operate” and that external input is not only helpful but crucial in local practice, but it needs to be ‘recontextualised’ to be relevant for and manipulable by the local community. In the hybrid approach that Bartlett (2012: 87) argues for, local systems are incorporated into dominant systems of development practice in a distinct and contextualised way, thus creating a space in which external expertise is made relevant to local conditions and global practices are responded to with a ‘local accent’. This hybrid intercultural approach to development is echoed by ‘two-way science’ or ‘two ways management’ models in Australia (cf. Deslandes et al. 2019: 5-6; Muller 2012: 61-62) and other collaborative development approaches called for by Indigenous and non-Indigenous organisations and individuals across the world (cf. Kawerak 2020: Online; Sámiráđđi 2018: Online; Tsosie 2014: Online). Sámiráđđi (2018: Online), the Saami Council, for example, states that

[a]fter hearing these stories, we conclude that co-productional knowledge and indigenous knowledge is practiced as part of science and decision making with good results. The Saami Council would love to see scientists and indigenous knowledge holders initiating new collaborative projects of these kinds in order to inform our decisionmakers how to manage our land meeting the challenges caused by the climate changes and fragmenting land use.

Both case studies presented in chapter 4 relate to such collaborative approaches. In the presentation of the analysis in chapter 4, each case study is evaluated and discussed individually, while in the discussion in chapter 5, both case studies are also compared with each other and the discourse analysis of the SDGs. Using different case studies from different geographical regions of the world allows for comparison between different collaborative approaches that include Indigenous languages and perspectives in environmental

30 management. Due to the mainly qualitative approach, the results of the analysis cannot simply be generalised or applied to other contexts, but this thesis adds to a growing corpus of case studies on the presence of Indigenous languages and perspectives in development work, which can potentially inspire actors in international and intercultural development co-operation to consider Indigenous languages in the planning of their projects.

2.2.2 Brief background on the case studies

For the case studies, there is a regional focus on Australia and Europe. Over the last two and a half centuries, Australia has experienced rapid language loss. Although estimates vary, at the time of European colonisation, around 250 languages were spoken in Australia (Obata & Lee 2010: Online). Today, only about half of them are still spoken to some degree and only about a dozen are considered strong, i.e. they still have strong intergenerational transmission (Government of Australia et al. 2020: 42; Marmion et al. 2014: xii). Australia is considered one of five hotspots in the world, where many languages are threatened to go extinct or no longer be spoken (Obata & Lee 2010: s.v. State of Indigenous Languages, Language endangerment). In the light of this language situation in Australia, an Australian case study was considered relevant for this thesis. According to Tryon (2010: 75), due to globalisation and rapidly increasing access to electronic media, major world languages and especially English are having a significant impact on Indigenous languages in the Greater Pacific area, making language endangerment in this area a “very real concern”. Tryon goes on to argue that “[o]n the basis of numerical strength and the extent of official recognition, we can confidently say that none of Australia’s indigenous languages are safe” (Tryon 2010: 84). The UNESCO Interactive Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger lists 108 Australian languages as endangered (Moseley 2010: Online). In recent years, there has been an increased effort to revitalise Australia’s dormant Indigenous languages and to increase awareness of Indigenous knowledge systems and practices, particularly in environmental management contexts. Some approaches address both aspects, such as the production of seasonal calendars that represent Indigenous ecological knowledge and include Indigenous language terms (cf. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [CSIRO] n.d.: Online). A seasonal calendar that was produced in a collaborative approach combining Indigenous knowledges2 and

2 Many Indigenous scholars, organisations and other authors advocate for the use of reference terms such as ‘Indigenous knowledges’ in the plural form to acknowledge the diversity of Indigenous peoples and their cultures and identities, while at the same time acknowledging shared commonalities (cf. Hromek 2020: 8; Jacob et al. 2018: 158). Therefore, this thesis uses the pluralised term ‘Indigenous knowledges’ throughout. 31

Western scientific methods and that also informs local fire management planning in Northern Australia is presented as the first case study in this thesis. The second case study is situated in Europe. According to the CoE (n.d.b: Online), Europe has about 225 Indigenous languages, which is a similar number to Australia. As elsewhere, many of Europe’s languages are considered vulnerable or to varying degrees at risk of becoming dormant or extinct. UNESCO’s Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger lists more than 120 European languages as endangered (Nicolas 2010: 6-7 & 24-25). Through migration, internal colonisation and the drawing of present-day national boundaries, there have been many language shifts in Europe over time (Grote 2006/2007: 426; Wright 2001: 45-46). Salminen (2007: 224) describes the special situation that has resulted in Europe due to the focus on building nation states and national languages:

Europe differs from other parts of the world in that the number of very safe languages, spoken by majority populations of independent nation-states, is exceptionally high. The assimilative policies of the same nation-states are largely responsible for another peculiar feature of Europe, namely that almost all of the other languages spoken there are endangered, in other words, the number of safe minority languages is remarkably low.

Given this specific language situation in Europe, a European case study was deemed relevant for this thesis. In Europe, it is unusual to speak of Indigenous peoples, even if certain populations fit the description of Indigenous peoples under the ILO Convention No. 169, rather the terms national minorities or autochthonous minorities are used (Grote 2006/2007: 426- 427; Minderheitensekretariat n.d.: Online). The rights accorded to Indigenous peoples are often more comprehensive than those accorded to national minorities, as they for instance also include land rights and rights to self-determination (Nutti 2019: 6). In the European Union (EU), there are around 500 million citizens, speaking around 80 different languages (Rivera Pastor et al. 2017: 115). The EU’s website states that apart from its 24 official languages, “[t]he EU is home to over 60 indigenous regional or minority languages, spoken by some 40 million people” (EU n.d.a: Online). In Europe, Indigenous languages are commonly referred to as autochthonous, minority or regional languages (CoE 1992a: 1-2; Prys Jones 2013: 8). However, these terms are not exclusively used in European contexts (cf. Gafner-Rojas 2020: 46). According to Prys Jones (2013: 21), autochthonous languages are “languages that originated in a specified place and were not brought to that place from elsewhere” and they “are spoken usually within a part or parts of a member state, but are not the majority language of that state or even the region”. Autochthonous languages can also be spoken across borders in other states,

32 where they are also not the main state language, such as the Basque language in France or North Sámi in Sweden and Finland and other, non-EU countries (Prys Jones 2013: 22). Today, the Sámi are the only officially recognised Indigenous peoples of the EU (CoE 2015: 9). They have inhabited the Arctic regions of Europe since time immemorial (Svensk Information 2005: 5). In environmental terms, the Arctic is one of the fastest changing areas in Europe and has a global warming rate that is two to three times higher than the global annual average (Arctic Centre University of Lapland n.d.: Online; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2018: 4). Depending on definition, there are 9 to 11 Sámi languages, of which some are considered vulnerable, some critically endangered and some no longer spoken (CoE 2015: 10; Norwegian Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion 2009: 17; Salminen 2010: 35; Sámiráđđi 2020: Online). Increasingly, language revitalisation efforts are taking place for Sámi languages and there is increased recognition for the ways of life and resource management practices of the Sámi and the importance of their languages for environmental management (Aikio-Puoskari 2018: 357-361; UNESCO n.d.d: Online). In recent years, the Laponia World Heritage Site (WHS) in Northern Sweden has been managed through a co-management arrangement between Indigenous and non-Indigenous stakeholders (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.c: Online). The website of the Laponia WHS, on which Sámi Indigenous languages are present in several ways, is the second case study presented in chapter 4. Both case studies were chosen on the basis that they involve a collaborative approach between Indigenous and non-Indigenous stakeholders, are related to sustainable development and environmental management contexts, and include and make visible Indigenous languages in a number of ways. The framework for the analysis of the case studies is outlined below in 2.2.3.

2.2.3 Defining a framework for the discourse analysis

For the discourse analysis, a framework was constructed that refers to the presence of Indigenous languages in four main categories that were identified in a substantial review of relevant literature. These four categories build the overarching framework that is used for the discourse analysis in chapters 3 and 4. Using discourse analysis for this thesis allows for the analysis of the way language is present and used and given meaning in development projects. In this way, comparisons can be made between the language used in mainstream development discourses, such as the SDGs and in alternative development discourses such as those in the case studies.

Data was obtained from both published and unpublished (grey) literature including peer-reviewed academic journals; books and book chapters; reports, websites and publications of Indigenous organisations, government agencies, NGOs and CBOs; reports from other development actors and other relevant publications. Similar to Salmon et al. (2019: 1) in their study on Indigenous peoples’ cultures and the relationship between culture and health and well-being, the aim was not to be prescriptive in defining the categories for the analysis, but rather to let the literature define the elements considered relevant regarding the presence of Indigenous languages in development work. The literature review for this thesis revealed that the presence of Indigenous languages refers to four broad categories: 1) whether there is language awareness and availability of project communication and information in Indigenous languages, 2) whether Indigenous language terms are used, 3) whether references to Indigenous languages and perspectives are made and 4) how Indigenous worldviews and concepts are reflected in the language used. The Association for Language Awareness defines language awareness as “explicit knowledge about language, and conscious perception and sensitivity in language learning, language teaching and language use” (Association for Language Awareness n.d.: Online, emphasis omitted). The Association for Language Awareness further notes that language awareness “covers a wide spectrum of fields” and “[l]anguage awareness interests also include learning more about what sorts of ideas about language people normally operate with, and what effects these have on how they conduct their everyday affairs: e.g. their professional dealings” (Association for Language Awareness n.d.: Online). According to Codó in her discussion on Language Awareness in Multilingual and Multicultural Organizations, it seems clear “that issues of language and of language awareness are fundamental to the workings of contemporary organizations” in an increasingly globalized world (Codó 2018: 468). Codó argues that further research ought to be pursued concerning language awareness in multilingual and multicultural organisations such as governmental agencies, non-profit organisations, and NGOs to explore their language practices (Codó 2018: 477-478). This thesis extends this understanding to the multicultural and multilingual collaborations discussed in this thesis and looks at whether any language negotiations and considerations are made visible by the various development actors mentioned in this thesis. The framework introduced is applied to both the CDA to evaluate the presence of Indigenous languages and perspectives in the SDGs, for which the results are outlined in 3.3.3 and the PDA applied to the evaluation of the presence of Indigenous languages and perspectives in the case studies presented in chapter 4. Similar to Howitt in his book Rethinking

Resource Management: Justice, sustainability and indigenous peoples, this thesis does not advocate a particular approach as ‘universal best practice’ (Howitt 2001: 8), rather it aims to provide a simple framework that can help actors in development co-operation as a point of discussion for the incorporation of Indigenous languages where this has previously not been considered. It has to be stressed that every development context is different and development approaches cannot simply be transferred from one context to another. As Howitt (2001: 8) notes, “[d]ogmatic adherence to a particular methodology or theoretical approach because it is pre-defined by so-called experts as best practice is part of the problem under examination”. Development projects need to be tailored to local realities and needs. This is also why the case studies in this thesis are referred to as good practice examples rather than best practice examples. Nonetheless, as Key (2015: 23) notes, when describing a case study on collaborative management and community-based climate action in Finland, while there is no one-size-fits- all approach, there are lessons to be learned from local efforts that can be translated to environmental management efforts across the world. The four categories of the framework for evaluating the presence of Indigenous languages in development projects through discourse analysis are laid out below in 2.2.3.1 to 2.2.3.4. While these are presented as separate categories, it has to be noted that since language is a cross-cutting issue, in some aspects the categories also overlap.

2.2.3.1 Language awareness and availability of project communication and information in Indigenous languages

In this category, language is both a goal and a tool. As a goal, the language itself is used in the production of project material or communication, thus supporting the maintenance of Indigenous languages, in particular endangered languages, for which sometimes only a small corpus exists. As a tool, language serves for the dissemination of information in intercultural development contexts. In addition, language awareness and the availability of project communication and information in Indigenous languages serve to better engage Indigenous communities with the project and to support the rights of Indigenous peoples including access to information in their own languages. Furthermore, showing language awareness by describing languages spoken in a certain area apart from the dominant state language or majority language increases the visibility of multilingual environments in development work, as they commonly exist, but are often dismissed or made invisible.

Studies and experiences have shown that communities better engage with development projects and campaigns when information and communication is available in local and Indigenous languages and culturally appropriate formats (Australian National University [ANU] 2020: Online; Footitt et al. 2018: 4; Muller 2012: 67; Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment [PAME] 2019: 44; Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia 2012: 165). As such, effective collaborative approaches that include language and cultural awareness, culturally appropriate translation and interpreting services, engagement with Indigenous language centres and the involvement of Indigenous community members can help to overcome language barriers in cross-cultural and cross-language projects (ANU 2020: Online; PAME 2019: 44; Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia 2012: 186). Furthermore, language rights and cultural considerations, as described in 3.2, warrant the translation and availability of development discourses in Indigenous languages, particularly in colonial or what Rose (1996: 6) calls ‘deep colonising’ contexts, in which colonial processes have been naturalised and continue to marginalise and discriminate against Indigenous peoples and their practices. Crack et al. found three main language problems related to the context of language and development: the low priority attributed to languages in development work; the difficulty of translating concepts into other languages and the resulting misunderstandings and confusion of communities about project objectives; and the negative effects of language problems on community participation and establishing relationships of trust and respect (Crack et al. 2018: Online). Moreover, in order to maintain Indigenous languages, many of which are in danger of disappearing as described in 3.2.2, creating development discourses in Indigenous languages can be one vehicle to counteract this trend. Through the translation of knowledge into Indigenous languages, discourse arises in those languages about this knowledge, giving rise to linguistic tools for these languages to deal with that knowledge. Therefore, translating development discourses and information about development projects into Indigenous languages helps those languages to become more functional in today’s societies that give preference to majority or dominant languages. Making information available in Indigenous languages on the internet can also aid the closure of the ‘digital divide’. According to UNESCO (n.d.c: Online), there are two important aspects when it comes to addressing the digital divide: “firstly, everyone should have access to the Internet, and secondly, access to quality content created not only at international or regional level, but locally and in local languages”. UNESCO (n.d.c: Online) adds that “[l]anguage is a primary vector for communicating information and knowledge, thus the opportunity to use one’s language on the

Internet will determine the extent to which one can participate in emerging knowledge societies”. Furthermore, “UNESCO is convinced that cultural diversity and multilingualism on the Internet have a key role to play in fostering pluralistic, equitable, open and inclusive knowledge societies” (UNESCO n.d.c: Online). Commonly, Indigenous languages are based on oral traditions, while Western systems are strongly based on written language. However, producing written material in Indigenous languages can aid the preservation of endangered Indigenous languages, while at the same time, it is not the only mode of preserving and maintaining languages and cannot replace the maintenance of spoken language, rather it is a complementary tool (cf. Defourny & Šopova 2019: 3; IWGIA 2019: Online). Finally, the key principles of the upcoming IDIL, including “the equal treatment of indigenous languages with respect to other languages; and the effective and inclusive participation of indigenous peoples in consultation, planning and implementation of processes based on their free, prior and informed consent right from the start of any development initiative [...]” (UNESCO 2020a: 4) ought not just be token exercises, but effectively include Indigenous languages and perspectives in development projects.

2.2.3.2 Use of Indigenous language terminology

In this category, language is primarily a goal, but also serves as a tool. As a goal, the use of Indigenous language terms supports the preservation of Indigenous languages and their terminologies and concepts, particularly those of endangered or dormant languages. As a tool, incorporating Indigenous language terms, particularly in environmental management contexts, signifies the connection between language and place and highlights how knowledges are encapsulated in language. Using Indigenous language terms in development projects serves as a tool to signify the multiplicity of concepts related to sustainable development and introduces concepts from different languages and cultures that are perhaps not easily translated. According to Usher (1993: 116), terminology used in intercultural environmental management projects needs to be negotiated and the negotiation made visible so that alternate meanings do not become ignored or marginalised, even when a lingua franca such as English is used. Incorporating Indigenous language words into mainstream communication can encourage rapport, facilitate communication and help to build connections, as has been shown in Australian health care contexts (cf. Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care [SNAICC] 2012: 34). Many mainstream English-language development concepts are not easily translated into other languages (Footitt et al. 2018: 5; Schultz et al. 2016: 36). Similarly,

37 the English language may lack the vocabulary or other means to accurately express the meaning that a term or an expression has in an Indigenous language (cf. Footitt et al. 2018: 5; Obata & Lee 2010: Online). Obata and Lee (2010: Online), for example, note that “Australian Indigenous words for 'law' encompass more than what the English word for 'law' means”. Furthermore, English-language terms that express Western environmental management concepts and are commonly used in mainstream development discourses often do not reflect Indigenous conceptualisations of relationships with the environment (cf. NRCS/Native Practices Work Group 2010: 3). Therefore, incorporating Indigenous language terminology also means incorporating Indigenous knowledges and perspectives. Lin et al. (2020: 20) describe how incorporating Indigenous language terms alerts to the presence of diverse concepts and perspectives:

In our English writing, therefore, we do not translate words; instead, we translate ideas. Some of the indigenous words, heavily charged with cultural and historical meanings, do not have simple equivalents in English. An “untranslatable” word alerts us to the unique cultural dynamics of an “othered” world, whose tradition has been repressed by the mainstream culture. The aspect of untranslatability is powerful precisely because it cuts through or orients toward an alternative worldview, which is different from the commonsensical mainstream.

However, care needs to be taken to consult with Indigenous peoples to ensure proper use of Indigenous language terms, so as not to distort the meaning or misappropriate the terms (Amery 2001: 164; Obata & Lee 2010: s.v. Indigenous Languages in Everyday Life; Terri Janke and Company 2018: 54-56). Furthermore, incorporating Indigenous language terminology, particularly of endangered languages or languages that are considered dormant or extinct, can aid the revitalisation and revival of such languages (cf. Firesticks Alliance Indigenous Corporation [Firesticks] 2016: Online). Project outputs that incorporate terminology in these languages can be used as tools to pass on Indigenous knowledges and languages to younger generations as well as to people of non-Indigenous backgrounds (cf. Australian Research Council [ARC] Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language 2019: Online; Firesticks 2016: Online). As has been commonly acknowledged, however, for such language revitalisation efforts to be effective and appropriate, they must occur in close consultation and collaboration with and be led by Indigenous peoples and in accordance with Indigenous protocols and ambitions (cf. Amery 2001: 164; Thorpe & Galassi 2014: 94).

2.2.3.3 References to Indigenous languages and perspectives

In this category, language is primarily a tool. As such, making references to Indigenous languages and perspectives serves as a tool for increasing their recognition and visibility. A common feature of including references to Indigenous languages and perspectives is to use direct quotations of statements from Indigenous knowledge holders and Indigenous communities. Indigenous languages serve as vehicles for the expression of unique perspectives and rich knowledges. Furthermore, many concepts encapsulated in Indigenous languages differ greatly from those in Western languages. According to Salmon et al. (2019: 2), for example, “‘[h]ealth’ within the Indigenous context is defined differently to the non- Indigenous context, so illness may also be interpreted differently”. In terms of environmental management, Indigenous perspectives also often vary widely from non-Indigenous perspectives. Similarities between Indigenous and Western knowledge systems can exist and overlap, however, they fundamentally differ in many ways (Battiste & Henderson 2000: 44; Lertzman 2010: 104; Tsosie 2014: Online). Howitt (2001: 7) for example notes that “[c]ultural differences between peoples construct different understandings about what constitutes both ‘resources’ and ‘power’”. Indigenous worldviews generally include a holistic concept of the environment and nature, where everything is considered interrelated, while Western concepts are more commonly characterised by dichotomies, such as the separation of humans and nature or nature and culture (cf. Burarrwanga et al. 2013: 2-5; Byrne et al. 2013: 1; IPMG 2019: 2; Muller 2012: 60). In mainstream development discourses, dominant Western concepts are often included as standard concepts. In Eurocentric discourses, non-Western societies are commonly viewed through a European or Western perspective and these Western perspectives are often regarded as superior to non-Western concepts (Pokhrel 2011: 321 & 323). However, as discussed in 3.2.3 and throughout this thesis, the unique worldviews and perspectives encapsulated in Indigenous languages contribute greatly to sustainable development. In addition, Battiste and Henderson (2000: 75) argue that “[u]nderstanding the differences between Indigenous languages and worldviews and Eurocentric languages and worldviews is directly tied to restoring Indigenous dignity and linguistic integrity” and “[t]he failure to admit the differences in worldviews is also domination”. Battiste and Henderson further argue that since worldviews originate from a language’s structure, no “‘universal logic’ exists as part of our common humanity: what is logical, rational, and reasonable to one group of speakers may just as easily be illogical,

39 irrational, and unreasonable to another” (Battiste & Henderson 2000: 73, original emphasis). Suchet (2002: 150-151) uses a metaphor of Eurocentric ontology in a hall of mirrors, describing how Eurocentric claims of universalism for naturalised discourses and Eurocentric concepts of environmental management in Australia are self-justified by a reflection of particular terms of reference that are also set by Eurocentric knowledges and deny multiple ways of knowing, therefore perpetuating colonial practices even in post- colonial contexts. Referring to Lertzman’s (2010) discussion paper on bridging traditional ecological knowledge and Western science in ecosystem-based management, Crowshoe and Lertzman (2020: 19, original emphasis) argue that

[s]ustainability holds potential to reconcile long-term interests of industrial-settler societies with Indigenous peoples. Yet, such reconciliation is not a given, nor will it be easily achieved. The very meaning of sustainable development will have to be re-thought and re-imagined. The theories and practices of sustainability will need to be decolonized and indigenized in order to emerge as a shared space between cultures.

In mainstream Western development discourses, technological solutions and economic growth paradigms are often foregrounded and underlying social causes of problems are often backgrounded or omitted (cf. Daguitan et al. 2019: 611-612). Similarly, certain issues and concepts are commonly downplayed or backgrounded in dominant development discourses, including the perspectives of Indigenous peoples, thus excluding potential solutions and perpetuating unequal colonial power relationships (cf. Johnson et al. 2016: 2-3; Reid et al. 2020: 244-245). At other times, Indigenous perspectives are often only considered or foregrounded where they fit in with Western paradigms or advance Western notions of development, particularly in economic terms, thus appropriating knowledges and again abusing existing unequal power relationships (cf. Daguitan et al. 2019: 612; Nursey-Bray et al. 2019: 473; Reid et al. 2020: 244-245). Thus, as has been widely argued for in the literature, in development discourses it is important to decolonise worldviews and recognise differences in worldviews and perspectives, as well as recognising the contribution of Indigenous languages and perspectives to sustainable development.

2.2.3.4 Reflection of Indigenous worldviews and concepts in the language used

In this category, language is also primarily a tool. Here, the language used reflects on how Indigenous worldviews and concepts are framed and incorporated, and shared development practices and spaces are created. This reflection serves as a tool for emphasising cultural

40 identity and multiplicity, and creating a more equitable development space, similar to the “shared space between traditions” in ecosystem-based management discussed by Lertzman (2010: 112) and the "ethical space of engagement" discussed by Ermine (2007: 193). Referring to Cree scholar Ermine’s (2007) paper on ethical spaces of engagement between Indigenous and Western worldviews, Crowshoe and Lertzman (2020: 10) maintain that

such shared ethical spaces will unfold through processes of authentic intercultural dialogue and exchange, and that these shared spaces offer the possibility for new insights into human identity and responsibility with emergent outcomes across cultures to address shared challenges of sustainability.

According to Ermine (2007: 193, emphasis omitted),

[t]he "ethical space" is formed when two societies, with disparate worldviews, are poised to engage each other. It is the thought about diverse societies and the space in between them that contributes to the development of a framework for dialogue between human communities.

Ermine (2007: 202) notes that the dimensions of this dialogue involve “issues like language, distinct histories, knowledge traditions, values, interests, and social, economic and political realities and how these impact and influence an agreement to interact” and argues that “[i]nitially, it will require a protracted effort to create a level playing field where notions of universality are replaced by concepts such as the equality of nations”. English has become a lingua franca or common language in development work. However, in development contexts, it can be used as a language of power, dispossession and colonisation or it can be used as a language that signifies collaboration, engagement and mutual respect (cf. Muller 2012: 73). Muller (2012: 73) mentions the example of monolingual education, where English is a language of domination and Indigenous languages are invisible – as compared to bilingual education, where English is a lingua franca and alternative languages are recognised and respected. Muller (2012: 73) argues that there is a need to “translate such a transformation into an environmental governance context”. Humphrey Tonkin, chair of the 2019 symposium on The United Nations at 75: Listening, Talking and Taking Action in a Multilingual World of the Study Group on Language and the United Nations, emphasises that “[d]evelopment agencies cannot think of those they serve as passive recipients of aid, but rather as partners and experts” (Diago et al. 2019: s.v. Welcoming Remarks). Further, at the same symposium it was argued that “a system that marginalizes Otherness, including ‘non-dominant’ languages” must be avoided

(Diago et al. 2019: s.v. Day 2: Multilingualism). According to Phillipson and Skutnabb- Kangas the negative ‘othering’ of languages has deep roots (Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas 2017: 123) and language and linguistic rights are central in Indigenous peoples’ struggle against coloniality (Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas 2017: 125). Thus, development contexts need to be negotiated not only in dominant languages of mainstream development discourses, but also in Indigenous languages. Katz et al. (2019) discuss how the use of the term ‘vulnerable’ for groups of people without providing context can perpetuate underlying structural injustices that lead to a group’s vulnerability. Similarly, Munari et al. (2021: 197) caution that “[g]lobally, Indigenous peoples’ data are consistently described in the deficit” and that “[t]he use of deficit terms like vulnerable can too easily conceal the wider structural causes that lead to health inequities and obscure accountability of those responsible for generating or perseverating these causes and structural power imbalances” (Munari et al. 2021: 197). Munari et al. (2021: 198) argue that “[i]f we elect to take on the power and responsibility of designating who is vulnerable, efforts must be made to correctly define and contextualise what makes a group of people vulnerable, to facilitate greater accuracy, and accountability”. Reflecting Indigenous worldviews and concepts in the language or lingua franca used in development projects also gives more agency to Indigenous languages and perspectives, thus creating more inclusive development projects. An effective collaborative approach for sustainable development that includes both Indigenous and Western languages and perspectives has been called for by Indigenous and non-Indigenous stakeholders alike (Nilsson et al. 2017: 262; Hoag 2016: Online, Herman 2018: 2-3; Tsosie 2014: Online). Tsosie for example argues that

[t]he dialogue about sustainability must be generated from within Indigenous thought systems, as well as from within Western thought systems, and the interchange must proceed from a platform of respect and mutual engagement. This type of intercultural sharing between and among diverse peoples will open new opportunities to discover our potential as human beings in an ever-changing natural world. (Tsosie 2014: Online)

As such, language that signals cooperation and partnership, and that contrasts ‘us and them’ language and language that signals a hierarchy between different worldviews, can be engaged to create collaborative intercultural development projects more effectively.

2.2.4 Online searches for translations of the SDGs into Indigenous languages

Since the SDGs have been at the base of many development projects in recent years and are considered a global blueprint for development projects in mainstream development discourses and given that Indigenous peoples are considered to be among those benefiting the most from the implementation of the SDGs, as well as the current global focus on digitisation, it was deemed to be relevant, whether references to translations of the SDGs into Indigenous languages can be readily found online, particularly on the webpages of the UN, which has initially published the SDGs. Translations of the SDGs into Indigenous languages were searched for on the websites and in online publications of the UN and its affiliated bodies, including the websites of UN regional offices and information centres3, the UN’s webpage dedicated to IYIL2019 in the press4, the UN’s Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform5 and the ‘SDGs in Action’ Newsletter6. Furthermore, an online search with the search engine Google was performed, which yielded results on websites and in online publications of Indigenous and non-Indigenous NGOs and CBOs, universities, government agencies and other organisations. The searches were conducted using the search function of the respective websites and the online search engine, using the keywords ‘SDGs’, ‘translation’, ‘Indigenous’ and ‘language’. On the websites of the UN and its affiliated bodies, the search terms were used in various combinations, while in the online search engine Google, all search terms were used within the same string search. After removing double results and results where the key words related to other contexts, nine references to translations of the SDGs into Indigenous languages were found in UN web sources and 13 were found in other sources, from an original 123 results found through the Google search engine. The search was conducted in the English language; however, the snowball principle was used as well, through which some results in the Spanish language were found and included as well. Of course, there might also be translations of the SDGs found in other sources, in other formats or sources that are not published online, or in languages other than those used by the author. Other translations or references to translations might also be found using other keywords or search strategies. This thesis does not aim to provide a complete list of all translations of the SDGs into Indigenous languages, rather it aims to provide an overview or a snapshot of translations that exist and are perhaps easily found

3 See: https://unic.un.org/aroundworld/unics/en/whatWeDo/productsAndServices/websites/index.asp?call Page=home. 4 See: https://en.iyil2019.org/media/iyil2019-in-the-press/. 5 See: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.html. 6 See: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdinaction/newsletter. 43 online and give more visibility to language negotiations surrounding the SDGs. This corpus could then be expanded through further research in the future. The results of the online searches presented in 3.3.2 include both references to direct translations of the SDGs into Indigenous languages as well as those that convey certain contents or aspects of the SDGs in Indigenous languages, such as particular goals or that localise the SDGs to Indigenous contexts. While there was a focus on using credible sources, the evaluation of the quality of the translations is beyond the scope and focus of this thesis. Rather, the aim is to evaluate whether there is a demand for and presence of translations of the SDGs into Indigenous languages and whether these efforts are made visible online, particularly by the UN and its affiliated bodies.

2.3 Ethical considerations and limitations

The thesis is written in English. Data was obtained from publications in the English and German languages. For the online searches of translations of the SDGs into Indigenous languages some sources in the Spanish language were included as well. Sources from both Indigenous and non- Indigenous authors have been used for this thesis. However, other relevant sources in Indigenous languages might unintentionally have been omitted due to language restrictions of the author. This paper aims to contribute to the debate on language and development and to illustrate case studies, in which Indigenous languages are present in development projects and that can potentially serve as an inspiration or point of discussion for other development projects. However, clearly not all development contexts can be compared and not all development outcomes can be projected onto other contexts. Further, Indigenous opinions are not homogenous. In an attempt to reflect the diversity of Indigenous peoples and their perspectives, plural is used when referring to Indigenous peoples and their histories, worldviews, languages, knowledges and so on. In addition, Indigenous and Western concepts might at times overlap and all Western views are also not homogenous. Furthermore, the author acknowledges her position as an ‘outsider’ writing about Indigenous worldviews. All due care was taken to use data ethically in the writing of this thesis.

3 Translation and multilingualism in development work

3.1 Background on translation and multilingualism in development work

According to UNESCO (n.d.b: Online), “[l]anguage is pivotal in the areas of human rights protection, good governance, peace building, reconciliation, and sustainable development”. In 2012, UNESCO highlighted the role of language for the realisation of the predecessor of the SDGs, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (UNESCO 2012: 1) and noted that “[l]anguage is still rarely explicitly articulated in key international and national poverty reduction documents” (UNESCO 2012: 5). The SDGs aim to build on the MDGs and “complete what they did not achieve” (UNGA 2015b: 1), however, as discussed in the introductory part of this thesis, there is still a lack of language considerations in mainstream development discourses, including in the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs. Footitt et al. (2018: 8) argue that language should already be considered in the planning stages of development projects and UNV (2017: Online) considers translation and localisation of the SDGs crucial for the dissemination and implementation of the goals. Powell argues that

[b]y failing to engage systematically with local languages, the [development] sector limits its understanding of and its ability to communicate with most of its intended beneficiaries. Addressing the issue of language fully would have large financial and organisational implications, but failure to do so carries the high costs of ignorance and inefficient communication. (Powell 2006: 523)

The issues of financing translation in development work and commitment to funding initiatives for linguistic diversity have also been mentioned by Madsen & Berger (2020: 23), Footitt et al. (2018: 15), Gofman (2010: 29), Rivera Pastor et al. (2017: 69), Schultz et al. (2016: 85) and others. In a review of the community-based Siku-Inuit-Hila (Sea ice-People- Weather) monitoring project in Arctic Inuit communities it was stated that:

[...] language, too, is a challenge in that the project wants to respect everyone’s language and publish in all the dialects. But it comes down to money. So, for example, the book has to be in English with as much local language as possible, although it would be ideal if it had been in each of the local languages. It’s hard for the lead researcher to say to any of the communities, ‘Sorry, but we don’t have the money to translate.’ Trying to balance language as much as possible and always looking for translation support is the best strategy under the circumstances. (Gofman 2010: 29)

The central theme of the SDGs is to ‘leave no one behind’ (UNGA 2015b: 1) and the aim is to address the needs of the most vulnerable people first (UNGA 2015b: 2). The 2030 Agenda aims to be a universal agenda and calls for global partnerships to reach the goals 45

(UNGA 2015b: 1). However, the SDGs do not make any mention of how the different language needs of vulnerable groups of people and all stakeholders should be navigated and how effective two-way or multidirectional communication should be ensured. Similarly, the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA), which is the UN’s framework for financing the post- 2015 development agenda (UN 2015: 1), does not include any mention of how language needs and translations should be financed or budgeted for. UNESCO (2012: 4) argues that “[g]enuine participation obviously relies on a two-way communication, which means engaging with the languages people actually speak. This requires consideration and planning at the levels of both policy and practice”. In 2016, the Study Group on Language and the United Nations, which is an independent group of scholars and practitioners, discussed the absence of language considerations in the SDGs in a symposium on Language and the Sustainable Development Goals (Marinotti 2016: 1-2). At the symposium, language in relation to the SDGs was discussed as both a goal and a tool (Marinotti 2016: 2). Language as a goal refers to language as interfacing with all SDGs and being an important element of the goals itself, a major example of this being goal 4 that focuses on providing quality education for all, which arguably ought to involve provision of mother-tongue based learning opportunities (Marinotti 2016: 3- 4). Language as a tool refers to the fact that global partnerships require two-way or multidirectional communication and for which the consideration of language is essential (Marinotti 2016: 7). Two core messages that emerged at the symposium were that “there is an urgent need to include language at the planning, implementation, and assessment stages of each of the SDGs” (Marinotti 2016: 2, emphasis omitted) and that “[t]he UN must reflect further on how best to convey the SDGs in languages and via media that can reach a global population and also (and this is crucially important) elicit a constructive, if potentially critical, response” (Marinotti 2016: 8). To further discuss the absence of language considerations in the SDGs and the impact of this on groups of people considered vulnerable, the Study Group on Language and the United Nations organised a symposium on Language, the Sustainable Development Goals and Vulnerable Populations in 2017 (Marinotti 2017: 1-2). At the symposium, it was argued that people are often not inherently vulnerable, but that factors such as language policies can render them vulnerable (Marinotti 2017: 3). As such, Indigenous peoples can be further excluded from development efforts and development benefits by language policies and practices that further marginalise them (Marinotti 2017: 3).

Even more recently, the objectives of the Los Pinos Declaration for the upcoming IDIL include a call for action for the preservation, revitalisation, promotion and positioning of Indigenous languages together with linguistic diversity and multilingualism in any future post- 2030 global sustainable development plans to ensure the sustainability and longevity of actions taken during that decade (UNESCO 2020a: 5). In the following subsections, the positions of the EU and the UN in regard to translation and multilingualism in development work are briefly discussed, which is deemed relevant for this thesis, as both institutions play a large and active role in international, regional and local development contexts worldwide.

3.1.1 EU on translation and multilingualism in development work

The EU is the world’s biggest development donor (European Commission [EC] 2020b: Online). The European Consensus on Development, which was drafted in response to the 2030 Agenda and focuses on development projects outside the EU, does not refer to language or translation needs or the need of language preservation, but it mentions that it will give special attention to those in marginalised situations (EU 2017: 12) and support the involvement of local stakeholders including Indigenous peoples and local communities (EU 2017: 21). The EU’s report on International Cooperation and Development for 2014-2019 does not refer to language matters or Indigenous peoples (EC 2019a). However, most recently, the EU has supported the production of information material in the Indigenous Guarani language as part of a communication campaign for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevention in Indigenous communities in the Amazon (European External Action Service [EEAS] 2020: Online). Within the EU itself, the EU focuses on promoting linguistic diversity. The EU considers multilingualism one of its founding principles (EU n.d.a: Online) and promotes multilingualism and multiple official languages. The aim of such a policy on multilingualism is the protection of Europe’s linguistic diversity, the promotion of language learning in Europe and the communication with EU citizens in their own languages (EU n.d.a: Online). As such, the EU has a particular focus on supporting programmes and initiatives for language learning and teaching. As Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas (2017: 129) point out, the management of the EU’s multilingual processes is complicated and offers both chances and challenges. Like elsewhere, market forces are strengthening the position of English in the EU and its member states and this puts other languages in danger of displacement and loss of linguistic capital (Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas 2017: 129). The official languages of

EU member states also serve as official languages of the EU and when new countries join, their national languages are added to the list of official EU languages (EU n.d.a: Online). Currently, the EU has 24 official languages.7 EU citizens have the right to use any of the official languages when contacting EU institutions and to receive a response in the same language, which is a right enshrined in the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights (EU n.d.a: Online). Members of the European Parliament also have the right to use any of the EU’s official languages when speaking in parliament (EU n.d.a: Online). However, while all of the EU’s official languages are accorded equal status, not all documents are always translated into all official languages (EU n.d.b: Online). For cost-effectiveness, the EC conducts internal business in the languages of English, French and German, while only those documents that serve communication with other EU institutions, member states and the public are issued in other languages (EC 2013: 3). EU regulations and other legislative texts are published in all official languages, except Irish, which will be a full EU working language by 2022 (EC 2019b: 1). General information about EU policies is also provided in all the EU’s official languages, but more specialised content is usually only made available in the EU languages that are most widely spoken (Rivera Pastor et al. 2017: 69). Approximately 40 million people speak one of the EU’s 60 Indigenous so-called regional or minority languages (EU n.d.a: Online), with some of them being considered semi- official languages of the EU, such as Catalan, Galician, Basque, Scottish Gaelic and Welsh (Prys Jones 2013: 8). Most, but not all EU member states have ratified the ECRML (Pasikowska- Schnass 2016: 15). While EU institutions encourage linguistic diversity and the support of so- called regional and smaller languages, in practice the support of such languages is at the discretion of the national governments of the EU’s member states (Pasikowska-Schnass 2016: 1). In 2000, the EU introduced the motto of ‘united in diversity’, in reference to the common goals of the EU’s member countries across different cultures, languages and traditions (EU n.d.c: Online). In 2008, the Council of the European Union encouraged the member states and the Commission in a Council Resolution on a European strategy for multilingualism to “[p]romote the linguistic diversity and intercultural dialogue by stepping up assistance for translation, in order to encourage the circulation of works and the dissemination of ideas and knowledge in Europe and across the world” (Council of the European Union 2008: 4). In 2013, the European Parliament resolution on endangered European languages and linguistic diversity in the EU states that European language diversity and cultural diversity as

7 For a current list of official EU languages see https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-languages_en. 48 part of Europe’s living heritage are vital for sustainable development (European Parliament 2013: s.v. M.). However, the EU has also been criticised for contributing to language gaps between majority languages and minoritised languages. Rivera Pastor et al. (2017: 69), for example, argue that European institutions oftentimes emphasise the importance of linguistic diversity, but few policies are initiated, and little funding is provided for supporting European linguistic diversity. Pasikowska-Schnass (2016: 1) states that

[w]hile language policy is an exclusive competence of its Member States, the EU can support actions promoting and protecting [regional and minority languages]. However, the current complex political and economic situation in the EU is not favourable for such efforts.

In their study on Language equality in the digital age for the European Parliamentary Research Service, Rivera Pastor et al. (2017: 69). argue that even the EC itself “has moved towards a monolingual regime within their institutions and, in practice, English has become the only working language in the EC”. As an example, Rivera Pastor et al. (2017: 69-70) highlight the dominance of English as both the target and source language in translations of webpages in the European institutions and conclude that “this dominance cannot be justified in terms of fairness, although it is likely to be more realistic, efficient and feasible” (Rivera Pastor et al.; 2017: 70). The EC acknowledges the dominance of the English language on its website and states that its aim is to strike a reasonable balance between respect for speakers of the EU’s diverse languages and practical considerations such as translation costs, and that providing content in English has shown to be the most efficient (EC n.d.: Online). However, Rivera Pastor et al. (2017: 89-90) identify an ‘unfair language gap’ within the EU and argue that “[a]ll European citizens need to be enabled and empowered to communicate and to operate in their mother tongues, online as well as offline”. The EU’s Strategy for Sustainable Development suggests improving communication and dialogue (Commission of the European Communities 2001: 8), but it does not mention any other language or translation needs, neither do the EU’s Guiding Principles for Sustainable Development (Commission of the European Communities 2005) or the 2009 Review of the EU Strategy for Sustainable Development (Commission of the European Communities 2009). However, more recently the EU has supported a number of projects that support the revitalisation of endangered languages and that focus on Indigenous languages and a more collaborative approach in revitalisation projects (EC 2019c: Online; EC 2020a: Online). In the description of these initiatives, the EC argues that “[b]ringing a language back from the brink is not just a way

49 to preserve cultural diversity. It is also an investment in a more inclusive society where a wider variety of citizens can thrive” (EC 2019c: Revitalising endangered languages: a service for all) and that “[t]he linguistic and cultural diversity of Europe is crucial to the capacity for problem solving and creative thinking upon which our general wellbeing and economic prosperity depend in an increasingly global and technological society” (EC 2020a: Online). These examples suggest that the EU will further its focus for implementing multilingual policies and practices in the future, including for Indigenous languages.

3.1.2 UN on translation and multilingualism in development work

Similar to the EU, the UN sees its role in the promotion of safeguarding linguistic diversity to its member states. In 2017, the UN adopted a resolution on The role of professional translation in connecting nations and fostering peace, understanding and development, in which it considers professional translation “indispensable to preserving clarity, a positive climate and productiveness in international public discourse and interpersonal communication” and important for “bringing nations together, facilitating dialogue, understanding and cooperation, contributing to development and strengthening world peace and security” (UNGA 2017: 1-2). As such, the UN argues that translation contributes to the upholding of the purposes and principles of its Charter (UNGA 2017: 2). The UN also acknowledges the role of multilingualism in its own activities and considers it a core value of the organisation (UNGA 2017: 1). The UN has six official and working languages: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish, and it considers the correct interpretation and translation of these languages important for clear and concise communication on globally important issues (UN n.d.b: Online). The UN’s documents are made available in the six official languages, while the working languages are used for internal communication and differ among the UN’s bodies (UN 2019d: Online). Delegates to the UN can speak in any of the UN’s official languages and the speech is then interpreted simultaneously into the UN’s other official languages (UN n.d.b: Online). A delegate can also make a statement in a language that is not an official UN language, however, in this case the delegation must provide a translation of the statement in one of the UN’s official languages (UN n.d.b: Online). The UN recognises the role of multilingualism for the communication between its linguistically and culturally diverse member states, promoting tolerance, ensuring participation of all member states and reaching better outcomes (UN n.d.b: Online). However, participants

50 at the 2018 symposium on Multilingualism in International Organizations and International Co-operation of the Study Group on Language at the United Nations argue that there are vast linguistic capabilities of UN staff outside the UN’s official languages that are not utilised or even inventoried (McEntee-Atalianis et al. 2018: s.v. Conclusions and Future Directions). In the 2008 International Year of Languages, which was proclaimed by the UNGA, the UNPFII organised an international expert group meeting on Indigenous languages (ECOSOC 2008: 3). One of the recommendations to the UN system and other intergovernmental organisations that arose from this meeting was that the

United Nations agencies and other international organizations should translate programme and project documents and publications that are relevant to indigenous peoples into indigenous languages. The translations should be made accessible and be downloadable free of charge online. (ECOSOC 2008: 11)

Furthermore, ECOSOC (2008: 11) notes the valuable insights provided by Indigenous languages in the areas of biodiversity, sustainable resource use and issues related to food security and rural development. Regarding the more recently declared IYIL2019, UNESCO argued that “Indigenous [l]anguages matter for development, peace building and reconciliation” (UNESCO n.d.b: Online). In the strategic outcome document of IYIL2019, UNESCO (2019: 11, emphasis omitted) states that

[a]ll stakeholders, in collaboration with indigenous peoples and other language communities, should be encouraged to mainstream linguistic diversity and multilingualism within national development plans and work together in creating favorable conditions that specifically respond to the concerns and needs of indigenous language users.

In its Strategy for Inclusion and Visibility of Indigenous Women, UN Women (2016: 30) considers it important to “[p]romote indigenous women’s access to relevant information through measures such as translation into indigenous languages and culturally appropriate formats”. Among other measures for the protection and promotion of Indigenous languages, the UNPFII (n.d.a: Online) lists the translation of laws and key political texts into Indigenous languages and the use of Indigenous languages in public administration and academic institutions. Although the UN is committed to promoting linguistic diversity and multilingualism, it has been criticised for not effectively considering language issues in the planning and implementation of its own programmes and projects, including in regard to Indigenous languages and the SDGs (cf. Marinotti 2016: 7-8; Marinotti 2017: 2-3; Tesseur 2017: Online). Acknowledging a call for more action on the revitalisation, preservation and

51 promotion of Indigenous languages, the UN has agreed to designate an International Decade of Indigenous Languages to begin in 2022 (UNESCO 2019: 21). In 3.2 and the following subsections, the relevance of Indigenous languages in development work is outlined in some more detail from various perspectives.

3.2 The relevance of Indigenous languages in development work

3.2.1 Indigenous rights

Numerous international agreements and legal texts refer to Indigenous peoples’ rights, including the right to language and the right to participate in decision-making processes. This chapter will describe some of them briefly. The ILO Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples was adopted in 1989 (Feiring 2013: 1). With the ILO Convention No. 169, the “assimilationist orientation of the earlier standards” should be replaced (Feiring 2013: 4). The aim of the Convention is to recognise Indigenous peoples’ own aspirations and control over their own institutions, ways of life, development paths, maintenance and development of their identities, languages and religions, albeit “within the framework of the States in which they live” (Feiring 2013: 31). Article 28 of the Convention states that measures should be taken to preserve and promote the development and practice of Indigenous languages (Feiring 2013: 44). It also refers to the right of Indigenous children to be taught to read and write in their own languages as well as for Indigenous peoples to receive the opportunity to attain fluency in the main languages of the countries in which they live (Feiring 2013: 43-44). Furthermore, Article 30 states that governments should adopt measures appropriate to traditions and cultures of Indigenous peoples to inform them about their rights and duties including the rights deriving from the Convention and that if necessary, “this shall be done by means of written translations and through the use of mass communications in the languages of these peoples” (Feiring 2013: 44). In several articles, the ILO Convention No. 169 also refers to the right of participation of Indigenous peoples in decision-making processes, such as in Article 6. However, by 2019, 30 years after the Convention was adopted, only 23 countries had ratified it and even in countries where it was ratified, the rights stipulated in the ILO Convention No. 169 are not always implemented (Swartz 2019: Online, Dhir et al. 2019: 13). The CoE has two major frameworks that concern the rights of Indigenous peoples: the ECRML and the FCNM. The ECRML was adopted in 1992 and entered into force in 1998 (CoE n.d.a: Online). According to the CoE, the cultural identity of Europe is linked to its linguistic diversity (CoE 1992b: 5). Thus, the objective of the ECRML is the protection

52 and promotion of regional and minority languages as part of Europe’s cultural heritage. The main areas of its focus are the use of regional or minority languages in educational settings, in the media, in economic and social life, in cultural activities and in judicial and administrative settings. There is no defined list of the languages concerned, but rather each party to the Charter decides on which languages it should be applied to in each individual context (CoE 1992a: 1-2). According to the Charter, the regional and minority languages should not compete with a country’s official languages, but rather they should be complementary and support a multilingual environment (CoE 1992a: 1). The ECRML largely relies on an expert monitoring mechanism and self-reporting of the states that are a party to it (CoE 1992a: 12). The CoE has 47 member states.8 Thus far, 25 countries have ratified the ECRML.9 According to Romaine (2017: 49), there are markedly more endangered languages in the countries that have not ratified the ECRML. The other major mechanism of the CoE, the FCNM, is aimed at protecting the rights of national minorities and is legally binding for the states that are a party to it (CoE 1995: 12). While the FCNM is a legally binding Convention, its framework is designed to be adjusted by each member state according to their individual situation and contexts (CoE 1995: 12). The linguistic provisions of the FCNM include, among others, the use of so-called minority languages in private and public settings (CoE 1995: 4); certain provisions for the use of minority languages in contacts with administrative authorities (CoE 1995: 5); and the use of personal names, display of information of a private nature and topographical names in minority languages (CoE 1995: 20). Out of the CoE’s 47 member states, 39 have ratified the FCNM.10 The implementation of the FCNM is monitored by the Committee of Ministers of the CoE and the Advisory Committee (CoE 1995: 8). According to the CoE,

[t]he monitoring mechanism of the FCNM has contributed to improving dialogue between governmental agencies and national minorities. It has also prompted the adoption of new laws devoted to the protection of national minorities and encouraged states to improve their non-discrimination legislation and practice. (CoE 2016: Online)

One of the major international frameworks concerning Indigenous peoples is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which is an international human rights instrument that was adopted by the UNGA in 2007, with a

8 For a current list of the CoE’s member states see: https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/47-members-states. 9 For a list of countries that have ratified the ECRML see: https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/minlang/statesparties/#TopOfPage. 10 For a list of countries that have ratified the FCNM see: https://www.coe.int/en/web/minorities/etats-partie. 53 majority vote of 144 states in favour (UN 2016: Online). Notably, the four states that voted against it at the time have a great diversity of Indigenous peoples and a marked colonial history: Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States (UN 2016: Online). These four states have since reversed their position and have issued their support for the UNDRIP, however, a number of other countries are yet to support the Declaration (UN 2016: Online). The aim of the UNDRIP is to support the rights of Indigenous peoples, and to ensure their survival, dignity and wellbeing (UNGA 2007: 11). According to the UN, “[t]oday the Declaration is the most comprehensive international instrument on the rights of indigenous peoples” (UN 2016: Online). Articles 13, 14 and 16 of the UNDRIP specifically mention the right to language, mainly in regard to revitalisation and transmission of languages to future generations, the use of place names, the use of Indigenous languages and systems in educational settings and in the media (UNGA 2007: 5-6). Apart from the official version of the UNDRIP in the UN’s 6 official languages, the UN’s website currently lists more than 50 translations of the UNDRIP into other languages, including Indigenous languages, that have been provided to the Secretariat of the UNPFII from other sources, such as UN regional offices, government agencies and NGOs (UN 2016: Online). Article 5 (UNGA 2007: 4), Article 18 (UNGA 2007: 6), Article 27 (UNGA 2007: 8) and Article 41 (UNGA 2007: 10) specifically refer to Indigenous peoples’ rights to participation in decision-making processes, although it is implicitly present in most articles. Despite the number of countries that have issued their support for the UNDRIP, there remains a gap between formal recognition and implementation (Gunn & Fitzgerald 2020: 1; Lenzerini 2019: 59-60). Lenzerini (2019: 60) points out that in the relatively short period of just over ten years since the adoption of the UNDRIP, significant milestones for the rights of Indigenous peoples have been achieved, yet the progress made is still insufficient and there needs to be a closure of the gap between formal recognition and the actual implementation of the rights of Indigenous peoples. Apart from international agreements, there are numerous national agreements, laws, policies and regulations concerning the rights of Indigenous peoples, including language rights and the right to effective participation. However, similar to the main international agreements, these are often not effectively implemented. This gap between the recognition of Indigenous rights and their implementation has been widely observed in the literature (cf. Colchester et al. 2004: 11-12; Daniell 2011: 418; Howitt 2001: 101; Schäfer et al. 2019: 10). Often colonial practices remain ongoing and have been naturalised (cf. Rose 1996: 6). This can often be seen when it comes to large development projects, where officially the participation of Indigenous peoples takes place or is enhanced, but effectively they are not allowed or enabled to have any

54 real influence on the outcomes or they can influence the decision-making processes within the dominant system, but it is the dominant system that creates the framework for participation (cf. Tennberg et al. 2017: 50). And by being state-centred, the international legal system contributes to ongoing colonial practices of domination over Indigenous peoples (Colchester et al. 2004: 10-14). As Colchester et al. (2004: 11) point out, the question of effective participation is not only relevant in legal but also in development contexts. The UN itself is pleading that the participation of Indigenous peoples needs to increase and is looking for venues and modalities to do so, but there is still a long way to go. During the second panel of the 2019 UN General Assembly’s informal interactive hearing with indigenous peoples, in which venues and modalities of participation of Indigenous peoples within the systems of the UN were discussed, the moderator stated that “[a]s of now, Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in some fora that handle issues affecting them, but there are others, where they don’t” (UN Web TV 2019: Online11). At the same hearing, the president of the Sámi Parliament, Aili Keskitalo, argued that the UN does not adhere to its own recommendations as implied by the UNDRIP, when it comes to participation of Indigenous peoples and the principles of free, prior and informed consent, after which the moderator thanked her for her “frank statement” (UN Web TV 2019: Online12). Tania Pariona, from the Republic of Peru, said that she had seen both progression and regression when it comes to the recognition of Indigenous peoples’ rights and also referred to the gap between formal recognition and implementation of Indigenous peoples’ rights (UN Web TV 2019: Online13). In 2013, the OHCHR issued a document on Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of Indigenous Peoples. It describes the principles of obtaining FPIC of Indigenous peoples before any legislative or administrative policies are adopted that affect them and before any projects are undertaken that affect Indigenous peoples’ rights to their land, territories and resources (OHCHR 2013: 1). The document does not mention language, even though the 2005 International Workshop on Methodologies regarding Free, Prior and Informed Consent and Indigenous Peoples identified language as an element of consideration for the presentation of information, understanding, meaningful debate and consent for the principles of FPIC (ECOSOC 2005: 13). Similarly, UN Women (2016: 22) calls for “informed consent, where accurate information will be provided in an accessible,

11 See: minutes 2:37-2:47. 12 See: minutes 14:20-19:56. 13 See: minutes 20:37-23:15. 55 comprehensible form, including among other things, in a language that indigenous women fully understand”. In its definition of prior consent, the International Indian Treaty Council includes “translations into traditional languages and verbal dissemination as needed, according to the decision-making processes decided by the Indigenous Peoples in question” (UN 2009b: 6). Recent examples of where the process of obtaining FPIC from Indigenous peoples was found to be insufficient concerning large development projects (cf. Brown 2019: Online; OHCHR 2019: Online) show the currency and the urgency of including language concerns and implementing inclusive decision-making processes.

3.2.2 Indigenous preferences

Another viewpoint that highlights the relevance of Indigenous languages and perspectives in development work is a cultural viewpoint. A common colonial practice was and still is the prohibition of Indigenous languages (Schäfer et al. 2019: 18; Disbray 2015: 2, 146-147; McCarty et al. 2019: 2; UN 2009a: 58). McCarty et al. (2019: 2) and others describe how colonial education policies have markedly contributed to the demise of Indigenous languages. Furthermore, Schäfer et al. (2019: 23-24) point out that the implementation of Indigenous language rights is still lacking even in many democratic states, particularly those with a colonial history. Bastardas-Boada (2017: 30) highlights that through schooling systems that prioritise majority languages, children of minoritised populations develop language competences in the majority language at a critical age of language acquisition and that this process is often accompanied by a discourse that denigrates and stigmatises other languages and that asks parents to support their children’s proficiency in the majority language to help them achieve academic success. Through such processes, the use of Indigenous languages then often further decreases, as they become minoritised, denigrated and stigmatised languages in a society (cf. Lo Bianco 1987: 56). With the demise of languages, there is also a demise of cultures, as language and culture are intrinsically linked, which has been widely attested (cf. ‘Utoikamanu 2017: 16; Commonwealth of Australia 2019: 12; Lo Bianco 1987: 191; McCarty et al. 2019: 19; OHCHR 2011: Online). Connections to culture, including through language, can contribute to reconciliation and healing of trauma related to colonialism (cf. ATSISJC 2009a: 168; McKendrick et al. n.d.: 43). Further, one of the central functions of language is the expression of identity (AIATSIS n.d.d.: Online; Government of Australia et al. 2020: 12). Recognition and use of Indigenous languages contribute to a feeling of recognition, a sense of pride and

56 self-determination and greater well-being of Indigenous peoples, as has been acknowledged particularly in educational contexts (cf. Disbray 2015: 8-9; NSW Government 2013: 18; Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia 2012: 7-8; Schäfer et al. 2019: 29). Bastardas- Boada (2017: 27), among others, discusses power relations that exist between majority and minority languages, or rather through the social and political construction of minority and majority languages as neither language is in reality superior to the other. Often, the attribution of minority or majority originates in the number of speakers of a given language, but other variables, such as the economic or political power of a group can also lead to the minoritisation of certain languages (Bastardas-Boada 2017: 27). According to Bastardas-Boada (2017: 30), “[t]he most typical and most frequent situations of minoritization occur in states that have a linguistically diverse population and yet recognize only one official language, often striving to impose language homogenization among the different populations of the state”. Without a policy to establish it as an official language, English became Australia’s de facto national language after European colonisation, being the first and often only language of the majority of the population and the language of all major and powerful institutions (ATSISJC 2009b: 65; Lo Bianco 1987: 10). The first comprehensive National Language Policy (NLP) for Australia was drafted in 1987. While this NLP asserts the status of English as the national language of Australia, it has also been lauded as remarkable in its support for multilingualism (Eisenchlas et al. 2015: 156). The NLP also actively supports the promotion of Australian Indigenous languages. According to Lo Bianco (1987: 15), for Australians the ‘universal learning of English’ is justified on “social, national, educational and economic grounds”, while mother tongue learning in Indigenous languages is justified on “educational, psychological, familial and social grounds”. Furthermore, Lo Bianco (1987: 15) argues that most non-English speaking Australian communities have a desire for maintaining and developing their own languages within the Australian context, while at the same time acquiring and using English as well. Lo Bianco (1987: 15) finds “emotional, cultural, intercultural, social and educational reasons” for why this would be desirable for Australia. English was introduced to Australia through European colonisation in the eighteenth century (Obata & Lee 2010: Online). Since then, largely as a result of colonial practices, many Australian Indigenous languages have ceased to be spoken or are considered extinct (Obata & Lee 2010: Online; McConvell & Thieberger 2001: 9). It should be noted here that the term ‘extinct’ is commonly used for languages that are no longer spoken, but it has been debated and many scholars and Indigenous activists use the terms ‘sleeping’, ‘resting’ or ‘dormant’ when referring to such languages, in reference to their ability to (re)awake and be used again

(Gafner-Rojas 2020: 46; Leonard 2008: 23; Obata & Lee 2010: s.v. Community language programs; Romaine 2017: 41). Therefore, this thesis uses a combination of the terms ‘dormant’, ‘sleeping’ and ‘extinct’, on the one hand in recognition of the debate, which can also be related to the languages of Kaurna and Miami, for example, which have previously been considered extinct, but have been (re)awakened through language revitalisation efforts (Leonard 2008: 23; Romaine 2017: 41; Walsh 2010: 83). On the other hand, the term ‘extinction’ creates awareness for the urgency of the need to revitalise and maintain languages (Leonard 2008: 31). Leonard (2008: 31), for example, proposes to use the term ‘sleeping’ languages, while arguing at the same time that “[t]here is nothing inherently wrong with using these terms [death or extinction] to describe languages or even adopting them as category names. Rather, the problem lies in using such ‘final’ terms blindly or because they are the only known option”. In the light of increased awareness of the risk of languages going to sleep or becoming extinct, numerous revitalisation projects for Indigenous languages have been established around the world (cf. Pan Adawai 2019: 303; Aikio-Puoskari 2018: 357-361; Lemus 2018: 399-400; Leonard 2008: 25-26; Obata & Lee 2010: Online; The University of Melbourne n.d.: Online). Furthermore, the UN recorded a total of 882 activities and targeted events that were hosted in 78 countries in support of IYIL2019 (UNESCO 2020b: Online). However, in 2010, the UNESCO Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger listed nearly 2,500 endangered languages (Bokova 2010: 5). One language is thought to disappear every 2 weeks, and with them disappear the identities, worldviews and complex knowledge systems of the speakers of those languages (Bokova 2010: 4-5; UNESCO 2007: 1). Thus, as described by Muller (2012: 73), English or other dominant languages can be used as a lingua franca for people with different linguistic backgrounds, but they ought not be a language of domination that is used or promoted in a way that denigrates other languages and leads to their decline. Otherwise, language revitalisation projects, which have sprung up across the world in recent years, have little merit. In regard to the Sámi languages, for example, which are all considered endangered, Aikio-Puoskari (2018: 356) cautions that

[t]here is need for revitalization in all areas and in all Sámi languages, and this may be true forever. The intergenerational transmission of the language must be secured by every generation, again and again, because of the strong influence and pressure of national languages and English. These factors are not going to disappear.

Therefore, languages need to be used within intercultural environments that allow for their de facto maintenance and development, including within sustainable development and

58 environmental management contexts. As stated by Hunt (2013: 9), “[l]anguage and understanding of cultural protocols are important for successful engagement”. According to Muller, there is a need to “create a language of equals between Indigenous and non- Indigenous sciences” (Muller 2012: 73) and “to develop a lingua franca such that non- Indigenous science is not dominant, but complementary to Indigenous perspectives” (Muller 2012: 75). Therefore, language and cultural considerations need to have a much greater place in development discourses, particularly in regard to Indigenous languages and in the light of social injustices resulting from (ongoing) colonisation.

3.2.3 Indigenous knowledges and perspectives: an ecolinguistic lens on development

The rich knowledges, cultures, identities, unique perspectives, histories and experiences of Indigenous peoples are all contained in their languages (Nakashima 2010: 22). In the literature, the worldviews and perspectives of Indigenous peoples have often been described as differing widely from Western worldviews that dominate mainstream development discourses (cf. Howitt 2001: 26; Muller 2012: 60). ‘Western’ commonly refers to worldviews that originate from Western Europe, the ‘West’, and result in Eurocentric practices that promote the imitation of Western models and practices based on ‘Western values’ (Pokhrel 2011: 321). As such, a Eurocentric worldview is generally a biased worldview that favours ‘Western’ over ‘non-Western’ worldviews, often claiming legitimacy through the notions of objectivity, universalism and definitive causation (Howitt 2001: 117; Lertzman 2010: 111; Muller 2012: 60; Pokhrel 2011: 323; Suchet 2002: 141). Eurocentric practices and Western perspectives, however, are not confined to Western Europe, as through colonialism, processes of globalisation, neoliberal agendas and dominant development paradigms they have been taken to all corners of the world and many present- day nation states have been constructed through a European lens by colonial settlers (cf. Atkinson 2009: 183; Lester 2009: 177; Peters 2012: 135). According to Suchet (2002: 141), “[Eurocentric] knowledges are strongly influenced by Enlightenment science, industrial revolution technologies, Judeo-Christian belief, European philosophical traditions and dominant academic approaches to the construction of knowledges”. Neither Indigenous nor Western perspectives are entirely homogenous and there are also similarities between Indigenous and Western knowledges and perspectives. However, overall, they are fundamentally different, as has been attested widely in the literature. While Indigenous ontologies are more commonly regarded to include a holistic

59 view of the world, where everything is considered related and interconnected (Burarrwanga et al. 2013: 2-5; Byrne et al. 2013 1; Colbourne & Anderson 2020: 1; Lertzman 2010: 111; Muller 2012: 60; Sami Parliament 2009: 4-5; Sundberg & Dempsey 2009: 458-459), Eurocentric views commonly employ a dichotomy between humans and nature and enrol nature as being primarily a resource or commodity for human consumption (Byrne et al. 2013: 1; Suchet 2002: 147-149; Sundberg & Dempsey 2009: 462). According to the Sami Parliament (2009: 5), “[t]he Sami view of nature as a soulful living being stands in sharp contrast with the Western view of nature. Our view of nature has been formed by our values, our traditions, social structures and relationships”. The different ways of talking about nature and the environment can lead to different environmental consequences and environmental management outcomes (Penz 2017: 278; Stibbe 2017: 165). As Byrne et al. (2013: 4) argue, “[t]he habit of binary thinking makes it difficult to grasp and assimilate the notion of ecological relations and the dialectical entanglement of humans and non-humans in nature”. As a result, the separation between culture and nature often leads to an overexploitation of resources (Byrne et al. 2013: 1). The awareness of an interrelatedness with the environment, on the other hand, brings with it an understanding of certain responsibilities for the environment (McGregor 2004: 76; Colbourne 2017: 97; Lloyd et al. 2012: 1079; Sami Parliament 2009: 9; Hudson et al. 2016: 162). Mainstream Western development discourses have traditionally favoured development in economic terms, while Indigenous development discourses often focus on prioritising environmental protection in all development activities (cf. McGregor 2004: 74; OECD 2018b: 133; Sami Parliament 2009: 11). According to Crowshoe and Lertzman (2020: 12), “Indigenous peoples provide the longest sustained examples of human adaptation to and use of the environment” and “[g]iven their dependence upon healthy ecosystems to maintain traditional ways of life, Indigenous peoples have a fundamental stake in sustainability”. Penz (2017: 289) argues in terms of local communities affected by climate change that “[l]ocal knowledge and experience could substantially inform policies on adaptation if the discourse of these actors is taken into account”. In terms of classifying the natural environment, Western science often groups organisms, plants or animals based on their structure, while Indigenous knowledges often group them in regard to their purpose or relationships to others (Atlas of Living Australia [ALA] 2019: Online). Similarly, Indigenous ecological calendars are often based on cyclical processes and strongly embedded in place and the particular ecology of a place (Prober et al. 2011: Online). The South East Arnhem Land Indigenous Protected Area Plan of Management 2016-2021, for example, explains that “[k]nowing when and where to

60 harvest particular plants was vital. ‘Calendar plants’ were used as a guide; a flowering gum in the sandstone might indicate the time to harvest water chestnuts (Eleocharis spp.) from the drying floodplains” (Gambold 2015: 15). The standardised Western or Gregorian calendar on the other hand follows a structural and linear understanding of time, and while it can also incorporate seasons and place-specific characteristics, its concept is predominantly centred on social concerns (Prober et al. 2011: Online). Indigenous languages often consist of extensive terminology through which the natural world and the ways it functions can be described in great detail. Inuit, for example, have extensive knowledges of sea ice, which are encapsulated in the words they use and the ways in which they speak of sea ice (Barry et al. 2013: 655). The ABA points out the importance of sea ice for Arctic life and describes the connection between language, culture and environmental knowledges of the Indigenous Inuit:

[sea ice] is the heart of the circumpolar world. It provides a home to some and a landing pad to others. Sea ice has a social ontology and at the same time a life of its own. Knowledge of sea ice is encoded in the words and ways the Inuit speak of it, not only in terms of thickness and age, but also in terms of purpose. Thus the word allu ‘seal breathing hole’ is central to life: seals use it to breathe; polar bears and people use it for hunting seals. It forms the base for alluaq ‘fishing hole’ (or literally ‘seal-breathing hole- alike’). Sea ice lexicon provides information about how people use and measure the ice; botanical terminology provides native taxonomies which can differ from Western science, creating classification systems according to features which provide different insights into the world. (Barry et al. 2013: 655, original emphasis)

The ABA also describes the example of Indigenous reindeer herding peoples, such as the Sámi, Nenets and Evenki, and how they have developed extensive terminologies and rich vocabularies for reindeer and reindeer herding practices, and notes that

[t]hese naming practices reflect differences which are relevant to maintaining healthy herds. The links between language, knowledge and environment are inseparable. Evenki maintain that they cannot herd reindeer in Russian; it must be done in Evenki. As elsewhere, the Evenki language is maintained by those who live a traditional lifestyle. As this lifestyle is lost – through climate change and/or cultural shift – so is the language, and vice versa. (Barry et al. 2013: 655)

Together with these examples, the ABA emphasises that “[m]uch can be deciphered about what cultures use and value by looking at their language” (Barry et al.: 2013: 655). Indigenous knowledges have usually been handed down from generation to generation over millennia, often only orally, and these knowledges, which originate from the intimate contact with the surrounding environments, are encapsulated in Indigenous languages and vocabularies (cf. ALA 2019: Online; Battiste & Henderson 2000: 9; Eira et al. 2008: 5; Nicholas 2019: 177-178;

Stibbe 2017: 172; UN 2009a: 58; Wongnithisathaporn & Sherpa 2019: Online). In recent times, often a connection between biological diversity and linguistic and cultural diversity has been drawn and it is also commonly emphasised that the majority of the world’s biodiversity is found in habitats managed by Indigenous peoples (European Parliament 2013: s.v. M.; Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] 2020: Online; Schuster et al. 2019: 3; Tongkul et al. 2013: 41), although instead of the term management, the notion of stewardship is often used or proposed (cf. Colbourne 2017: 97; Indigenous Education Foundation [IEF] n.d.: Online; FAO 2020: Online; Mamo & Wessendorf 2020: 6; Sims & Davis n.d.: s.v. The next SDG suite is about environmental stewardship). On the importance of Indigenous communities’ knowledges and perspectives, Gambold (2015: 17) states that

[t]hese communities, their culture, and their relationships to country are of enormous value to modern Australia. Intrinsically, because they are unique, add diversity, and in many ways define our nation’s identity and unity. Practically, because they sustain wisdom and ways that modern western society has either failed to attain, or lost.

In terms of assessing biodiversity, Skutnabb-Kangas and Harmon (2017: 16) argue that “[m]uch of the knowledge of how to maintain biodiversity is encoded in the small languages of Indigenous and local people(s), and it disappears when the languages disappear”. The Sami Parliament (2009: 5) describes this issue in its Living Environment Program Eallinbiras:

Our language is an expression for how we relate to nature and to each other. It is a necessary tool for passing down our knowledge from generation to generation. Our language preserves continuity during cultural changes. To interrupt the usage of language makes it difficult, sometimes impossible, to pass down essential knowledge about how we protect our environment. Our language is the most vital precondition for expressing our responsibility for sustaining an ecological balance in nature.

Similarly, Aswani (2017: 84) describes how in the Solomon Islands,

[p]eoples’ loss of IEK [Indigenous ecological knowledge] is of grave concern, as the ways fishers perceive organisms and the state of the environment have important implications for how resources are used and managed—one cannot manage what he or she does not recognize. This also has consequences for people’s resilience in the face of climate change.

Traditionally, in Indigenous communities, particular social mechanisms, systems of sharing, sustainable waste management practices and food systems that apply a ‘no waste’ approach have increased social cohesion, resilience and sustainable consumption patterns (cf. Egeland &

Harrison 2013: 17; IPMG 2014: Online; Nuttall et al. 2005: 673; Sims & Davis n.d.: s.v. The next suite is the New Economy; Siragusa & Arzyutov 2020: 42-45), while Western notions of sustainable development often focus on technological solutions to environmental problems and economic incentives to avoid wasteful behaviour, though more recently there has also been greater awareness of consumption patterns, circular and sharing economies (cf. Commission of the European Communities 2001: 7; Daguitan et al. 2019: 611; McClain et al. 2019: 93; Siragusa & Arzyutov 2020: 44; Sustainable Development Working Group [SDWG] 2019: 7). The SDWG (2019: 7) argues that

Arctic indigenous peoples have strong traditions for utilizing resources fully without waste, deeply engraved in our food cultures, and what we have referred to as real sustainability. Where the world is now focusing increasingly on the concept of circular economy, the economies and traditional livelihoods of Arctic indigenous peoples have always been circular: We should use everything, and take only what we need. In our understanding, indigenous peoples´ traditional livelihoods are the oldest and best performing part of circular economy, from which lessons for the world could be gained.

Through the effects of previous and ongoing colonisation and stolen generations, Indigenous peoples the world over have been subjected to ‘westernisation’ processes and often traditional knowledge has ceased to be applied, however, Indigenous languages, knowledges and practices are still known, practised and passed on to younger generations, often still strongly and with more recognition of Indigenous rights, increasingly so (cf. Anderson & Tilton 2017: 7; Devanesen 2000: Online; Erasmus 2013: xi; Nuttall et al. 2005: 673). The value of Indigenous knowledges and perspectives is increasingly recognised in environmental management and also in other areas (cf. Hudson et al. 2016: 161-162). Furthermore, the recognition of intrinsic values attributed to nature by Indigenous peoples has received more recognition in recent years, as can be seen, for example, in the granting of rights to rivers in Australia, New Zealand and India (O’Donnell & Talbot-Jones 2018: Why give rights to nature? A legal background; Warne 2019: Online). However, commonly, dominant Western practices are still given precedence, while Indigenous practices are often still devalued, particularly in top-down development approaches (cf. Nursey-Bray et al. 2018: 17-18; Yap & Yu 2018: 94-97). In addition, where the value of Indigenous knowledges has been recognised in mainstream development contexts, these have often been misappropriated, used without consent of Indigenous peoples or have not led to any benefits for them (Battiste & Henderson 2000: 11-12; Daguitan et al. 2019: 612). According to Havemann (2016: 49-50),

[t]o learn lessons from indigenous peoples requires recognizing that traditional knowledge systems, languages, cultures, connections with nature and self-determination are intrinsic elements of indigenous bio-cultural paradigms. Disaggregating these, and selecting pieces of knowledge as raw data and techniques without understanding and respecting the wider context that created them, is merely to learn ‘the words but not the music’.

The Indigenous resource management system of Tagal, for example, is described in a Report of the Community Conservation Resilience Initiative in Sabah, Malaysia, as follows:

Tagal is a traditional natural resource management system that restricts resource collection temporally and spatially and prohibits activities that may damage the continuity of the resource. For example, Tagal rules prohibit waste disposal in the river and use of chemicals and electrocution to catch fish. Tagal is a shared responsibility of the community and is managed and implemented through collective decision-making. Likewise, the community’s management of their water catchment is communal in nature, involving collective responsibility, consultation and decision-making. (Chin Voon Oi 2018: 27).

The Tagal system has been recognised by the Fisheries Department in Sabah and adopted into its management plan and incorporated into state legislation, a step which was principally welcomed and regarded as unprecedented (Vaz & Agama 2013: 153). However, there are concerns that the system has not been regarded in a holistic manner and that Indigenous concepts and Indigenous governance systems were not adequately captured by the law (Lasimbang 2016: s.v. Experience: Riverine Tagal Sungai). Lasimbang argues that “community trust and spiritual and social significance are lost if the aims are changed to purely economic reasons (fly fishing, ecotourism)” (Lasimbang 2016: s.v. Experience: Riverine Tagal Sungai). Similarly, Vaz and Agama (2013: 153, original emphasis) argue that more needs to be done “to document the highly localised nature of customary laws and different tagal systems so that the diverse practices and traditional values inherent in the practice are not lost in the enthusiasm to ‘scale up’ through standardisation and commercialisation”. Therefore, any incorporation of Indigenous languages and perspectives in environmental management needs to be in conjunction with the recognition of Indigenous peoples’ rights and cultural perspectives and be led by Indigenous peoples themselves. The next subsections focus on the connection between Indigenous languages and sustainable development in relation to the SDGs and the presence of Indigenous languages and perspectives within the framework of the SDGs, which are currently at the base of development projects worldwide, including within environmental management contexts.

3.3 Indigenous languages and the SDGs

3.3.1 Background on the SDGs

The SDGs are a current global blueprint for sustainable development, brought forward by the UN within the framework of the 2030 Agenda, which was adopted by all UN member states at the General Assembly on 25 September 2015 and came into force in January 2016 (UN n.d.d: Online; UNGA 2015b: 1 & 6). The SDGs include 17 goals and 169 targets that should be reached through global partnerships by 2030 (UNGA 2015b: 1). Reaching the goals should improve the lives of all people and includes such measures as eradicating poverty, tackling climate change, ensuring gender equality, enabling access to education, protecting biodiversity and creating sustainable cities and communities (UNGA 2015b: 14). A full list of the goals is attached in the appendix. The SDGs follow on from the MDGs, which were the UN’s roadmap to development from 2000 to 2015 and aim to complete what the MDGs did not achieve (UNGA 2015b: 2). In addition to the MDGs’ focus on poverty eradication as well as issues related to health, education, food security and nutrition, the SDGs add “a wide range of economic, social and environmental objectives”, a focus on building “more peaceful and inclusive societies” and more concretely defining “means of implementation” (UNGA 2015b: 6). While the MDGs focused primarily on tackling issues related to sustainable development in so-called ‘developing’ countries, the SDGs are aimed at all countries, including so-called ‘developed’ countries (UNGA 2015b: 3). Central to the SDGs are a call for action through global partnerships and the motto of ‘leaving no one behind’ (UNGA 2015b: 1). The SDGs were developed through consultations with a wide range of stakeholders including governments, UN bodies, civil society groups, Indigenous peoples, the business and private sector and other stakeholders (UN 2014: 1ff.; UNGA 2015b: 3). The 2030 Agenda states that in the consultation for the SDGs, particular attention was paid “to the voices of the poorest and most vulnerable” (UNGA 2015b: 3). Part of the consultation process was the set-up of an Open Working Group (OWG) on Sustainable Development Goals, which was to propose a set of goals at the end of the consultation process (UNGA 2013a: 2). The mandate for the establishment of the OWG was set out in the outcome document of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development with the title The future we want in 2012 (UNGA 2013a: 2). The OWG consisted of representatives of the UN’s member states and took into consideration the opinions of other stakeholders (UNGA 2013b: 4; UNGA 2013a: 1-2). The first of 13 consultative sessions took place in March 2013 and the last in July 2014, after which the proposal for the SDGs was submitted

(UNGA 2014: 1 & 3). Based on the motto that no one should be left behind (UNGA 2015b: 3), the SDGs focus on reaching so-called vulnerable groups of people, including Indigenous peoples (cf. UNGA 2015b: 7). The SDGs are also referred to as the ‘Global Goals’ (UNDP n.d.: Online) and the 2030 Agenda emphasises the global action needed for the implementation of the SDGs to address global matters, such as climate change (UNGA 2015b: 8-10). Global consultation processes and implementing a global agenda requires communications across a wide range of cultures and languages. In the foreword of the United Nations Development Group (UNDG) report on SDG implementation, Abdi et al. (2016: vii) note that

[t]he breadth of the Agenda and its level of ambition attest to the challenges of our time that are of concern to countries and people everywhere. Member States spent several years analysing information and negotiating positions to create this common framework, complemented by the most inclusive multi-stakeholder consultation process in the history of the United Nations.

The methods of work of the OWG, mention that “[t]he group’s work shall be guided by the principles of openness, transparency, inclusiveness and consensus” (OWG n.d.: Online). However, they do not mention language (OWG n.d.: Online). In the preparatory work for the engagement of the OWG with Major Groups and other stakeholders, the concept note for the organisation of intersessional events, which proposed modalities for stakeholder engagement and was circulated among the different stakeholders, was translated only into French and Spanish (UN 2013: Online). According to Cristina Diez from the INGO ATD Fourth World and representative to the UN, nearly all negotiations about the SDGs took place in English and all negotiation outcomes were written in English (Tesseur 2017: Online). The UN Regional Information Centre for Western Europe (UNRIC) (2019a: Online) draws a connection between the idea of leaving no one behind and providing information on the SDGs in languages that people understand:

An important principle of the SDGs is that no one should be left behind. That is why there should be as many translations of the SDG[sic] as possible. By making the SDGs available in more languages, the number of people who will take part in this global effort will increase.

As part of this thesis, online searches were performed to look for translations of the SDGs into Indigenous languages, the findings of which are presented in 3.3.2. This is followed by an evaluation of the presence of Indigenous languages and perspectives in the SDGs in 3.3.3,

66 which has been deemed relevant for this thesis given the importance of Indigenous languages and perspectives for sustainable development as discussed in 3.2 and the importance of the SDGs within current development contexts worldwide.

3.3.2 Translations of the SDGs into Indigenous languages

As discussed throughout this thesis, intercultural development projects involving Indigenous communities are more relevant to the communities and more successful, if language and cultural considerations are part of the project and when project information and communication is provided in Indigenous languages and in culturally appropriate ways (cf. Nursey-Bray et al. 2019: 482). In this subsection, the results of online searches for translations of the SDGs into Indigenous languages are presented. The methodology of the online searches is outlined in 2.2.4. In 2015, the Apu Palamguwan Cultural Education Center (APC) reported on their website and in their online newsletter on the translation of the SDGs into the Pinulangiyen language of the Indigenous Pulangiyen people in the Philippines, which is used to facilitate discussions about sustainable development with Indigenous youth (Amor Paredes 2015a: Online; Amor Paredes 2015b: 3). In 2016, the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP) published an animation video on the SDGs, which was also translated into the Mizo Indigenous language by Zo Indigenous Forum (AIPP 2017: Online). The video was produced by AIPP in collaboration with Digital Mixes and was launched at the AIPP 7th General Assembly in 2016 (AIPP 2016: Online). It is available for viewing on the AIPP website and was also published on Youtube (AIPP 2016: Online; AIPP 2017: Online). The animation video introduces the SDGs in an Indigenous context and also features some of the demands of Indigenous peoples in regard to the SDGs and making the motto of ‘leaving no one behind’ a reality (AIPP 2017: Online). Also in 2016, a UNDG (2016: 20) publication reported on the translation of the SDGs into the language of the Indigenous Amazigh people through a collaboration between the UN and the Royal Institute of the Amazigh Culture in Morocco. In 2017, the newsletter of the global network of United Nations Information Centres (UNIC), UNIC @ Work, also reported on the launch of the SDGs in the Tamazight language of the Amazigh people in Algeria, which was brought about by a collaboration between UNIC, the United Nations Resident Coordinator’s Office (UNRCO) and the High Commission for Amazighity (Department of Public Information 2017: 18). There have been a number of

67 initiatives to translate the SDGs into African languages, including the translation into the Nga Karimajong language of the Indigenous Karimajong people in Uganda in a collaboration between the UN, government and civil society, which was reported on by UNDP Uganda (2017: 27) in their 2017 annual report. In 2017, the UN also reported on the new logo design and translation of the SDG icons by school students in Quechua, an Indigenous language of the Andes region in South America, on the SDGs webpage and blog on the UN’s main website (UN 2017a: Online; UN 2017b: Online). In 2018, Earth Charter International made available translations of the SDGs by the Intercultural University of Chiapas in Mexico in the Indigenous languages of Tsotsil, Tseltal, Chol and Zoque on its website (Earth Charter International 2018: Online). The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals Partnerships Platform reported on a collaboration between the UNRCO of Nepal and the Janakpur Women Development Center (JWDC) to localise the SDGs by means of the Indigenous Mithila arts practices in 2018 (UN 2018: Online). The initiative was also mentioned on the website of the Permanent Mission of Nepal to the UN (2019: Online), which reported on an exhibition of the Mithila SDGs artworks at the UN Headquarters in New York in 2019, at which Ambassador Amrit Bahadur Rai, Permanent Representative of Nepal to the UN, stated that the event aimed to “showcase the richness of the Mithila art and its utility in the implementation of SDGs”. The localisation of the SDGs via Mithila arts practices was also mentioned on the Facebook page of the Mithila Art Center by Relative Nepal (2019: Online) and in an online news article of the Kathmandu Post (Aryal 2018: Online). Also in 2018, Naciones Unidas Paraguay (UN in Paraguay) published a video about the SDGs on its Facebook page in the Guaraní language that was produced by Pacto Global (Naciones Unidas Paraguay 2018: Online). In 2019, during the International Year of Indigenous languages, the SDGs were translated into North Sámi by the UN Association of Norway with financial help of the Norwegian UNESCO Commission, as reported by UNRIC on its website (2019a: Online). Eye on the Arctic also featured an article on the translation of the SDGs into North Sámi (Quinn 2019: Online). It is hoped that especially Sámi youth will be able to better engage with the goals through the translation in their language (UNRIC 2019a: Online). The Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington also reported in 2019 on its initiative of translating the SDGs into te reo Māori, the language of Aotearoa New Zealand’s Indigenous peoples (Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington 2019: Online). The translations were also combined with the English text of the SDG icons to produce posters that were displayed at the university’s three campuses (Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington 2019:

Online). All posters have been made available for download on the university’s website (Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington n.d.: Online). The initiative was also mentioned on the website of Libraries Aotearoa (Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa [LIANZA] 2019: Online). According to the Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington (2019: Online), the translations were meant to be included in the UN’s online collection in the same year the university published its article about the translations, but references to translations of the SDGs into te reo Māori were not found in UN online sources in the online searches for this thesis. Also in 2019, the Instituto Nacional de los Pueblos Indígenas [National Institute of Indigenous Peoples] (INPI) of Mexico published books on the SDGs for children in the Indigenous languages of Nahuatl and Mixtec that can be downloaded from the Mexican government’s website (INPI 2019: Online). The publications aim to engage Indigenous children of Mexico with the SDGs in their own language and from the community’s perspective (INPI 2019: Online). The website of the Indigenous Rights Radio of the NGO Cultural Survival features information about the SDGs, including in the Indigenous Mayan languages of Ayuuk, Poqomam and K´iche´ (Cultural Survival n.d.: s.v. Other Languages). There have been other initiatives of translating the SDGs into local languages or languages other than the UN’s official languages, but this thesis focuses on the languages of Indigenous peoples, which have often been marginalised and underserved, as has been discussed throughout this thesis. The presence of translations or references to translations of the SDGs into Indigenous languages shows that there is a demand and some supply for information on the SDGs in Indigenous languages. Making those visible in mainstream communication tools such as the Internet creates broader awareness of linguistic diversity and the need to consider language in development projects. However, the translations or references to translations of the SDGs into Indigenous languages were not easily found on the UN’s main websites and main SDG online platforms. Most were either found on UN regional websites or UN regional social media and dispersed in UN online publications or on websites and in online publications of other organisations. In total, references to translations of the SDGs into Indigenous languages were found for 18 languages in 22 sources. Nine references were found in UN online sources, of which three were on the UN’s main website and main SDG platforms (Quechua – SDGs webpage and SDGs blog on the UN’s main website; Mithila arts practices – UN’s SDGs Partnerships Platform), while 13 references were found in other, i.e. non-UN online sources. While regional publications for regional languages are relevant, arguably a multilingual effort for a global agenda ought to be made more visible also on a global level

69 and on the UN’s main websites and platforms related to the SDGs and IYIL2019. Furthermore, the UN considers Indigenous peoples to be among those most vulnerable and benefiting the most from the implementation of the SDGs, which warrants providing information about the SDGs in the languages of Indigenous peoples on the UN’s main SDG online channels. Written and digital formats are not the only useful formats for disseminating information about the SDGs, also given varied literacy rates, oral language traditions, limited access to internet and electricity, especially in remote regions, and considering factors pertaining to cultural appropriateness (cf. Madsen & Berger 2020: 27; IWGIA 2020: Online; Stephens et al. 2018: 44; World Bank Group 2016: 50). However, making information available in a multilingual format on the Internet increases awareness for linguistic diversity and contributes to closing the digital gap and the provision of information in and on Indigenous languages. Some of the references mentioned, referred to translations and localisations that were produced in other than written formats, such as radio, arts practices, video and posters and these were then showcased through written texts on the internet, thus using mixed tools to increase the presence of Indigenous languages in development contexts. The website of the UN Information Centres (UNIC) offers a webpage outlining translations of UN publications into local and Indigenous languages, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the MDGs, but not of the SDGs (UN Department of Global Communications n.d.: Online). The UNRIC website provides a good overview page of the SDGs in other languages, including a link to the SDG icons in North Sámi, but it is the UN’s regional information centre for Western Europe and only includes certain European languages (UNRIC 2019b: Online). For the upcoming IDIL, the UN could dedicate a webpage on the IDIL’s main website as well as on the UN’s main website and main online platforms for the SDGs to translations of the SDGs into Indigenous languages, thus creating more awareness for such translation efforts, while promoting a multilingual environment that includes Indigenous languages, contributing to the maintenance of Indigenous languages, providing access to information in Indigenous languages in the digital space and making Indigenous peoples and their languages more visible in a global arena and for a wide audience, which is in accordance with its own recommendations.

3.3.3 Presence of Indigenous languages and perspectives in the SDGs

This thesis uses a CDA approach with the framework introduced in 2.2.3 to evaluate the presence of Indigenous languages and perspectives in the SDGs as they were published by the UN. The SDGs are embedded within the 2030 Agenda of the UN resolution A/RES/70/1 (UNGA 2015b), which builds the background to the SDGs and as such is also considered in the analysis. The SDGs are included in the appendix. The results of the analysis are presented below under the headings of the four categories of the framework: ‘Language awareness and availability of project communication and information in Indigenous languages’, ‘Use of Indigenous language terminology’, ‘References to Indigenous languages and perspectives’ and ‘Reflection of Indigenous worldviews and concepts in the language used’.

Language awareness and availability of project communication and information in Indigenous languages

In the SDGs and in the 2030 Agenda, no direct reference is made to the different languages spoken across the world and by the different stakeholders of the global agenda. According to the UN representative of ATD Fourth World movement, Cristina Diez, 99% of all negotiations on the SDGs were performed in the English language and 100% of the negotiation outcomes were written in English (Tesseur 2017: Online). The UN’s main website has a webpage titled ‘The Sustainable Development Agenda’, which is available in the six official languages of the UN (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, Spanish) (UN n.d.e: Online14). Resolution 70/1, which encompasses the SDGs within the framework of the 2030 Agenda, is also available on the UN’s main website in the UN’s six official languages (UNGA 2015b). The SDG reports are also available in the six official languages (UN n.d.f: Online15). The website of the SDG Mediazone is available in English only (UN n.d.c: Online). The UN’s My World Online Survey aims to gather people’s opinions on the SDGs and their implementation (UN SDG Action Campaign [SDGAC] n.d.: s.v. Why does my vote matter?). UNV has a focus on translating SDG advocacy material and producing online and offline material for the MY World Survey in local and Indigenous languages (UNV 2017: Online). In 2017, the UNV reported on the translation of the MY World Survey through the MY World Mexico campaign into 13 of Mexico’s Indigenous languages (UNV 2017: Online). At the time of writing this thesis, these Indigenous language versions were not available online

14 See top header for language menu. 15 See Reports in the top menu for the SDG reports of the different years in the different languages. 71 on the MY World Survey website (SDGAC n.d.: Online). As discussed in 3.3.2, the SDGs have been translated into a number of Indigenous languages by various actors, including UN regional offices, NGOs, universities and civil society groups. However, translations of the SDGs into Indigenous languages or references to such translations are not easily found on the UN’s main websites and online platforms related to the SDGs. Thus, while the UN and its bodies encourage dissemination of information in Indigenous languages (cf. UNESCO 2019: 7-8), it seems to be mainly UN regional offices and other organisations that distribute information on the SDGs in Indigenous languages and make the translation efforts for the SDGs in Indigenous languages more visible.

Use of Indigenous language terminology

The SDGs and the 2030 Agenda do not include any Indigenous language terminology. Terms such as sustainable development, resilience, gender equality, accountability, empowerment, biodiversity or vulnerability, which are used throughout the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda, are all Western concept English language terms, most of which are used without being defined and which are often difficult to translate into other languages (cf. Footitt et al. 2018: 5). Throughout the world, a multiplicity of concepts for the topics covered in the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda exist, each expressed in their own language terms. With certain terminology, certain meanings are associated. Therefore, incorporating Indigenous language terminology incorporates Indigenous perspectives. Pogodaev et al. (2015: 59), for example, describe how Indigenous reindeer herding peoples do not have the term ‘sustainable development’ in their languages, but they do have other terms in which a concept of sustainable development is indirectly expressed. Furthermore, Pogodaev et al. (2015: 59, original emphasis) argue that

[w]hile the term sustainable development might implicitly presuppose the maximizing of production or output, herders´ traditional way of thinking is better expressed by for instance the Sámi term ‘birgen’: If you have enough to manage or cope (‘birget’), you have enough.

The 2030 Agenda does not directly define the term ‘sustainable development’ but mentions the commitment to achieve “sustainable development in its three dimensions – economic, social and environmental – in a balanced and integrated manner”. However, special regard is given to the economic dimension, as can be seen in the example given in (1) (UNGA 2015b: 29):

(1) We underscore that, for all countries, public policies and the mobilization and effective use of domestic resources, underscored by the principle of national ownership, are central to our common pursuit of sustainable development, including achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. We recognize that domestic resources are first and foremost generated by economic growth, supported by an enabling environment at all levels.

SDG 3 focuses on ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all at all ages (UNGA 2015b: 14) and the vision of the 2030 Agenda includes a world with equitable and universal access to "health care and social protection, where physical, mental and social well-being are assured” (UNGA 2015b: 3). However, the subgoals of Goal 3 focus mainly on the presence or absence of illness (UNGA 2015b: 16-17). Salmon et al. (2019: 2) describe how for the Anishinabek (Ojibway) peoples in Canada, the term ‘mno bmaadis’ means ‘living the good life’ and refers to a concept of health that encapsulates beliefs in the importance of balance. The complex concept is exemplified by the medicine wheel that represents all four elements of life, that is the physical, emotional, mental and spiritual, in the four directions (north, south, east, west), where all these elements are interconnected and the balance between them is essential for good health and well-being (2019: 2). Similarly, Salmon et al. (2019: 2) refer to Durie (2004), who points out that Maori conceptions of health are based on a holistic interpretation, which encompasses a balance between mental, physical, family/social and spiritual – hinengaro, tinana, whanau and wairau – dimensions, where all four dimensions are essential for good health and wellbeing and measuring one aspect in separation of the others is not sufficient (Durie 2004: 1141). In the Hawaiian language, the term ‘ea’ means sovereignty (Goodyear-Ka'ōpua 2016: 9). However, according to Goodyear-Ka'ōpua (2016: 10), “[u]nlike Euro-American philosophical notions of sovereignty, ea is based on the experiences of people on the land, on relationships forged through the process of remembering and caring for wahi pana, storied places”. Goodyear-Ka'ōpua (2016: 9) explains that ea also means ‘life’, ‘breath’ and ‘emergence’ and that the term ea “extends back to the birth of the land itself” (Goodyear- Ka'ōpua 2016: 10). The 2030 Agenda on the other hand, refers to the “full permanent sovereignty” of every State, in the sense of the present-day nation states, over “all its wealth, natural resources and economic activity” (UNGA 2015b: 6), although often this state sovereignty has not been forged through relationships with the land, but through colonial practices and assertion of power over the lands of Indigenous peoples (cf. Hiller & Carlson 2018: 50; Mathieu 2018: 472; Moreton-Robinson 2007: 3-4). Arguably, the SDGs cannot contain terminology from all languages, but they could make a reference to the existence of different concepts in different languages and define the

73 origin and meaning of key terms used in the SDGs, rather than assuming that technical terms from the English language are or should be understood readily in an equal way universally. Furthermore, the SDGs and 2030 Agenda could encourage the incorporation of Indigenous language terminology in initiatives for the implementation of the goals. For example, it has been widely recognised that restoring Indigenous place names, which have been undermined by colonial renaming practices, contributes to reconciliation, decolonisation and reduced inequalities (cf. DCS Spatial Services 2018: 1; Gray & Rück 2019: Online; Landgate 2020: Why are Aboriginal and dual names important?; Nîtôtemtik 2018: Online; Treaty Negotiations Office 2004: 1). Therefore, encouragement for the restoration of Indigenous place names could well be included, for example, in SDG 16, which focuses on promoting peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, providing access to justice for all and building effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels (UNGA 2015b: 25). Of course, any such initiatives would have to be planned and implemented in consultation with and the leadership of Indigenous peoples.

References to Indigenous languages and perspectives

There is no mention of Indigenous languages in the SDGs or in the 2030 Agenda. In fact, as has been pointed out by Tesseur (2017: Online) and others, there is no mention of language in the SDGs. The only time language is mentioned in the 2030 Agenda is in reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

We emphasize the responsibilities of all States, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, to respect, protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, disability or other status. (UNGA 2015b: 6)

Arguably, language is relevant and important for any of the goals and Indigenous languages could have featured as a goal themselves, given their often endangered status and the relevance for sustainable development. SDG 4 focuses on ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all (UNGA 2015b: 17). For Indigenous peoples, ‘inclusive and equitable quality education’ would arguably include education in Indigenous languages, and which is delivered from Indigenous perspectives, especially since Indigenous peoples have often been or still are denied education based on their own cultural systems and in their own languages, as discussed in 3.2.2 of this thesis. Among

74 others, Salmon et al. (2019: 19) and Yashadhana et al. (2020: 1) emphasise the importance of language and cultural considerations, incorporation of Indigenous languages and perspectives, and interpretation and translation activities in intercultural settings of the health care sector, which relates to SDG 3. SDG 1 focuses on ending poverty in all its forms and everywhere, while SDG 2 focuses on ending hunger, achieving food security and improved nutrition and promoting sustainable agriculture (UNGA 2015b: 15). According to UNESCO (2012: 4),

[r]ecognizing the profound importance that people place on their languages is a core insight for tackling poverty and hunger. It is an important part of the move away from ‘top down’ models of development that have been shown not to work, and towards participatory development models, which often do. Properly conducted participatory development brings improved outcomes both in the short- and long-term.

Furthermore, while SDG 1 aims to end poverty ‘in all its forms’, the measurement is still mainly based on quantitative and monetary terms, and on national definitions (UN 2015: 15; UNGA 2013a: 6). As Carling et al. (2017: Online), among others, have pointed out, quantitative measures are not sufficiently capturing Indigenous perspectives and needs, and more qualitative indicators are necessary. Pogodaev et al. (2015: 59, original emphasis), for example, point out that

[w]ealth, according to the traditional understanding of reindeer herding peoples, is not only expressed by quantitative characteristics, but rather also in quality. We could for instance look at the concept of a "beautiful herd" (eg.in Sámi language - "čappa eallu"): What the term really expresses is that the structure of the herd is made up in such a way that it has been adapted to the available grazing conditions and pasture diversity, as well as to the changing climatic characteristics of the territory concerned, ie. taking into account the cyclical nature of the environment and climatic changes.

Throughout the 2030 Agenda it is emphasised that the agenda is universal and global in scope. While it is arguably a universally shared idea to ensure a better life for all, there is perhaps not a universal idea on how to get there or what that entails. Subgoal 15.1, for example, focuses on ensuring by 2020 “the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements” (UNGA 2015b: 24). In their paper on Framing a Nordic IPBES-like study for assessing biodiversity and ecosystem services, Schultz et al. (2016: 35) note that “[a] question that has come up during the process regarding the focus of the assessment has been whether the focus should be on biodiversity in itself, including intrinsic values, or on ecosystem services and the utility approach” and that it was

75 argued that an anthropocentric view of only valuing biodiversity and ecosystem services if they “provide economic benefits and ‘well-being’ would lead to a utility trap, which might be one of the root causes of the loss of biodiversity”. Schultz et al. (2016: 35) add that “[q]uestions raised concerned what we consider to be ‘well-being’; a new car or a walk in a natural forest?”. Similarly, Howitt (2001: 9) argues that the answer to the question of how to achieve ‘better’ resource management outcomes depends on what is defined as ‘better’ and that for many professional resource managers ‘better’ is an objective issue, where ‘more’ is considered better and ‘more’ is something that can easily be measured – such as more oil, more gas, more timber for every dollar invested, but as Howitt (2001: 10) argues, in reality human values are not universal, but rather they reflect particular contexts in which people have operated. SDG 15 focuses on protecting, restoring and promoting the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably managing forests, combating desertification and halting and reversing land degradation and halting biodiversity loss (UNGA 2015b: 24). Throughout the literature it has been widely acknowledged that Indigenous languages play a vital role for any of those endeavours named in SDG 15, as is also discussed in 3.2.3 of this thesis. Yet, Indigenous languages and perspectives are not mentioned in SDG 15. Similarly, SDG 14, which focuses on the conservation and sustainable use of oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development, largely focuses on scientific information and technical means for addressing economic concerns and maintaining productive oceans for maximum yield (UNGA 2015b: 23-24). Indigenous or traditional marine resource management practices are not mentioned in SDG 14. Subgoal 16.10 focuses on ensuring public access to information (UNGA 2015b: 26). Subgoal 12.8 also focuses on information and ensuring that by 2030 “people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature” (UNGA 2015b: 22-23). For ensuring that people everywhere have relevant information and public access to information, language is arguably an important factor and language considerations ought to be included in these goals. Apart from focusing on access to information and awareness raising, subgoal 12.8 also emphasises “lifestyles in harmony with nature” (UNGA 2015b: 23). Throughout the 2030 Agenda, the phrase “in harmony with nature” occurs three times, as shown in the examples given in (2) to (4):

(2) We are determined to ensure that all human beings can enjoy prosperous and fulfilling lives and that economic, social and technological progress occurs in harmony with nature. (UNGA 2015b: 2)

(3) We envisage a world in which [...] humanity lives in harmony with nature and in which wildlife and other living species are protected. (UNGA 2015b: 4)

(4) By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature. (UNGA 2015b: 23)

Living in harmony with nature is commonly associated with lifestyles of Indigenous peoples (cf. Pecharroman 2018: 6). Yet, there is no specific mention of this aspect in the 2030 Agenda or the SDGs. At its 69th session, the UNGA adopted the already sixth Resolution on Harmony with Nature, which recognises that Indigenous peoples “have a rich history of understanding the symbiotic connection between human beings and nature that fosters a mutually beneficial relationship” (UNGA 2015a: 2) and among others, requests the president of the General Assembly “to advance discussions on Harmony with Nature” and invites states “[t]o promote harmony with the Earth, as found in indigenous cultures, and learn from them” (UNGA 2015a: 3). The resolution was adopted on 19 December 2014, before the adoption of the resolution on the 2030 Agenda on 25 September 2015. However, contrary to the resolution on Harmony with Nature, the 2030 Agenda does not make visible or promote the connection between Indigenous peoples and lifestyles in harmony with nature. Rather, the 2030 Agenda and SDGs are presented as a largely innovative and transformational undertaking, as shown in the example given in (5) from the preamble of the 2030 Agenda:

(5) We are determined to take the bold and transformative steps which are urgently needed to shift the world on to a sustainable and resilient path. (UNGA 2015b: 1)

The 2030 Agenda acknowledges the concept of ‘Mother Earth’, which is also a common concept of Indigenous peoples (cf. Hiller & Carlson 2018: 48; Sims & Davis n.d.: Good governance is the theme for SDG 16 and 17), but it only mentions it once in the text and attributes it only to ‘a number of countries and regions’ (UNGA 2015b: 1), thus othering that concept, while Western concepts such as economic growth are apparently considered universal and applicable everywhere and used throughout the text. Regarding nature as a living being and focusing on the interrelationships between humans and nature has been associated with an increased sense of responsibility and caring for nature (cf. Colbourne 2017: 97; Pecharroman 2018: 6; Sami Parliament 2009: 9). It should be noted though that for many Indigenous peoples, the concept of ‘Mother Earth’ is not understood as a metaphor but as a lived experience (cf. Pecharroman 2018: 6).

Reflection of Indigenous worldviews and concepts in the language used

The SDGs call for a global partnership, a united approach and peaceful institutions and cooperation to reach sustainable development outcomes (UNGA 2015b: 10 & 25), but they do not specifically call for a collaborative approach between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples or the combination of Indigenous and Western worldviews to reach the goals. The 2030 Agenda (UNGA 2015b: 12) suggests that

[o]ur journey will involve Governments as well as parliaments, the United Nations system and other international institutions, local authorities, indigenous peoples, civil society, business and the private sector, the scientific and academic community – and all people.

However, within the framework of the SDGs, Indigenous peoples are mainly referred to as a ‘vulnerable’ group of people and rather as subjects of development efforts than as partners or contributors to reaching the goals, as can be seen in the examples given in (6) and (7) that show the language used in SDGs 2 and 4, the only two SDGs that specifically refer to Indigenous peoples:

(6) 2.3 By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment (UNGA 2015b: 15, Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture)

(7) 4.5 By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations (UNGA 2015b: 17, Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all)

Altogether, Indigenous peoples are mentioned six times in the 2030 Agenda, including the SDGs. In other parts of the 2030 Agenda, the vulnerability of Indigenous peoples is also emphasised, as shown in the example given in (8):

(8) People who are vulnerable must be empowered. Those whose needs are reflected in the Agenda include all children, youth, persons with disabilities (of whom more than 80 per cent live in poverty), people living with HIV/AIDS, older persons, indigenous peoples, refugees and internally displaced persons and migrants. (UNGA 2015b: 7)

In framing theory, certain aspects of an issue are made salient while others are ignored. According to Entman, “[t]o frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make

78 them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described” (Entman 1993: 52, emphasis omitted). In the SDGs and 2030 Agenda, Indigenous peoples are framed as ‘vulnerable’ and ‘lagging behind’, the cause of which is considered their ‘lack of development’, the moral evaluation being that they ‘need outside help’ from those ‘more developed’ and the commended solution is the largely Western values-based development paradigm of the SDGs. While it is commonly acknowledged that Indigenous peoples are among the poorest and most vulnerable in the world and that this poverty needs to be addressed (cf. Campbell 2019: Online; Carling 2017: 2; Dhir 2016: 1; Hall & Patrinos 2012: 1-2; OECD 2018a: 37; Tongkul et al. 2013: 41), it is also commonly acknowledged that their vulnerability is not inherent, but that certain factors render them vulnerable, including the grabbing of their lands for large-scale developments, undermining of their rights and governance systems, and linguistic barriers (cf. Academics Stand Against Poverty [ASAP] 2018: 51; Carling et al. 2017: Online; IPMG 2019: 23; Marinotti 2017: 4). Moreover, the 2030 Agenda leaves out the issue that development itself can make Indigenous peoples vulnerable, as described by Howitt (2001: 5-6), Mamo and Wessendorf (2020: 9), Renkens (2019: 17) and others. However, an explanation of the factors that lead to Indigenous peoples’ vulnerability is omitted from the text of the SDGs and 2030 Agenda. According to Bartlett (2012: 209), the characterisation of Indigenous peoples as passive recipients of ‘first-world’ beneficence is one that generally underlies much of the prevailing development discourse. In light of this issue, Yap and Yu (2018: 99) and others have also called for more recognition of Indigenous peoples as partners in development work rather than as passive recipients of aid or subjects of development. Gibson-Graham (2005: 9- 11) show in their study on surplus possibilities, post-development and community economies how alternative development pathways built around what communities have rather than what they lack, can challenge dominant development paradigms, strengthen the resilience of local economies and reduce dependence on external forces. While it is emphasised that Indigenous peoples gave inputs to the drafting of the SDGs, the text is still primarily written by governments and the language used in the 2030 Agenda and SDGs does not reflect the recognition of Indigenous peoples as equal partners, rather the language used suggests a more top-down approach to development. Throughout the 2030 Agenda and SDGs, there is also an emphasis on the sovereignty and leadership of the nation state and nationally defined development objectives as a priority, as shown in the examples given in (9) to (12):

(9) We underscore that, for all countries, public policies and the mobilization and effective use of domestic resources, underscored by the principle of national ownership, are central to our common pursuit of sustainable development, including achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. (UNGA 2015b: 29, my emphasis)

(10) By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions (UNGA 2015b: 15, my emphasis)

(11) Recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work through the provision of public services, infrastructure and social protection policies and the promotion of shared responsibility within the household and the family as nationally appropriate (UNGA 2015b: 18, my emphasis)

(12) Cohesive nationally owned sustainable development strategies, supported by integrated national financing frameworks, will be at the heart of our efforts. We reiterate that each country has primary responsibility for its own economic and social development and that the role of national policies and development strategies cannot be overemphasized. (UNGA 2015b: 18, my emphasis)

However, many states do not recognise Indigenous peoples and their rights, including their linguistic rights, land rights and rights to self-determination and the right to choose their own development paths (cf. Howitt 2001: 28; Mikkelsen & Bakdal 2015: 10; UNESCO 2007: 1). While emphasising the important role of the nation state in achieving the SDGs throughout the text, the 2030 Agenda refers to detrimental effects of colonial occupation only once, as shown in (13):

(13) We call for further effective measures and actions to be taken, in conformity with international law, to remove the obstacles to the full realization of the right of self- determination of peoples living under colonial and foreign occupation, which continue to adversely affect their economic and social development as well as their environment. (UNGA 2015b: 9, my emphasis)

While the 2030 Agenda mentions “peoples living under colonial and foreign occupation” (UNGA 2015b: 9), as shown in (13), it draws no connection between these peoples and Indigenous peoples, who are often living under such colonial occupation (Webb 2012: 77). It also fails to mention that among those “obstacles to the full realization of the right to self- determination” (UNGA 2015b: 9) is the continued legitimisation of the decision-making apparatus of the (colonial) nation state (Webb 2012: 77-78), which is promoted throughout the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, as shown for example in (9) – (12). Therefore, the focus on nation-state priorities, while enabling different states to pursue their own development strategies, can render Indigenous peoples within those states more vulnerable.

The 2030 Agenda suggests that reviews on the implementation of the SDGs “should draw on contributions from indigenous peoples, civil society, the private sector and other stakeholders”, but “in line with national circumstances, policies and priorities” (UNGA 2015b: 33). Further, the 2030 Agenda recognises “that there are different approaches, visions, models and tools available to each country” to achieve sustainable development, “in accordance with its national circumstances and priorities” (UNGA 2015b: 13). While the 2030 Agenda also emphasises the adherence to international law, the UNDRIP, while exerting considerable influence, is not legally binding (Gargett & Kiss 2013: 37). Furthermore, not all states adhere to its principles (Mikkelsen & Bakdal 2015: 10; Pillay 2013: iii). Similarly, the ILO Convention No. 169, while legally binding, has been ratified by few countries (Dhir et al. 2019: 13). As such, the contradictory language use and vagueness in regard to colonial occupation and foregrounding of the priorities and perspectives of the nation state in the SDGs and 2030 Agenda can, whether consciously or not, lead to the continued reinforcement and legitimisation of colonial practices and this can pose further risks for Indigenous peoples and undermine self-determination rather than enhance it. Therefore, the rights and perspectives of Indigenous peoples ought to be more explicitly reflected in the language of any development agenda, including the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs and vulnerability must be discussed in conjunction with colonial or structural injustices that produce and reproduce it. In terms of fisheries management, for example, Reid et al. (2020: 256) argue that

as Indigenous Nations increasingly return to self-determination, there needs to be a commensurate rise in the state’s confidence in the capacity of these peoples to ‘manage’ fisheries without federal oversight (or that of another colonial force). This relinquishing of power to Indigenous process and management rights is also imperative as many post- colonial nation states grapple with reconciliation.

While the 2030 Agenda notes the different groups that were involved in the development of the 2030 Agenda and emphasises the universal nature of the SDGs, the language used in the SDGs does not so much reflect Indigenous worldviews and concepts as it leaves out the processes that have led to unsustainable lifestyles and does not clearly point out potential solutions to sustainable development from an Indigenous perspective. As such, the language used in the SDGs does not give much agency to Indigenous peoples and their perspectives. Moreover, while promoting a universal agenda and universal responsibility, the 2030 Agenda still creates a dichotomy between those ‘developed’ and those ‘developing’, thus using a language of ‘we’ and ‘they’, othering those that are ‘less developed’ than the western industrialised countries, the measurement of which is not clearly defined in the SDGs, but

81 according to the UN (2019c: 59), these distinctions are for statistical purposes and based on data supplied from international agencies that use such practices, leaving it somewhat unclear of when development is reached and how these terms where negotiated for the SDGs. The 2030 Agenda proposes a framework for action applicable to all, but with groups of vulnerable people ‘in need of development’ and with ‘developed’ countries taking the lead and ‘developing’ countries expected to catch up with their ‘developed’ counterparts as shown in the examples in (14) and (15):

(14) All countries take action, with developed countries taking the lead, taking into account the development and capabilities of developing countries. (UNGA 2015b: 8, my emphasis)

(15) Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and production and endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation, in accordance with the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production, with developed countries taking the lead. (UNGA 2015b: 19, my emphasis)

Arguably, when it comes to resource efficiency, responsible consumption and production patterns and living in harmony with nature and other aspects of the SDGs, it is actually many Indigenous peoples, who are taking the lead. However, when it comes to a global development agenda, it is not about enforcing a certain view, but rather it is about drawing on a diverse set of knowledges for a diverse set of issues and combining the best of those worlds to tackle those issues. Without the usual addendum of prioritising the perspectives of the nation state, the 2030 Agenda also states that

[w]e pledge to foster intercultural understanding, tolerance, mutual respect and an ethic of global citizenship and shared responsibility. We acknowledge the natural and cultural diversity of the world and recognize that all cultures and civilizations can contribute to, and are crucial enablers of, sustainable development.

This statement is perhaps the one with the greatest potential as a starting point when it comes to a global agenda for sustainable development, where Indigenous peoples are considered equal partners and their perspectives are considered valuable contributions.

4 Case studies showing the presence of Indigenous languages in development projects

The case studies in 4.1 and 4.2 show examples where Indigenous languages and perspectives are present in development projects. The case studies have been analysed using a PDA approach, which is described in chapter 2. The results of the analysis are presented under the headings of the categories that are also outlined in chapter 2: ‘Language awareness and availability of project communication and information in Indigenous languages’, ‘Use of Indigenous language terminology’, ‘References to Indigenous languages and perspectives’, and ‘Reflection of Indigenous worldviews and concepts in the language used’.

4.1 Case study Australia: Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda

The Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda (Yugul Mangi Fire and Seasons Calendar)16 draws on Indigenous knowledges of seasonal biocultural indicators to guide the fire management planning in the savannas of south-eastern Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory (NT), Australia (McKemey et al. 2020: 1). The calendar was developed as part of a research project that investigated Indigenous knowledges about fire management within the South East Arnhem Land Indigenous Protected Area (SEAL IPA) in a collaborative project between the Yugul Mangi rangers of the SEAL IPA and non-Indigenous scientists (McKemey et al. 2020: 5). The northern part of Australia was colonised by Europeans from 1860 onwards and while this part of Australia was not impacted by colonisation as severely as the south-eastern part, it was still impacted greatly, as the Indigenous population was subjected to diseases; displacement; destruction of cultural sites due to large-scale developments; changes to the environment through introduced plants and animals; linguistic imperialism and disruption of traditional practices, routines and movement patterns including alteration of burning practices (McKemey et al. 2020: 2; Obata & Lee 2010: s.v. Language Endangerment in Australia; Ritchie 2009: 29-31). The colonial settlers that occupied the Indigenous peoples’ lands introduced policies and practices that banned and discouraged the use of Indigenous languages up until the 1970s (ATSISJC 2009b: 58). From the 1970s, Australian governments started to make an effort to preserve Indigenous languages, including through bilingual

16 The Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda is available for download on the website of the University of New England: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/27780.

83 education programs in the NT and in Western Australia (WA) and through funding community language programs across Australia in the 1980s (ATSISJC 2009b: 58). However, ATSISJC (2009b: 58) notes that for most Australian Indigenous languages these efforts came too late. In 2009, the Australian government launched a national strategy for preserving Indigenous languages in the form of the National Approach 2009 (ATSISJC 2009b: 57), but ATSISJC (2009b: 59) notes that around the same time, the NT government made efforts “to dismantle bilingual education by making it mandatory for schools to teach the first four hours in English”. Apart from educational contexts, the Social Justice Report 2009 of the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) also notes the dominance of the English language in other areas, including environmental management and other development contexts:

[w]e know that Indigenous languages do not have a place of power in Australia. Indigenous languages are rarely, if ever, the means of communication with governments, industry or the non-Indigenous community. For example, negotiations about mining on Aboriginal land are usually conducted in English with (or often without) interpreting or translations for Aboriginal people. English continues to be the language of transaction in health services, in education, in negotiations about infrastructure development and industry development on Indigenous peoples’ land. English is the preferred language even in situations that are exclusively concerned with Indigenous interests such as Native Title negotiations. (ATSISJC 2009b: 66)

In the 1960s and early 1970s, the Yolngu17 people from north-east Arnhem Land protested against the removal of their land on which they have lived for millennia, by the government for Bauxite mining leases without consultation or their prior consent, including through bark petitions written in both Yolngu Matha and English that were presented to the Australian Parliament (AIATSIS n.d.c: Online). The NT Supreme court acknowledged the ongoing relationship of the Yolngu people with the land and their complex system of laws to govern the land, however, according to AIATSIS (n.d.c: Online) the court ultimately rejected the claim, “because the Yolgnu people’s relationship to the land didn’t fit the European concept of ‘property’”. Following continued lobbying of Indigenous peoples for their land rights, in 1976 the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act was passed, which resulted in nearly 50% of the NT being returned to Indigenous peoples, however, limitations were placed on those lands that were returned or could be claimed (AIATSIS n.d.c: Online). Following the famous Mabo case, the concept of ‘Terra Nullius’ or ‘land belonging to no-one’, which was used by colonial settlers to justify land grabbing of Indigenous peoples, was renounced and in

17 Also spelled Yolgnu or Yolŋu. 84

1993 the Native Title Act was introduced, which aimed to provide more recognition and protection for Indigenous peoples’ traditional lands (AIATSIS n.d.c: Online). However, while for over 32% of the Australian continent native title has been recognised since the introduction of the Act (AIATSIS n.d.c: Online), the Native Title Act does not provide exclusive land rights and according to AIATSIS (n.d.a: Online), “[i]f the rights of pastoralists, mining companies, federal government, or private owners come into conflict with native title rights, they supersede the native title rights”, therefore ongoing colonial practices limit the effective self- determination of Indigenous peoples. Indigenous languages in Australia’s north were also not as severely affected by colonisation as those in the south-eastern part of Australia, yet many languages in the north are endangered because of the impact of colonisation (Obata & Lee 2010: s.v. Language endangerment in Australia). The SEAL IPA Management Plan 2016-2021 describes the language situation of the SEAL IPA as follows:

Traditional languages of the IPA are Ritharrngu, Rembarrnga and Nunggubuyu in the north, Ngalakgan and Ngandi in the central areas, Yukgul in the south and Wandarrang along the coast from around Numbulwar south to the Roper. Today many Marra speakers from coastal areas south of the Roper River live in Ngukurr. Sadly many of these languages are in decline. Yukgul for instance has never been recorded and is considered to have disappeared in the early 1900’s. First-language speakers of Wandarrang no longer exist, and Ngalakgan and Ngandi only survive through less than a handful of speakers. Ngukurr Kriol, a distinctive form of pidgin combining traditional languages with English, is now the common language throughout our region. (Gambold 2015: 7, original emphasis)

Like Indigenous languages, Indigenous fire management practices in Australia’s north have also been impacted by colonial processes, including in the SEAL IPA. As in other parts of the world, Indigenous peoples in Australia have been managing fire on their lands effectively for thousands of years (McKemey et al. 2020: 1; Robinson et al. 2020: 81). Among the many traditional uses of fire, such as for hunting, ceremony, campfires, cooking and clearing activities around the camp, are also activities to burn or prevent the burning of country for the health of particular plants and animals (McKemey et al. 2020: 6; Firesticks Alliance Indigenous Corporation [Firesticks] n.d.: Online). According to Firesticks (n.d.: Online), this “may involve patch burning to create different fire intervals across the landscape or it could be used for fuel and hazard reduction”. ‘Country’ is a commonly used term in Australia “to denote the traditional land/seas that belong to a particular Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander cultural group” (Nursey-Bray et al. 2019: 484). The burning practices developed by Australian Indigenous peoples to care for the health of the land and its people is often referred to as 85

‘cultural burning’ (cf. Firesticks n.d.: Online; Robinson et al. 2020: 83). As such, Indigenous burning practices not only include knowledge about when, where and how to burn but also involve cultural protocols and responsibilities for appropriate burning (Firesticks n.d.: Online; Robinson et al. 2020: 83). Many parts of Australia are prone to bushfires and according to the Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (n.d.: Online), “[b]ushfires are a natural, essential and complex part of the Australian environment and have been for thousands of years”, yet “[b]ushfires can significantly impact on lives, property and the environment”. As a result of constant management of the landscape through the skilled use of fire by Indigenous peoples, large intense bushfires were uncommon in pre-colonial Australia (Government of Western Australia 2013: Online). Following colonisation, Indigenous fire management practices were oftentimes prohibited and Indigenous peoples were even removed from their lands (McKemey et al. 2020: 2; Robinson et al. 2020: 83). Today, altered fire management regimes, in combination with climate change have exacerbated the occurrence of dangerous bushfires. Robinson et al. (2016: 14) argue that

[d]espite the importance of fire, the ongoing effects of colonisation have made it impossible to maintain past fire regimes, which once acted as markers of a known Indigenous presence in the landscape. From an Indigenous perspective, the country itself can be understood as responding to this failure to burn the land.

From the 1920s onwards, colonial settlers introduced their own strategies to reduce the risks of bushfires, including practices of prescribed or controlled burns, also referred to as fuel reduction or hazard reduction burns, which are now commonly practiced around Australia (McCormick 2002: 2-3). These controlled fires are usually applied to a predetermined area early in the fire season to reduce the fuel load and slow the spread and impact of dangerous wildfires later in the season (Northern Territory Government n.d.: Online). However, these prescribed burning practices have shown only varied levels of effectiveness (McCormick 2002: 6-7). Despite the challenges of colonial practices, Indigenous peoples have continued their fire management practices and adapted them to current circumstances (cf. Robinson et al. 2016: 15; Robinson et al. 2020: 83-84). In recent years, interest in Indigenous fire practices has grown again and research has shown that the re-introduction of Indigenous burning practices can have significant benefits, such as reducing the prospect of periodic wildfires, enhancing biodiversity, increasing landscape resilience, reducing carbon emissions and bringing Indigenous peoples back onto their land to manage it (University of New England [UNE] 2018: Online). Robinson et al. caution that merely approximating Indigenous fire

86 management practices risks ignoring the holistic nature of Indigenous fire management (Robinson et al. 2016: 13) and that a holistic approach to Indigenous fire management would involve the recognition of customary laws, economies, social relations, spiritual significance, ecologies, diverse technologies like seasonal indicators, kinship relationships and knowledge of cultural sites that underpin fire management and acknowledging the linkages between the diverse components of fire knowledge (Robinson et al. 2016: 9). In Australia, there is an emergence of cross-cultural fire management approaches, however, there remain challenges in the actual implementation of collaborative decision-making processes (cf. McKemey et al. 2020: 2; Robinson et al. 2016: 28). In the 1990s, community ranger groups and Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) were established around Australia, through which Indigenous peoples could often reconnect with the management of the land (McKemey et al. 2020: 2). McKemey et al. (2020: 2) define IPAs as “areas of land and sea managed by Indigenous groups as protected areas for biodiversity conservation through voluntary agreements with the Australian Government”. The SEAL IPA was declared an IPA in 2016 (McKemey et al. 2020: 4). It covers an area of 19,170 km² and is located on the western side of the Gulf of Carpentaria (McKemey et al. 2020: 4). The area is home to approximately 2,000 Indigenous Australian’s and hosts “[a] rich patina of indigenous culture” that “persists across this landscape” (Gambold 2015: 12). According to Gambold (2015: 12), “the diversity of traditional languages overlapping across its twenty thousand square kilometres” are “[e]vidence of the IPA’s astounding cultural wealth” and the SEAL IPA’s “ecological riches manifest in the convergence of four distinctive bioregions within this same precinct”. The traditional Aboriginal owners of the land, who have lived in the region of the SEAL IPA for tens of thousands of years, have been granted tenure of that land in 1980 under Australian common law via the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act (Gambold 2015: 10). In 2001, the Yugul Mangi Rangers were formally established and together with the Numbulwar Numbirindi Rangers, they have been managing the southern region of the SEAL IPA (McKemey et al. 2020: 4). The area of the SEAL IPA consists of tropical savanna woodlands, rivers, coastlines and sandstone uplands fringing the Arnhem Plateau (Gambold 2015: 10). In Australia’s dry tropics ecosystems that form a significant part of the world’s savanna biome, fire is both a significant factor of natural and anthropogenic environmental disturbance and an important tool for Indigenous peoples to manage their country (McKemey et al. 2020: 2). The active promotion of the restoration of Indigenous fire management in northern Australia began from 1997 onwards, while from 2006, formal agreements between Indigenous land management organisations, industry and

87 government partners were commenced, which involved the off-set of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through processes called ‘savanna burning’ (McKemey et al. 2020: 2). In 2016, the Yugul Mangi Rangers formally commenced savanna burning (McKemey et al. 2020: 7). Today, fire management is carried out by using a combination of Indigenous traditional ways of burning and modern technology. Australia’s savanna burning programmes have shown to be effective for reducing the occurrence of dangerous wildfires, protecting biodiversity and culturally important sites, maintaining and transferring knowledge and creating a carbon abatement (McKemey et al. 2020: 2). These outcomes have led to global interest in these types of programmes (McKemey et al. 2020: 2). The Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda was developed by drawing on Indigenous knowledges to illustrate the biocultural indicators of different seasons in the SEAL IPA and relating them to the right time and right ways of burning (McKemey et al. 2020: 3 & 12). For this case study, the thesis applies a PDA approach on the presence of Indigenous languages to both the Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda (McKemey et al. 2019) and the academic paper (McKemey et al. 2020) written by the project participants that gives background knowledge and describes the process of producing the calendar. While both the Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda and the academic paper use ‘Aboriginal’ and ‘Indigenous’ and ‘Aboriginal languages’ and ‘Indigenous languages’, ‘Indigenous’ and ‘Indigenous languages’ is used more often and therefore also used in this thesis, except in direct quotations.

Language awareness and availability of project communication and information in Indigenous languages

Language awareness is shown in both the Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda and the academic paper that describes the process of its production, as they note the different languages spoken in the area and by the project participants, as illustrated in the examples given in (16) and (17):

(16) All participants resided in the town of Ngukurr (Northern Territory, Australia, Figure 1) at the time of the interviews and represented nine traditional Indigenous language groups from the SEAL IPA region. (McKemey et al. 2020: 4)

(17) The language and information, including its visual representation, contained in this publication includes the traditional biocultural knowledge, cultural expression and references to biological resources (plants and animals) of the peoples of the Ngandi, Wubuy (Nunggubuyu), Ritharrŋu/Wagilak, Marra, Ngalakan, Alawa, Rembarrnga, Warndarrang and Roper River Kriol language groups. (McKemey et al. 2019: 1)

The Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda is presented in a poster format, as shown in Figure 1, which at the top left corner includes a key with codes and colours for each language used in the calendar (McKemey et al. 2019: 1).

Figure 1. Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda (Yugul Mangi Fire and Season Calendar) [Screenshot by author, taken on 5 Jun. 2021]. © Yugul Mangi Rangers 2019 (McKemey et al. 2019: 1). DOI: 10.25952/5dd1b81581d98. The poster is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial- ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc- sa/4.0/legalcode. The electronic version of the poster is available for download on the website of the University of New England: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/27780.

The Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda, as shown in Figure 1, was developed by participants of a project to investigate and learn about local Indigenous fire management in the NT between 2016 and 2019 (McKemey et al. 2020: 1). In order to gain feedback from local communities for the investigation of Indigenous knowledges on local fire management practices, semi-structured interviews were conducted with Indigenous community members in the SEAL IPA area (McKemey et al. 2020: 1). Interviews were also conducted in Indigenous languages and then translated into English, with assistance of local community members (McKemey et al. 2020: 5). By describing the different languages spoken in the area and by project participants, the multilingual environment of the project setting is made visible. As discussed in 2.2.3.1, using Indigenous languages in the communication process enables community members to better engage with the project. According to the Ngukurr Language Centre (n.d.: Online), “[t]he main language spoken in Ngukurr today is Kriol but within the community, traditional languages are held in high esteem”. Therefore, by using Indigenous languages in the communication process, the project of the Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda counteracts some of the impacts of colonisation and helps to maintain endangered Indigenous languages. In order to facilitate discussion, information from seasonal calendars previously developed by speakers of Indigenous languages were also used in the interviews (McKemey et al. 2020: 5). Furthermore, Indigenous language speakers and the local community were actively involved in producing the communication outputs of the project. Local community members were engaged in the translation of interviews and senior speakers of Indigenous languages at the Ngukurr Language Centre supported the creation of the calendar (McKemey et al. 2020: 5). Moreover, the Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda itself serves as a communication and education tool that incorporates Indigenous languages and knowledges and increases awareness of Indigenous languages and burning practices (McKemey et al. 2020: 11).

Use of Indigenous language terminology

The Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda uses Indigenous language terminology of the peoples of the Ngandi, Wubuy (Nunggubuyu), Ritharrŋu/Wägilak18, Marra, Ngalakgan19, Alawa, Rembarrnga, Warndarrang and Roper River Kriol language groups. The name of the calendar comes from the Roper River Kriol language and means in English Yugul Mangi Fire

18 Also spelled Wagilak. 19 Also spelled Ngalakan. 90 and Seasons Calendar (McKemey et al. 2020: 8), whereby ‘Yugul Mangi’ means ‘all of us’ and refers to the Indigenous peoples of South East Arnhem Land (McKemey et al. 2020: 4). Indigenous language terms are included in the calendar for the biocultural indicators that describe and portray the different seasons and the animals, plants, food and other resources prevalent and utilised during the different seasons of the area. McKemey et al. (2020: 8) define biocultural indicators as “predictable, obvious, seasonal events that are culturally significant”. These indicators are related to weather conditions, resource use, fire management, cultural events and spiritual events (McKemey et al. 2020: 8). The seasons and biocultural indicators are aligned to the annual cycles of fire management (McKemey et al. 2019: 1; McKemey et al. 2020: 10). For the Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda, 40 biocultural indicators were shared by 19 participants of the various language groups (McKemey et al. 2020: 9). Examples of how biocultural indicators describe the change of seasons and align with fire management in the Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda can be seen in (18) and (19):

(18) May is the windy, dry time. The cold weather is coming. There is heavy dew overnight and in the morning. The wind pushes out the ashes and after one week greens come out. When the grass is turning brown, young dikdik come out (Leichhardt’s grasshopper). We make a fire break around this area. The dragonfly comes out- it is the first sign cold is coming. Conkerberry fruit are good to eat. (McKemey et al. 2019: 1, original emphasis)

(19) ‘Barra. That’s the hot wind that comes in from the north around August, September. That wind tells us the season is changing, you can feel the heat too, the humidity changes, and when it is hot that certain month, bang! Everything stops.’ – Clarry Rogers (McKemey et al. 2019: 1, my emphasis)

For each biocultural indicator, a number of Indigenous language terms is listed in the Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda, as shown in Figure 2 (McKemey et al. 2019: 1).

Figure 2. Biocultural indicators August. Excerpt of the Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda showing biocultural indicators for the month of August in English, Kriol (K), Marra (M), Ritharrŋu/Wägilak (RW), Ngandi (NG), Wubuy (Nunggubuyu) (NU), Ngalakgan (NN), Alawa (A) and Rembarrnga (R) languages [Screenshot by author, taken on 5 Jun. 2021]. Adapted from Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda (Yugul Mangi Fire and Season Calendar). © Yugul Mangi Rangers 2019 (McKemey et al. 2019: 1). DOI: 10.25952/5dd1b81581d98. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode.

Incorporating Indigenous language terms in the calendar shows the local Indigenous peoples’ connection to the land and the knowledges of the land embedded in language. As such, incorporating Indigenous language terms into a mainstream communication tool also encourages rapport and helps to build connections. Incorporating terminology of Indigenous languages that are considered endangered, as shown in Figure 2, also aids intergenerational transfer of those languages and the knowledge embedded in those languages, as the Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda is intended to be used as an educational tool. Furthermore, the inclusion of Indigenous language terms and the intended uses of the calendar as a tool for education, language preservation and awareness-raising for Indigenous fire practices are suggested and guided by Indigenous peoples (McKemey et al. 2019: 1; McKemey et al. 2020: 11). Therefore, the incorporation of Indigenous language terms is applied in a way that is determined by the Indigenous peoples themselves, who hold the respective knowledges in these languages, which is considered more ethical, relevant, culturally appropriate and effective than using Indigenous language terms without consultation as discussed in 2.2.3.2.

References to Indigenous languages and perspectives

In the paper that describes the production of the Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda, McKemey et al. (2020: 3) note how Indigenous knowledges and languages are “under grave threat globally” and also point at the challenges for intergenerational transmission of these knowledges. Further, McKemey et al. (2020: 3) emphasise that Indigenous communities see seasonal calendars as an important tool for collecting and sharing Indigenous knowledges and illustrating the profound connections between people and country and the yearly cycles of change on country, Indigenous seasonal knowledges, and links between Indigenous cultures and land uses. According to McKemey et al. (2020: 1),

[f]ire management is driven by an Indigenous group’s cosmovision, encapsulated in Australia’s First Nations peoples’ term “caring for country,” whereby the maintenance and restoration of land and ecosystems is inextricably linked to human wellbeing, spirituality, kinship systems and culture.

The Indigenous concept of ‘caring for country’ is introduced on the first page of the paper (McKemey et al. 2020: 1) and the term ‘country’ is then used throughout, thus foregrounding Indigenous conceptualisations of the land and connections of people to the land. For the Yugul Mangi rangers, McKemey et al. (2020: 13, original emphasis) state that “[d]ocumenting their local and Traditional Ecological Knowledge through the Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda has allowed them to share their knowledge and explain their world-view related to fire management”. The Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda and the academic paper that describes the project both include numerous quotes from Indigenous peoples, directly highlighting their perspectives. Furthermore, in regard to seasonal knowledges, McKemey et al. (2020: 11) point out that the Gregorian calendar is based on the Northern Hemisphere seasons of summer, autumn, spring and winter, and as such translates only poorly to the seasonal conditions in Australia and that “[i]n contrast Indigenous peoples’ seasonal knowledge is intimately related to their country and suits the diversity of environments found in Australia”. As shown in Figure 3, the Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda, while including the names of the months as in the Gregorian calendar, groups them around the three local seasons presented in the calendar, which are also given various names in the local Indigenous languages and aligned to annual cycles of fire management (McKemey et al. 2019: 1; McKemey et al. 2020: 10).

Figure 3. Biocultural indicators dry season – right time for burning. Excerpt of the Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda (McKemey et al. 2019: 1) showing images of biocultural indicators for the dry season, aligned to the right time for burning in the annual cycle of fire management. The dry season is given names in the Kriol, Ngandi, Wubuy, Ritharrŋu/Wagilak, Marra and Rembarrnga languages. [Screenshot by author]. Adapted from Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda (Yugul Mangi Fire and Season Calendar) © Yugul Mangi Rangers 2019. (McKemey et al. 2019: 1). DOI: 10.25952/5dd1b81581d98. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. https://creativecommo ns.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode.

In the paper that describes the production of the Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda, McKemey et al. describe in some detail how the acknowledgement of the local seasonal conditions makes a difference for local fire management and how this relates to the biocultural indicators featured in the calendar, some of which is shown in the examples given in (20) and (21):

(20) Non-Indigenous fire managers are sometimes constrained by government requirements to set burn dates based on the Gregorian calendar, coordination of resources and personnel from multiple agencies, and relying on suitable weather conditions on the set date. This means that agreements to burn are often obstructed by one or more of these factors and burning cannot proceed. In contrast, the Yugul Mangi rangers have more adaptability to match their burning practices to cultural Law (through existing kinship and governance systems), the environmental conditions at the time, and can change their plans according to conditions. (McKemey et al. 2020: 11)

(21) The Dry Season is the right time to burn, when the weather is cool and there are light, south-easterly winds. Biocultural indicators are used to indicate when it is time to start burning, including the appearance of large numbers of dragonflies and the dominant savanna grass species dropping their seeds. This is an important time of transition, when the shrubs that fruited during the Wet Season finish fruiting, and burning should be carefully controlled around these important bush tucker resources. (McKemey et al. 2020: 12)

The examples given in (20) and (21) show how the language of the land is taken into consideration and how Indigenous ways of ‘reading country’ becomes an important part in fire management. As McKemey et al. (2020: 8) note, “[t]he rangers explained that reading country and noticing biocultural indicators is important when making decisions related to fire management”. Further, the Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda and the paper that describes its production refer to Indigenous interviewees and Indigenous participants, who consider the calendar useful for Indigenous education of younger generations (McKemey et al. 2020: 11). Thus, the Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda and the academic paper not only incorporate Indigenous perspectives on environmental management and burning practices, but also Indigenous languages in the outputs of the project and Indigenous perspectives on how to utilise the outputs of the project.

Reflection of Indigenous worldviews and concepts in the language used

Indigenous savanna burning projects, such as the one in the SEAL IPA, aim to use cross- cultural science, which means to incorporate both Indigenous and Western knowledge systems, and both natural and cultural values (McKemey et al. 2020: 3). In this way, a more holistic and intercultural perspective is employed. The project communication and outputs of the Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda acknowledge the difference in worldviews, and alternative languages and worldviews are recognised and respected. The language used signifies Indigenous peoples as partners and emphasises collaboration, engagement and mutual respect. The paper also includes a specific acknowledgment of the traditional custodians of the land on which the research took place, as shown in (22):

(22) The authors would like to acknowledge the Traditional Owners of South East Arnhem Land and all Indigenous people, past, present and future, who have cared for and shared their knowledge of country and culture. (McKemey et al. 2020: 13)

The acknowledgement shows an appreciation of Indigenous knowledges and environmental management practices, and recognition for Indigenous peoples’ traditional ownership of the land since before colonisation. Furthermore, the academic paper acknowledges the processes of European colonisation of the NT and subsequent disruption of Indigenous fire practices, which resulted in widespread wildfires and significant environmental damage (McKemey et al. 2020: 2). In the academic paper that describes the production of the Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda Indigenous peoples are considered knowledgeable and their knowledge is regarded as valuable for decision making in environmental management and thus the 95 contribution that Indigenous languages and perspectives make to sustainable development is acknowledged, as is also illustrated in the example given in (23):

(23) The Yugul Mangi rangers and SEAL IPA Elders were selected as collaborators due to their knowledge and practice of fire management. (McKemey et al. 2020: 4)

The Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda and the academic paper that describes its production also refer to ethical approvals and permits that were obtained for the research (McKemey et al. 2020: 4) and include a passage on Indigenous cultural and intellectual property in the calendar (McKemey et al. 2019: 1). The Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda and the manuscript for publication were created in collaboration between Indigenous rangers and non-Indigenous scientists (McKemey et al. 2020: 4). The text suggests that the collaboration was appreciated on both sides, as seen in (23) above and in the example given in (24) below:

(24) One ranger said that the calendar would be particularly meaningful as it had been developed by the Indigenous rangers with assistance from non‐Indigenous scientists, rather than having been developed in isolation from the community: “This one [calendar], that’s the ranger group doing our seasonal chart with you [non‐Indigenous scientist], making a lot of difference”—MR. (McKemey et al. 2020: 11)

The language used in examples (23) and (24) and throughout the project outputs suggests that there is a focus on intercultural sharing, and the reciprocal and collaborative approach is part of the project and not just a means to an end. The community, the rangers and the scientists are all named as authors in both the calendar (McKemey et al. 2019: 1) and the paper that describes its production (McKemey et al. 2020: 1). The academic paper that describes the production of the calendar also acknowledges that Indigenous fire management is not just about the knowledge of when and where to burn, but that it is also important to know about cultural protocols and the right people to burn and the right partnerships in environmental management (McKemey et al. 2020: 6). McKemey et al. describe both traditional and modern uses of fire (McKemey et al. 2020: 5-6) and also make references to the processes of combining traditional and modern methods and Western and Indigenous perspectives in fire management (McKemey et al. 2020: 6). The authors also make references to the challenges of bringing the two worlds together, acknowledging the complexities of cross-cultural environmental management and developing intercultural projects for sustainable development (McKemey et al. 2020: 12). Finally, McKemey et al.

96 state that “[m]any Indigenous groups around the world aspire to increase their participation in fire management and have their knowledge recognized and appreciated” and the authors

recommend the development of fire and seasons calendars as a practical and educational activity that could be relevant to many of these [Indigenous] communities and help avoid potential misunderstandings between Indigenous and non-Indigenous fire managers. This could drive an increase in the uptake of adaptive and locally attuned Indigenous fire management to alleviate poverty, cherish Indigenous knowledge, fight climate change and restore ecosystems in many locations across the globe. (McKemey et al. 2020: 13)

This statement also highlights the importance not only of the production of the Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda, but also of the cross-cultural partnerships that benefit sustainable development.

4.2 Case study Europe: the website of the Laponia World Heritage Site

Laponia is a World Heritage Site (WHS) located in Sápmi, the homeland of the Sámi20 Indigenous peoples of northern Europe (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.a: Online). The Sámi name for the area that comprises Laponia is Mijá Ednam (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.b: Online). Through present-day national boundaries that have been drawn up in the last centuries, Sápmi has been divided up by the nation states of Sweden, Norway, Finland and Russia (Lantto 2010: 543; Sámiráđđi 2020: Online). The Laponia WHS is located within Sweden and just above the Arctic Circle (Heinämäki et al. 2017: 78). Since 2013 the Laponia WHS is officially managed by Laponiatjuottjudus, a non-profit-organisation established for this purpose by representatives from both Indigenous and non-Indigenous stakeholders (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.c: Online; Reimerson 2016: 810-811). This form of management is often considered unique, as it shows a form of decentralised natural area management with active involvement of local and Indigenous peoples, where decision-making was for a long time solely done by the Swedish government and its agencies (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.b: Online; OECD 2019: 138; Reimerson 2016: 821; Stjernström et al. 2020: 3-4). The process of establishing this new co- management arrangement was, however, not straight-forward and required year-long negotiations between the different parties who often had vastly contrasting viewpoints (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.b: Online Hytönen et al. 2020: 21; Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.b: Online; Lindstrand 2012: 24; Bergdahl 2012: 52).

20 There are several other spellings for the Sámi, including Saami and Sami (UN 2011: 4). The Laponia WHS website uses the spelling ‘Sámi’, therefore this thesis uses this form as well, except when quoting from a source or referring to the name of an organisation that uses another spelling. 97

Estimates of the Sámi population vary, since the Nordic countries do not publish statistics in relation to ethnicity (OECD 2019: 13; Storm Mienna & Axelsson 2019: 1). According to the Arctic Council (n.d.: Online), there are approximately 50,000 to 80,000 Sámi, with around 20,000 to 50,000 living in Sweden. According to the most recent IWGIA report on The Indigenous World, the Sámi are estimated to number around 50,000 to 100,000, with most (50,000 to 65,000) living in Norway (1.06% to 1.38% of Norway’s total population), 20,000 living in Sweden (0.22% of Sweden’s total population), 8,000 living in Finland (0.16% of the total Finnish population) and around 2,000 living in Russia, which amounts to a very small proportion of the total Russian population (Vars 2020: 527). Sametinget, the Sami Parliament in Sweden, lists similar estimates, adding that it is difficult to put an exact number on how many people with Sámi ancestry also identify as Sámi, also noting the lack of statistics on ethnic backgrounds and estimating that there might be as many as 70,000 Sámi in Sweden, while an investigation in 1970 determined the Sámi population in Sweden to be around 20,000 (Nilsson 2014: 6). The Sámi are today the only officially recognised Indigenous peoples of the EU (CoE 2015: 9). They have been living in the Sápmi homelands in the Arctic regions of Europe for thousands of years, sustainably living off the land with a focus on livelihoods such as hunting, fishing and reindeer herding, among others (Mustonen et al. 2018: 47; Bergman 2005: 12-13; Nuttall et al. 2005: 652; Sámiráđđi 2020: Online; Nilsson 2014: 15). According to Sámiráđđi, “[r]eindeer husbandry is one of the cornerstones in Sámi culture” (Sámiráđđi 2020: Online). The Sámi’s homelands began to be colonised from the 16th century onwards and gradually the Sámi lost control over their lands and their ways of life (Lawrence 2014: 1042-1043; Pikkarainen & Brodin 2008: 18-19; Pedersen 2005: 35; Svensk Information 2005: 62). By the 19th century, colonisation processes intensified, and the Nordic states introduced assimilation policies that resulted in great power imbalances and discrimination of the Sámi on their own traditionally occupied lands (Lawrence 2014: 1043). The Sámi were subjected to education policies that favoured Scandinavian languages and cultures, their lands were encroached upon for farming, extractive industries and large industrial developments, they had to undergo racial biology research and forced relocation, the establishment of national parks restricted their hunting and fishing rights, and speaking Sámi languages was prohibited (Svensk Information 2005: 11; Lundmark 2005: 14-15; Marainen 2005: 16; Pikkarainen & Brodin 2008: 18-20; Sámiráđđi 2020: Online). Over the last decades, the Sámi people’s rights have slowly regained recognition. In 1977, the Swedish government recognised the Sámi as an Indigenous people (Sametinget

98 n.d.: 4), which gives the Sámi more agency through international rights-based instruments, such as the UNDRIP that Sweden voted for in 2007 (Sami Parliament 2019: 6; Vars 2020: 527). However, Sweden has not yet ratified the legally binding ILO Convention No. 169 (Mörkenstam 2019: 1720). Today, the Sámi are still affected by past and ongoing impacts of colonisation and the cumulative impacts of competing land uses on their traditional lands and climate change (Raitio et al. 2020: 2-4; Swedish Institute n.d.a: Online). Due to the impacts of colonisation, all Sámi languages are considered vulnerable or endangered, some are considered severely endangered, and some are even considered extinct or no longer spoken (Salminen 2010: 35). While the Sámi language is often referred to in the singular form, there are up to eleven different, but related Sámi languages of which nine are commonly still considered to be actively spoken (Jokinen 2016: 3299; Pasanen 2020: Online; Salminen 2010: 35). Per-Olof Nutti, the president of the Sami Parliament states that

[s]ometimes the terms “Sami language” or simply “Sami” are used. At such times we refer to any of the Sami languages, or all of the Sami languages in the sense of “the language of the Sami people”. The Sami Parliament strives for the different versions of Sami to be named as different Sami languages. (Nutti 2019: 3)

An analysis published by Sametinget in 2014 lists around 40-45% of the people in Sápmi as speaking Sámi, but the paper also notes that there are no reliable statistics regarding Sámi- speakers (Nilsson 2014: 6). The most commonly spoken Sámi language is North Sámi, with around 17,000 speakers, of which around 6,000 live in Sweden (Nilsson 2014: 6). North Sámi also increasingly serves as a lingua franca among Sámi (Jokinen et al. 2016: 3300; Israelsson 2005: 52-53). Other Sámi languages spoken in Sweden are Lule Sámi and South Sámi, both of which are spoken in Norway as well (Nilsson 2014: 6). In total, there are around 800 Lule Sámi speakers and 700 South Sámi speakers (Nilsson 2014: 6). North Sámi is considered endangered and both Lule Sámi and South Sámi are considered severely endangered (Salminen 2010: 35). Politically, the Sámi are represented by Sámi parliaments in Sweden, Finland and Norway and a number of other organisations and NGOs in the three Nordic countries and Russia (Vars 2020: 527). The Sámi parliament in Sweden was established in 1993 (Svensk Information 2005: 63). In 1998, the Swedish government apologised to the Sámi for Sweden’s oppression of the Sámi people, including the refusal to let the Sámi use their own languages (Svensk Information 2005: 63). In 2000, Sweden ratified the FCNM and the ECRML and recognised the Sámi as a ‘national minority’ and the Sámi language as a national ‘minority

99 language’, which affords the Sámi language rights under Sweden’s National Minorities and Minority Languages Act from 2010 (Swedish Institute n.d.b: Online). The Sámi also have the right to use their language in courts and when dealing with administrative authorities, although only in areas in which they have historical roots (Swedish Institute n.d.b: Online). In Sweden, the Sámi also have the right to mother-tongue education (Keva 2015: 18). However, in practice, discrimination and challenges to the implementation of the Sámi language rights remain, placing their languages further at risk (Pikkarainen & Brodin 2008: 25-26; Keva 2015: 18; Svensk Information 2005: 54-55). Today, national languages and English are the dominant languages (Aikio-Puoskari 2018: 356). A further challenge for the Sámi languages is the separation of the Sámi homelands by present-day national boundaries, with Sweden and Finland being part of the EU and Norway and Russia not being a member of the EU. Maintaining the languages across borders is not an easy task and the different countries also have different language regulations and policies (Aikio-Puoskari 2018: 360-361; Marjomaa 2015: 29). Nonetheless, efforts to revitalise, maintain and further strengthen the Sámi languages do exist, especially among the Sámi’s own organisations and institutions (cf. Aikio- Puoskari 2018: 357-361; Aslaksen 2015: 32; EU 2018: 36; Jokinen et al. 2016: 3300). According to Sametinget, “[t]he interest for the [Sami] language grows in pace with an increased self-esteem and strengthened identity perception with the Sami themselves” (Sametinget 2019: Online). Furthermore, there is also increasing awareness of the importance of the Sámi languages for sustainable development and environmental management (cf. UNESCO n.d.d: Online). The text analysed for this case study is the website of the Laponia (WHS) https://www.laponia.nu/en/. According to UNESCO (n.d.e: Online), “World Heritage is the designation for places on Earth that are of outstanding universal value to humanity and as such, have been inscribed on the World Heritage List to be protected for future generations to appreciate and enjoy”. Laponiatjuottjudus (n.d.d: Online), describes how the “Laponia World Heritage is a Sámi cultural landscape with traces of human activity dating back thousands of years, at the same time as it is Europe’s biggest contiguous natural landscape. In 1996, UNESCO designated Laponia a World Heritage Site for both its culture and its nature”. Laponiatjuottjudus (n.d.a: Online) refers to the Laponia WHS as a “living world heritage site”. Today, many Sámi still have a nomadic lifestyle and follow reindeer on their seasonal migrations, including within the Laponia area, although modern means of transport are now often used (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.e: Online). The Laponia WHS consists of large forest areas, mountains and vast wetlands in the municipalities of Jokkmokk and Göllivare and

100 encompasses the Sámi communities of Baste čearru, Unna tjerusj, Sirges, Jåhkågaska tjiellde, Tuorpon, Luokta-Mávas, and the Udtja, Slakka and Gällivare Forest Sámi communities, and comprises of the four national parks Sarek, Padjelanda/Badjelánnda, Muddus/Muttos and Stora Sjöfallet/Stuor Muorkke, the two nature reserves Sjávnja and Stubbá, and the areas of Tjuoldavuobme (Tjuolta Valley), Ráhpaäno suorgudahka (Látjávrre delta) and Sulidälbmá (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.d: Online). The Indigenous languages spoken within the area of the Laponia WHS are present on the website of the Laponia WHS in several ways that are outlined below according to the categories described in the methodology section of this thesis: ‘Language awareness and availability of project communication and information in Indigenous languages’; ‘Use of Indigenous language terminology’; ‘References to Indigenous languages and perspectives’; and ‘Reflection of Indigenous worldviews and concepts in the language used’.

Language awareness and availability of project communication and information in Indigenous languages

In general, a high priority is attributed to language on the Laponia WHS website. Not only the content is available in multiple languages, but the website also shows language awareness by explaining and describing the different languages spoken in the Laponia area and dedicating a whole webpage called ‘The name says it’ to the topic of language (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.f: Online). The website of the Laponia WHS is available in four different languages, two of which are local Indigenous languages, in the order as they appear in the menu of the website: English, Svenska (Swedish), Julevsámegiellaj (Lule Sámi) and Davvisámegiella (North Sámi)21. The website mentions that guided tours in the Laponia WHS are available in Swedish and English, but tours in Sámi are also available if booked in advance (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.h: Online). Laponiatjuottjudus (n.d.g) mentions that “[i]n Laponia the languages are Lule Sámi and North Sámi”. The Laponia Management Plan notes that “Laponia is situated within the Lule Sámi area, but Northern Sámi and Southern Sámi are also spoken in this region” (Laponia n.d.: 110) and that “Sámi and Swedish languages are the main languages of the area” (Laponia n.d.: 111). This contrasts the official status of Swedish being the main language and Sámi being only a ‘minority language’ (Swedish Institute n.d.b: Online) and shows an awareness of Laponia’s location not only within Sweden but within the Sámi’s homelands and the area’s local Indigenous languages that have been spoken in Laponia long before present- day national borders were established.

21 See: ‘Change language’ in the top banner of the website. 101

Information about the Laponiatjuottjudus organisation that manages the Laponia WHS, the objective of the management and the working methods are provided on the Laponia WHS website in the Indigenous languages of Lule Sámi and North Sámi (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.c: Online22). Information about the Laponia Process is also available in Lule Sámi and North Sámi on the Laponia WHS website (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.b: Online). By providing information about the management of the Laponia WHS in local Indigenous languages, local communities can better engage with management processes and developments within the WHS. Moreover, by providing the website’s content and creating new discourse in Indigenous languages that are considered endangered, the website helps to maintain those languages. The website aids the discussion of WHS developments in the Lule Sámi and North Sámi languages, enabling the local Sámi language speakers and Sámi communities to participate in the discourse through their own languages. Here, language is a tool for spreading knowledge about the Laponia WHS and its management and helps Indigenous languages become more functional in a society that gives preference to the majority language. It also aids access to information in Indigenous languages on the internet, thus contributing to a closure of the ‘digital divide’. Furthermore, making the Laponia WHS website available in Indigenous languages increases the visibility of those languages, while at the same time supporting linguistic diversity and increasing the visibility of multilingual environments in general.

Use of Indigenous language terminology

The webpage ‘The name says it’ of the Laponia WHS website, describes and explains the Sámi languages of the Laponia WHS and provides a glossary of nature terms in Lule Sámi (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.f: Online). It also describes how “[t]he names in Laponia bear many memories and often tell of what the area looks like or who it was who lived there”, and that “[i]f you learn to understand what the names mean, you often understand better what type of landscape you are in”, since “[t]he names often tell a story” (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.f: Online). Thus, the Laponia WHS website illustrates the connections between language and the land and knowledges embedded in language, as shown in the example given in (25):

(25) If you learn what the Sámi names mean, you often see the landscape in front of you just by looking at the words. This is because the Sámi names often describe the terrain, a place, an area or something of is history. (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.f: Online)

22 The language can be changed at the top of the page using the menu ‘Change Language’. 102

An example of this is the compound word Guhkesvágge, which means ‘the long valley’ (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.f: Online). Incorporating Indigenous language terms in this way on the Laponia WHS website reaffirms the connection to the land that is embedded in Sámi language. Furthermore, promoting terminology in Lule Sámi and North Sámi aids the revitalisation and maintenance of these languages, which are considered endangered. Webpages that include terminology in Sámi languages can be used for education purposes and to pass on Indigenous knowledges and languages to younger generations and people of non-Indigenous backgrounds. The Laponia WHS website notes that “I[sic] Laponia, the Sámi names are original and some names have later been translated, Swedified or Finnified” and that “[m]ost names in Laponia are spelt with Lule Sámi spelling” (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.f: Online). The Laponia WHS website also points out that most maps and signs include names in Sámi languages (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.f: Online) and the Laponia Management Plan refers to Swedish legislation and regulations in regard to place-names and states that Laponiatjuottjudus strives “to make the Sámi language more visible in maps and other materials” (Laponia n.d. 111). The webpage ‘The name says it’ also notes that the national park names in Laponia are written with both Swedish and Sámi spelling, such as Stora Sjöfallet/Stuor Muorkke, and that “[e]xtensive work is going on to reinstate the Sámi wise of writing names, for example Dievssajávri (Teusajaure) and Guvtjávrre (Kutjaure). The Swedish spelling is then put in brackets, since it is still used by many and used on signposts and many old maps” (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.f: Online). Apart from a dedicated webpage about language, the Laponia WHS website uses Indigenous language terms and makes references to Sámi language terminology on other webpages throughout the website as well, as can be seen in the examples given in (26) and (27):

(26) In North Sámi, the common name for the Capercaillie is “beahcceloddi”, pine bird. This is because the capercaillie thrives in pine forest. [...] That the Capercaillie is common in Laponia is also evident in the place names. It is not unusual for place names to contain the word “gibme”, which is the Sámi word for mating and indicates that it is a place where you can see the capercaillie mating dance. (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.j: Online)

(27) Many of the older pines bear traces of bark stripping. [...] Bark was mostly taken in early summer when the sap is rising in the trees. The inner bark is then of the best quality and is easiest to take. In the Lule Sámi dialect, June is in fact called Biehtsemánno – pine month. (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.l: Online)

The examples given in (26) and (27) indicate the connection between Sámi languages and the environment at the Laponia WHS and how Indigenous languages are a repository of

103 knowledges about the environment, highlighting the importance of their preservation also for environmental and cultural concerns. The Laponia WHS website also describes traditional Sámi architecture and includes Indigenous language terminology in those descriptions (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.k: Online). In addition to describing the use of Sámi languages in local place-names, the use of Sámi terminology in describing Sámi ways of life and incorporating Sámi language terms in the description of the local environment, the Laponia WHS website also highlights the use of Sámi language terms in the management of the Laponia WHS, as shown in the examples given in (28) to (30):

(28) Rádedibme has a central function in the management. Rádedibme/councils are open meetings that are held on important management issues together with the local population and interest groups. The idea is to make use of local viewpoints and knowledge about the management of Laponia. (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.c: Online, original emphasis)

(29) To manage an area as big as Laponia requires working methods which make use of people’s different views on culture and nature. Searvelatnja means “learning arena” and is a working method that was established early on in the process of forming the management of Laponia. (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.c: Online, original emphasis)

(30) Tjuottjodit is the Lule Sámi verb ”to take care of something, administrate”. Laponiatjuottjudus is the management of Laponia World Heritage Site. (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.c: Online)

Examples 28 and 29 show the incorporation of Indigenous language terms into the working methods of the management of the Laponia WHS, while example 30 shows the use of Sámi terminology in the name of the management organisation of the Laponia WHS – Laponiatjuottjudus. The name for the management organisation was not only taken from the Sámi language, but rather the mainstream name of the area – Laponia – was combined with a Lule Sámi word for taking care of or managing something – Tjuottjodit –, thus combining Indigenous and non-Indigenous perspectives in the name of the management organisation, which reflects the composition of the mixed management board comprised of Indigenous and non-Indigenous stakeholders. Incorporating Sámi terminology means incorporating Sámi knowledges and perspectives. Incorporating Indigenous language terminology in this way also makes Indigenous languages more visible, as well as the multiplicity of concepts that can be applied in sustainable development, which is often made invisible in mainstream development discourses, where Western concepts have often been naturalised and given preference. As such, the incorporation of Indigenous language terms not only aids the preservation, revitalisation and use of Indigenous languages, but also the application of Indigenous concepts

104 in mainstream communication tools and in mainstream discourses on sustainable development and environmental management.

References to Indigenous languages and perspectives

The website of the Laponia WHS highlights how Sámi languages serve as vehicles for the expression of unique Sámi perspectives, histories, knowledges and ways of life (cf. Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.f: Online; Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.i: Online; Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.j.: Online; Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.k: Online; Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.l: Online). Furthermore, the website of the Laponia WHS highlights not only Indigenous knowledges and perspectives of the local environment, but also Indigenous management practices (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.c: Online), which, as has been discussed in the literature review of this thesis, is not commonplace in mainstream development discourses. Making references to concepts such as Searvelatnja as a working method for environmental management and emphasising that it is a concept with roots in Sámi culture highlights the multiplicity of concepts apart from dominant Western concepts and how Indigenous languages and perspectives contribute to sustainable development (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.c: Online). Furthermore, the Laponia WHS website uses numerous quotes to highlight the perspectives of Indigenous peoples within the Laponia WHS, as shown in the example given in (31) (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.m: Online23):

(31) Thanks to the road and the dam construction on Siidasjávri, moving to the mountains became easier. Women and children started coming along. It became easier to move with the reindeer across rivers and further west, to Njunjis. But the road and the dam did not only bring advantages, there was much more traffic on the road and many tourists, anglers and small game hunters started coming here. Per Gustav Nutti, Baste čearru

A number of other references to Indigenous languages and perspectives can be found throughout the Laponia WHS website. Furthermore, the examples given in (32) to (37) show how the Laponia WHS website uses a language that highlights the connection between people and the landscape, indicates a more holistic view of the environment where everything is interconnected and people are a part of it and not necessarily at the centre and how from a Sámi perspective, culture and nature are not as separate as it is often considered in Western environmental management discourses:

23 See: picture seven in image carousel. 105

(32) To be able to live on this land you must adapt to how the day turns out. (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.e: Online)

(33) All places are not suitable for a dwelling. This you and your ancestors have learned from nature. [...] In time, the land accepts you. And teaches you how to live here. (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.e: Online)

(34) Everything in nature has a spirit and humans are just a small part of something greater. (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.e: Online)

(35) If there were no reindeer foraging, neither would certain plants exist here. (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.l: Online)

(36) Sometimes the boundary disappears. Am I part of the land? Or is the land part of me? (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.m: Online)

(37) A Sámi proverb says that reindeer belong to the wind. It is nature that is in charge and the reindeer herders never have complete control over how large or small a herd they own. (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.n: Online)

The descriptions and catch phrases in the examples given in (32) to (37) show a different language as the one generally used in mainstream discourses that focus on an anthropocentric viewpoint, on the use of nature and its resources by humans and on the advertising of nature experiences and protected areas such as national parks, world heritage areas and conservation areas that commonly aims to attract people by framing nature as pristine, untouched, mysterious or alien, from which humans are separate and only visit temporarily to recharge or which humans need to conquer in order to survive or be removed from in order for nature to be ‘protected’ that stems from Western world views of a nature-culture divide (Byrne et al. 2013: 1-3; Uggla & Olausson 2013: 105-109). On the Laponia WHS website, verb constructions are used to give nature agency, such as in (33): the land ‘accepts’ you and ‘teaches’ you. Furthermore, the example in (37) emphasises that nature ‘is in charge’ and in (34) it is emphasised that humans are ‘just a small part of something greater’. This contrasts the dominant development discourses in which nature is mainly regarded as passive and as being a resource for human use. The Sami Parliament (2009: 5) states that from a Sámi point of view, nature is regarded as a soulful living being, which is also reflected on the Laponia WHS website by featuring a story from Ola Engelmark on how ‘the old growth-pine remembers’, written from the perspective of the pine tree (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.o). The Sami Parliament’s Living Environment Program Eallinbiras states that “[f]rom a Sami perspective all matters are environmental matters – because the environment affects all aspects of our lives and surroundings” (Sami Parliament 2009: 1) and that

106

[o]ur deep relationship to nature is difficult to imprison in words. To live in nature and to live directly from what nature can give, creates an immediate relationship between us and nature (animals, each other). We rely on a living relationship to Sápmi, our home. If we – or someone else – destroy nature, it will also harm our culture. (Sami Parliament 2009: 4)

These statements of the Sami Parliament’s Living Environment Program Eallinbiras correspond with the statements on the Laponia WHS website and examples given in (32) to (37). The language used on the Laponia WHS website regards people as part of the landscape and who leave traces in the landscape, which is different to mainstream conceptions of protected areas, which often focus on preserving ‘wilderness’ areas and removing people from the landscape for its protection (cf. Byrne et al. 2013: 3). Some examples of statements on the Laponia WHS website that acknowledge the presence of humans in the landscape for a long time are given in (38) and (39):

(38) In Laponia it can be clearly seen that people have been part of the ecosystem for 7,000 years. Carl-Johan Utsi (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.a: Online24)

(39) People have lived in the area which now forms Laponia World Heritage Site ever since the last of the inland ice cap disappeared. Every stream, forest, hill, rock, and lake has a name. People, animals and plants have adapted to extreme contrasts of wind and calm, bare ground and snow, light and dark, warmth and cold. Knowledge of how to live off nature without overexploiting its riches has been handed down from generation to generation. Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.m: Online)

The examples given in (38) and (39) show a language that reflects Indigenous perspectives of life in Laponia for thousands of years and how sustainable ways of living have been handed down from generation to generation. Furthermore, the Laponia WHS website also includes references to the eight seasons traditionally known by the Sámi, which form “the basis for the rhythm of life for the Sámi” (Sámi Museum Siida n.d.: Online) as contrary to the standardised Western or Gregorian calendar, which has only four seasons, but is often applied to the whole of Sweden in national information campaigns (cf. Swedish Institute n.d.c: Online). The Sámi perspective of the local seasons is included on the Laponia WHS website by displaying the eight seasons in the left-hand column of all webpages and when clicking on the different seasons, a description of the respective season is displayed, such as for the season of Tjaktjagiesse – autumn-summer. Apart from foregrounding Sámi seasons, the Naturum Laponia Visitor Centre shows Sámi design elements, such as natural materials, round shapes and Sámi colour themes (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.p). The Laponia WHS website describes how

24 See: picture ten in image carousel. 107

Sámi design is based on nature and the life people have lived here. Everything from the design of clothing to the construction methods has been chiselled out and developed from generation to generation. Nature has provided the materials and is the origin of all the colours and shapes. (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.p: Online)

In addition, the website notes that the round shapes, which can be found at the Naturum Visitor Centre are typical of Sámi culture and many other Indigenous peoples’ cultures (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.p: Online). Incorporating Indigenous perspectives in this range of ways as on the Laponia WHS website makes visible the continuing and ongoing connections of the Sámi with the environment and the languages, traditional knowledges and methods that have been passed on from generation to generation that originated from connections with nature, as well as their continued development, adaptation and modern applications, emphasising the dynamism of traditional knowledges and methods and their application to sustainable development.

Reflection of Indigenous worldviews and concepts in the language used

The Laponia WHS website incorporates Indigenous worldviews and concepts using a language that appreciates those worldviews. Co-management is emphasised on the website and the process of establishing partnerships is described. Indigenous peoples are presented as stakeholders and not only as subjects of development at the Laponia WHS. Furthermore, the website describes processes that have led to a shared conservation space that involves the local Sámi people’s perspectives. The co-management of the Laponia WHS between Indigenous and non-Indigenous stakeholders is commonly considered a step towards self- management of the Sámi and results in increased control of and participation in the area’s natural resources management, the conservation of its biodiversity, the decisions related to tourism alongside reindeer herding within the Laponia WHS and other developments in the Sámi’s homelands (Laponia n.d.: 65-66 & 113-114; Lindstrand 2012: 23-24; Reimerson 2016: 822). The Laponia WHS Management Plan states that “[t]he majority of areas sensitive to disturbances, both when it comes to nature and ongoing reindeer husbandry, require special consideration and contain restrictions to some extent for the visitor” (Laponia n.d.: 65). The Laponia WHS management plan further notes that

[i]t is particularly important to show respect for the reindeer and the land-use of reindeer husbandry. The reindeer grow mainly in the summer, building up fat and storing protein. During the summer is also the time when the cows produce milk for the calves. In winter there is only marginal growth. The reindeer’s need of calm when grazing is of great importance for its survival, and thereby also for the reindeer industry. (Laponia n.d.: 66) 108

As shown in the example in (40) below, the Laponia WHS website includes references to local Sámi reindeer herders’ opinions on how tourism and reindeer herding need to be aligned so that Indigenous ways of life can continue to exist and how decision-making in the Laponia WHS needs to include the local Sámi reindeer herders’ views:

(40) It is right then in July, when the reindeer are supposed to eat and get fat before winter, that their grazing is constantly being disturbed. The risk they see with the area now being a World Heritage Site is that the area will become more well-known and a popular destination, especially for summer tourism. If things evolve in this fashion, they would like to start limiting the number of hikers. This would give them the possibility to direct and to some extent regulate hiking tourism in the most sensitive areas. (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.g: Online)

The Laponia WHS website also describes working methods of the Laponiatjuottjudus management board that refer to Indigenous perspectives. The Laponia management plan states that “[t]he management organization is shaped in a way which ensures that the management is a cooperative management with a high degree of local influence” (Laponia n.d.: 22). The Laponia WHS website describes the Laponia process that led to the co-management of the Laponia WHS through the Laponiatjuottjudus management organisation, in which the Indigenous Sámi hold the majority on the management board (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.c: Online). According to Stjernström et al. (2020: 1), “[t]his marked a remarkable shift in the Swedish national management system of land in not only handing over a state decision-making power to the local level but also to representatives of the indigenous population”. The Laponia WHS website emphasises that while the Sámi now hold a majority on the board, decisions of the board are made on the basis of consensus (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.c: Online), which is a slower mode of decision-making and contrasts the mainstream models of decision-making based on majority decisions but has received positive feedback from various actors involved (cf. Stjernström et al. 2020: 5). Among the traditional Sámi concepts that facilitate cross- cultural processes in the management of the Laponia WHS and are made visible on the Laponia WHS website, is the concept of Rádedibme or council, which is a consultative concept for making different opinions on management issues heard (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.c: Online). Another management practice made visible on the Laponia WHS website is the concept of Searvelatnja (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.c: Online). The importance of this concept for the intercultural co-management of the Laponia WHS is highlighted in the language of the Laponia WHS website, as shown in the example given in (41):

109

(41) To manage an area as big as Laponia requires working methods which make use of people’s different views on culture and nature. Searvelatnja means “learning arena” and is a working method that was established early on in the process of forming the management of Laponia. Searvelatnja is a concept with its roots in Sámi culture and is a working method based on dialogue and learning. On a conceptual level this means that Laponia should be an arena where everyone can participate, a meeting place for several generations, cultures, languages and perspectives. By working together we learn from each other and share each other’s knowledge. (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.c: Online)

The example in (41) mentions the different views people have on culture and nature and that methods are necessary that can make use of such different views, while putting forward the Indigenous management concept of Searvelatnja as a working method, which is grounded on dialogue and learning, to achieve this. While focusing on the co-management processes of the Laponia WHS, the website also makes visible the complexities of cross-cultural engagement for sustainable development and the ongoing processes of working out effective methods for managing the Laponia WHS across different cultures and opinions as shown in the example given in (42):

(42) Laponiatjuottjudus considers itself a tentative management, trying out new ways to bring the decisions as close as possible to those whom it concerns. It is a management based on local participation and a shared responsibility for the World Heritage Site. During the work to develop modern management of Laponia it was emphasised that Laponia should be managed with a holistic perspective, a sustainable perspective and a developmental perspective. (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.c: Online)

As such, the language used on the website of the Laponia WHS arguably reflects what Ermine (2007: 193) calls an ‘ethical space’ of engagement formed between two societies with vastly different worldviews and makes visible how a framework of dialogue between the different stakeholders is created through recognition of language, histories, traditions, values and interests and other factors that influence what Ermine (2007: 202) calls an “agreement to interact”, while reflecting the complexities of cross-cultural engagement in environmental management contexts.

110

5 Discussion

This thesis adds to the corpus of writings that attest a low presence of Indigenous languages and perspectives in mainstream development discourses, including the SDGs. However, this thesis also highlights case studies of alternative development discourses, where Indigenous languages are given a higher priority than in mainstream development discourses and in which Indigenous languages are present in a number of ways. The relevance of Indigenous languages for sustainable development has been discussed from different perspectives in chapter 3. In chapter 4, two case studies, which show the presence of Indigenous languages and perspectives in environmental management contexts in Australia and Sweden, are introduced by means of a PDA approach using the same framework as for the CDA of the SDGs in chapter 3. This thesis brings together insights from two very different yet complementary case studies that reveal a number of commonalities. In both case studies Indigenous languages and perspectives are present and made visible in several ways. Both case studies make visible some of the translation efforts and multilingual environments of the project settings. Furthermore, both case studies employ a language that signals an attitude of partnership and reciprocity, suggesting that the incorporation of Indigenous languages and perspectives was not just a token exercise. In the project of the Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda, Indigenous peoples are recognised as knowledgeable collaborators for Western scientists and it is recognised that both sides benefit from the collaboration, and on the Laponia WHS website, it is recognised that Indigenous peoples have sustainably managed the WHS for thousands of years and while the Sámi now hold the majority on the management board, it is emphasised that within the co- management arrangement between Indigenous and non-Indigenous stakeholders, management decisions are made by consensus. While the 2030 Agenda emphasises that the journey on the road to 2030 involves all people, including Indigenous peoples, the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs mainly focus on framing Indigenous peoples as ‘vulnerable groups’ of people and passive actors in development work rather than as collaborators or experts in environmental management contexts. The type of participation of Indigenous peoples in the development of the SDGs might perhaps be more what Elzinga (cf. 2008: 356-357) would call symbolic participation rather than effective participation. Indigenous languages are not mentioned in the SDGs; some Indigenous perspectives can be found in the SDGs but are not specifically made visible as Indigenous perspectives and other Indigenous perspectives have been left off the agenda. The language use in the SDGs can be seen to reflect more of a top-down approach to

111 development and focuses on the decision-making of the nation state, while both case studies focus on the decision-making at the local community level. Both case studies describe the different languages spoken in the project area and make visible the multilingual environments in which the projects operate, while the 2030 Agenda and SDGs do not clearly make the multilingual environments visible, in which the global agenda operates. The 2030 Agenda notes that different cultural approaches to sustainable development can exist but it does not consider the role language plays in that. The academic paper that describes the production of the Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda (McKemey et al. 2020) could have elaborated even more on the considerations behind the choice of languages in the interviews undertaken for the production of the seasonal calendar, but the language awareness of the participants and authors is nonetheless clearly visible. Similarly, the Laponia WHS website could have elaborated more on the languages used during management board meetings and not all documents and news pages on the website are available in Indigenous languages yet. Nevertheless, the meaning of providing an almost entire website of a WHS that encompasses national parks that were until recently managed centrally by the government, in two Indigenous languages that are considered endangered, one of which is spoken by only a few hundred people and both of which have for the most time only existed orally, cannot be underestimated. According to Cresswell (2009: 212), discourse is not necessarily driven like an ideology by an outside ‘truth’, but it nonetheless produces a certain ‘truth’. Thus, when the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda do not explicitly include or mention Indigenous languages and perspectives, this might not necessarily be driven by an attitude that supports the absence of Indigenous languages and perspectives, but through this absence they create a discourse that lacks Indigenous languages and clear references to Indigenous perspectives that might be replicated elsewhere. Furthermore, the disregard of Indigenous languages has deep roots in colonial and deep colonising contexts. As has been discussed in chapter 3, language policies and restrictions enforced on Indigenous peoples by colonial regimes entailed and often still entail the denigration, prohibition, ignorance or exclusion of Indigenous languages in many spheres and domains, such as in education, health care, dealings with the authorities, access to technology and the internet and so on. The literature shows that linguistic barriers have marginalised Indigenous peoples and continue to put Indigenous languages at risk of disappearing, as discussed in 3.2.2. Language as a cross-cutting issue is important for the attainment of the SDGs and chapter 3 of this thesis has discussed how including Indigenous languages in development discourse matters significantly from a rights perspective, a cultural perspective and an ecological perspective. The omittance of the topic of language

112 from the SDGs points to authors that are unaware of the important role of language for sustainable development, and this absence of language considerations is a common feature of mainstream development discourses, as discussed in 1.4. The PDA approach applied to the case studies in chapter 4 has shown how the topic of language has been foregrounded in environmental management contexts and how the importance of Indigenous languages for environmental management has been made salient by the various social actors. These examples provide an alternative to mainstream development discourses, in which the topic of language is largely absent. A closer reading of the SDGs and 2030 Agenda reveal that they have been written from a Eurocentric perspective, assuming the superiority of Western development paradigms and Western neo-liberal ideologies as a starting point for and main goal of sustainable development, as shown by the examples discussed in 3.3.3 of this thesis. As a consequence, potential solutions and alternative concepts might have been ruled out due to the underlying bias. The texts of the case studies discussed by means of a PDA approach in chapter 4, are written from an alternative perspective, focusing on cross-cultural engagement, introducing Indigenous language terms and Indigenous concepts and focusing on the combination of Indigenous and Western worldviews and various paradigms for sustainable development. As Stibbe (2017: 176) argues, positive discourses outside the mainstream that have been highlighted by PDAs and are not pervasive yet, “could offer something valuable if they were promoted to become more pervasive”. The presentation of case studies that make language negotiations in development projects visible was also suggested by Tesseur (2017: Online) to inspire other development actors to include language considerations in the planning of their projects. In this regard, this thesis can make a contribution with the case studies presented in chapter 4. According to Footitt et al. (2018: 8) and participants at the 2016 symposium on Language and the Sustainable Development Goals of the Study Group on Language and the United Nations (Marinotti 2016: 7-8), language should be a consideration in development projects already at the planning stages of projects. The framework used for the discourse analyses in this thesis could be applied as a point of discussion in the planning process of development projects. The framework evaluates the presence of Indigenous languages in different ways and also focuses on the presence of Indigenous perspectives, which are encapsulated in Indigenous languages, so that the incorporation of language does not remain a mere token exercise. The framework would have to be adapted to reflect the views of the respective Indigenous peoples and communities involved, but it can serve as a starting point for discussion on the many ways in which

113

Indigenous languages and perspectives can be and have been incorporated and made visible in development contexts and in which ways this matters. The case studies focus on environmental management contexts, but the framework could be applied to any other development context as well, as it draws on literature from a wide variety of international research on the topic of Indigenous languages and sustainable development. The case studies discussed in chapter 4, also challenge the negotiation of power relations enacted through and reflected in mainstream development discourses, by framing social actors in a different way. Lexical choices used to frame Indigenous peoples as “collaborators” selected for their “knowledge and practice of fire management” (McKemey et al. 2020: 4), as discussed in 4.1, or as people with “[k]nowledge of how to live off nature without overexploiting its riches” (Laponiatjuottjudus n.d.m: Online), as discussed in 4.2 are applied in the case studies, which is in stark contrast to the label of ‘the vulnerable’ used for Indigenous peoples in the SDGs, as discussed in 3.2.3. The word vulnerable itself is perhaps not the issue, however, looking at it from a critical perspective and taking into consideration the socio-political background in which the text is situated, the label ‘vulnerable’ for Indigenous peoples can be considered a euphemism for peoples who are oppressed by colonial regimes. Many Indigenous peoples are currently vulnerable, because of colonial and deep colonising practices, including land grabbing, discriminative education policies, linguistic barriers and so on, as discussed in 3.2 and 3.3.3. Without offering context, however, the label ‘vulnerable’ for Indigenous peoples in the SDGs leaves readers guessing as to what they are vulnerable to and why and can lead to the interpretation that Indigenous peoples are inherently vulnerable, rather than as a result of structural injustices. As a consequence, these structural injustices are neither taken responsibility for, nor are they being addressed. Cameron (2012: 109), for example, argues in regard to climate change vulnerability and adaptation in the Arctic, acknowledging past and ongoing colonial effects in Indigenous communities “not only changes the ways in which social, cultural, political, and economic dynamics are assessed in Inuit communities, but also changes the development of strategies and responses”. Similarly, Nursey-Bray and Palmer (2018: 1-2) argue in an Australian context that climate change adaptation initiatives must engage with the “historical context of how the Arabana experience and collectively remember colonisation”. The discursive construction of Indigenous peoples as only vulnerable might result in the solutions proposed by Indigenous peoples not being considered or the contributions of Indigenous peoples to sustainable development not being valued, which is often the case in mainstream development discourses, as has been discussed throughout this thesis. In the case

114 studies discussed in chapter 4 on the other hand, Indigenous peoples are framed as collaborators and knowledgeable, and their environmental management practices are foregrounded by the authors, an approach which has been suggested to be a more equitable and effective one for sustainable development (cf. Crowshoe & Lertzman 2020: 10; Ermine 2007: 193; Johnson et al. 2016: 3-4; Reid et al. 2020: 243; Nursey-Bray et al. 2019: 483- 484; Tsosie 2014: Online). In the SDGs, SDG 17 focuses on ‘strengthening the means of implementation’ and ‘revitalising the global partnership’ for sustainable development (UNGA 2015b: 26). First, SDG 17 mentions ‘finance’ and second, it lists ‘technology’ as categories for the subgoals (UNGA 2015b: 26), which displays the typical focus of Western development paradigms. Other subgoals of SDG 17 relate to capacity-building, trade and systemic issues, the latter of which mentions multi-stakeholder partnerships (UNGA 2015b: 26). However, linguistic barriers or cross-cultural issues are not mentioned in SDG 17, themes which have been foregrounded in alternative development discourses, such as those discussed in chapter 4. The case studies have been chosen on the basis that Indigenous languages are present in several ways, that they relate to sustainable development and environmental management contexts and that they employ collaborative approaches between Indigenous and Western stakeholders. As such, the case studies engage with the processes of decolonising discourses and effectively including Indigenous languages, knowledges and perspectives. However, even within collaborative and co-management arrangements, it ultimately comes down to self-determination and self-governance so that Indigenous peoples can choose to incorporate ‘outside help’ or exercise their linguistic rights truly based on their own ambitions or as Hornberger (1998: 439) argues to participate on and in their own terms. As is argued in the strategic outcome document of IYIL2019,

[i]n future, successful and effective support for indigenous languages will require substantially and measurably enhanced involvement of indigenous peoples themselves, particularly indigenous women and youth, through their own governance structures and representative bodies. (UNESCO 2019: 14)

Hence, it is not discourse alone that will improve the situation for Indigenous peoples and their languages. However, as Howitt (2001) argues, “[t]he language used in resource management is a significant issue” (2001: 11). Howitt (2001: 11, original emphasis) argues that

115

[l]anguage reflects, shapes and limits the way we articulate and understand the world around us. It not only provides the building blocks from which we construct our way of seeing complex realities. It also constructs the limits of our vision. Language reflects and constructs power. Our language renders invisible many things given importance by other people. And in the contemporary world of industrial resource management, the invisible is generally considered unimportant. Dominant economistic and scientistic epistemologies, or patterns of thinking about the world, thus render the concerns and aspirations of many people both invisible and unimportant.

While language and discourse are thus not the only tools for enhancing intercultural development projects, engagement with language considerations can still be considered crucial in terms of equity and more successful development outcomes. Kuha (2017: 251), for example, notes how depending on which framing is chosen for the issues, some potential solutions might be prioritised or ruled out. Therefore, apparently subtle changes in language use in development discourses can make a difference to development approaches and outcomes. While the SDGs and 2030 Agenda recognise that Indigenous peoples are among the most vulnerable groups, they do not question the reasons for why they are in this position. In this way, the issue cannot easily be solved, as it relies upon a solution that stems from the same way of Eurocentric thinking that has created the problem and the absence of Indigenous languages in the first place. The deficit language used in the SDGs and 2030 Agenda referring to Indigenous peoples mainly as vulnerable groups of people and ‘lagging behind’ those ‘more developed’ arguably gives Indigenous peoples little agency in mainstream development work, even though it has been commonly acknowledged that Indigenous peoples are key contributors when it comes to sustainable development. In their study on climate change and Australian Indigenous peoples, Nursey-Bray et al. (2019: 479) found that Indigenous participants did not find the term ‘vulnerable’ particularly useful in describing their status. According to Nursey-Bray et al. (2019: 479), the majority of Indigenous participants thought that “the characterisation of their ‘vulnerability’ is used as a vehicle by governments and others to appropriate resources from Indigenous peoples and to ‘take care’ of them”. Nursey-Bray et al. (2019: 479) further note that the term ‘vulnerability’ was perceived by participants of the study as undermining Indigenous notions of ‘agency’, which was a term preferred by participants. The IEF states on their website that “[a]lthough Indigenous peoples are among the worlds’ most vulnerable and poorest communities, they are also the most effective stewards of the world’s verdure forests and live in close harmony with nature” (IEF n.d.: Online), suggesting that Indigenous perspectives and worldviews are valuable for a sustainable development agenda that promotes a move towards lifestyles in harmony with nature, as proposed in the

116

2030 Agenda. The Briefing Note on Indigenous Peoples’ Rights and the 2030 Agenda of the OHCHR and the Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues also argues that Indigenous peoples can “contribute towards the SDG targets on increasing awareness on lifestyles in harmony with nature as in targets 12.8 and 4.7 - for instance through integrating indigenous knowledge into formal education” (OHCHR & UNPFII 2017: 5). The Briefing Note argues that for Indigenous peoples the SDGs are an improvement when compared to the MDGs, in which Indigenous peoples were largely invisible (OHCHR & UNPFII 2017: 2). However, the Briefing Note also argues that there are gaps in the SDGs that can involve certain risks for Indigenous peoples, as for instance collective rights, the concept of self-determination and the principle of FPIC, all of which are major priorities for Indigenous peoples, but not prioritised in the 2030 Agenda (OHCHR & UNPFII 2017: 6-7). Carling (2017: 2), for example, on behalf of the Tebtebba Foundation and as Co-convenor of the Indigenous Peoples Major Group (IPMG), points out in a document presented to the UN that “indigenous peoples’ perspective on being ‘poor’ is being landless, and ‘prosperity’ means having the security to manage and utilize their land and resources to meet their needs” and that

[t]he historical subjugation, assimilation and systematic expropriation of indigenous peoples’ lands, territories and resources; the non-recognition of their distinct identities; the denial of access to basic social services, and; the lack of participation in decision-making are the compounding factors for the widespread poverty amongst indigenous peoples.

As such, not only the symptoms, but also the causes of poverty should be addressed in the 2030 Agenda. Similarly, the Sami Parliament argues that the current global climate debate focuses mainly on the symptoms of climate change and finding technical solutions to the issue (Sami Parliament 2009: 7). The Sami Parliament (2009: 7) states that “[o]f course, it is important to counteract climate change and to use and even develop new technologies”, but that from a Sámi holistic perspective, it is natural that one pays attention to the underlying causes of climate change – like for example the processes of industrialisation and globalisation, our lifestyles and consumption habits, and the continuing large-scale exploitation of natural resources, etc.” In the co-chairs’ message of the 2019 UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Global Environment Outlook, Gupta & Ekins (2019: xxix) also note that “the drivers and pressures leading to an unhealthy planet need to be addressed” and that “[t]he environmental footprint of rich people is significantly higher than that of poorer people”. In the same report, Elder and Loewe (2019: 10) state that

117

[r]esources have significant negative environmental and social/health impacts in their production and/or use, for example through mining or other extraction processes. At the same time, they are important inputs to environmental solutions. Resources are important economic inputs and sources of jobs, and are used in products and services supporting human well-being.

Arguably, these causes and effects are insufficiently addressed in the language used in the SDGs and 2030 Agenda, where the solutions are supposed to stem from the same processes as those that have caused the problems in the first place. The AAAA, the UN’s framework for financing the post-2015 development agenda, was published before the SDGs and is a separate framework to the 2030 Agenda, but according to the UN it is “an integral part of the 2030 Agenda” and “supports, complements and helps contextualize the 2030 Agenda’s means of implementation targets” (UNGA 2015b: 10). The AAAA does not mention any concerns for financing language or translation needs. Similar to the SDGs, the AAAA also counts Indigenous peoples among the most vulnerable, while emphasising solutions that are nationally appropriate (UN 2015: 6) and it mentions that Indigenous peoples are excluded from participating fully in the economy (UN 2015: 2), but does not mention the causes and processes that lead to this exclusion. The AAAA recognises that “traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous peoples and local communities can support social well-being and sustainable livelihoods” and reaffirms “that indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions” (UN 2015: 52-53), but it does not offer any concrete suggestions on how this applies to or is meant to be implemented through the framework of the SDGs, even though the 2030 Agenda states that the implementation of the agenda is “supported by the concrete policies and actions outlined in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda” (UNGA 2015b: 28). The Arctic Council’s recent approach to Indigenous engagement, which was adopted in 2015 following recommendations from the Arctic Council Indigenous Peoples’ Secretariat could be relevant for the next update of the SDGs, the next set of global goals or any other development agenda, an extract of which is shown below:

(iii) a) At the outset of a project, incorporate traditional and local knowledge considerations into Working Group proposal templates and/or work plans so that every project proposal or outline describes how it will use traditional and local knowledge in the project, if applicable. If traditional and local knowledge is not applicable, a section of the project proposal or outline must explain why. In doing so, efforts should be made to communicate project goals, objectives, and methods in terminology accessible to non-technical audiences in order to facilitate early identification of potential traditional and local knowledge components. b) At the conclusion of a project, in the final report to Senior Arctic Officials, there will be a requirement to describe how traditional and local knowledge was used in the project and any lessons learned as to how traditional and local knowledge may be better incorporated in the future. (Arctic Council Indigenous Peoples’ Secretariat n.d.: Online) 118

Apart from the CDA approach to analyse the SDGs and the PDA approach to present the case studies, this thesis has also involved online searches for translations of the SDGs into Indigenous languages. Since Indigenous peoples are considered to be among those who would greatly benefit from the implementation of the SDGs and the declaration of 2019 as the International Year of Indigenous Languages by the UN, and given the focus on digitalisation efforts worldwide, online searches for translations of the SDGs into Indigenous languages were deemed relevant for this thesis. As discussed in 3.3.2, while a number of translations and references to translations of the SDGs into Indigenous languages could be found through the online searches, they were not easily found on the UN’s main website and main SDGs online platforms. Arguably, in the campaigns for the upcoming IDIL, these translation efforts should be made more visible on the UN’s main website and main SDGs online platforms, as well as any website that will be dedicated to the upcoming IDIL, as the creation of new discourse in Indigenous languages is important for the maintenance and revitalisation of Indigenous languages, as well as for making Indigenous peoples and their languages more visible and contributing to closing the digital language gap as discussed in 2.2.3.1 and the promotion of multilingual environments in development work in general. Another important consideration in the planning of intercultural development projects is the budgeting and funding for translations and multilingual outputs. As discussed in 3.1, the lack of funding for translations including into Indigenous languages is a commonly raised issue in development work. While an update of the SDGs or the next set of global goals ought to include Indigenous languages and highlight Indigenous perspectives, the next framework for financing the Global Goals or any global or intercultural development agenda ought to include considerations for financing translations and multilingual outputs, including in Indigenous languages, especially given that Indigenous peoples are both crucial enablers of sustainable development and are among the main beneficiaries of the implementation of the SDGs, as has been discussed throughout this thesis. Some of the concepts between Indigenous knowledges and Western science perspectives are overlapping, such as the idea of preserving an area or resources for future generations, but the reasons behind the idea and the methods employed often fundamentally differ (cf. Daguitan et al. 2019: 609). Both case studies introduced in chapter 4 engage with the issue of intercultural development projects and the problems that can arise, also in terms of communication and balancing Indigenous and Western or various cultural perspectives. Notably, a recurring thread in the reviewed literature is not a proposal to replace current dominant ‘Western’ paradigms with ‘more sustainable’ Indigenous paradigms, but rather it is

119 commonly suggested to combine ‘the best of both worlds’ and respond to current environmental challenges and work on sustainable development in a collaborative manner, putting both Indigenous and Western knowledges and practices to their best use (cf. Kawerak 2020: Online; Mustonen et al. 2018: 21; SDWG 2019: 8-9). The SDGs and 2030 Agenda do not focus so much on language, cross-cultural communication and negotiation of different perspectives and concepts in development work. They do acknowledge that different approaches exist, albeit on a country level (UNGA 2015b: 13). They encourage reviews to report on obstacles to the implementation of the agenda (UNGA 2015b: 34), but do not name obstacles that are already known, such as linguistic barriers. Arguably, in the next set of global goals the challenges of working towards common goals in intercultural and multilingual settings and the negotiations between different cultural perspectives and approaches to sustainable development could be made more visible. Another way in which the multiplicity of concepts is made visible in the case studies presented in chapter 4 is by using Indigenous language terms and clear references to Indigenous languages and perspectives, for instance by quoting statements from Indigenous peoples. Many Indigenous language terms and concepts cannot easily be translated into English and vice versa. As Lin et al. (2020: 20) point out, ‘untranslatable’ words can create awareness for alternative worldviews. As such, including Indigenous language terms alongside mainstream English language terminology commonly used in development work can facilitate shared learning experiences, the creation of more equitable conservation spaces and building relationships that enhance collaboration and outcomes in future projects. Therefore, using a lingua franca in development projects per se is not the issue, rather, even when using a lingua franca in development work, there still needs to be respect for diversity and regard for diversity as an asset for finding diverse solutions to diverse issues such as those covered in the SDGs or any global development agenda, and this should include language considerations from the beginning.

120

6 Conclusions

This thesis aimed to provide a closer look into the presence of Indigenous languages in development projects. In conclusion, it can be said that Indigenous languages are largely absent from mainstream development discourses. However, there are alternative development discourses that more positively include Indigenous languages in a number of ways. Indigenous languages encapsulate unique perspectives that are invaluable for sustainable development. Furthermore, the reviewed literature shows that Indigenous languages matter significantly from a rights perspective, a cultural perspective and an ecolinguistic perspective in development work. Applying discourse analysis as a methodology provides an effective tool to put the presence of Indigenous languages into these socio-political contexts. Language in development work can be employed as both a goal and a tool. As a goal, language can aid the revival and maintenance of endangered languages and the creation of new discourse in languages that are endangered or underserved, which makes them more functional in today's societies and thus spreads their use. As a tool, employing language in development work relates to how development contexts are framed and discourses are conveyed, which can have a range of socio-political repercussions and influence social, cultural, environmental and other outcomes. Selected case studies have been presented in this thesis to illustrate this point. Historically, Indigenous peoples have been excluded from decision-making in development projects including in environmental management contexts, despite the widespread recognition of Indigenous peoples being experts in this area. The SDGs are commonly referred to as being an improvement from the MDGs, in which Indigenous peoples were largely invisible. While this might be the case, this thesis argues that even more needs to be done within the framework of the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda to frame Indigenous peoples as active agents in development work, and one way of doing this would be through the incorporation of Indigenous languages and concepts and making Indigenous perspectives more clearly visible in the language used. One of the findings of this thesis is that the SDGs, as is common in mainstream development discourses, mainly frame Indigenous peoples as vulnerable and in need of development through outside help, whereas alternative development discourses more often recognise the structural injustices that lead to their vulnerability and frame Indigenous peoples more positively as partners and contributors to sustainable development. Furthermore, the case studies presented in this thesis foreground Indigenous conceptualisations of nature and environmental management concepts that depart from the dominant Eurocentric development discourses, whereas the SDGs and 2030 Agenda are

121 largely constructed from a Eurocentric perspective. More research is needed though in order to determine whether there is a direct relationship between the framing of Indigenous peoples as active or passive stakeholders in development work and the presence or absence of Indigenous languages in development projects. Further, this thesis argues that the aspect of intercultural engagement ought to be more strongly emphasised in mainstream development discourses, including the SDGs, and agrees with previous calls that the next set of global goals ought to mention language considerations. Translation is an important tool for disseminating information in intercultural development contexts and it has been argued that translations of the SDGs are important to fulfil the motto of the 2030 Agenda of leaving no one behind. To further strengthen intercultural dialogue in the digital age and create awareness for multilingualism in development work, such translations should be made visible on the internet and particularly on the UN’s main websites and SDGs online platforms, since the UN is a major development actor and the SDGs are currently often at the base of development projects worldwide. Online searches performed for this thesis conclude that there is currently little visibility of such translation efforts on the UN’s main website and main SDGs online platforms and that the upcoming IDIL presents a good opportunity to make such efforts more visible on the UN’s main website and SDGs online platforms and any website that will be dedicated to the IDIL initiative. Another finding of this thesis is that funding for translation and multilingual initiatives in development work often falls short, especially where Indigenous and non-dominant languages are concerned and that this needs to be considered in future development agendas, given the essential role of language for more successful outcomes of development projects. Apart from translation and localisation, the framework used in the analysis of this thesis discusses other ways of incorporating Indigenous languages in development work, such as by including Indigenous language terms, which can contribute to building rapport, and positive ways of talking about Indigenous languages and perspectives, and the ways in which this matters are discussed. While this framework can serve as a starting point for discussion in the planning of development projects, it needs to be stressed that development contexts are specific, and the framework would need to be adapted to the individual context in which it is used. Furthermore, while the case studies in this thesis promote a more positive discourse where Indigenous languages and perspectives are respected as of equal value to dominant Western perspectives, care needs to be taken that the presence of such positive discourses or the replication of such does not lead to complacency about the status quo, where Indigenous peoples and their languages have often been and still are oppressed by mainstream systems.

122

Ultimately Indigenous languages need to be taken out of the private sphere and become omnipresent in mainstream discourses. However, this must be accompanied by widespread recognition of Indigenous governance systems, self-determination and the right to FPIC, as Indigenous languages and knowledges are sustained by those processes. Incorporation of Indigenous languages and perspectives without respecting the Indigenous frameworks in which they occur or solely integrating those bits of information that can be mined from Indigenous languages and perspectives to advance mainstream development agendas risks further leaving Indigenous peoples behind and leading to further demise of Indigenous languages and loss of Indigenous knowledges. As such, making Indigenous languages more present in mainstream development discourses without advancing such a transformation on and in Indigenous peoples’ own terms would risk being merely symbolic and not lead to any effective progress in sustainable development.

123

7 List of References

‘Utoikamanu, Fekitamoeloa (2017). “Safeguarding Cultural and Linguistic Diversity in the Context of Global Citizenship”. UN Chronicle 54. 4: 15-18. Abdi, Omar, Amir Abdulla and Magdy Martínez-Solimán (2016). “Foreword”. In: United Nations Development Group (UNDG) The Sustainable Development Goals are Coming to Life: Stories of Country Implementation and UN Support. vii. https://unsdg.un.org/resources/sustainable-development-goals-are-coming-life- stories-country-implementation-and-un (18 Jan .2021). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner (ATSISJC) (2009a). Social Justice Report 2008. Sydney: Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/social_justice/sj_report/sjreport 08/downloads/SJR_2008_full.pdf (16 Feb. 2021). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner (ATSISJC) (2009b). Social Justice Report 2009. Sydney: Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-social- justice/publications/social-justice-report-1(16 Feb. 2021). Academics Stand Against Poverty (ASAP) Oceania (2018). “Australia, Poverty, and the Sustainable Development Goals: A Response to what the Australian Government writes about Poverty in its Report on the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals”. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2018-10/apo -nid197101.pdf (13 Feb. 2021). Aikio-Puoskari, Ulla (2018). “Revitalization of Sámi Languages in Three Nordic Countries: Finland, Norway and Sweden”. In: Leanne Hinton, Leena Huss and Gerald Roche, ed(s). The Routledge Handbook of Language Revitalization. New York: Routledge. 355-363. Alexander, Richard J. (2017). “Investigating Texts about Environmental Degradation Using Critical Discourse Analysis and Corpus Linguistic Techniques”. In: Alwin F. Fill and Hermine Penz, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics. New York & Abingdon: Routledge. 196-210. Amery, Rob (2001). “Language Planning and Language Revival”. Current Issues in Language Planning 2. 2-3: 141-221. Amor Paredes, Gloria (2015a). “Indigenous Youth Education Towards Sustainable Development”. https://apupalamguwancenter.essc.org.ph/?p=2477 (19 Jan. 2021). Amor Paredes, Gloria (2015b). “Indigenous Youth Education Towards Sustainable

124

Development”. https://apupalamguwancenter.essc.org.ph/wp-content/uploads/ 2015/04/October-2015-newsletter.pdf (19.01.2021). Anderson, Pat and Edward Tilton (2017). “Bringing Them Home 20 years on: an action plan for healing”. https://healingfoundation.org.au/app/uploads/2017/05/Bringing-Them- Home-20-years-on-FINAL-SCREEN-1.pdf (21 Feb. 2021). Arctic Centre University of Lapland (n.d.) “How is the Arctic region changing?”. https://www.arcticcentre.org/EN/arcticregion/climatechange (18 Nov. 2020). Arctic Council (n.d.). “Sweden”. https://arctic-council.org/en/about/states/sweden/ (5 Dec. 2020). Arctic Council Indigenous Peoples’ Secretariat (n.d.) “Indigenous Peoples’ Knowledge”. https://www.arcticpeoples.com/knowledge#indigenous-knowledge (30 Jan. 2021). Aryal, Timothy (2018). “Dev Goals turn into Mithla art”. https://kathmandupost.com/ artentertainment/2018/11/14/dev-goals-turn-into-mithla-art (7 Feb. 2021). Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP) (2016). “Leave No One Behind – SDG’s and Indigenous Peoples“. https://aippnet.org/leave-no-one-behind-sdgs-and-indigenous- peoples/ (22 Feb. 2021). Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP) (2017). “SDGs and Indigenous Peoples – Mizo version”. [Video] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJpvLR_O6lU (22 Feb. 2021). Aslaksen, Lisa Monica (2015). “Encouraging the use of the Sámi languages”. In: Council of Europe (CoE) The Sámi. The People, Their Culture and Languages. 32. https://rm.coe.int/1680302f64 (7 Aug. 2020). Association for Language Awareness (n.d.). “About”. https://www.languageawareness.org/?page_id=48 (1 Jun. 2021). Aswani, Shankar (2017). “Linking Customary and Modern Marine Management Systems in Melanesia”. In: Hélène Artaud and Alexandre Surrallés, eds. The sea within – Marine tenure and cosmopolitical debates. Copenhagen: IWGIA. 81-96. https://www.iwgia.org/images/documents/The-Sea-Within.pdf (21 Sept. 2020). Atkinson, David (2009). “Colonialism II”. In: Rob Kitchin and Nigel Thrift, eds. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Amsterdam, Oxford & Cambridge: Elsevier Science. 182-188. Atlas of Living Australia (ALA) (2019). “Indigenous language names in the ALA“. https://www.ala.org.au/blogs-news/indigenous-language-names-in-the-ala/ (11 Jan. 2021). Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) (n.d.a). “About native title”. https://aiatsis.gov.au/about-native-title (23 Feb. 2021).

125

Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) (n.d.b). “Indigenous Australians: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people”. https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/indigenous-australians-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islan der-people (2 Jan. 2021). Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) (n.d.c). “Land rights”. https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/land-rights (23 Feb. 2021). Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) (n.d.d). “Living languages”. https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/living-languages (16 Apr. 2020). Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (n.d.). “Bushfire“. https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/bushfire/ (4 Oct. 2020). Australian National University (ANU) (2020). “Translating COVID messages vital for Indigenous health”. https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/translating-covid-mess ages-vital-for-indigenous-health (7 Feb. 2021). Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language (2019). “Mildura’s languages shine in rainbow of colour”. http://www.dynamicsoflanguage.edu.au/news-and-media/latest-headlines/article/ ?id=milduras-languages-shine-in-rainbow-of-colour (4 Oct. 2020). Barry, Tom, Lenore Grenoble, Finnur Friðriksson, Carl Chr. Olsen and Tero Mustonen (2013). “Linguistic Diversity”. In: Hans Meltofte, ed. Arctic Biodiversity Assessment: Status and trends in Arctic biodiversity. Akureyri: Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), Arctic Council. 652-663. https://www.caff.is/assessment-series/225- arctic-biodiversity-assessment-2013-chapter-20-linguistic-diversity (16 Nov. 2020). Bartlett, Tom (2012). Hybrid Voices and Collaborative Change: Contextualising Positive Discourse Analysis. Routledge: New York & Milton Park. Bastardas-Boada, Albert (2017). “The Ecology of Language Contact: Minority and Majority Languages”. In: Alwin F. Fill and Hermine Penz, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics. New York & Abingdon: Routledge. 26-39. Batterbury, Simon (2018). “Political ecology”. In: Noel Castree, Mike Hulme and James D. Proctor, eds. The Companion to Environmental Studies. London & New York: Routledge. 439-442. Battiste, Marie and James (Sa'ke'j) Youngblood Henderson (2000). Protecting Indigenous Knowledge and Heritage: A Global Challenge. Saskatoon: Purich Publishing Ltd. Bergamaschi, Isaline and Arlene B. Tickner (2017). “Introduction: South-South Cooperation

126

Beyond the Myths - A Critical Analysis”. In: Isaline Bergamaschi, Phoebe Moore and Arlene B. Tickner, eds. South-South Cooperation Beyond the Myths: Rising Donors, New Aid Practices?. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 1-27. Bergdahl, Ewa (2012). “Conversation Piece: Intangible Cultural Heritage in Sweden”. In: Michelle L. Stefano, Peter Davis and Gerard Corsane, eds. Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press. 47-56. Bergman, Ingela (2005). “The oldest traces of Sami civilization found in Arjeplog”. In: Svensk Information The Sami – an Indigenous People in Sweden. 12-13. http://www.samer.se/2137 (7 Feb. 2021). Blum-Kulka, Shoshana and Michal Hamo (2011). “Discourse Pragmatics”. In: Teun A. Van Dijk, ed. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications. 143-164). Boeckmann, Klaus-Börge, Eija Aalto, Andrea Abel, Tatjana Atanasoska and Terry Lamb (2011). Promoting plurilingualism: Majority language in multilingual settings. European Centre for Modern Languages. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. https://www.ecml.at/Portals/1/documents/ECML-resources/DM3_2011_08_17_ marille_en.pdf?ver=2018-03-20-155505-160 (13 Jun. 2020). Bokova, Irina (2010). “Preface”. In: Christopher Moseley, ed. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. 4-5. Brown, Kimberley (2019). “Indigenous Waorani win landmark legal case against Ecuador Gov't“. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/04/indigenous-waorani-win-landmark- legal-case-ecuador-gov-190426221504952.html (13 Jun. 2020). Brundtland, Gro Harlem (2019). “Prologue”. In: Independent Group of Scientists appointed by the Secretary-General The Future is Now - Science for Achieving Sustainable Development. Global Sustainable Development Report 2019. New York: United Nations. xv-xvii. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/ 24797GSDR_report_2019.pdf (19 Jan. 2021). Burarrwanga, LakLak, Ritjilili Ganambarr, Merrkiyawuy Ganambarr-Stubbs, Banbapuy Ganambarr, Djawundil Maymuru, Sarah Wright, Sandie Suchet-Pearson and Kate Lloyd (2013). Welcome to My Country. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Byrne, Denis, Sally Brockwell and Sue OʹConnor (2013). “Introduction: Engaging culture and nature”. In: Sally Brockwell, Sue O’Connor and Denis Byrne, eds. Transcending the Culture–Nature Divide in Cultural Heritage: Views from the Asia–Pacific region. Terra Australis 36. Canberra: ANU Press, 1-12.

127

Cameron, Emilie S. (2012). “Securing Indigenous politics: A critique of the vulnerability and adaptation approach to the human dimensions of climate change in the Canadian Arctic”. Global Environmental Change 22. 1: 103-114. Campbell, Jeffrey Y. (2019). “No Sustainable Development Without Indigenous Peoples”. https://sdg.iisd.org/commentary/guest-articles/no-sustainable-development-without- indigenous-peoples/ (13 Apr. 2020). Carling, Joan (2017). "Input from Major Group: Indigenous Peoples (2017)". https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=30022&nr=750 &menu=3170 (27 Jan. 2021). Carling, Joan, Hindou Ibrahim and Martin Oelz (2017). “‘Development makes us vulnerable’: Call for SDGs to learn from indigenous peoples”. https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/articles/development-makes-us-vulnerable-call-sdgs- learn-indigenous-peoples (13 Dec. 2020). Charron, Marie-Céline (2019). “No perfect answer: Is it First Nations, Aboriginal or Indigenous?”. https://www.national.ca/en/perspectives/detail/no-perfect-answer -first-nations-aboriginal-indigenous/ (15 Jun. 2020). Chin Voon Oi, Lysandra (2018). “Report of the Community Conservation Resilience Initiative in Sabah, Malaysia”. In: Holly Jonas, ed. Country report on Sabah, Malaysia Community Conservation Resilience Initiative (CCRI) April 2018. Global Forest Coalition. https://globalforestcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/MALAYSIA -FULL-REPORT.pdf (28 Jan. 2021). Chirif, Alberto (2019). “Deforestation in Times of Climate Change”. In: Alberto Chirif, ed. Peru: Deforestation in Times of Climate Change. Copenhagen: IWGIA. https://www.iwgia.org/images/publications/new-publications/Peru_Deforestation _in_Times_of_Climate_Change_Dec_2019.pdf (8 Jan. 2020). Codó, Eva (2018). “Language Awareness in Multilingual and Multicultural Organizations”. In: Peter Garrett and Josep M. Cots, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Language Awareness. 467-481. Colbourne, Rick (2017). “Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures”. In: Andrew C. Corbett and Jerome A. Katz, eds. Perspectives & Approaches to Blended Value Entrepreneurship. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited. 93-149. Colbourne, Rick and Robert B. Anderson (2020). “Introduction”. In: Rick Colbourne and Robert B. Anderson, eds. Indigenous Wellbeing and Enterprise: Self-Determination and Sustainable Economic Development. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 1-9.

128

Colchester, Marcus, Tom Griffiths, Fergus MacKay and John Nelson (2004). “Indigenous land tenure: challenges and possibilities”. In: Paolo Groppo, ed. Land reform, land settlement, and cooperatives. FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/a-y5407t.pdf (8 Feb. 2021). Commission of the European Communities (2001). “A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development”. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PD F/?uri=CELEX:52001DC0264&from=EN (8 Feb 2021). Commission of the European Communities (2005). “Draft Declaration on Guiding Principles for Sustainable Development“. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/ ?uri=CELEX:52005DC0218&from=EN (8 Feb 2021). Commission of the European Communities (2009). “Mainstreaming sustainable development into EU policies: 2009 Review of the European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development”. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?u ri=CELEX:52009DC0400&from=EN (8 Feb 2021). Commonwealth of Australia (2019). “Australian Government Action Plan for the 2019 International Year of Indigenous Languages”. https://www.arts.gov.au/sites/default /files/iyil_2019_action_plan.pdf (14 Jul. 2020). Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) (n.d.). “About the Indigenous seasons calendars“. https://www.csiro.au/en/research/natural- environment/land/About-the-calendars (19 Dec. 2020). Corbett, Jon, Jeff Hackett, Rachel Olsen, and Steve DeRoy (2019). “Indigenous Mapping”. In: Audrey Kobayashi, ed. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Amsterdam, Oxford & Cambridge: Elsevier Science. 217-221. Council of Europe (CoE) (n.d.a). “About the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages”. https://www.coe.int/en/web/european-charter-regional-or-minority- languages/about-the-charter (23 Jun. 2020). Council of Europe (CoE) (n.d.b). “Did you know?”. https://www.coe.int/en/web/about- us/did-you-know (21 Nov. 2020). Council of Europe (CoE) (1992a). “European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages”. https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?doc umentId=0900001680695175 (15 Feb. 2021). Council of Europe (CoE) (1992b). “Explanatory Report to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages”. https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearch Services/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016800cb5e5 (23 Jun. 2020). Council of Europe (CoE) (1995). “Framework Convention for the Protection of National

129

Minorities and Explanatory Report”. https://rm.coe.int/16800c10cf (15 Feb. 2021). Council of Europe (CoE) (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. https://rm.coe.int/1680459f97 (17 Feb. 2021). Council of Europe (CoE) (2007). “From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education: Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe”. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/16806a892c (2 Jan. 2020). Council of Europe (CoE) (2015). The Sámi. The People, Their Culture and Languages. https://rm.coe.int/1680302f64 (7 Feb. 2021). Council of Europe (CoE) (2016). “Factsheet on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities”. https://www.coe.int/en/web/minorities/fcnm- factsheet (21 Nov. 2020). Council of the European Union (2008). “Council Resolution on a European strategy for multilingualism”. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/ pressdata/en/educ/104230.pdf (30 Jun. 2020). Crack, Angela, Hilary Footitt and Wine Tesseur (2018). “Many NGO workers on the ground don’t speak the local language – new research”. https://theconversation.com/many- ngo-workers-on-the-ground-dont-speak-the-local-language-new-research-100845 (19 Apr. 2020). Cresswell, Tim (2009). “Discourse”. In: Rob Kitchin and Nigel Thrift, eds. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Amsterdam, Oxford & Cambridge: Elsevier Science. 211-214. Crowshoe, Reg and David Lertzman (2020). “Invitation to ethical space. A dialogue on sustainability and reconciliation”. In: Rick Colbourne and Robert B. Anderson, eds. Indigenous Wellbeing and Enterprise: Self-Determination and Sustainable Economic Development. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 10-44. Cultural Survival (n.d.). “Sustainable Development Goals”. Indigenous Rights Radio - Radio de Derechos Indígenas. https://rights.culturalsurvival.org/radio-spots-search/field_ radio_series/sustainable-development-goals-80 (22 Jan. 2021). Daguitan, Florence, Charles Mwangi, Michelle Tan, Graeme Clark, Daniel Cooper, James Donovan, Sheryl Gutierrez, Nina Kruglikova, Pali Lehohla, Joni Seager, William Sonntag and Amit Patel (2019). “Future Data and Knowledge Needs”. In: Paul Ekins, Joyeeta Gupta and Pierre Boileau, eds. Global Environment Outlook GEO-6: Healthy Planet, Healthy People. UN Environment, Nairobi. Cambridge University Press. 597- 619. https://www.unep.org/resources/global-environment-outlook-6 (27 Feb. 2021).

130

Daniell, Katherine A. (2011). “Enhancing Collaborative Management in the Basin”. In: Daniel Connell and R. Quentin Grafton, eds. Basin Futures: Water reform in the Murray-Darling Basin. Canberra: ANU E Press, 413-437. DCS Spatial Services (2018). “Dual naming - supporting cultural recognition”. Geographical Names Board, NSW Government. https://www.gnb.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/ pdf_file/0004/58837/GNB_Dual_Naming_Factsheet.pdf (26 Jan. 2021). Defourny, Vincent and Jasmina Šopova (2019). “Editorial”. In: Jasmina Šopova, Katerina Markelova and Chen Xiaorong, eds. The UNESCO Courier. 2019: The International Year of Indigenous Languages. 3. https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/ cou_1_19_en.pdf (7 Feb. 2021). DeLuca, Danielle (2017). “What do the Sustainable Development Goals mean for Indigenous peoples?”. In Cultural Survival Quarterly 41. 4: 28-29. https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/what-do- sustainable-development-goals-mean-indigenous (13 Jun. 2020). Department of Public Information (DPI) (2017). UNIC @ Work Newsletter. Issue No. 5. https://www.un.int/sites/www.un.int/files/Permanent%20Missions/delegate/unicwork _fifth_issue_may_2017.pdf (18 Jan. 2021). Deslandes, Chris, Sally Deslandes, David Broun, Cameron Hugh, Fiona Walsh, Felicity Bradshaw and Joanna Griffith (2019). “Preface” In: David Broun, ed. Two-Way Science. An Integrated Learning Program for Aboriginal Desert Schools. Clayton South, VIC: CSIRO Publishing. 5. https://www.publish.csiro.au/ebook/download/ pdf/7949 (24 Oct. 2020). Devanesen, Dayalan (2000). “Traditional Aboriginal Medicine Practice in the Northern Territory”. Territory Health Services, Northern Territory Government. https://digitallibrary.health.nt.gov.au/prodjspui/bitstream/10137/2703/1/Reading_Tra ditionalAboriginalMedicinePracticeInTheNorthernTerritory.pdf (23 Feb. 2021). Dhir, Rishabh Kumar (2016). “Sustainable Development Goals: Indigenous Peoples in Focus“. https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/indigenous-tribal/publications/WCMS_ 503715/lang--en/index.htm (13 Feb. 2021). Dhir, Rishabh Kumar, Umberto Cattaneo, Maria Victoria Cabrera Ormaza, Hernan Coronado and Martin Oelz (2019). Implementing the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention No. 169: Towards an inclusive, sustainable and just future. Geneva: ILO Publications. https://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/WCMS_ 735607/lang--en/index.htm (6 Feb.2021).

131

Diago, Jazreth, Casey Gallagher and Shanna Kirgan, ed. (2019). “Symposium on The United Nations at 75: Listening, Talking and Taking Action in a Multilingual World. Final Report”. Study Group on Language and the United Nations. https://www.languageandtheun.org/symposium2019report.html (30 Jul. 2020). Disbray, Samantha (2015). “Indigenous Languages in Education – Policy and Practice in Australia”. In: Marnie O’Bryan and Mark Rose, eds. Indigenous Education in Australia: Policy, Participation and Praxis. UNESCO Observatory Multi-Disciplinary Journal in the Arts 4. 1: 1-26. Parkville: The University of Melbourne. https://education.unimelb.edu.au/about/specialist-areas/arts-education/engage/ archived/e-journals/volume_4_issue_1 (13 Jun. 2020). Durie, Mason (2019. “Understanding health and illness: research at the interface between science and indigenous knowledge”. International Journal of Epidemiology 33. 5: 1138–1143. Earth Charter International (2018). “Translations of the SDGs into Mother Languages of the State of Chiapas”. https://earthcharter.org/library/translations-of-the-sdgs-into- mother-languages-of-the-state-of-chiapas (21 Jun. 2020). Egeland, Grace M. and Gail G. Harrison (2013). “Health disparities: promoting Indigenous Peoples’ health through traditional food systems and self-determination”. In: Harriet V. Kuhnlein, Bill Erasmus, Dina Spigelski and Barbara Burlingame, eds. Indigenous Peoples’ food systems & well-being interventions & policies for healthy communities. Rome: FAO. 9-22. http://www.fao.org/3/i3144e/i3144e.pdf (21 Feb. 2021). Eira, Inger Marie G., Ole Henrik Magga, Mathis P. Bongo, Mikkel Nils Sara, Svein d. Mathiesen and Anders Oskal (2008). “The challenges of Arctic reindeer herding: The interface between reindeer herders’ traditional knowledge and modern understanding of the ecology, economy, sociology and management of Sami reindeer herding”. Sami University College. http://library.arcticportal.org/550/ (21 Feb. 2021). Eisenchlas, Susana A., Andrea C. Schalley and Diana Guillemir, eds. (2015). “Multilingualism and literacy: attitudes and policies”. International Journal of Multilingualism 12. 2: 151-161. Elder, Mark and Christian Loewe (2019). “Introduction and Context”. In: Paul Ekins, Joyeeta Gupta and Pierre Boileau, eds. Global Environment Outlook GEO-6: Healthy Planet, Healthy People. UN Environment, Nairobi. Cambridge University Press. 3-19. https://www.unep.org/resources/global-environment-outlook-6 (27 Feb. 2021). Elzinga, Aant (2008). “Participation”. In: Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn, Holger Hoffmann-Riem,

132

Susette Biber-Klemm, Walter Grossenbacher-Mansuy, Dominique Joye, Christian Pohl, Urs Wiesmann and Elisabeth Zemp, eds. Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Dordrecht: Springer. 345-359. Entman, Robert M. (1993). “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm”. Journal of Communication 43.4: 51-58. Erasmus, Bill (2013). “Foreword”. In: Harriet V. Kuhnlein, Bill Erasmus, Dina Spigelski and Barbara Burlingame, eds. Indigenous Peoples’ food systems & well-being interventions & policies for healthy communities. Rome: FAO. xi-xii. http://www.fao.org/3/i3144e/i3144e.pdf (21 Feb. 2021). Ermine, Willie (2007). “The Ethical Space of Engagement”. In: Indigenous Law Journal 6. 1: 193-203. Escobar, Arturo (1995). Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press. European Commission (EC) (n.d.) “Language Policy”. https://ec.europa.eu/info/language- policy_en (20 Dec. 2020). European Commission (EC) (2013). “Frequently asked questions on languages in Europe“. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_13_825 (20 Feb. 2021). European Commission (EC). (2019a). “EU Delivers. International Cooperation and Development, 2014-2019”. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ a1610868-119d-11ea-8c1f-01aa75ed71a1/language-en?WT.mc_id=NEWSLETTER _December2019 (20 Feb. 2021). European Commission (EC) (2019b). “Report from the Commission to the Council on the Union institutions’ progress towards the implementation of the gradual reduction of the Irish language derogation”. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0318&from=en (14 Jan. 2021). European Commission (EC) (2019c). “Revitalising endangered languages: a service for all”. https://ec.europa.eu/research/infocentre/article_en.cfm?&artid=49851&caller=other (16 Jan. 2021). European Commission (EC) (2020a). “Minority Languages, Major Opportunities. Collaborative Research, Community Engagement and Innovative Educational Tools”. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/778384 (16 Jan. 2021). European Commission (EC) (2020b). “The European Union remains world’s leading donor of Official Development Assistance with €75.2 billion in 2019”.

133

https://ec.europa.eu/international-partnerships/news/european-union-remains-worlds- leading-donor-official-development-assistance_en (20 Feb. 2021). European External Action Service (EEAS) (2020). “Protecting Indigenous Peoples is pursuing a better world”. https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/ 83887/protecting-indigenous-peoples-pursuing-better-world_en (20 Feb. 2021). European Parliament (2013). “Endangered European languages and linguistic diversity”. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2013-0350_EN.html (16 Jan. 2021). European Union (EU) (n.d.a). “EU languages”. https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-languages_en (3 Jul. 2020). European Union (EU) (n.d.b). “Language policy”. https://europa.eu/european-union/abouteuropa/language-policy_en (13 Jan. 2021). European Union (EU) (n.d.c). “The EU motto”. https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/symbols/motto_en (20 Feb. 2021). European Union (EU) (2017). “The new European Consensus on Development: ‘Our World, Our Dignity, Our Future’”. https://ec.europa.eu/international-partnerships/system/file s/european-consensus-on-development-final-20170626_en.pdf (20 Feb. 2021). European Union (EU) (2018). Borderless opportunities. Interreg Nord Projectportfolio version 2018-02-23. https://www.interregnord.com/wp-content/uploads/Projectport folio-ENG-version-2018-02-23.pdf (27 Dec. 2020). Fairclough, Norman (1989). Language and Power. Harlow, New York: Longman. Fairclough, Norman and Ruth Wodak (1997). “Critical Discourse Analysis”. In: Teun A. Van Dijk, ed. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Volume 2. London: Sage. 258-284. Fairclough, Norman (2001). “Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research”. In: Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, eds. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage Publications. 121-138. Fairclough, Norman, Jane Mulderrig and Ruth Wodak (2011). “Critical Discourse Analysis”. In: Teun A. Van Dijk, ed. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. 2nd ed. London: Sage. 357-378. Feiring, Birgitte (2013). “Understanding the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169): Handbook for ILO Tripartite Constituents”. Geneva: ILO. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---normes/documents/public ation/wcms_205225.pdf (15 Nov. 2020).

134

Fill, Alwin F. and Hermine Penz, eds. (2017). The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics. New York & Abingdon: Routledge. Firesticks Alliance Indigenous Corporation (Firesticks) (n.d.). “What is cultural burning?”. https://www.firesticks.org.au/about/cultural-burning/ (14 Feb. 2021). Firesticks Alliance Indigenous Corporation (Firesticks) (2016). “WINBA = FIRE, the Wattleridge IPA Fire and Seasons Calendar”. https://www.firesticks.org.au/winba- fire-the-wattleridge-ipa-fire-and-seasons-calendar/ (19 Feb. 2021). Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2020). “The stewards of natural resources: how indigenous peoples together with FAO help find solutions to achieve #ZeroHunger”. http://www.fao.org/russian-federation/news/detail-events/en/c/1302114/ (21 Feb. 2021). Footitt, Hilary, Angela Crack, and Wine Tesseur (2018). “Respecting communities in International Development: languages and cultural understanding”. Final report on The Listening Zones of NGOs: Languages and cultural knowledge in development programmes. http://www.reading.ac.uk/modern-languages-and-european-studies/ Research/mles-listening-zones-of-ngos.aspx (21 Apr. 2020). Fraser, Georgina and Salome Landivar (2020). “First international meeting of native and minority language translators and interpreters”. International Federation of Translators Translatio, No. 1. 6-7. https://wa1.fit-ift.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/translatio _2020_1_EN_full.pdf (4 Jul. 2021). Gafner-Rojas, Claudia (2020). “Indigenous languages as contributors to the preservation of biodiversity and their presence in international environmental law”. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 23. 1: 44-61. Gambold, Nic J. (2015). “South East Arnhem Land Indigenous Protected Area Plan of Management 2016- 2021”. Darwin, Australia: Northern Land Council. https://www.nlc.org.au/uploads/pdfs/SEAL-IPA-PoM-V3.4.pdf (11 Jan. 2021). Gargett, Andy and Katie Kiss (2013). The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: A Manual for National Human Rights Institutions. https://www. ohchr.org/documents/issues/ipeoples/undripmanualfornhris.pdf (23 Jan. 2021). Gee, James Paul and Michael Handford (2012). “Introduction”. In: James Paul Gee and Michael Handford, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 1-6. Gibson-Graham, J.K. (2005). “Surplus Possibilities: Postdevelopment and Community Economies”. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 26. 1: 4-26. Gilbert, Jérémie (2017). “Land Grabbing, investments & Indigenous peoples’ rights to land

135

and natural resources: Case studies and legal analysis”. In: Marianne Wiben Jensen and Genevieve Rose, eds. Land Grabbing, investments & Indigenous peoples’ rights to land and natural resources: Case studies and legal analysis Copenhagen: IWGIA. https://www.iwgia.org/images/publications/new-publications/land-grabbing- indigenous-peoples-rights.compressed.pdf (11 Jan. 2021). Goatly, Andrew (2017). “Lexicogrammar and Ecolinguistics”. In: Alwin F. Fill and Hermine Penz, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics. New York & Abingdon: Routledge. 227-248. Gofman, Victoria (2010). “Review of community-based monitoring projects”. In: Mike Gill, Michael Svoboda, Tom Barry and Lesley Grant, eds. Community-Based Monitoring Handbook: Lessons from the Arctic and Beyond. Akureyri: CAFF International Secretariat. 14-32. https://www.caff.is/monitoring-series/9-community-based- monitoring-handbook-lessons-from-the-arctic-and-beyond (19 Feb. 2021). Gogolin, Ingrid, and Georges Lüdi (2015). “Multilingualism: What Is Multilingualism? Talking in Many Tongues”. Goethe-Institut e. V., Redaktion Magazin Sprache. https://www.goethe.de/en/spr/mag/lld/20492171.html (13 Jun. 2020). Goodyear-Ka'ōpua, Noelani (2016). “Reproducing the Ropes of Resistance: Hawaiian Studies Methodologies”. In: Katrina-Ann R. Kapā‘anaokalāokeola Nākoa Oliveira and Erin Kahunawaika‘ala Wright, eds. Kanaka ‘Ōiwi Methodologies: Mo‘olelo and Metaphor. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. 1-29. Government of Australia, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) and Australian National University (ANU) (2020). “National Indigenous Languages Report”. https://www.arts.gov.au/what-we-do/indigenous-arts- and-languages/national-indigenous-languages-report (19 Oct. 2020). Government of Western Australia (2013). “Traditional Aboriginal burning”. https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/management/fire/fire-and-the-environment/41- traditional-aboriginal-burning (5 Oct. 2020). Gray, Christina and Daniel Rück (2019). “Reclaiming Indigenous Place Names”. Social Policy Briefs, Yellowhead Institute. https://yellowheadinstitute.org/2019/10/08/ reclaiming-indigenous-place-names/ (25 Jan. 2021). Grote, Rainer (2006/2007) “On the Fringes of Europe: Europe's Largely Forgotten Indigenous Peoples”. American Indian Law Review. 31. 2: 425-443. Gunn, Brenda L. and Oonagh E. Fitzgerald (2020). “Introduction”. In: Susan Bubak and

136

Nicole Langlois, eds. UNDRIP Implementation: Comparative Approaches, Indigenous voices from CANZUS. Waterloo: Centre for International Governance Innovation. 1-8. https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/documents/ UNDRIPIII_web_mar27.pdf (20 Feb. 2021). Gupta, Joyeeta and Paul Ekins (2019). “Co-Chairs’ Message”. In: Paul Ekins, Joyeeta Gupta and Pierre Boileau, eds. Global Environment Outlook GEO-6: Healthy Planet, Healthy People. UN Environment, Nairobi. Cambridge University Press. xxix-xxx. https://www.unep.org/resources/global-environment-outlook-6 (27 Feb. 2021). Hall, Gillette H. and Harry Anthony Patrinos (2012). “Introduction”. In: Gillette H. Hall and Harry Anthony Patrinos, eds. Indigenous Peoples, Poverty, and Development. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1-16. Havemann, Paul (2016). “Lessons from indigenous knowledge and culture: learning to live in harmony with nature in an age of ecocide”. In: Peter Grant, ed. State of the World’s Minorities and Indigenous Peoples 2016: Events of 2015. London: Minority Rights Group International (MRG). 48-59. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/ files/resources/MRG-SWM-2016.pdf (23 Feb. 2021). Hawkes, Jon (2001). “The Application of Culture”. In: The Fourth Pillar of Sustainability: Culture’s essential role in public planning. Champaign: Common Ground Publishing & Cultural Development Network (Vic). 11-25. Heath, Joel, and Lucassie Arragutainaq (2019). “Siku: Mixing high-tech with ancient Know-how”. The UNESCO Courier. 2019: The International Year of Indigenous Languages. January-March 2019. 20-22. https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/cou_1_19_en.pdf (13 Jun. 2020). Heinämäki, Leena, Thora Herrmann, and Carina Green (2017). 'Towards Sámi Self-determination over Their Cultural Heritage: The UNESCO World Heritage Site of Laponia in Northern Sweden”. In: Alexandra Xanthaki, Sanna Valkonen, Leena Heinämäki and Piia Nuorgam, eds. Indigenous peoples' cultural heritage: Rights, debates, challenges. Leiden: Brill. 78-103. Herman, Melissa (2018). “The Critical Role of Traditional Knowledge in Social Innovation”. In: Canadian Innovation in an Age of Acceleration. 2-3. http://socialrd.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/print_SRD_Standford-Innovation- Review.pdf (7 Jan. 2021). Hiller, Chris and Elizabeth Carlson (2018). “These are Indigenous Lands: Foregrounding

137

Settler Colonialism and Indigenous Sovereignty as Primary Contexts for Canadian Environmental Social Work”. Canadian Social Work Review / Revue canadienne de service social 35. 1: 45-70. Hromek, Danièle (2020). “Aboriginal Cultural Values: An Approach for Engaging with Country”. Department of Planning, Industry and Environment. https://djinjama.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Engaging-with-Country_Daniele- Hromek.pdf (20 Feb. 2020). Hoag, Hannah (2016). “Science Ministers Promise Cooperation on Arctic Science Initiatives”. https://deeply.thenewhumanitarian.org/arctic/articles/2016/10/05/ science-ministers-promise-cooperation-on-arctic-science-initiatives (20 Feb. 2021). Hornberger, Nancy H. (1998). “Language policy, language education, language rights: Indigenous, immigrant, and international perspectives”. Language in Society 27. 4: 439–458. Hornby, Albert Sidney (1995). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Howitt, Richard (2001). Rethinking Resource Management: Justice, Sustainability and Indigenous Peoples. London & New York: Routledge. Hudson, Maui, Dickie Farrar and Lesley McLean (2016). “Tribal data sovereignty: Whakatōhea rights and interests”. In: Tahu Kukutai and John Taylor, eds. Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an agenda. Acton, ACT: ANU Press. 157-178. Hughes, Jessica M. F. (2018). “Progressing Positive Discourse Analysis and/in Critical Discourse Studies: reconstructing resistance through progressive discourse analysis”. Review of Communication 18. 3: 193-211. Hunt, Janet (2013). “Engaging with Indigenous Australia— exploring the conditions for effective relationships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities”. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare & Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies. https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/7d54eac8-4c95-4de1- 91bb-0d6b1cf348e2/ctgc-ip05.pdf.aspx?inline=true (21 Jan. 2001). Hytönen, Marjatta, Per Sandström and Stefan Sandström (2020). “Sweden”. In: Marjatta Hytönen, ed. Local knowledge in nature conservation management: Situation in Finland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands. Helsinki: Natural Resources Institute. 19-26. https://jukuri.luke.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/5456 17/luke_luobio_14_2020.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (23 Feb. 2021). Indigenous Education Foundation (IEF) (n.d.) “IEF’s Commitment to Education Equity

138

for Indigenous Peoples”. https://www.iefprograms.org/rss/16-article/97-ief-commit ment-to-education-equity-for-indigenous-peoples (30 Aug. 2020). Indigenous Peoples’ Major Group for Sustainable Development (IPMG) (2014). “Indigenous Peoples Intervention on Sustainable Development Goals Open-Ended Meeting of the Committee of Permanent Representatives to UNEP March 24-28, 2014”. https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/14601 (17 Jan. 2021). Indigenous Peoples’ Major Group for Sustainable Development (IPMG) (2019). “Inclusion, Equality, and Empowerment to Achieve Sustainable Development: Realities of Indigenous Peoples”. https://www.indigenouspeoples-sdg.org/index.php/english/all- resources/ipmg-position-papers-and-publications/ipmg-reports/global-reports (4 Jan. 2020). Instituto Nacional de los Pueblos Indígenas [National Institute of Indigenous Peoples] (INPI) (2019). “Los 17 Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS). Versión para niños en náhuatl y mixteco”. https://www.gob.mx/inpi/articulos/los-17-objetivos-de-desarrollo -sostenible-ods-en-version-para-ninos-en-nahuatl-y-mixteco (20 Jan. 2021). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2018): “Summary for Policymakers”. In: Valérie Masson-Delmotte, Panmao Zhai, Hans-Otto Pörtner, Debra Roberts, Jim Skea, Priyadarshi R. Shukla, Anna Pirani, Wilfran Moufouma-Okia, Clotilde Péan, Roz Pidcock, Sarah Connors, J.B. Robin Matthews, Yang Chen, Xiao Zhou, Melissa I. Gomis, Elisabeth Lonnoy, Tom Maycock, Melinda Tignor, and Tim Waterfield, eds. Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. In Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/ (20 Jan. 2021). International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) (2018). “When economic development destroys indigenous peoples' livelihood”. https://www.iwgia.org/en/nepal/3257-economic-development-destroys-indigenous- peoples-livelihood.html (17 Dec. 2020). International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) (2019). “International Year of Indigenous Languages”. https://www.iwgia.org/en/news/3302-year-of-indigenous- languages.html (6 Feb. 2021). International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) (2020). “Indigenous realities in a COVID-19 world: Africa”. https://www.iwgia.org/en/news/3697-indigenous-rea

139

lities-in-a-covid-19-world-africa-2.html (22 Feb. 2021). Irimiea, Silvia (2017). Rethinking Applied Linguistics: From Applied Linguistics to Applied Discourse Studies. Cluj‐Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană. Israelsson, Jenny (2005). “Learning your own language”. In: Svensk Information The Sami – an Indigenous People in Sweden. 52-53. http://www.samer.se/2137 (7 Feb. 2021). Jackson, Micha V., Rod Kennett, Peter Bayliss, Robert Warren, Neil Waina, Jason Adams, Leonie Cheinmore, Tom Vigilante, Edmund Jungine, Kirk Woolagoodja, Francis Woolagoodja, Jermaine Umbagai, Jarrad Homes, and Frank Weisenberger (2015). “Developing collaborative marine turtle monitoring in the Kimberley region of northern Australia”. In: Ecological Management & Restoration 16. 3: 163-176. Jacob, Michelle M., Leilani Sabzalian, Joana Jansen, Tary J. Tobin, Claudia G. Vincent, Kelly M. LaChance (2018). “The Gift of Education: How Indigenous Knowledges Can Transform the Future of Public Education”. International Journal of Multicultural Education 20. 1: 157-185. Johnson, Jay T., Richard Howitt, Gregory Cajete, Fikret Berkes, Renee Pualani Louis and Andrew Kliskey (2016). “Weaving Indigenous and sustainability sciences to diversify our methods”. Sustainability Science 11. 1: 1-11. Jokinen, Kristiina, Trung Ngo Trong and Ville Hautamäki (2016). “Variation in Spoken North Sami Language”. Interspeech 2016. 3299-3303. Jones, Rodney H., Alice Chik and Christoph A. Hafner (2015). “Introduction: Discourse Analysis and Digital Practices”. In: Rodney H. Jones, Alice Chik and Christoph A. Hafner, eds. Discourse and Digital Practices: Doing discourse analysis in the digital age. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. 1-17. Katz, Amy S., Billie-Jo Hardy, Michelle Firestone, Aisha Lofters and Molody E. Morton- Ninomiya (2019). “Vagueness, power and public health: use of ‘vulnerable’ in public health literature”. Critical Public Health 30. 5: 601-611. Kawerak (2020). “Co-Production of Knowledge in Research – Valuing Traditional Knowledge“. https://kawerak.org/co-production-of-knowledge-in-research-valuing- traditional-knowledge/ (7 Feb. 2021). Keva, Juho (2015). “Sámi Youth outside the Sámi Homeland”. In: Council of Europe (CoE) The Sámi: The People, Their Culture and Languages. 18. https://rm.coe.int/1680302f64 (7 Feb. 2021). Key, Nuin-Tara (2015). “Case Study. Collaborative Management: Governance for the new

140

normal. An Exploration of community-based climate action, Finland”. https://www.weadapt.org/placemarks/maps/view/19106 (19 Dec. 2020). Knezevic, Irena, Heather Hunter, Cynthia Watt, Patricia Williams and Barbara Anderson (2014). “Food Insecurity and Participation: A critical discourse analysis”. Critical Discourse Studies 11. 2: 230-245. Kuha, Mai (2017). “The Treatment of Environmental Topics in the Language of Politics”. In: Alwin F. Fill and Hermine Penz, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics. New York & Abingdon: Routledge. 249-260. Landgate (2020). “Aboriginal and Dual Naming: A guideline for naming Western Australian geographic features and places”. http://www0.landgate.wa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf _file/0010/90937/Aboriginal-and-Dual-Naming.pdf (26 Jan. 2021). Lantto, Patrik (2010). “Borders, citizenship and change: the case of the Sami people, 1751–2008”. Citizenship Studies 14.5: 543–556. Laponia (n.d.) “Laponia World Heritage in Swedish Lapland: Tjuotjudusplána Management Plan”. https://laponia.nu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Laponia-forvaltningsplan-eng- web-150327_2_utan_appendix.pdf (27 Oct. 2020). Laponiatjuottjudus (n.d.a). “Why a World Heritage Site?”. https://laponia.nu/en/world-heritage-site/why-a-world-heritage-site/ (27 Oct. 2020). Laponiatjuottjudus (n.d.b). “The Laponia process”. https://laponia.nu/en/about-us/laponiatjuottjudus/the-laponia-process/ (27 Oct. 2020). Laponiatjuottjudus (n.d.c). “Organisation”. https://laponia.nu/en/about-us/laponiatjuottjudus/ (22 Oct. 2020). Laponiatjuottjudus (n.d.d). “Laponia”. https://laponia.nu/en/world-heritage-site/ (23 Oct. 2020). Laponiatjuottjudus (n.d.e). “Everyday life”. https://laponia.nu/en/life-in-laponia/everyday- life/ (22 Oct. 2020). Laponiatjuottjudus (n.d.f). “The name says it“. https://laponia.nu/en/life-in-laponia/the-land/the-name-says-it/ (2 Oct. 2020). Laponiatjuottjudus (n.d.g). “Expensive freedom” https://laponia.nu/en/life-in-laponia/portraits/expensive-freedom/ (22 Oct. 2020). Laponiatjuottjudus (n.d.h). “Frequently Asked Questions”. https://laponia.nu/en/naturum- visitor-centre/frequently-asked-questions/ (22 Oct. 2020). Laponiatjuottjudus (n.d.i). “Duottar – the mountain”. https://laponia.nu/en/life-in-laponia/the-land/duottar-the-mountain/ (23 Oct. 2020).

141

Laponiatjuottjudus (n.d.j). “The Capercaillie”. https://laponia.nu/en/lardigmer/the- capercaillie/ (24 Oct. 2020). Laponiatjuottjudus (n.d.k). “Årudahka”. https://laponia.nu/en/naturum-visitor-centre/about- naturum/the-sami-settlement/ (10 Nov. 2020). Laponiatjuottjudus (n.d.l). “Traces in the landscape”. https://laponia.nu/en/life-in- laponia/the-land/traces-in-the-landscape/ (1 Nov. 2020). Laponiatjuottjudus (n.d.m). “Life in Laponia”. https://laponia.nu/en/life-in-laponia/ (27 Oct. 2020). Laponiatjuottjudus (n.d.n). “The Sámi communities”. https://laponia.nu/en/world-heritage-site/land-of-nine-communities/ (27 Nov. 2020). Laponiatjuottjudus (n.d.o). “In the old-growth forest”. https://laponia.nu/en/life-in- laponia/the-land/in-the-old-growth-forest/ (27 Nov. 2020). Laponiatjuottjudus (n.d.p). “Shape and Design”. https://laponia.nu/en/naturum-visitor- centre/about-naturum/architecture-and-furnishing/ (27 Nov. 2020). Larson, Brendon M. H. (2017). “The Ethics of Scientific Language About the Environment”. In: Alwin F. Fill and Hermine Penz, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics. New York & Abingdon: Routledge. 367-377. Lasimbang, Jannie (2016). “Tagal Hutan to conserve culture, land and forest through development of a Policy Framework”. Presentation at the Asia-Pacific Forestry Week. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/rap/Asia-Pacific_Forestry_Week/doc/ Stream_4/ST4_24Feb_Jannie_-_Tagal_Hutan_land_rights.pdf (2 Dec 2020). Lawrence, Rebecca (2014). “Internal colonisation and Indigenous resource sovereignty: wind power developments on traditional Saami lands”. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 32. 6: 1036– 1053. Lawrence, Rebecca and Rasmus Kløcker Larsen (2019). “Fighting to be herd: Impacts of the proposed Boliden copper mine in Laver, Älvsbyn, Sweden for the Semisjaur Njarg Sami reindeer herding community”. SEI report April 2019. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://cdn.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/sei-report-fighting-to-be- herd-300419.pdf (14 Feb. 2021). Lehtonen, Markku (2004). “The environmental–social interface of sustainable development: capabilities, social capital, institutions”. Ecological Economics 49. 2: 199– 214. Lemus, Jorge E. (2018). „Revitalizing Pipil: The Cuna Nahuat experience”. In: Leanne Hinton, Leena Huss and Gerald Roche, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Language Revitalization. New York & Abingdon: Routledge. 395-405.

142

Lenzerini, Federico (2019). “Implementation of the UNDRIP around the world: achievements and future perspectives. The outcome of the work of the ILA Committee on the Implementation of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”. The International Journal of Human Rights 23. 1-2: 51-62. Leonard, Wesley Y. (2008). “When Is an ‘Extinct Language’ Not Extinct? Miami, a Formerly Sleeping Language”. In: Kendall A. King, Natalie Schilling-Estes, Jia Jackie Lou, Lyn Fogle and Barbara Soukup, eds. Sustaining Linguistic Diversity: Endangered and Minority Languages and Language Varieties. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 23-34. Lertzman, David Adam (2010). “Best of two worlds: Traditional ecological knowledge and Western science in ecosystem-based management”. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 10. 3:104–126. Lester, Alan (2009). “Colonialism I”. In: Rob Kitchin and Nigel Thrift, eds. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Amsterdam, Oxford & Cambridge: Elsevier Science. 175-181. Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa (LIANZA) (2019). “Libraries and SDGs - an update”. Libraries Aotearoa. https://www.librariesaotearoa. org.nz/korero-blog/libraries-and-sdgs-an-update (13 Dec. 2020). Lin, Yih-Ren, Pagung Tomi, Hsinya Huang, Chia-Hua Lin and Ysanne Chen (2020). “Situating Indigenous Resilience: Climate Change and Tayal’s ‘Millet Ark’ Action in Taiwan”. Sustainability 12. 24: 1-22. [10676]. Lindstrand, Åsa (2012). “The Laponian Area: A new spirit of consensus”. World Heritage. 62: 20-25. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000215780 (20 Dec. 2020). Lloyd, Kate, Sarah Wright, Sandie Suchet-Pearson, Laklak Burarrwanga and Bawaka Country (2012). “Reframing Development through Collaboration: towards a relational ontology of connection in Bawaka, North East Arnhem Land”. Third World Quarterly 33. 6: 1075-1094. Lo Bianco, Joseph (1987). National Policy on Languages. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Lundmark, Lennart (2005). “Sami policy: in the shadow of racism”. In: Svensk Information The Sami – an Indigenous People in Sweden.14-15. http://www.samer.se/2137 (7 Feb. 2021). Macgilchrist, Felicitas (2007). “Positive Discourse Analysis: Contesting Dominant Discourses by Reframing the Issues”. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines 1. 1: 74-94.

143

Madsen, Ena Alvarado and David Nathaniel Berger (2020). “What has it meant to be part of the Indigenous Navigator?”. In: David Nathaniel Berger, ed. Implementing the Indigenous Navigator: Experiences Around the Globe. Copenhagen: IWGIA. https://indigenousnavigator.org/sites/indigenousnavigator.org/files/media/document/I mplemeting_the_indigenous_navigator.pdf (22 Feb. 2021). Magga, Ole Henrik (2004). “Special Contribution: Indigenous peoples and development”. In: Cait Murphy and Bruce Ross-Larson, eds. Human Development Report 2004: Cultural liberty in today’s diverse world. New York: UNDP. http://hdr.undp.org/en/ content/human-development-report-2004 (13 Jun 2020). Malmkjær, Kirsten (2018). “Semantics and translation”. In: Kirsten Malmkjær, ed. The Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies and Linguistics. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 31-44. Mamo, Dwayne and Kathrin Wessendorf (2020). “Editorial”. In: Dwayne Mamo, ed. The Indigenous World 2020. Copenhagen: IWGIA. 6-23. https://iwgia.org/images/year book/2020/IWGIA_The_Indigenous_World_2020.pdf (5 Feb. 2011). Marainen, Johannes (2005). “Between two identities”. In: Svensk Information The Sami – an Indigenous People in Sweden.16-18. http://www.samer.se/2137 (7 Feb. 2021). Marinotti, João Pedro (2016). “Symposium on Language and the Sustainable Development Goals” https://www.languageandtheun.org/documents.html (10 Aug. 2020). Marinotti, João Pedro, ed. (2017). “Symposium on Language, the Sustainable Development Goals, and Vulnerable Populations”. Final Report from the Study Group on Language and the United Nations. https://www.cal.org/resource-center/publications- products/language-sdg (13 Jun. 2020). Marjomaa, Marko (2015). “Cross-Border Language Cooperation”. In: Council of Europe (CoE) The Sámi. The People, Their Culture and Languages. 29. https://rm.coe.int/1680302f64 (7 Feb. 2021). Marmion, Doug, Kazuko Obata and Jakelin Troy (2014). “Community, identity, wellbeing: the report of the Second National Indigenous Languages Survey”. AIATIS and Australian Government Indigenous Languages Support. https://aiatsis.gov.au/publication/35167 (7 Feb. 2021). Martin, James R. (1999). “Grace: the logogenesis of freedom”. Discourse Studies 1. 1: 29-56. Martin, James R. (2003). “Voicing the ‘Other’: Reading and Writing Indigenous Australians”. In: Gilbert Weiss and Ruth Wodak, eds. Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave MacMillan. 199-222.

144

Mathieu, Xavier (2018). “The dynamics of ‘civilised’ sovereignty: colonial frontiers and performative discourses of civilisation and savagery”. International Relations 32. 4: 468–487. McCarty, Teresa L., Sheilah E. Nicholas and Gillian Wigglesworth (2019). “A World of Indigenous Languages – Resurgence, Reclamation, Revitalization and Resilience”. In: Teresa L. McCarty, Sheilah E. Nicholas und Gillian Wigglesworth, eds. A World of Indigenous Languages: Politics, Pedagogies and Prospects for Language Reclamation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 1-26. McClain, Shanna N., Catherine P. McMullen, Babatunde Joseph Abiodun, Giovanna Armiento, Rob Bailey, Rajasekhar Balasubramanian, Ricardo Barra, Kathryn Jennifer Bowen, John Crump, Irene Dankelman, Kari DePryck, Riyanti Djalante, Monica Dutta, Francois Gemenne, Linda Godfrey, James Grellier, Maha Halalsheh, Fintan Hurley, Maria Jesus Iraola, Richard King, Andrei Kirilenko, Shi Lei, Peter Lemke, Daniela Liggett, Robyn Lucas, Oswaldo dos Santos Lucon, Katrina Lyne, Diego Martino, Ritu Mathur, Emma Gaalaas Mullaney, Leisa N. Perch, Marco Rieckmann, Fülöp Sándor, Atilio Savino, Heinz Schandl, Joeri Scholtens, Patricia Nayna Schwerdtle, Joni Seager, Frank Thomalla, Laura Wellesley, Caradee Y. Wright, Dimitri Alexis Zenghelis and Caroline Zickgraf (2019). “Cross-cutting issues”. In: Paul Ekins, Joyeeta Gupta and Pierre Boileau, eds. Global Environment Outlook GEO-6: Healthy Planet, Healthy People. UN Environment, Nairobi. Cambridge University Press. 75-103. https://www.unep.org/resources/global-environment-outlook-6 (27 Feb. 2021). McConvell, Patrick and Nicholas Thieberger (2001). State of Indigenous languages in Australia - 2001. Canberra: Department of the Environment and Heritage. https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/handle/11343/34091 (8 Feb. 2021). McCormick, Bill (2002). “Bushfires: Is Fuel Reduction Burning the Answer?”. https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/cib/2002-03/03cib08.pdf (23 Feb. 2021). McEntee-Atalianis, Lisa, Humphrey Tonkin, Erina Iwasaki and Lajiadou, eds. (2018). “2018 Symposium on Multilingualism in International Organizations and International Co-operation. New York, May 10-11, 2018. Final Report”. https://www.languageandtheun.org/symposium2018report.html (11 Aug. 2020). McGregor, Deborah (2004). “Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Sustainable Development: Towards Coexistence”. In: Mario Blaser, Harvey A. Feit, Glenn McRae, eds. The Way of Development: Indigenous Peoples, Life Projects, and

145

Globalization. London & New York: Zed Books, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. 72-91. McKemey, Michelle, Emilie Ens, Yugul Mangi Rangers, Oliver Costello and Nick Reid (2020). “Indigenous Knowledge and Seasonal Calendar Inform Adaptive Savanna Burning in Northern Australia”. Sustainability 12. 3: 1-18. McKemey, Michelle, Yugul Mangi Rangers, Ngukurr Community and Emilie Ens (2019). “Yugul Mangi Faiya En Sisen Kelenda (Yugul Mangi Fire and Seasons Calendar)”. Armidale, NSW: University of New England. DOI: 10.25952/5dd1b81581d98. Released under Creative Commons. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/27780 (11 Oct. 2020). McKendrick, Jane, Robert Brooks, Jeffrey Hudson, Marjorie Thorpe and Pamela Bennett (n.d.) “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Healing Programs. A Literature Review”. https://healingfoundation.org.au/app/uploads/2017/02/Aboriginal-and-Torres-Strait- Islander-Healing-Programs-A-Literature-Review.pdf (26 Jul. 2020). Mey, Jacob L. (2017). “The Pragmatics of Metaphor: An Ecological View”. In: Alwin F. Fill and Hermine Penz, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics. New York & Abingdon: Routledge. 211-223. Mikkelsen, Cæcilie and Orla Bakdal (2015). “Editorial”. In: Mikkelsen, Cæcilie ed. The Indigenous World 2015. Copenhagen: IWGIA. 10-18. https://www.iwgia.org/images/ publications/0716_THE_INDIGENOUS_ORLD_2015_eb.pdf (26 Jun. 2020). Minderheitensekretariat (Minority Secretariat) (n.d.) “The autochthonous and national minorities in Germany”. https://www.minderheitensekretariat.de/fileadmin/user _upload/PDFs/2018-02-14_Folder-englisch-MS-2016.pdf (7 Feb. 2021). Mithila Art Center by Relative Nepal (2019). “Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) presented by Relative Nepal”. https://www.facebook.com/MithilaArtCenterby RelativeNepal/posts/sustainable-development-goals-sdgs-presented-by-relativenepal/1061603187368345/ (6 Feb. 2021). Mörkenstam, Ulf (2019). “Organised hypocrisy? The implementation of the international indigenous rights regime in Sweden”. The International Journal of Human Rights 23. 10: 1718-1741. Moreton-Robinson, Aileen (2007). “Introduction”. In: Aileen Moreton-Robinson, ed. Sovereign Subjects: Indigenous Sovereignty Matters. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 1-14. Moseley, Christopher, ed. (2010). Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger, 3rd ed. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. Online version: http://www.unesco.org/culture/en/

146

endangeredlanguages/atlas (1 Dec. 2020). Muller, Samantha (2012). “‘Two Ways’: Bringing Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Knowledges Together”. In: Jessica K. Weir, ed. Country, Native Title and Ecology. Aboriginal History Monographs 24. Canberra: ANU E Press, 59-80. Munari, Stephanie C., Alyce N. Wilson, Ngaree J. Blow, Caroline S.E. Homer and Jeanette E. Ward (2021). “Rethinking the use of ‘vulnerable’”. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Publich Health 45. 3: 197-199. Mustonen, Tero, Vladimir Feodoroff, Pauliina Feodoroff, Aqqalu Olsen, Per Ole Fredriksen, Kaisu Mustonen, Finn Danielsen, Nette Levermann, Augusta Jeremiassen, Helle T. Christensen, Bjarne Lyberth, Paviarak Jakobsen, Simone Gress Hansen and Johanna Roto (2018). “Deepening Voices - eXchanging Knowledge of Monitoring Practices between Finland and Greenland”. Snowchange. http://www.snowchange.org /pages/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/gronlanti.pdf (6 Sep. 2020). Naciones Unidas Paraguay (UN in Paraguay) (2018). “Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible en guaraní”. https://www.facebook.com/ONUPy/videos/2313456462003372 (20 Nov. 2020). Nakashima, Douglas (2010). “Indigenous Knowledge in Global Policies and Practice for Education, Science and Culture”. Paris: UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/temp/LINKS/sc_LIN KS-UNU-TKinGPP.pdf (13 Jun. 2020). Narragunnawali (n.d.). “Terminology Guide”. https://www.narragunnawali.org.au/about/terminology-guide (15 Feb. 2021). Nelde, Peter, Miquel Strubell and Glyn Williams (1996). “Euromosaic. The production and reproduction of the minority language groups in the European Union”. Report prepared for the European Commission. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication /2f411e5e-e710-421f-988c-b6d8cf5ce474 (17 Feb. 2021). Ngukurr Language Centre (n.d.). “Welcome to the Ngukurr Language Centre”. https://ngukurrlc.org.au/ (23 Oct. 2020). Nicholas, Sheilah E. (2019). “Without the Language, How Hopi Are You?: Hopi Cultural and Linguistic Identity Construction in Contemporary Linguistic Ecologies”. In: Teresa L. McCarty, Sheilah E. Nicholas und Gillian Wigglesworth, eds. A World of Indigenous Languages: Politics, Pedagogies and Prospects for Language Reclamation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 173-193. Nicolas, Alexandre (2010) “Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger: Maps”. In:

147

Christopher Moseley, ed. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. 1-63 (second part of the book). Nilsson, Annika E., Grete K. Hovelsrud, Marianne Karlsson and Karoliina Pilli-Sihvola (2017). “Synthesis”. In: Carolyn Symon, ed. Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic: Perspectives from the Barents Area. Oslo: AMAP. 253-266. https://www.amap.no/documents/download/2981/inline (7 Feb. 2021). Nilsson, Ingela (2014). “Analysis of Sápmi: Regional SWOT Analysis prepared for the 2014 – 2020 Rural Development Programme and Maritime & Fisheries Fund”. Sametinget (Sami Parliament in Sweden). https://www.sametinget.se/103773 (7 Feb. 2021). Nîtôtemtik, Tansi (2018). “What's in a Name? Renaming and Reclaiming of Indigenous Space”. Faculty of Law University of Alberta, Faculty Blog. https://ualbertalaw. typepad.com/faculty/2018/11/whats-in-a-name-renaming-and-reclaiming-of- indigenous-space-.html (25 Jan. 2021). Northern Territory Government (n.d.) “Fire management in the NT”. https://securent.nt.gov.au/prepare-for-an-emergency/bushfires/fire-management-in- the-nt (5 Feb. 2021). Norwegian Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion (2009). “Action Plan for Sami Languages”. https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/fad/vedlegg/ sami/hp_2009_samisk_sprak_engelsk.pdf (7 Feb. 2021). NRCS/Native Practices Work Group (2010). “Indigenous Stewardship Methods and NRCS Conservation Practices: Guidebook”. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service https://www.fws.gov/nativeamerican/pdf/ tek-indigenous.pdf (26 Jul. 2020). NSW Government (2013). “OCHRE. Opportunity, Choice, Healing, Responsibility, Empowerment”. https://www.aboriginalaffairs.nsw.gov.au/pdfs/OCHRE/AA_ OCHRE_final.pdf (16 Jul. 2020). Nursey-Bray, Melissa and Robert Palmer (2018). “Country, climate change adaptation and colonisation: insights from an Indigenous adaptation planning process, Australia”. Heliyon 4. 3: e00565. 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00565. Nursey-Bray, Melissa, Robert Palmer, Timothy F. Smith and Phillip Rist (2019). “Old ways for new days: Australian Indigenous peoples and climate change”. The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability 24. 5: 473-486. Nuttall, Mark, Fikret Berkes, Bruce Forbes, Gary Kofinas, Tatiana Vlassova and George

148

Wenzel (2005). “Hunting, Herding, Fishing, and Gathering: Indigenous Peoples and Renewable Resource Use in the Arctic”. In: Carolyn Symon, Lelani Arris and Bill Heal, eds. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. ACIA Overview report. New York: Cambridge University Press. 649-690. https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/arctic- arctic-climate-impact-assessment/796 (14 Oct. 2020). Nutti, Per-Olof (2019). “Foreword”. In: Samediggi (The Sami Parliament) The Sami Parliament's Shadow Report: European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages Seventh monitoring cycle, Sweden 27/09/2019. 3. https://www.sametinget.se/134693 (25 Feb. 2021). Obata, Kazuko and Jason Lee (2010) (page last updated in 2012). “Feature Article 3: Languages of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples - A Uniquely Australian Heritage”. In: Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Year Book Australia, 2009–10. https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%20Artic le42009%E2%80%9310 (13 Jun. 2020). O’Donnell, Erin and Julia Talbot-Jones (2018). “Creating legal rights for rivers: lessons from Australia, New Zealand, and India”. Ecology and Society 23. 1: Art. 7. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09854-230107 (17 Jan. 2021). Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (2011). “Promoting the language rights of indigenous peoples”. https://www.ohchr.org/en/ NewsEvents/Pages/HRC18PanelIndigenous.aspx (14 Jul. 2020). Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (2013). “Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous Peoples”. https://www.ohchr.org/ Documents/Issues/ipeoples/freepriorandinformedconsent.pdf (12 Jul. 2020). Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (2019). “Courts rather than spears used to defend indigenous territories“. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/IPeoples/Pages/FeatureStories.aspx (14 Jul. 2020). Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) (2017). “Briefing Note: Indigenous Peoples’ Rights and the 2030 Agenda”. https://www.un.org/dev elopment/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2016/10/Briefing- Paper-on-Indigenous-Peoples-Rights-and-the-2030-Agenda.pdf (13 Jun. 2020). Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals (OWG) (n.d.). “General Assembly

149

Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals: Methods of Work”. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1692OWG_methods_work _adopted_1403.pdf (1 Dec. 2020). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2018a). “Development Co-operation Report 2018: Joining Forces to Leave No One Behind”. Paris: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/dcr-2018-en (13 Feb. 2021). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2018b). Perspectives on Global Development 2019: Rethinking Development Strategies. Paris: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/persp_glob_dev-2019-en (13 Jan. 2021). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2019). Linking the Indigenous Sami People with Regional Development in Sweden. Paris: OECD. https://www.sametinget.se/indigenous_Sami_regional_development (4 Oct. 2020). Paltridge, Brian (2012). “What is Discourse Analysis?”. In: Paltridge, Brian. Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. Bloomsbury Discourse. 2nd ed. London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic, Bloomsbury Publishing. 1-14. Pan Adawai, Jason (2019). “Taiwan”. In: Dwayne Mamo, ed. The Indigenous World 2019. Copenhagen: IWGIA. 323-331. https://iwgia.org/images/yearbook/2020/ IWGIA_The_Indigenous_World_2020.pdf (11 Jan. 2020). Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia (2012). “Our Land Our Languages: Language Learning in Indigenous Communities”. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_representati ves_Committees?url=/atsia/languages2/report.htm (4 Jan. 2021). Pasanen, Annika (2020). “New speakers are building a future for the Sámi languages”. https://catedra-unesco.espais.iec.cat/en/2020/12/16/51-new-speakers-are-building-a- future-for-the-sami-languages/ (25 Feb. 2021). Pasikowska-Schnass, Magdalena, (2016) “Regional and minority languages in the European Union”. European Parliament Briefing September 2016. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/EPRS-Briefing-589794-Regional-minority- languages-EU-FINAL.pdf (14 Jan. 2021). Pecharroman, Lidia Cano (2018). “Rights of Nature: Rivers That Can Stand in Court”. Resources 7. 13:1-14. Pedersen, Steinar (2005). “Cross-border reindeer husbandry in Sweden and Norway”. In: Svensk Information The Sami – an Indigenous People in Sweden. 34-35. http://www.samer.se/2137 (7 Feb. 2021).

150

Penz, Hermine (2017). “‘Global Warming’ or ‘Climate Change’?” In: Alwin F. Fill and Hermine Penz, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics. New York & Abingdon: Routledge. 277-292. Peters, Michael A. (2012). “Neoliberalism, Education and the Crisis of Western Capitalism”. Policy Futures in Education 10. 2: 134-141. Phillipson, Robert and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas (2017). “Linguistic Imperialism and the Consequences for Language Ecology”. In: Alwin F. Fill and Hermine Penz, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics. New York & Abingdon: Routledge. 121-134. Phyak, Prem (2019) “Transformation from the Bottom Up: Ideological Analysis with Indigenous Youth and Language Policy Justice in Nepal”. In: Teresa L. McCarty, Sheilah E. Nicholas und Gillian Wigglesworth, eds. A World of Indigenous Languages: Politics, Pedagogies and Prospects for Language Reclamation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 194-213. Pikkarainen, Heidi and Björn Brodin (2008). “Discrimination of the Sami – the rights of the Sami from a discrimination perspective.” Stockholm: Ombudsmannen mot etnisk diskriminering (DO). http://www.red-network.eu/resources/toolip/doc/2012/01/14/ discrimination-of-the-sami.pdf (24 Nov. 2020). Pillay, Navi (2013). “Foreword”. In: Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions (APF) and Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: A Manual for National Human Rights Institutions. Sydney: APF, Geneva: OHCHR. iii. https://www.ohchr.org/documents/issues/ipeoples/undripmanualforn hris.pdf (23 Jan. 2021). Pogodaev, Mikhail, Anders Oskal, Svetlana Avelova, Piere Bergkvist, Philip Burgess, Anna Degteva, Rávdná Biret Márjá Eira, Inger Marie Gaup Eira, Ol Johan Gaup, Alena Gerasimova, Yunting Gu, Kia Krarup Hansen, Mikkel Anders Kemi, Anne-Maria Magga, Svein Disch Mathiesen, Helena Omma, Per Jonas Partapuoli, Vadim Parfenov, Elna Sara, Nechei Serotetto, Igor Slepushkin, Anne Silviken, Petter Stoor, Ksenia Tibichi, Johan Daniel Turi, Issat Turi, Isak Turi, Ole Anders Turi, Ellen Inga Turi and Elena Walkeapää (2015). “Youth. The Future of Reindeer Herding Peoples: Arctic Council EALLIN Reindeer Herding Youth Project 2012-2015”. https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/408 (23 Oct. 2020). Pokhrel, Arun Kumar (2011). Eurocentrism. In: Deen K. Chatterjee, ed. Encyclopedia of Global Justice. Dordrecht: Springer. 321-328.

151

Powell, Mike (2006). “Which knowledge? Whose reality? An overview of knowledge used in the development sector”. Development in Practice 16. 6: 518-532. Prober, Suzanne M., Michael H. O’Connor and Fiona J. Walsh (2011). “Australian Aboriginal Peoples’ Seasonal Knowledge: a Potential Basis for Shared Understanding in Environmental Management”. Ecology and Society 16. 2: Art. 12. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art12/ (1 Feb. 2021). Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) (2019). Meaningful Engagement of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in Marine Activities: Part II Report Findings for Policy Makers. https://pame.is/document-library/resource-exploration- and-development/meaningful-engagement-of-indigenous-peoples-and-local- communities-in-marine-activities-mema (19 Sept. 2020). Prys Jones, Meirion (2013). “Endangered Languages and Linguistic Diversity in the European Union”. European Union Policy Department. https://www.europarl.europa .eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2013/495851/IPOL-CULT_NT(2013)495851_EN.pdf (4 Sept. 2020). Pym, Anthony (2004). “Asymmetries of distribution”. In: The Moving Text. Localization, translation, and distribution. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 29-50. Queen’s University (2019). “Indigenous Terminology Guide”. Version 1.0. https://www.queensu.ca/indigenous/sites/webpublish.queensu.ca.oiiwww/files/files/ QU-Indigenous-Terminology-Guide.pdf (6 Oct. 2020). Quinn, Eilís (2019). “UN sustainable development goals translated into North Saami”. https://www.rcinet.ca/eye-on-the-arctic/2019/10/25/un-sustainable-development- goals-translated-into-north-saami/ (21 Sept. 2020). Raitio, Kaisa, Christina Allard and Rebecca Lawrence (2020). “Mineral extraction in Swedish Sápmi: The regulatory gap between Sami rights and Sweden’s mining permitting practices”. Land Use Policy 99. 1-15. Reconciliation Australia (2019). “Let’s talk… Languages”. https://www.reconciliation.org. au/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ra-letstalk-factsheet-languages_final.pdf (16 Feb. 2021). Reid, Andrea J., Lauren E. Eckert, John-Francis Lane, Nathan Young, Scott G. Hinch, Chris T. Darimont, Steven J. Cooke, Natalie C. Ban and Albert Marshall (2020).”’Two-Eyed Seeing’: An Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management”. Fish and Fisheries 22. 2: 243-261. Reimerson, Elsa (2016). “Sami space for agency in the management of the Laponia World Heritage site”. Local Environment 21. 7: 808-826.

152

Renkens, Ilse (2019) “The Impact of Renewable Energy Projects on Indigenous Communities in Kenya: The cases of the Lake Turkana Wind Power project and the Olkaria Geothermal Power plants”. In: Marianne Wiben Jensen, ed. The Impact of Renewable Energy Projects on Indigenous Communities in Kenya: The cases of the Lake Turkana Wind Power project and the Olkaria Geothermal Power plants. IWGIA Report 28. https://www.iwgia.org/images/publications/new-publications/IWGIA_rep ort_28_The_impact_of_renewable_energy_projects_on_Indigenous_communities_in _Kenya_Dec_2019.pdf (8 Jun. 2020). Resende, Viviane de Melo (2009). “’It’s not a matter of inhumanity’: a critical discourse analysis of an apartment building circular on ‘homeless people’”. Discourse & Society 20. 3:363-379. Ritchie, David (2009). “Things fall apart: the end of an era of systematic Indigenous fire management”. In: Jeremy Russell-Smith, Peter Whitehead and Peter Cooke, eds. Culture, Ecology and Economy of Fire Management in North Australian Savannas: Rekindling the Wurrk Tradition. 23-40. Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing. Rivera Pastor, Rafael, Carlota Tarín Quirós, Juan Pablo Villar García, Toni Badia Cardús, Maite Melero Nogués (2017). “Language equality in the digital age: Towards a Human Language Project”. Study produced for the European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_STU( 2017)598621 (19 Nov. 2020). Rivers, Bill (2020). “FIT North America holds Symposium on Translation and Interpreting for Indigenous Languages”. International Federation of Translators Translatio, No. 1. 11. https://wa1.fit-ift.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/translatio_2020_1_EN_ full.pdf (13 Jun. 2020). Robinson, Cathy, Kirsten Maclean, Oliver Costello and Petina Pert (2020). “Empowering Indigenous leadership in cultural burning and natural disaster recovery and resilience measures“. In: CSIRO Climate and Disaster Resilience Technical Report. https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/Environment/Extreme-Events/Bushfire/frontline- support/report-climate-disaste-resilience (5 Oct. 2020). Robinson, Cathy, Marcus Barber, Rosemary Hill, Emily Gerrard and Glenn James (2016). Protocols for Indigenous fire management partnerships. Brisbane: CSIRO. https://www.aidr.org.au/media/4916/protocols_for-indigenous_fire_management_ partn.pdf (2 Nov. 2020). Roepstorff, Kristina (2016). “India as Humanitarian Actor. Convergences and Divergences

153

with DAC Donor Principles and Practices”. In: Zeynep Sezgin and Dennis Dijkzeul, eds. The New Humanitarians in International Practice. Emerging actors and contested principles. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 45-60. Romaine, Suzanne (2017). “Language Endangerment and Language Death”. In: Alwin F. Fill and Hermine Penz, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics. New York & Abingdon: Routledge. 40-55. Rose, Deborah Bird (1996). “Land rights and deep colonising: the erasure of women”. Aboriginal Law Bulletin 3. 85: 6-13. Roturier, Samuel and Marie Roué (2009). “Of forest, snow and lichen: Sámi reindeer herders’ knowledge of winter pastures in northern Sweden”. Forest Ecology and Management 258 (2009) 1960–1967. Salminen, Tapani (2007). “Europe and North Asia”. In: Christopher Moseley, ed. Encyclopedia of the World's Endangered Languages. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 211-281. Salminen, Tapani (2010). “Europe and the Caucasus”. In: Christopher Moseley, ed. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger. 3rd ed. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. 32-42. Salmon, Minette, Kate Doery, Phyll Dance, Jan Chapman, Ruth Gilbert, Rob Williams and Ray Lovett (2019). Defining the Indefinable: Descriptors of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’ Cultures and Their Links to Health and Wellbeing: A literature review. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Team, Research School of Population Health. Canberra: The Australian National University. https://www.lowitja.org.au/content/Image/Defining_Indefinable_report_FINAL_WE B.pdf (30 Jul. 2020). Sametinget (Sami Parliament in Sweden) (n.d.) “The Sami Parliament. Sámediggi Sámedigge Saemiedigkie”. https://www.sametinget.se/101727 (2 Jan. 2020). Sametinget (Sami Parliament in Sweden) (2019). “Language Policy”. https://www.sametinget.se/languagepolicy (27 Feb. 2021). Sámi Museum Siida (n.d.) “The Sámi Homeland’s eight seasons”. https://siida.fi/en/visitors/ a-learning-experience/the-sami-homelands-eight-seasons/ (27 Feb. 2021). Sami Parliament (2009). “The Sami Parliament’s Living Environment Program: Eallinbiras. Iellembirás/ Jielemen Bijre”. https://www.sametinget.se/9008 (21 Aug. 2020). Sami Parliament (2019). “The Sami Parliament's Shadow Report: European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Seventh monitoring cycle, Sweden 27/09/2019”. https://www.sametinget.se/134693 (7 Feb. 2021).

154

Sámiráđđi (Saami Council) (2018). “Indigenous knowledge as a precondition for Sustainable Development”. https://www.saamicouncil.net/news-archive/indigenous-knowledge- as-a-precondition-for-sustainable-development (24 Oct. 2020). Sámiráđđi (Saami Council) (2020). “Fact sheet: The Sámi People – In a nutshell”. https: //www.saamicouncil.net/documentarchive/factsheet-sami-people (16 Jul. 2020). Schäfer, Caroline, Josephine Gercke, Sophia Lüneberg, Yvonne Bangert and Regina Sonk (2019). “Language: A Human Right. How indigenous peoples protect their threatened languages”. Society for Threatened Peoples (Gesellschaft für bedrohte Völker). https://www.gfbv.de/fileadmin/redaktion/Reporte_Memoranden/2019/Langugae_Re port_English_version.pdf (12 Jul. 2020). Schippel, Larisa (2019). “Übersetzungsgeschichte und Wissensproduktion räumlich erzählen“. In: Gabriele Budach, Valérie Fialais, Ludovic Ibarrondo, Ulrike Klemmer, Tatjana Leichsering, Marie Leroy, Mona Stierwald, Reseda Streb and Anna-Christine Weirich eds. Grenzgänge en zones de contact. Paris: L'Harmattan. 193-204. Schultz, Maria, Maija Häggblom, Cecilia Lindblad, Eva Roth, Sigurdur Thrainsson, Petteri Vihervaara, and Nina Vik (2016). Framing a Nordic IPBES-like study: Introductory Study including Scoping for a Nordic Assessment of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, based on IPBES methods and procedures. Copenhagen: Nordisk Ministerråd. http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A932688&d swid=8435 (7 Nov. 2020). Schuster, Richard, Ryan R. Germain, Joseph R. Bennett, Nicholas J. Reo, Peter Arcese (2019). “Vertebrate biodiversity on indigenous-managed lands in Australia, Brazil, and Canada equals that in protected areas”. Environmental Science & Policy 101. 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.002 (1 Oct. 2020). Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care (SNAICC) (2012). “Healing in Practice. Promising Practices in Healing Programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Families”. https://www.snaicc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/ 2015/12/02926.pdf (21 Jul. 2020). Sen, Amartya (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press. Simeone, Tonina (2020). “Indigenous Peoples: Terminology Guide”. Library of Parliament. https://hillnotes.ca/2020/05/20/indigenous-peoples-terminology-guide/ (5 Jul. 2020). Sims, Ruby, and Donnell Davis (n.d.). “Gunyaji: Indigenous Lens on Sustainable Development Goals”. Submission No. 153. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_B

155

usiness/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/SDGs/Submission s?main_0_content_1_RadGrid1ChangePage=8_20 (13 Jun. 2020). Siragusa, Laura and Dmitry Arzyutov (2020). “Nothing goes to waste: sustainable practices of re-use among indigenous groups in the Russian North”. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 43. April 2020: 41-48. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove, and David Harmon (2017). “Biological Diversity and Language Diversity: Parallels and Differences”. In: Alwin F. Fill and Hermine Penz, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics. New York & Abingdon: Routledge. 11-25. Stephens, Anne, Ellen D. Lewis, and Shravanti Reddy (2018). Inclusive Systemic Evaluation (ISE4GEMs): A New Approach for the SDG Era. New York: UN Women. https://www.alnap.org/system/files/content/resource/files/main/ise4gems-a-new- approach-for-the-sdg-era-en.pdf (22 Feb. 2021). Stephens, Richard (2016). “Perspective 30: Culture and Urban Planning”. UNESCO Director-General Culture Urban Future. Global Report on Culture for Sustainable Urban Development. Paris: UNESCO. 187. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/ pf0000245999 (5 Jan. 2020). Stibbe, Arran (2017). “Positive Discourse Analysis: Rethinking Human Ecological Relationships”. In: Alwin F. Fill and Hermine Penz, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics. New York & Abingdon: Routledge. 165-178. Stibbe, Arran (2018). “Critical discourse analysis and ecology”. In: John Flowerdew and John E. Richardson, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 497-509. Stjernström Olof, Albina Pashkevich and Dag Avango (2020). “Contrasting views on co-management of indigenous natural and cultural heritage – Case of Laponia World Heritage site, Sweden”. Polar Record 56. e4: 1–11. Storm Mienna, Christina and Per Axelsson (2019). “Somatic health in the Indigenous Sami population - a systematic review”. International Journal of Circumpolar Health 78. 1: 1638195. https://doi.org/10.1080/22423982.2019.1638195. Suchet, Sandie (2002). “‘Totally Wild’? Colonising discourses, indigenous knowledges and managing wildlife”. Australian Geographer 33. 2: 141-157. Sundberg, Juanita and Jessica Dempsey (2009). “Culture/Natures”. In: Rob Kitchin and Nigel Thrift, eds. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Amsterdam, Oxford & Cambridge: Elsevier Science. 458-463. Sustainable Development Working Group (SDWG) (2019). “Foreword and Introduction”.

156

In: Anders Oskal and Mikhail Pogodaev, eds. EALLU Arctic Indigenous Peoples ́ Food Systems: Youth, Knowledge & Change 2015-2019. https://oaarchive.arctic- council.org/handle/11374/2383 (8 Sep. 2020). Svensk Information (2005). The Sami – an Indigenous People in Sweden. Sametinget & Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Affairs. http://www.samer.se/2137 (7 Feb. 2021). Swartz, Chris (2019). “After 30 years, only 23 countries have ratified Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention ILO 169”. Cultural Survival online. https://www.culturalsurvival.org/news/after-30-years-only-23-countries-have-ratifie d-indigenous-and-tribal-peoples-convention-ilo (23 Jun. 2020). Swedish Institute (n.d.a). “Sami in Sweden”. https://www.google.com/amp/s/sweden.se /society/sami-in-sweden/amp/ (25 Oct. 2020). Swedish Institute (n.d.b). “National minorities and languages”. https://sweden.se/society/national-minorities-in-sweden/ (26 Oct. 2020). Swedish Institute (n.d.c). “Swedish weather and nature”. https://sweden.se/nature/swedish-weather-and-nature/ (27 Jan. 2021). Taylor-Leech, Kerry and Carol Benson (2017). “Language planning and development aid: the (in)visibility of language in development aid discourse”. Current Issues in Language Planning 18. 4: 339-355. Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington (n.d.). “Sustainable Development Goals in te reo Māori”. https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/sustainability/get-involved/sustai nable-development-goals-in-te-reo-maori (22 Jun. 2020). Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington (2019). “Translation of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals into te reo Māori a world first“. https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/wfadi/about/news/translation-of-the-united-nations- sustainable-development-goals-into-te-reo-maori-a-world-first (22 Jun. 2020). Tennberg, Monica, Brigt Dale, Elena Klyuchnikova, Annette Löf, Vladimir Masloboev, Annette Scheepstra, Asta Kietäväinen, Päivi Naskali, Arja Rautio (2017). “Local and regional perspectives on adaptation”. In: Carolyn Symon, ed. AMAP 2017 Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic: Perspectives from the Barents Area. Oslo: AMAP. 47- 58. http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/14980/1/aaca_brr_v3.pdf.pdf (8 Feb. 2021). Terri Janke and Company (2018). “Indigenous Knowledge: Issues for protection and

157

management”. Discussion Paper. https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/about-us/news-and- community/news/indigenous-knowledge-issues-protection-and-management (26 Jul. 2020). Tesseur, Wine (2017). “Why are languages missing from the Sustainable Development Goals?”. Guest blog on the INTRAC website. https://www.intrac.org/languages- missing-sustainable-development-goals/ (21 Mar. 2020). The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities (2010). “Resolution 301 (2010) Minority languages: an asset for regional development”. https://rm.coe.int/minority-languages- an-asset-for-regional-development-rapporteurs-k-h-l/168071a501 (13 Jun. 2020). The Permanent Mission of Nepal to the United Nations (2019). “Press Release-Art for SDGs: the Mithila Heritage”. https://www.un.int/nepal/statements_speeches/press-release- art-sdgs-mithila-heritage (7 Oct. 2020). The University of Melbourne (n.d.) “Inspiring projects around Australia”. https://arts.unimelb.edu.au/research-unit-for-indigenous-language/resources/ inspiring-projects (15 Jul. 2020). Thompson, John B. (1990). Ideology and Modern Culture: Critical Social Theory in the Era of Mass Communication. Cambridge: Polity Press. Thorpe, Kirsten and Monica Galassi (2014). “Rediscovering Indigenous Languages: The Role and Impact of Libraries and Archives in Cultural Revitalisation”. Australian Academic & Research Libraries 45. 2: 81-100. Tongkul, Felix, Claudia Lasimbang, Anne Lasimbang and Philip Chin Jr (2013). “Traditional knowledge and SFM: experience from Malaysia”. Unasylva 64. 240: 41-49. Treaty Negotiations Office (2004). “Aboriginal Place Names Mark Government Reconciliation”. https://archive.news.gov.bc.ca/releases/archive/2001-2005/ 2004TNO0021-000509.pdf (26 Jan. 2021). Tryon, Darrell T. (2010). “Greater Pacific area”. In: Christopher Moseley, ed. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger. 3rd ed. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. 74-78. Tsosie, Rebecca (2014). “Indigenous Peoples and Sustainability Policy: Exploring the Politics and Practice of ‘Indigenous Sustainability’”. https://sustainability.asu.edu/ news/archive/indigenous-peoples-sustainability-policy-exploring-politics-practice- indigenous-sustainability/ (30 Jul. 2020). Uggla, Ylva and Ulrika Olausson (2013). “The Enrollment of Nature in Tourist Information: Framing Urban Nature as ‘the Other’”. Environmental Communication 7. 1: 97-112. United Nations (UN) (n.d.a). “Concept of Development”.

158

https://research.un.org/en/docs/dev (17 Sept. 2020). United Nations (UN) (n.d.b). “Official Languages”. https://www.un.org/en/sections/about -un/official-languages/index.html (5 Aug. 2020). United Nations (UN) (n.d.c). “SDG Mediazone”. https://www.un.org/en/sdgmediazone (22 Oct. 2020). United Nations (UN) (n.d.d). “The 17 Goals”. https://sdgs.un.org/goals (17 Mar. 2020). United Nations (UN) (n.d.e). “The Sustainable Development Agenda”. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/ (20 Mar. 2020). United Nations (UN) (n.d.f). “The UN Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020”. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2020/#sdg-goals (22 Feb. 2021). United Nations (UN) (1997). “51/240. Agenda for Development”. https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/51/240 (17 Nov. 2020). United Nations (UN) (2009a). State of the World's Indigenous Peoples. New York: United Nations. https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/SOWIP/en/SOWIP _web.pdf (17 Sept. 2020). United Nations (UN) (2009b). “The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and the Right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent: The Framework for a New Mechanism for Reparations, Restitution and Redress”. International Indian Treaty Council. https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/meetings- and-workshops/international-expert-group-meeting-on-the-implementation-of- article-42-of-the-united-nations-declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html (20 Jul. 2020). United Nations (UN) (2013). “One Day Intersessional Meeting between Major Groups and other stakeholders and the Open Working Group on SDGs 22 November, 2013”. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/3407Intersessional%20rep ort.pdf (22 Feb. 2021). United Nations (UN) (2014). “69/2. Outcome document of the high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples”. https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/69/2 (13 Jun. 2020). United Nations (UN) (2015). “Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development (Addis Ababa Action Agenda)”. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/2051AAAA_Outcome.pdf (21 Nov. 2020). United Nations (UN) (2016). “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

159

Peoples”. https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration- on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html (26 Jun. 2020). United Nations (UN) (2017a). “Peru: Taking Action for Sustainable Development”. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Peru_ Government.pdf (23 Nov. 2020). United Nations (UN) (2017b). “Taking Action for Sustainable Development: Benin, Peru, Argentina, Czech Republic, Jordan and Thailand”. https://www.un.org/sustainable development/blog/2017/07/taking-action-for-sustainable-development-benin-peru- argentina-czech-republic-jordan-and-thailand/ (24 Nov. 2020). United Nations (UN) (2018). “Translating the 17 icons of the SDGs into a famous local art form in Nepal as a part of UN's bigger goal to localize the SDGs in Nepal's seven provinces”. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnership/?p=30028 (7 Aug. 2020). United Nations (UN) (2019a). “2019 International Year of Indigenous Languages”. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/2019/01/2019-international-year-of- indigenous-languages/ (13 Jun. 2020). United Nations (UN) (2019b). “General Assembly Adopts 60 Third Committee Resolutions, Proclaims International Decade of Indigenous Languages, Covering Broad Themes of Social Equality”. https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/ga12231.doc.htm (13 Jun. 2020). United Nations (UN) (2019c). “The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2019”. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report- 2019.pdf (1 Feb. 2021). United Nations (UN) (2019d). “What are the official languages of the United Nations?”. https://ask.un.org/friendly.php?slug=faq/14463 (5 Sept. 2020). UN Department of Global Communications (n.d.) “Publications in local languages”. https://unic.un.org/aroundworld/unics/en/whatWeDo/productsAndServices/publicati ons/index.asp?callPage=products&category=1 (22 Aug. 2020). United Nations Development Group (UNDG) (2016). “The Sustainable Development Goals are Coming to Life: Stories of Country Implementation and UN Support.” https://unsdg.un.org/resources/sustainable-development-goals-are-coming-life- stories-country-implementation-and-un (18 Jan .2021). United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (n.d.) “What are the Sustainable Development Goals?”. https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainabledevelopment-goals.html (22 Jun. 2020). United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2018). “What does it mean to leave no

160

one behind? A UNDP discussion paper and framework for implementation”. https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/poverty-reduction/what- does-it-mean-to-leave-no-one-behind-.html (13 Jun. 2020). United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2019). “10 things to know about indigenous peoples”. https://stories.undp.org/10-things-we-all-should-know-about- indigenous-people (6 Apr. 2020). UNDP Uganda (2017). “UNDP Uganda Annual Report 2017”. https://www.ug.undp.org/ content/uganda/en/home/library/undp-in-uganda-/UNDP_Uganda_Annual_Report_2017/ (23 Nov. 2020). United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) (n.d.) “Sustainable Development”. https://www.un.org/ecosoc/en/sustainable-development (5 Jul. 2020). United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) (2005). “Report of the International Workshop on Methodologies regarding Free, Prior and Informed Consent and Indigenous Peoples (New York, 17-19 January 2005)”. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/544406?ln=en (12 Jul. 2020). United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) (2008). “Report of the international expert group meeting on indigenous languages”. https://undocs.org/E/C.19/2008/3 (13 Jun. 2020). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (n.d.a). “Culture for Sustainable Development“. https://en.unesco.org/themes/culture-sustai nable-development (7 Feb. 2021). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (n.d.b). “Indigenous Languages matter for development, peace building and reconciliation”. https://en.iyil2019.org/ (16 Jan. 2021). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (n.d.c). “Linguistic diversity and multilingualism on Internet”. http://www.unesco.org/new/ en/communication-and-information/access-to-knowledge/linguistic-diversity-and- multilingualism-on-internet/browse/5 (11 Jan. 2021). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (n.d.d). “The Language of Snow”. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/events/prizes-and-celebra tions/celebrations/international-days/international-mother-language-day-2014/the- language-of-snow/ (17 Oct. 2020). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (n.d.e). “What is World Heritage?”. https://whc.unesco.org/en/faq/19 (27 Sept. 2020).

161

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2001). “UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity”. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev. php-URL_ID=13179&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html (5 Jan. 2020). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2007). “Preparation of a convention for the protection of indigenous and endangered languages” https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000150360_eng (8 Feb. 2021). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2012). “Why Language Matters for the Millennium Development Goals”. Bangkok: UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000215296 (21 Nov. 2020). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2016). Culture Urban Future: Global Report on Culture for Sustainable Urban Development. Paris: UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245999 (5 Dec. 2020). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2017). “UNESCO emphasizes the role of linguistic diversity for sustainable Development”. https://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-emphasizes-role-linguistic-diversity-sustainabledevelopment (13 Jun. 2020). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2018). “Protection and Promotion of Linguistic Diversity of the World: Yuelu Proclamation”. https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/yuelu_proclamation_en.pdf (13 Jun. 2020). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2019). “Strategic Outcome Document of the 2019 International Year of Indigenous Languages”. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000371494?posInSet =1&queryId=31e33472-617a-4e80-a0cd-5f144161f06f (4 Dec. 2020). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2020a). “Los Pinos Declaration [Chapoltepek] – Making a Decade of Action for Indigenous Languages”. https://en.unesco.org/news/pinos-declaration-chapoltepek-lays-foundat ions-global-planning-international-decade-indigenous (7 Nov. 2020). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2020b). “Taking stock of the IYIL2019: 78 countries actively promoted indigenous languages”. https://en.unesco.org/news/taking-stock-iyil2019-78-countries-actively- promoted-indigenous-languages (16 Jul. 2020). United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (2007). “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”. https://undocs.org/A/RES/61/295 (5 Feb. 2021). United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (2013a). “Progress report of the Open Working

162

Group of the General Assembly on Sustainable Development Goals”. https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/67/941&Lang=E (3 Feb. 2021). United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (2013b). “Open Working Group of the General Assembly on Sustainable Development Goals”. https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_ doc.asp?symbol=A/67/L.48/Rev.1&Lang=E (2 Feb. 2021). United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (2014). “Report of the Open Working Group of the General Assembly on Sustainable Development Goals”. https://www.un.org/ga/ search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/68/970&Lang=E (22 Feb. 2021). United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (2015a). “69/224. Harmony with Nature”. https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/69/224 (17 Aug. 2020). United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (2015b). “70/1. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. https://undocs.org/A/RES/70/1 (17 Jan. 2021). United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (2017). “The role of professional translation in connecting nations and fostering peace, understanding and development”. https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/71/288 (20 Dec. 2020). United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (2019). “Effective promotion of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities”. https://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/GA/report/A_74_160.pdf (1 Feb. 2021). United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) (n.d.a). “Indigenous Languages”. Fact Sheet. https://www.un.org/en/events/indigenousday/pdf/ Factsheet_languages_FINAL.pdf (5 Aug. 2020). United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) (n.d.b). “Who are indigenous peoples?”. https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/ 5session_factsheet1.pdf (9 Apr 2020). United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) (2016). “Indigenous languages”. https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/2016/Docs-updates/ backgrounderL2.pdf (16 Jun. 2021). United Nations Regional Information Centre for Western Europe (UNRIC) (2019a). “SDGs translated into Sami language“. https://archive.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/31405- sdgs-translated-into-sami-language (22 Jun. 2020). United Nations Regional Information Centre for Western Europe (UNRIC) (2019b). “The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in your language”. https://unric.org/en/sdgs- in-your-language/ (22. Jun. 2020).

163

United Nations Volunteers (UNV) (n.d.). “Who we are”. https://www.unv.org/about- unv/who-we-are (5 Apr. 2020). United Nations Volunteers (UNV) (2017). “Translation ensures we leave no one behind”. https://www.unv.org/Success-stories/Translation-ensures-we-leave-no-one-behind (13 Jun. 2020). University of New England (UNE) (2018). “Contemporary value of ancient burning practices”. https://www.une.edu.au/connect/news/2018/03/contemporary -value-of-ancient-burning-practices (23 Nov. 2020). UN SDG Action Campaign (SDGAC) (n.d.) “Why does my vote matter?”. https://myworld2030.org/# (5 Dec. 2020). UN Web TV (2019). “General Assembly: Informal interactive hearing with indigenous peoples (Panel 2 and Closing)”. http://webtv.un.org/meetings-events/general- assembly/watch/general-assembly-informal-interactive-hearing-with-indigenous- peoples-panel-2-and-closing/6030049375001 (12 Sept. 2020). UN Women (2016). “Strategy for Inclusion and Visibility of Indigenous Women”. https://internationalfunders.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/un_strategy_for _inclusion_and_visibility_of_indigenous_women_digital-1.pdf (15 Aug. 2020). Usher, Peter J. (1993). “The Beverly-Kaminuriak Caribou Management Board: An Experience in Co-Management”. In: Julian T. Inglis, ed. Traditional ecological knowledge: concepts and cases. Ottawa: International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and International Development Research Centre. 111-120. Van Dijk, Teun A. (1993). “Principles of critical discourse analysis”. Discourse & Society 4. 2: 249-283. Van Dijk, Teun A. (2001). “Multidisciplinary CDA: a plea for diversity”. In: Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, eds. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. 95-120. Vars, Laila Susanne (2020). “Sápmi”. In: Dwayne Mamo, ed. The Indigenous World 2020. Copenhagen: IWGIA. 526-535. https://iwgia.org/images/yearbook/2020/IWGIA_The _Indigenous_World_2020.pdf (5 Feb. 2020). Vaz, Justine and Agnes Lee Agama (2013). “Seeking synergy between community and state-based governance for biodiversity conservation: The role of Indigenous and Community-Conserved Areas in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo”. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 54. 2: 141-157. Warlpiri Patu Kurlangu Jaru (2011). “Warlpiri Patu Kurlangu Jaru Submission to the House

164

of Representatives Sanding[sic] committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs National Inquiry into Language Learning in Indigenous Communities”. Submissions received by the Committee. Submission No. 121. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_ Representatives_Committees?url=atsia/languages/submissions.htm (13 Jun. 2020). Walsh, Michael (2010). “Australia”. In: Christopher Moseley, ed. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger. 3rd ed. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. 79-85. Warne, Kennedy (2019). “A Voice for Nature”. National Geographic online. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/2019/04/maori-river-in-new-zealand-is- a-legal-person/ (13 Jun. 2020). Wattimena, Patricia (2018). “Redefining Development: A Perspective from Indigenous Peoples in Asia”. Cultural Survival online. https://www.culturalsurvival.org/news/re defining-development-perspective-indigenous-peoples-asia (4 Jan. 2021). Webb, Jill (2012). “Indigenous Peoples and the Right to Self Determination”. Journal of Indigenous Policy 7. 13: 75-102. Weiss, Gilbert and Ruth Wodak (2003). “Introduction: Theory, Interdisciplinarity and Critical Discourse Analysis”. In: Gilbert Weiss and Ruth Wodak, eds. Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave MacMillan. 1-34. Wodak, Ruth (2001). “The discourse-historial approach”. In: Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, eds. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. 63-94. Wongnithisathaporn, Pirawan and Lakpa Nuri Sherpa (2019). “Thailand: Learning and understanding living in harmony with nature from Karen knowledge holders in the Karen language”. Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP). https://aippnet.org/thailand- learning-and-understanding-living-in-harmony-with-nature-from-karen-knowledge- holders-in-the-karen-language/ (23 Jan. 2021). World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987). “Our Common Future”. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/139811?ln=en (13 Jun. 2020). World Bank Group (2016). “Toolkit. Water and Sanitation Services: Achieving Sustainable Outcomes with Indigenous Peoples in Latin America and the Caribbean”. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/25405 (22 Feb. 2021). Wright, Sue (2001). “Language and Power: Background to the Debate on Linguistic Rights”.

165

In: Matthias Koenig, ed. Lesser Used Languages and the Law in Europe. International Journal on Multicultural Societies (IJMS) 3. 1:44-54. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000143789 (19 Aug. 2021). Yap, Mandy and Eunice Yu (2018). “Expressions of Indigenous rights and self- determination from the ground up: A Yawuru example”. In: Deirdre Howard‑Wagner, Maria Bargh and Isabel Altamirano-Jiménez, eds. The Neoliberal State, Recognition and Indigenous Rights: New paternalism to new imaginings. Canberra: ANU. 93-109. Yashadhana, Aryati, Ted Fields, Godfrey Blitner, Ruby Stanley and Anthony B. Zwi (2020). “Trust, culture and communication: determinants of eye health and care among Indigenous people with diabetes in Australia”. BMJ Global Health 5: e001999. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001999 (17 Dec. 2020). Zhou, Yiping (2010). “The Future of South‐South Development Assistance and the Role of the UN”. http://www.oecd.org/governance/pcsd/46188961.pdf (17 Feb. 2021).

166

Appendix: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

(UNGA 2015b: 14)

Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere

Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture

Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

Goal 7 Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all

Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation

Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries

Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns

Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*

Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development

Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss

Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development

* Acknowledging that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change.

167